!whatisthisthing@lemmy.world

I do think you could be right, but I also think it is a proper dilemma, that it is impossible to really know. An immature attempt at revolution can be impossible to tell apart from a proper revolutionary moment, and a genuinely well-advised conservative “let’s not hastily break something” can be impossible to tell apart from useful idiots for reactionary movements, while living in the historical moment those things are happening. I think, to some degree at least, we just have to accept that uncertainty, and that the course of history is not simply determinable in the chaos of the lived reality.

Doesn’t mean, that there is nothing at all to be analysed, no visions to be had, just that ultimately, every single historical movement will have to live with the reality of “crossing the Rubicon”-moments, where no amount of knowledge, no amount of theory, no amount of smug analysis can really tell the outcome.

I, personally, think advancements beyond social democracy should be possible already - I think the basic ideas laid out in the Gotha Critique (overcoming of monetary system through non-exchangeable production/distribution with a voucher-like system), in combination with advancements in Cybernetics already made within the 20th century (as well as computers to better implement the Cybernetics on top of that), could provide for a system, in which necessary labour can be jointly coordinated, with the aim of reducing work days and increasing value in everyday lives, along with a richer use of free time (think: education, makerspaces, creative hobbies like art and programming) beyond socially necessary labour.

But can I be certain? No. Do I think it is worth fighting for? Definitely.

For an adversarial relationship, as the one between EU and China, it was still one overall based on understanding and a degree of predictability. That just ends up being more attractive than an ally turning into a rabid dog and stabbing you in the back.

I think no one should be surprised by this.

But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.

And while - which I, personally, think is the biggest reason - starting from pre-capitalist economies, thus materially having to do what capitalism did (rapid industrialisation, disenfranchisement of peasantry, accumulation of capital), and ultimately following what Marxism would have guessed: Their ideology forming around their material reality of having to accumulate capital from labour while trading on the world market. So it basically became its own kind of welfare state/social democratic capitalism, with a bit of “but communism will arrive eventually, we promise!”

Once that material dynamic is entrenched, no amount of ideological purity can simply correct it from the top, you can’t change material society by implementing an ideal onto a reality. It has to develop materially and dialectically, through the process of the old system failing (in unbearable ways), necessitating revolutionary changes.

Oh boy! Can’t wait for the functioning court system and laws to punish this obvious and ridiculously amateur insider trading!

It’s beginning to feel more and more like the 90s in the Eastern bloc: An old, dying system for sale to those in the know and with the right corrupt connections.

Yeah, but here is the tragedy to all that: It is still also deciding, which things get the capital investments necessary to exist, and the livelihood of people has been entangled with that shitshow to an absurd degree.

Sometimes I almost love that I am already at subsistence level disability payments (in a European Welfare state, so thankfully, not in danger of starvation or anything) without any real wealth beyond day-to-day living expenses, there’s not that much for me to lose every time this shit happens.

At this point, I am convinced it’s a pump and dump scheme, still ongoing, too. It only takes a few people in the know of when and where the news break about the tariff supsension, to seriously make a killing on the market, on the backs of others. Trumpists can now also (for a while) feel like their God has saved them again and never steered them wrong, or curse their momemts of doubt, when they did not buy yesterday, as their prophet called for.

It is a mixture of incompetence, impulsivity, but I am certain at this point, a huge chunk of it is outright corruption and cult tactics.

Which is why, generally, taxing wealth and having the state invest it in supportive infrastructure and subsidising is the preferred option for developed economies that want manufacturing (back).

Sweeping, protectionist tariffs are usually a painful measure of necessity, if you have an economy without any developed industrial or service sectors, where initial investments are basically impossible due there being no taxable wealth and no market incentives, because of global players always being more profitable and cheaper, than any beginning industry that has to go through growth processes and learning experiences. (More selective tariffs or outright import/export bans of course also have their place for a multitude of political reasons, e.g. the EU not wanting a lot of artificially cheap and lower-health-standards US meat)

Yeah, remember that German philosopher? Immanuel Kant, whose last name is pronounced “cunt”? Who ended up kicking off the whole process of modern and ultimately postmodern philosophy? Who most likely had autism (non-judgemental) and some really weird habits (mostly non-judgemental, don’t hit your servants, dude) and ideas (somewhat non-judgemental, if you’ve never seen a person with darker skin in your life, don’t write about them).

It was all in the name!

Speaking of philosophers and licking cunts.

Why was the US funding FOSS projects? That strikes me as weird, inappropriate and suspicious.

A mixture of the elements within the US that actually believed the stuff about personal rights and democracy still existing behind the more sinister realities, as well as it being in the same pot of funded projects like Radio Free Asia, Radio Liberty and the likes, which always were a mix of just outright propaganda organs, but also providing the scaffolding of free media access for some regions in the past.

So, it’s complicated, ultimately rooted in a mix of the cynical US wanting to support dissidents in other countries, and the idealist US also having people actually believing in personal freedom and privacy, even within their government/state structures.

Also, just in general, a lot of FOSS projects get funding from governments, US or otherwise. If I remember correctly ReactOS got a lot of funding from Russia, for example, because they saw a potential way to get away from Microsoft in it.

From what I gather, there was no open influence wielded over those projects, I at least don’t remember the OTF forcing a backdoor onto Tor Browser for the CIA or something like that - thankfully the open source structure makes that easier to control - but the weakness becomes apparent now, of course, because funds could now be withdrawn, as the government turned fascist.

