Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

Full pamphlet (Marxists.org): https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm

What would our world look like without borders? A video on the history, politics, and human impact of global border regimes. How we manufacture “illegality,” why borders create inequality, what an abolitionist future could mean for all of us. Borders reinforce capitalism, racial hierarchy, and imperial power structures, and we think that a world with free movement is not only possible, but necessary.

A long-ish video but very thought provoking. Worth listening to if you have some time to spare.

"The savage in man is never quite eradicated." - Henry David Thoreau

This is the primary fear that lurks in the mind of the colonizer, whose identity is constructed on a polarizing narrative of a world divided up into civil and savage, with themself on one side and the barbaric savage on the other.

It grips the west to this day, in communion not only with the more general Christian makeup as outlined in Jones Manoel's excellent essay (https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/), but also more particularly in the characteristics of Catholicism and its symbolic vacillation between sin and confession, rooted in the irreversible mark of original sin.

Briefly (and roughly, I am not a Catholic scholar), for those less familiar with Catholic doctrine, the general idea is we are all born with "original sin" due to the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and baptism bypasses this in a way that allows us to be able to enter heaven. There are degrees of badness of sin, like venial and mortal sin. Venial sin is a minor offense. Mortal is more serious and requires more conscious intent. However, if you are truly sorry, you can confess and be forgiven for basically anything, insofar as the possibility of getting into heaven is concerned. You might have to do some penance in purgatory, but otherwise, you can get there.

The specifics of exact Catholic teaching are less important here than how the more generalized concepts of it get used in western colonial and imperial society.

Going back to original sin, colonialist history acts as a stand-in for it in the liberal mindset. Similar to how Catholicism does not seek to reconcile with its god over the behavior of ancestors once and for all, instead taking on a kind of perpetual responsibility for original sin by contact, liberalism does not seek to do reparations for colonialism, return power to the colonized, or otherwise undo the horrors its ancestors have inflicted. Instead, the focus is on confession.

But this would not be complete without taking into account the side of the conservative also, in particular in the dichotomous scheme of the US. The conservative acts the part of the sinner. The liberal the part of the one confessing to the priest. The conservative always has a justification, no matter how crass or crude they have to be, and they are often found among the most openly violent warhawks. The liberal, though their policy so often is similar to that of the conservative, does not tend to act the same. The liberal is sorrowful, mournful, and when necessary, ready to confess.

"Civil" and "savage", ideas which normally exist in contradiction and in fearfulness of corruption from the light, synthesize with confession to create redemption, the cleansing of sin, even if temporary. Like a real Catholic confessional, which might give you some Hail Mary prayers to say but does not delve into the details of your life and ask material changes of you, this confessional purification process is ideal because it demands no change of behavior. The colonizer continues on and its past crimes are washed away in the confessional.

To avoid responsibility, the confession is done by intermediaries; people who may have had proximity to the "sin", but who are not the most directly responsible for it. And so you get bizarre contradictions like when Joe Biden apologized to the indigenous of Turtle Island for past systemic boarding school abuses of indigenous children, even as his administration was funding a genocide elsewhere.

You can find examples of this inclination in media and even in mundane real life contexts. For example, the infamous character Darth Vader in Star Wars, whose crimes are prolific and horrifying, but who is redeemed when he chooses to save his son and turn against his cartoonishly evil leader. Luke (his son's) belief in the possibility and importance of his redemption reflects and validates this Catholic mindset that no matter how great the sin, it is still possible to make it to heaven. Never mind that Luke nearly martyrs himself pointlessly in order to accomplish this. Surely it is the redemption of "evil" that is of paramount importance, not the liberation of the masses! (So the colonizer's mindset implies and why wouldn't it, when it is of such great importance to the colonizer to wash away their sins rather than give up an ounce of ground they have stolen through war and slaughter.) Or in the more mundane context, almost amusingly so, when a person on the internet might start a comment with an insult and then end it with "have a nice day." As if they have washed away the "impure" intent they started out with by ending it on a more polite note.

For the colonizer's image of self-civility to hold, they have to justify it somehow. They can't justify it through how they behave when they exercise power because the majority of that is genocidal. So they turn to the process of purification, cleansing, and forgiveness. This reflects rather well the phenomenon of liberals who are "against every war but the current one." The current one is still in the grip of the conservative side's wave of overt war mongering. It is only after it is concluded, when the liberals are cleaning up and confessing, that the greater public is allowed to feel bad about it; and at that point, it is somewhat necessary that they do, in order to go through the aforementioned synthesis to create redemption.

What this redemption brings about is nothing substantive in material reality. It's an abstract notion of redemption, centering around metaphysical notions of darkness and light, corruption and valor, and the overcoming of temptation. Were the colonizer judged in its totality, it would be considered a great abuser of the confessional, one who is never actually sorry in the right places and who does the same thing again anyway. But totality is brushed away in favor of whatever is the current, both in the meaning of current events and the wave-like current of inertia.

