Found a very interesting interaction in the comments -

gnet kuji:

This redefinition of Socialism makes it impossible for the Working class to own the means of production. Workers can, in individual pockets, but never the working class as a whole. I quite powerfully disagree. Your definition is absurdly reductive and seemingly designed exclusively for the purpose of denying the title of Socialism to anyone outside of Anarchism.... I'm going to level with you. I'm not sure how to take any of this other than as an attempt to remove Stalin and Mao, and therefore 95+% of all non-white revolutionary leftists, from the definition of Socialism. By shifting what "true" Socialism can be you've decided to utterly disavow the vast majority of the non-white comrades you have. The fact that you somehow consider this progress seems more telling about you than my lack of consideration for libertarian Marxism says about me. But please, go ahead, quote another dozen white people to tell me why you feel justified in saying we non-white revolutionaries are not, and have never been, Socialists to you. Maybe even dig up a couple of non-white people to say it as well if you think that makes this look better. Just try to remember what all of this looks like to the few non-white people in your audience. We are not amused.

Zoe Baker:

The relevant question is this: were the USSR and maoist china societies in which the means of production were owned and controlled by the workers? No. Were they even societies in which the means of production were communally owned? No. They were owned by the state which was controlled by a ruling class that used state power to crush working class resistance, such as the trade union movements, in order to reproduce its rule. Yes they brought improvements like better transportation, healthcare and education but the same is true of capitalism in the west or historically the roman empire.

The fact that large numbers of people of colour have or had mistaken beliefs about what these societies is a tragedy that was in part brought about by an intense propaganda campaign carried about by the worlds two main super powers - north america and the USSR - during the cold war. Nor should we ignore the millions of people of colour that were killed and oppressed by these regimes or those people of colour who actively resisted the totalitarian society they lived under.

It is false to claim that 95% of people of colour who consider themselves socialists have been or are marxist-leninists. This ignores Leninist and Trotskyist people of colour who are anti-stalinists and anti-maoists. It ignores that anarchism has had mass movements in latin america, asia and parts of africa and that many of these mass anarchist movements were betrayed and crushed by marxist leninism eg the anarchist movements in China and Cuba. These movements continue right up to the present day eg the Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro or Revolutionary Anarchist Action (DAF) in Turkey. There are also large numbers of non-anarchist anti-authoritarian socialists in the global south eg the PKK and YPJ.

gnet kuji:

No, that's the relevant question you've chosen to base your definition of socialism on and the racial effects of you choosing to redefine socialism based exclusively around your favorite interpretation are not lost on me.

"The fact that large numbers of people of colour have or had mistaken beliefs about what these societies were isn't my problem." Yes, I am starting to get the very clear impression that the thoughts and achievements of the overwhelming majority of non-white socialists don't count for very much with you.

The CPC alone has nearly 90 million members, and there are several other large MLM parties in India, the Philippines, and elsewhere. Even if we limit the our scope only to today and ignore the fact that practically every leftist revolution in the third world, particularly Africa and Asia, in the past century were led by ML parties, no, I do not believe it is false to suggest 95+% of non-white leftists are, in fact, Marxist-Leninist. If this were simply "I disagree with MLs" this wouldn't be an issue, but "MLs aren't Socialists" isn't just you disagreeing with non-white people, it's you trying to actively exclude the overwhelming majority of non-white leftists and, again, the fact that you don't see this as a problem at all is rather telling.

Zoe Baker:

When I said its not my problem I had in mind the notion that large numbers of people having different beliefs about stalinism isn't relevant to the factors that determine me to think stalinism isn't socialism - it supports a totalitarian class society based on the oppression of the working class. I thought this could be read in ways that don't correspond to my thoughts and so quickly edited my response to "The fact that large numbers of people of colour have or had mistaken beliefs about what these societies is a tragedy". That you've jumped on this phrase indicates I was right to think the phrase communicated my ideas poorly.

Excluding welfare capitalist social democrats from socialism also excludes large numbers of people of colour from being in the socialist movement. Yet this isn't a problem because what's relevant is what the beliefs are and if they match the definition - social ownership of the means of production or worker ownership of the means of production.

The official ideology of the party isn't socialist but individual party members can be socialists and have beliefs that are socialists or beliefs about socialism that are incompatible with the party line. These parties can also do good work even if they're not socialist and can further the cause of socialism even if they have certain false beliefs about the USSR eg a general strike in India furthers the cause of socialism even if the organisers love the USSR. You can also advocate working with them despite them not being socialists. So its not as if thinking stalinism isn't socialism entails ignoring any good ml parties do + the individual beliefs of the membership or thinking people shouldn't work with them.

