Right, we only do forced labour for people who smoke weed, which is morally superior.

Pantheon.

Really thoughtful and smart sci-fi animation. Don’t want to spoil it so I’ll be vague, it has the most realistic depiction of modern tech and how people interact with it than any other show I’ve seen. Really great commentary on big tech corporations and even a bit of geopolitics. Super ambitious yet it somehow pulls it off.

There is also a scene that still gives me nightmares (not even joking, I still dream about that shit) which is more than any horror movies or shows have done for me. Anyone who has watched it knows exactly what scene I’m talking about.

Narrative-driven games give players the illusion of choice. To me this seems like it would lend itself to being even more effective than traditional propaganda because it’s capable of tricking the player into thinking they came to a conclusion on their own.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Disco Elysium, but it is very effective communist propaganda. Propaganda has a negative connotation but is not inherently bad or dishonest, though it certainly can be.

Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you’re referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I’m aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about “alpha” wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study’s findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.

People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The “tragedy of the commons” is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.

If that’s something they need then that’s something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.

These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The “lie down” movement - also “let it rot” - is similar to the “quiet quitting” movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).

Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.

Capitalism does what you’re doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.

In many places in North America field garlic (which is very similar to green onions) grows voraciously in people’s yards in the Spring. Leave a small patch of yard unmowed and you’ll have more than you know what to do with. Just be careful not to mistake it for death camas.

historically humans aren’t usually burning down libraries on purpose.

How on earth have you come to this conclusion.

The corporations that took control of the Internet don’t want us to remember.

his solution (for a class of “intellectuals” like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill

This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” what they’re describing tends to devolve into “a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions” when questioned about what a “dictatorship of the proletariat” actually entails. Often they’ll try to justify it by saying it’s only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.

It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.

This is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that Allende choosing reform over revolution is what resulted in the US interference. The US has been known to interfere in revolutionary movements as well.

Let me approach this from a different angle. If a military defeat is necessary to create revolutionary conditions, is it not then in the best interest of the working class in each imperialist power for the other to win, and does that not then put the working class in each imperialist power at odds with one another?

Don’t you believe in internationalism? Solidarity?

How many hundreds of thousands of lives does it cost to create revolutionary conditions, and how can you be so arrogant as to cheer while they’re fed into the meatgrinder, believing with such certainty that it means you’ll get your chance at revolution?

Kindly point out where I expressed critical support for western imperialism.

So does “tankie” and “woke.” I used mine correctly, you are indeed a tankie. When a chud calls a left-wing political activist woke, at least they’re using it correctly, even if they don’t necessarily know that they are.

You called me a liberal for - let me check - opposing imperialism regardless of who’s doing it. Interesting, do you think that fits the definition?

I thought it would be obvious I was mocking you by repeating the viewpoint you expressed without the air of pretentiousness that you surround it with, but I guess I was the stupid one for thinking you were capable of recognizing sarcasm.

Also “critical support” for what, Russian imperialism? Why does Russian imperialism deserve “critical support” while western imperialism deserves direct opposition?

You’re right we should be running dogs for western imperialism instead.

Ah yes, because there are only two options, you’re either a running dog for western imperialism or a running dog for Russian imperialism. But being a running dog for Russian imperialism is actually cool because it will lead to communism somehow. Don’t ask what happens in between, that’s not important…

And yes it will improve revolutionary conditions as the contradictions become more aparent

Wow that’s incredible, why don’t we just skip waiting for the imperialists to do it and carry out the genocide ourselves. That’ll really make those contradictions more apparent, I can’t wait!

And libs often seems to function for tankies in exactly the same way. I’m an anarchist but when I argue with tankies I get called a lib even as I call for the overthrow of capitalism. Funny how that works, almost as if the problem is dogmatism.

You’re right, the Soviet Union joined the allies against the Nazis because they were explicitly not revolutionary defeatists, which cannot be said of a large number of modern day tankies.