"What cannot be properly justified right now can be forgiven later" might be a fitting adage for how this colonial and imperial structure operates.

The "savage" conservatives relentlessly pursue power and domination, and the "civil" liberals shy away from power and fear its "corrupting" influence. Through this, they can act in tandem, whether literally as one party handing over power to another, or more figuratively in media representation and language, sinning their way across the world and then moseying their way down to the closest confessional to wash it away.

"It doesn't matter what or who you are, it matters how you play."

This is a quote, likely doing some paraphrasing, from a movie about Jackie Robinson. I had not set out to watch the movie, but saw bits of it in passing from someone else watching it and my brain went spinning off on analysis of it.

I could take it as just a feel good story, a man who faces prejudice and discrimination and overcomes. But that quote lodged into my brain, along with other bits on the screen. I don't know exactly how the story went in real life, but this isn't about that exact story anyway.

It's about the broader methodology at work here and the way in which capital uses reform efforts to its advantage and then largely defangs them.

The quote exemplifies the practice well, if we do a little bit of reading between the lines: "It doesn't matter what or who you are if you can make more profit for us."

The choice of language and focus implies not an intention toward the abolishment of systemically racist practices, but the allowing of exceptions on a case by case basis, based on "merit" (which in the capitalist case, is defined as "you contribute to growing our money/power base").

This kind of idea, that you can transcend the box marginalization has put you in by helping the capitalist out, got stretched to its limits with figures like OJ Simpson and Bill Cosby. Star performers, make lots of money for the capitalist with a healthy cut for themselves, and also deal in some of the worst accusations that can be levied at a person. I am being vague because I see no gain in this context going into it in detail and being potentially triggering or needlessly graphic, and the details of it aren't that important to the point anyway. The point is incidents like these put to test the idea of, "It doesn't matter what or who you are, it matters how you play."

The capitalist method of getting lucrative people past racist gatekeepers while keeping systemic racism intact hit some limits. A method which normally works well alongside liberal mentalities about "be who you are, no matter who that is."

But it's easily observable that being "who you are" can range from being an inconvenience to others to being an actual terror. Capital and liberalism in their marriage of bullshit have no answer for this. They're not interested in policing society, but rather interested in profiting from it.

In order for this method of "reform" to function while leaving the rest of the system intact, the notion is not "you are valuable and deserve basic needs met no matter who you are," it's "you are valuable if you notably help the capitalist." This leaves most marginalized people remaining in a position of less than. As compared to a socialist project where things like racism can actually be tackled head on because the meaning of valuation of a person gets changed fundamentally when the project is based around meeting the needs of the people, no matter who they are, and because actually listening to the people means reform efforts can gain a foothold in governmental structures, not just in corporate slogans.

Another example of this kind of thing, we can see happening with sexism too. Among the most marginalized women are those in prostitution. Capital's answer is not to liberate them from coercion and from any economic incentive to turn to it for survival, but to push for formalizing it into another market; a market where prostitutes can have slightly better conditions than they would otherwise have, but capitalists also get a cut and the system is not fundamentally changed.

I don't feel like this is a "complete" take on the topic, but I wanted to get it out while it is on my mind.

I'm sure there are other examples in practice of the difference between real reform and profiting off of exceptions to the rule that don't fundamentally challenge racism/sexism/etc. Let me know what you know.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/39843704

"Where will you get a conception of society and progress in general if you have not studied a single social formation in particular, if you have not even been able to establish this conception, if you have not even been able to approach a serious factual investigation, an objective analysis of social relations of any kind? This is a most obvious symptom of metaphysics, with which every science began: as long as people did not know how to set about studying the facts, they always invented a priori general theories, which were always sterile." - What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats (1894)

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/39628579

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/39464171

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/39416509

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/39078988

Hey comrades, I hope you're doing good! I was thinking about how all of us have hobbies and sometimes they can be on more reactionary side of things, while inherently nothing is reactionary but somethings fit that mold better than others so I was thinking how we can practice our hobbies while participating in the multi generational project of Communism. Here are things I have thought about and how they can apply to certain hobbies.