I think that when people of colour support stalinism they're not supporting an ideology that furthers their liberation but one which will and has produced a new ruling class that oppresses the majority of the population. This is exactly the same as how I think about white stalinists or white social democrats. They have sincere beliefs in a better world but support means that are antithetical to these beliefs. Hence why I label this a tragedy.

gnet kuji:

Yes, thank you very much for your lectures on the "tragedy" of non-white socialists disagreeing with your interpretation of Socialism. I'm going to stop reading this chain now and give serious consideration as to whether or not I wish to remain subscribed to someone who, with so many apologies, actively rallies people to fight, remove, and discredit the most successful branch of Socialism among non-white leftists in a vain quest for a sanitized image with which to gain popularity within Imperialist nations. I had been told that Anarchism has a racism problem, but until this video and comment chain I'd believed this was old complaints based on old history, stemming from things like Proudhon and Bakunin's antisemitism ("The Jew is the enemy of the human race. The race must be sent back to Asia or exterminated." and "Marx and Rothschild are one and the same. Where there is a state, there must be banks, and where there is a bank, there shall the parasitic Jews be found" respectively). Now I believe I see it clearly. Ownership of the means of production by the entire working class and operated through a state as determined by the working class is simply not good enough to be Socialist to you, and you advance this revised definition with full knowledge and intent towards the alienation of the vast bulk of revolutionary leftists, both past and present, that just ever so coincidentally happen to make up the overwhelming majority of non-white socialists. No, I think I am quite finished with Anarchist and left-com crypto-racist pedantry.

Zoe Baker:

My opposition to stalinism is grounded in my opposition to totalitarianism not in some desire to gain popularity. You're ignoring and denying the screams of all those who died and suffered under those regimes. I'm not. That's the difference. As a result I don't understand why you see racism in caring about the (at the very least) several millions of people of colour who've been killed or oppressed by these regimes.

I've explicitly argued that stalinism isn't based on ownership of the means of production by the workers and have explicitly disputed the claim that the so called workers state is in fact a workers state. You're consistently ignored the fact that I argued that even with a broader definition of socialism - social ownership of the means of production - stalinism still isn't socialist. You have at no point responded to these arguments.

You have ignored that I don't think its a tragedy that so many people support stalinism because they disagree with my understanding of socialism. I think its a tragedy because "they're not supporting an ideology that furthers their liberation but one which will and has produced a new ruling class that oppresses the majority of the population." gnet kuji: >

I'm experiencing false consciousness when I think it is Wednesday, when it is, in fact, Thursday, as I have a false belief about the world.

So until your beliefs change, you'll never say you personally have "false consciousness". Simultaneously, it'll appear to you that others (say, who insist it is Thursday) are the ones with "false consciousness". In fact, even if your beliefs change, you'll still never say you have "false consciousness", as the belief that was false has been changed. So you had "false consciousness* in the past (when you believed it was Wednesday). At the same time, according to your past self (and others with that belief), present-you has "false consciousness".

I just love this channel.

The internet makes it easy to see other people's labor (comments, posts, videos etc) as commodities to be used/consumed whereas when you talk to people irl, you are, literally, talking to people. Of course, some are so entrenched in capitalist relations that they view other people as commodities even in-person.

Maybe....we should be nice?

wait what

the solution is probably to submerg your body in a liquid and/or a full body suit that can simulate all the senses. or some neural implants.

https://itdm.com/mozilla-firefox-usage-down-85-but-why-are-execs-salary-up-400/2050/

deleted by creator

I can get behind that.

The ideal solution we should work toward (somehow) is to separate the Firefox developers from the parasite that is Mozilla. Unionize them, make it into a co-op, etc.

Americans' combined driving length was from Earth to Pluto and back 500 times.... 13.3% of the American power grid is from coal. And 36.4 % is from crude oil.... Americans, on average, consume 10 liters of oil per day.

If everyone lived like an influencer, we'd need 12.9 Earths to sustain the lifestyle.

This is assuming they were all vegan, shopped locally, and have energy efficient appliances (+ insulation, lighting etc). This shows the limit of "personal footprints" and individual action.

Global Happiness Council found that in 2017, Americans were the unhappiest they'd ever been since started that initiative even though they were working, eating, driving, and consuming more than ever.... If we evenly distributed our fuel and energy consumption across the 7 billion people on this planet, we'd all have the same energy use as somebody in Switzerland in the 1960s [picture of a tram]... The life expectancy of somebody in Switzerland in 1965 was the same as it is in America today, which is much higher than the world average.... Ultimately, we're not advocating to live in substandard conditions, but to just question, are we actually in better condition today now when we're consuming more than we might've been in the past?

Stop selling this culture of consumption and money and capitalism.... That's not good for the environment or the planet.... The responsibility is always on corporations, like YouTube and Google, and the government but we as people also have to have a hand...

ASAP is good but they honestly need to think critically further about how we can achieve the equal distribution they talk about. They've identified that it is the government and the corporations who are ultimately responsible and it is up to us to force them to change. They've identified that this culture of consumption and commodities and capitalism are to blame. But how do we change things? The video was framed as a critique of the influencer lifestyle in particular, so the answer they reached at the end was to change culture to start thinking about it as being "uncool". But that just shies away from the actual substance of the video. Even if influencers themselves starting living conscious eco-friendly lives, they are such a small portion of the population that it wouldn't, in any way, effect climate change.

The true solution to climate change is the same as the solution to poverty, hunger, exploitation... the solution is right in front of them but either they simply don't see it, or for some reason they refuse to see it.

Related.

That's a cool addon. Thanks for sharing. Ever since ChaCha started, my reddit usage has dramatically fallen down. I literally only go there for one sub now.

I personally use Firefox on all my devices but I can't help but think that they are just changing things for the sake of it now. They aren't gonna increase any marketshare by these pointless UI redesigns. All the stuff I hear about Mozilla execs isn't very promising, either.

PS - This is the 100,000th post :D

:(

doomer lol but like, realistic about it

I read another one with Marx on the train or something, saying he told us it was inevitable, comrade....

i go to sleep every night hoping this is the world I wake up in.

who the fuck is she?