Kind of, I wouldn’t really call them an international organisation in the way I would be imagining, see how easy it was to cut their funding when national interests turned openly fascist. Their affiliation with the US government above more independent, international organisations meant, that they would support privacy and a free and open internet, as long as it helps dissidents in other, non-aligned countries, but quick to cut it, if it reaches their own doorsteps.

Not the one you answered to, but I think I can understand the idea of US funding having been a toxic source of dependency, and it being better in the long run to get money elsewhere. That “elsewhere” is a good question, though.

Just me, personally, my dream would be an international fund, carried by the UN or maybe an independent NGO, that can get funding from both private and public funds, that prioritises free internet access the way the WHO prioritises health. But I think that’s still far off.

I’m gonna be real here, just Realpolitik-wise from the perspective of “the West” sans the USA - China is currently proving that they are simply more reliable in geopolitics and even economically, and that is just damn important, even in an adversarial relationship. It isn’t even because they are a de-facto dictatorship, Russia is one too, and Russia is a mad dog. They just managed to keep their shit mostly together so far, still riding out their massive growth spurt. Even human rights abuses outside of Realpolitik don’t seem as the argument they were: internationally, the US has always had a more greyish record anyhow. But now, considering the US is quickly doing its best to catch up in domestic tyranny, that argument seems to be going fast, too.

Sadly, I don’t have huge hopes for China to be a proper “better” hegemon globally, if that should be what ultimately happens - they are facing crises of their own, and have been dabbling in their own brands of economic imperialism, and at least the way their military is gearing up contains a lot of stuff usually used for military imperialism as well.

While I would not rule out your explanation, I personally think it’s more likely international pressure, trying to mitigate a global recession as well as possible. Most of OPEC actually have a lot invested in other ventures than oil, and China, too, does not have much interest in a global recession. Hell, even Russia itself actually doesn’t, really, they are just the party that would be most interested in still trying to keep oil prices up as much as possible, even if it hurt them in the long run, due to their ongoing invasion and fragile economy propped up by resource income making short-term stability a more pressing matter.

Most relevant for Russia, even in the current attempts to create a more independent emergency war economy, are oil prices on the world market - and thankfully, they fell off, too:

Well, I for sure know who’s peeing in the ballpit right now.

Just anecdotally speaking (last time I used mint was many years ago), I used to have problems on there from outdated (GPU) drivers and/or an outdated kernel often when playing games back then, but I don’t know what developments happened since then. Back then, problems vanished for me when I changed to Manjaro.

If this persists and no obvious issue can be found, looking into how to upgrade your AMD/NVIDIA drivers or overall kernel beyond the standard ones shipping with stable mint may help in the end (maybe there’s a memory leak somewhere in an interaction with an older version?) - or switching to a different Distro, as frustrating as this may end up being. (If gaming is a major activity you plan on, Garuda or Bazzite are the current recommendations)

But treat this one as it is: basically a blind guess based on anecdotes from many years ago. Fingers crossed you’ll have it sorted out.

To anyone here interested in more things adventure and narrative gaming: !adventuregames@lemm.ee

It’s a repost of a meme, but damn, there’s so many great opportunities for this one:

Maybe I am, part of being in a bubble is, that it is hard to properly know that you are. Although I think I prefer the term “to live in ideology” - because it is perfectly possible to consume lots and lots of different, real-life sources, and still delude oneself into believing things, by only viewing them through a distorted lens. But I do see what you mean, and my answer has been: That was also the case when socialist movements first formed, needing to go through a phase of disillusionment with the former French Revolutionary period, as well as Utopian Socialism first developing as a multipronged movement/collection of ideas, until the realities of class struggle shaped it in a specific way. For example: Yet immature phenomena like the Luddites or the Silesian Weaver’s Uprising were indeed necessary steps, for further developments later on.

I also cannot say as much about the state of things in the US, outside of internet chatter and mainstream news, that much is true.

I had a talk about this with a friend a few years back, who essentially made the same argument as you did, because all he saw was things getting worse. I think that observation isn’t wrong, and will probably remain true for years, probably one or two decades at least. All with political confusion, further vanishing of the middle class and increased barbarism within politics. But it’s precisely because things will get so unbearably bad, globally, that I think a material movement opposing it will appear again - successful or not - because that has always happened in history.

Concerning the younger generations: The apathy is precisely a thing, that is also upheld by ideological structures making organisation impossible, by basically making the very thought of being hopeful in any way seem foolish. I don’t know if it ultimately will be foolish - but I do know, this sort of pessimistic current has been one of the main ways the status quo defends itself. (See for example Ẑiẑek’s famous interpretation of the “coffee without milk/coffee without cream” joke - about how what is presented as not within the status quo is essential to how the status quo presents itself; Similarily with his exploration of how ideology nowadays tends to work by not believing yourself, but deferring to people believing for you - “I myself don’t have superstitions, but the others do, so I shouldn’t try to exert influence over society that, it would be futile/disrespectful.”) Thus, I, of course, don’t know how it will pan out either, but I do remain convinced - it’s basically impossible to have the total collapse of many essential structures as we, in my opinion, will have/are having, without a dialectically growing answer in the form of a new material movement.

And besides that, younger generations also need some time to escape utopian, childish interpretations, one way or the other - not just in the way movements develop historically, as I mentioned in the first paragraph - but also, how people develop and mature with age.