1. Make the essence of the hobby neutral or actively revolutionary

   As Marx himself has said many times, everything has a form and an essence, so what we can do is make it so that our hobbies have a neutral essence which can be channeled towards revolutionary ends or has an actively revolutionary essence. This can manifest like this, these in the hobbies I thought about when creating this process

   Gym

   Gym instead of being a place you go to so you can improve your performance in workplace or dominate others better you go there either to improve your health or for people who like to participate in body building competitions, they can do it to achieve a certain aesthetic for their essentially sporty nature and that can be a goal too, training for your favourite sport since even F1 requires you to practice in gym, here no one body type or aesthetic is considered above others, everyone does what they want for their own sport or health

   Knitting

   Knitting instead of being a conservative's realm can be our own, where learn to knit not only for ourselves but for our community, as capitalism will spiral out of control, it'll be harder and harder to buy good blankets and sweaters especially in harsh winters of eastern North America and a lot of western and northern Europe so knitting has potential of amazing amounts of solidarity with most marginalized people of the world

   Cooking

   Cooking instead of being something you practice just for yourself can be a communal experience, invite a friend who is constantly exhausted if you have leftover food distribute it amoung the homeless, there are many many many ways to practice solidarity with cooking. Even just making food in a learning hall is the best that can happen for a potential vanguard organization where we not only provide education to people but provide them with basic necessities of life like a hot meal.

2. Make entertainment a place of education, empathy, and enrolment

   While I know this is a communist place I ant to quote an anarchist thinker Emma Goldman for something that is important, Emma Goldman said in a quote "I don't want to be part of a revolution if I can't dance" to a comrade who came upto to her and said it wouldn't be proper for a revolutionary to dance so what i want to say is that entertainment, recreation, and relaxation can be a moment of radicalization and community building where we can create a point where people can enjoy themselves and they can realize that relaxation and recreation isn't just for the 'deserving' it is for everyone, everyone has a right to beautiful things in this world and the beauty of the world shouldn't be confined to a few at the top. There are many hobbies I have thought this can apply but I will give example of two for now which I think will be most effective.

   Card Games

   We know cards are something that we often play in person and that's why this works so well, with a face to face conversation it is far easier to get your point across but even more than that be engaged, if you play let's a game of pokemon or yugioh online it won't be engaging but if you go to play those games in person or just play any game in person it is more engaging you're more in the moment and you're far more likely to get your point across.

   Any type of sports game

   Most sports games have been heavily privatized clubs being only real places you can play being a very expensive club so you can organize a game which will not only be a grounding experience but help you spread a radical message that we all deserve to play not just the ones who can pay

3. Hobbies shall revolve around engaging with them and experiencing them as a community not consumerism

   Often times whenever we start a hobby we often fall into its consumerist side where instead of actually engaging in the hobby we just spend time looking at the supplies used to engage in it or just watching people on youtube engage with them so it is important we actually practice our hobbies actively and not become passive consumers. There are five hobbies I think this applies to the most and they'll be listed below.

   Gaming

   Gaming is of course filled to the rim with consumerism with starting point being having a gaming device and then actually buying the games you want to play but the hobby itself has become even more consumption intensive with introduction of "who has the more swag" the more "swag" you have the more dedicated you are apparently so it becomes just consumption and consumption instead of actually engaging with the art that is a video game

   Reading

   Of course even when we don't consider buying books, this hobby can be very consumption intensive with owning multiple editions of one book being the trend on social media, I don't think I need to say how we can make it radical do i?

   Fashion

   I don't need to say anything, fashion and clothing is the most consumption intensive hobby on the planet earth, but even this can be radicalized with use of actually wearing the clothes more than once and stitching your clothes, even just buying less and buying used. Fashion can be incredibly radical if we try to channel it towards revolutionary goals.

   Tech

   Tech is like fashion, maybe second most consumption intensive hobby, but it is very easy to turn tech in radicalism, just look into cyber socialism and there's a breath of literature already available about how tech can be used towards revolutionary ends.

   Films

   Watching a movie can become passive consumption easily but just as easily become something radical, with not only changing what film you're watching but how you're watching it. Watching a film can be communal, just set up a projector in a room with a relatively cheap white screen and you have a community cinema house, you can watch to learn art of cinema and use it to spread propaganda about our cause as well.

So yes that's my post comrades, let me know what you think and what I messed up. Solidarity

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/38948537

I apologize if this post is not well structured.

I recently went down memory lane and saw some Gabe Newell clips. He seems like a decent guy (which is not an argument btw it's just me pointing it out) and Valve seems like a decent place to work for (also not an argument).

Valve is a private company, with no stock to trade (no shareholders etc) and for most of its time existing it's worked as a "company with no hierarchy" in the words of employes, as in you could work in a project this week and another project the next, without any upper management telling you what to do (although from what I could gather there's still organization, just not in the way you'd expect).

While I do understand that private businesses are inherently exploitative and as a communist I seek to abolish such structures in favor of communal structures, am I wrong or misled to see companies like Valve Software as a major step up in comparison to others like Microsoft, Apple and the like? Of course it'd be amazing if it was a worker cooperative, for example, but Valve offers amazing services and products for customers all while not destroying its workers, even though it's basically a monopoly in the PC market at this point. I also think most of this is due to Gabe Newell's visions as well as employee feedback, but I have no evidence to back this.

