deleted by creator

One thing US is brilliant at is shaking off responsibility for literally all crimes against humanity

And interested people drive the culture in this direction. They separate us, shove us algorithms and influence public opinion to make this insanity look normal.

It is culture, sure. The culture manufactured to serve the interest of the few. But us talking here is culture, too. And that’s why we share opinions in the first place. We can drive the culture against those who use it to exploit us.

Me when I got my commercial NAS with 7 years of support, I was thinking: “who even keeps hardware for this long?”

Me, 7 years later: “What do you mean EOL?!”

I certainly learned to care for and appreciate the hardware these years.

systemd has me in two places. Like, on one side, it’s just SO much better and easier than the rest - at least to me, someone who doesn’t work in IT and just wants his stuff to work. On the other, init freedom is essential, and we need the alternatives to stay alive.

The law is, first and foremost, a way to keep shitty people at bay. It’s still people who are the problem, but since we can’t just agree to all be kind to each other, we have to invent ways to either sanction or use violence (note: that includes police) against those who make things worse for everyone else. We need laws, but they are incomplete solutions, not source of the problem. And sometimes they can be weaponized exactly by the individuals we’d rather put the law against.

The blame here is on all bosses who can afford to pay their workers decent wages, but don’t. And - personal opinion incoming - if your small business can’t employ people for decent wages, it’s already financially unsustainable, you just put it on the shoulder of your workers and add insult to injury by trying to also take something for yourself. Should the state do more to support small businesses, to make sure they can pay good wages and be sustainable at the same time? Yes. Is being a small business an excuse to abuse workers? No.

That’s why there are things like minimum wages. Businesses must respond to their workers.

USA does not have jurisdiction over Finland, just sayin’

Will only get worse from there, if no action will be taken now.

I really hope Finns will find organizers to stand up.

People’s wellbeing must be the end goal, not a demand-driven commodity. That’s what I would identify as a key issue here.

You seem to miss the overall point of the picture.

It is bosses, not immigrants, who drive down wages. And boy they have plenty to spare a lot of the time.

They’d just rather have you focused on immigrants instead of the actual people who exploit desperation of migrants and remove any of their worker protections to make this possible

The point is, who drives down wages? They don’t fall down automatically.

(Spoiler: it’s your boss, he’s the problem)

The point is, your boss could pay everyone, including them, as much as he always did, and more.

He specifically chooses to exploit this desperation and pay less, because the difference adds to his bottom line.

The anti-immigrant talks shift the blame from those who intentionally pay less to those who has to choose between a bad deal and starvation.

Elected officials won’t do anything about it until you force them to. And immigrants are your allies in this - they too are a workforce who needs better wages. Your interests are aligned.

In the land of the free they would lick the boot and do nothing

Wow, .ml moderation at its finest.

The user claimed they just told people to vote, for which the other .ml user answered to look at the modlog.

Then this user asked to point out where exactly in the modlog can anyone read of him doing “genocide denial”. That’s all, no slurs or inappropriate behavior involved.

Then comments got removed and they got a dose of slurs. Power trippin’ mods be power trippin’.

Folks, people avoid .ml not because you’re communists. They avoid you because you resemble an angry mob shutting up anyone who remotely misaligns with your views. This thing is unhealthy and I really hope you can do better - after all, .ml is a developer instance, it is the face of Lemmy.

I don’t care what folks on Lemmygrad do in their free time, but your instance is special. Make it so people coming would see more to Lemmy than stupid infighting on the grounds of ideological purity and “holier than thou” mentality. And maybe then, over time, you’ll gain new allies.

Sincerely, yet another communist.

So what I read from it is that .ml folks have a strict set of beliefs one must hold in order not to be crushed under the hateful mob.

If one generally inclines with the set of views, but deviates at any given point, they become a valid target.

This doesn’t breed healthy communities and alienates nearly everyone who dares to think for themselves, and yet could be your ally on anything else.

That said, Free Palestine.

An…interesting approach to noise-proofing your system :D

Bazzite would honestly be my newbie recommendation nowadays. The only immutable distro I didn’t have much issues with.

I have to admit, Lemmy is so politically uniform that I kinda welcome something else.

Question: how do libertarian capitalists expect to combat corporatism? If anything, capital has a tendency to grow or die, and economies of scale along with vertical integration dictate higher survivability and profits of larger businesses vs smaller. And so, corporate structures appear again. What can be used to prevent it?

Also, if you allow me to comment on some of the key points raised…

The rich get richer, but the poor also get richer

One of the most common criticisms of late-stage capitalism is exactly that poor do not get richer anymore.

For example, here are nominal and inflation-adjusted median household incomes in the US:

Considering that inflation metrics count the whole economy, and not particularly basics like housing (which went through the roof and yet accounts for a huge share of expenses in a median and especially poor household), it’s not unreasonable to assume poor people are worse off than they were 20 years before.

Prices being allowed to move through supply and demand, rather than being set by central planners, are necessary for the efficient allocation of scarce resources to their most needed ends.

The socialist criticism is that “most profitable” and “most needed” are two different things. Suppose you made a meal, and offer it to a millionaire and a broke homeless individual. Most likely, the latter will need it more, but won’t be able to pay for it as much as the former.

We see China’s economy dramatically advance by switching to an overwhelmingly capitalist mode of production

And we see USSR economy skyrocketing after socialists came to power. And yes, extreme growth went way beyond New Economic Policy.

What we need to look for here, if we must be honest, is externalities. China switching to a more capitalist mode was net benefit because it enabled global trade as opposed to relative economic isolation. One of the main issues dragging socialist economies behind was that, being formed mostly of a few countries tilted into extreme poverty by previous regimes, they never got to access the same volume of trade and capital investment as their capitalist counterparts. When even these markets started to crumble through the Cold War, China had little other options.

USSR, on the other end, started on a low enough point that first advancements were relatively easy and investments paid off rather quickly. And, of course, there’s gulag, too.

Three big reasons:

1. Capitalism thrives on the promise of social elevation. You can become billionaire too, you know, you just have to put in the work and be smart. And many are willing to sacrifice their living standards for the hope of making it big, however unlikely the latter is.

2. Capitalism is a current economic system in the majority of places, and most people are afraid of the change. They’d rather maintain the status quo - this is why, for example, socialist countries had majority of the population supporting socialism - not because they got enlightened to its potential, but because they already lived under it.

3. Privately owned media. Most people get their information from the corporate platforms, which, being owned by wealthy individuals benefitting heavily from capitalism, obviously downplay the horrors of capitalism and exacerbate issues of socialism. It is them who propel the “hope” narrative (see point 1) and thwart any serious attempts to popularise socialism. Even if you manage to host socialist media on socialist platforms and outplaying the algorithms, good luck getting corporate funding to make quality content with high level of reach when your platform is anti-corporate.

Indeed. This is exactly the kind of high-risk environment for which people are typically vaccinated