In most lemmy instances, the default feed is a mix of that instance’s and popular threads from other instances. Participating in such a thread that you find spontaneously is therefore not anything resembling “brigading,” even if other people on your instance also see it spontaneously and participate.

Is it a statement on how pets are animals turned into agency-less commodities, just like meat?

Is it really that hard to imagine that someone who loves you was hoping to see you happy instead of as a moldering corpse?

Contrary to certain self-victimizing sentiments, I think that the problem is that the platform is more and more overtaken by the topic of the election (and Israel in reference thereto) and it just results in interminable arguing in circles that accomplishes nothing but wasting time. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I think less-annoying activity will increase afterwards.

The term neoliberal encompasses conservatives unless it’s from the standpoint of a feudal society

I find this reply very strange because it’s the core point of Marxism that it’s dialectical but materialist. It has a lot of forebears, but Hegel is the most direct and obvious of them.

This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. In this system — and herein is its great merit — for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process — i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development. From this point of view, the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways, and to trace out the inner law running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.

That the Hegelian system did not solve the problem it propounded is here immaterial. Its epoch-making merit was that it propounded the problem. This problem is one that no single individual will ever be able to solve. Although Hegel was — with Saint-Simon — the most encyclopaedic mind of his time, yet he was limited, first, by the necessary limited extent of his own knowledge and, second, by the limited extent and depth of the knowledge and conceptions of his age. To these limits, a third must be added; Hegel was an idealist. To him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but, conversely, things and their evolution were only the realized pictures of the “Idea”, existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down, and completely reversed the actual connection of things in the world. Correctly and ingeniously as many groups of facts were grasped by Hegel, yet, for the reasons just given, there is much that is botched, artificial, labored, in a word, wrong in point of detail. The Hegelian system, in itself, was a colossal miscarriage — but it was also the last of its kind.

It was suffering, in fact, from an internal and incurable contradiction. Upon the one hand, its essential proposition was the conception that human history is a process of evolution, which, by its very nature, cannot find its intellectual final term in the discovery of any so-called absolute truth. But, on the other hand, it laid claim to being the very essence of this absolute truth. A system of natural and historical knowledge, embracing everything, and final for all time, is a contradiction to the fundamental law of dialectic reasoning.

– Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

i don’t think social change boils down to just one theory.

If we believe that the universe fundamentally makes sense, then it must stem from that that it can all be explained on the same terms. Furthermore, within a domain, the extent to which a theory is unable to explain some part of that domain is the extent to which it either fails or is in-utero just a component of a larger theory whose other parts can cover those other areas. Not only can social change boil down to one theory, if you believe we live in an interconnected, logical world, it must boil down to one theory. Obviously there are many competitors for that title, and none of them are yet developed enough to properly claim it, but it is a legitimate and even a necessary title.

Edit: Sorry for piling on about the dialectics part, I see Cowbee did go over it later. fwiw I think he didn’t represent materialism fairly, but part of why I included the Engels quote is because I think he does represent Hegelian idealism and its fundamental problem (How can this dialectic of humans – material beings – take place in the world of ideas?) fairly.

Most people will take “freedom” as an axiom, but how “freedom” is defined varies a lot. In a society where the commons are pretty much fully enclosed and you are homeless, the petite-bourgeois may very well be free, but you really aren’t.

I chose to avoid most of the bait so far, even with those cloying :)s that you like adding so much, but this one is too disgusting. It’s historical revisionism pure and simple that they were ever “allies” with Germany. They had a treaty to try and stall German invasion, but they never imagined things would go otherwise than one party defeating the other (though they did underestimate how soon the Germans would attack).

I’m really struggling to follow some of this. Are you saying the Soviets didn’t need to fight Germany and didn’t need to take as much time as they could manage to prepare to do so?

I’m happy I could be helpful!

I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat

There’s no need to claim defeat or victory, we’re just talking; Success in communication is determined by the extent to which we are able to understand each other, and I think we did alright.

I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.

I can’t claim to represent any perspective but my own, but the text that really helped me to begin to see things differently was Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Feel free to DM me/necropost here if there’s anything I can help with.

I’m going to avoid touching the rest of that and say that a centralized production not making sushi or shawarma is not the same as censoring those things. You can still make them at home, it’s not like fish, rice, and seaweed were beyond the reach of the existing production. Again, it sounds like a production issue.

This could be a language barrier thing, but it sounds like you’re talking about a production issue, not a censorship issue.

How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.

I just took what you put out there. Generally, I’m skeptical that celebrities will really withstand scrutiny, since they tend to be supported by production crew and lesser-paid artists (whether in music or movies) who get regularly screwed over. Perhaps you can make an okay argument with athletes despite them also being held up by the pipeline from the notoriously exploitative college sports industry, playing in stadiums that are mostly damaging to the city, doing merchandising produced from sweatshops, etc.

But I don’t really care about those arguments. The reason I don’t care is that the conversation is based on an obscurantist metric, that being income. Any decent anti-capitalist is not mainly concerned with how much money someone gets or has, but their relationship to the means of production. That is, they are concerned with whether this person subsists by owning or subsists by working. You displayed what I would consider a good intuition by shifting from CEOs (who generally subsist by owning) to celebrities (who at least kind of subsist by working). It seems somewhat plausible to me that there would be very wealthy athletes, say, in a socialist state, because their job requires a lot of work and, at the top levels, having the talent to accomplish what they can accomplish is rare!

However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation

If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?

think Steve Jobs.

When I think of Steve Jobs, I think of someone who put a lot of money and dedication into PR.

As a starting point if you believe that, here’s an article that lightly goes over some of his controversies (ignore points 4 and 10). And here’s one that I think is somewhat more interesting that incidentally demonstrates how dependent he was on exploitation of the third world.

Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.

Owning a company is just a legal status, it’s what you do with it that matters. If what you do with it just happens to be amassing more wealth than many, many people could obtain in a lifetime of labor, you probably didn’t get there with clean hands.

Can you name a billionaire who doesn’t match that description?

Under censorship you’ll not create . . . good meals

Are you saying that the Soviets censored recipes?

It’s not because they think they can be billionaires, it’s because they’ve been taught (and in a minority of cases this is true) that they are better off going after the crumbs that billionaires leave them than trying some other system.

Generally, the people posting this sort of thing also support land back or some variant of it, and will be on the side of the indigenous population in any dispute with western colonizers.

I think Bibi was technically born in Israel and spent his early childhood there but lived in Philidelphia during the period that he went to high school.

It’s an understandable mistake regardless, but just for your reference, the “What is your story?” at the end informally indicates it only wants affirmative answers because that’s how you’d have a “story” to tell in this regard. There are often hints like that in a question like this.

The Hillsborough disaster?