Also, the biggest socialist experiment of the 21st century is China, and some similar company structures formed (like Huawei, for example, although it's not 100% the same). At least in my naïve view this is a big step up from the big multinational corps, like Nestle, Coca Cola, Microsoft etc.

Anyways: I could always be wrong. Please share your thoughts on this.

Thank you for taking your time to read this and cheers from Brazil!

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/38768545

One of the primary tasks of a revolutionary is to go among the masses precisely at those times when the masses begin to understand spontaneously that the system is not working for them and are therefore looking for solutions. However, not all workers reach that spontaneous understanding at the same time - there will always be some advanced workers who start looking for solutions much sooner than others.

And it is our responsibility to attract these advanced workers to our communist parties, to train them as revolutionaries in as great a number as possible, so that when as a result of deteriorating living standards and involvement in imperialist wars broader sections of the working class begin to look for solutions, we have a large and well-trained enough organization to be able to meet their needs, both for knowledge and for revolutionary organization.

In imperialist countries, with the wealth they've hijacked from oppressed countries, the ruling class has been able to buy social peace by providing a "middle-class" standard of life to a privileged segment of the working class, and offering certain benefits to the broad masses of the people (though in insufficient quantities and now increasingly being scaled back, but still enough to limit the level of popular discontent such as to prevent too frequent riots).

At the same time workers' unions, heavily linked to the bourgeois "labor" parties, have over the years sometimes been able successfully to fight for slightly better pay or working conditions, which the ruling class has only conceded - albeit reluctantly - because its imperialist interests enable it to do so without bankrupting itself (this is now also changing).

Although the illusions in social democracy are rapidly fading as social democratic parties remold themselves more and more in the image of the neoliberal right in order to reassure the ruling class that capitalism is safe in their hands, nevertheless the illusions in parliamentarism still persist. The unions, which have become very passive at the behest of their class collaborationist bosses, must become more active in organizing working class resistance in the face of the abrupt decline in living standards that has hit the working masses because of the capitalist economic crisis, aggravated by the costs of war.

And the situation is going to get much worse. It's to be expected in these circumstances that workers who previously saw no point in joining a union - leading in the past to massive declines in membership - will now join and take part in the resistance taking place. In so doing these workers become advanced workers, workers actively looking for a solution to the problems faced by their class. In other words, the pool of people who can be expected to be receptive to communist ideas is starting to increase.

It's up to us to bring them to the understanding that trade unionism just isn't enough, and to try to recruit them to become revolutionaries. We will be vehemently opposed in this endeavor by most of the trade union leadership which will devote itself to keeping the movement within the bounds of capitalism.

We often hear about "victims of communism", but rarely about the colossal and continuous death toll imposed by capitalism.

The historic mortality crisis that capitalist restoration caused in Eastern Europe — unprecedented in peace time — tells a very different story.

After the fall of socialism, states across the Eastern Bloc experienced the largest mortality crisis outside of war or famine in human history.

Previous figures published in @TheLancet put the number at roughly seven million. But more recent research carried out by @jasonhickel and his colleagues identified 16.9 million excess deaths between 1991 and 2019.

The figures fundamentally reorient our understanding of 20th century political economy.

Rather than "rescuing" the people of Eastern Europe, capitalism systematically killed them. It caused more than twice as many deaths as the 1930s famine that swept Soviet Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan — a period often summoned in attempts to discredit the socialist horizon as a whole.

And it claimed almost as many casualties as the total WWII civilian death toll in Russia.

These deaths were not accidental.

They were the deliberate product of structural adjustment policies imposed under the guidance of the Harvard Boys and implemented — with no democratic mandate — at the behest of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

These policies decimated both economic sovereignty and the conditions for social reproduction.

They destroyed entire industries and the infrastructures that kept a large industrial workforce afloat — from daycare and healthcare to housing and leisure. This caused not only a spike in mortality, but also a collapse in fertility and a mass exodus of labor to the West.

The policies served a clear purpose: to reinsert these territories into the system of imperialist accumulation, transforming industrial economies into rent-seeking ones that siphoned resources upwards to a new and rapacious capitalist class, and outwards to Wall Street and the City of London.

Research published in The Lancet showed a direct connection between mortality and privatization. Across the region, rapid privatization caused a 13-21% spike in death rates. Countries that privatized more slowly — like Belarus — saw far fewer deaths.

One study observed that the “age distribution and the upstream role of stress, inability to cope with stress, and despair are comparable to the North American deaths of despair epidemic.”

The collapse of socialism brought the sicknesses of US capitalism to Eastern Europe.

This was combined with an unprecedented propaganda assault designed to entrench capitalist ideology, normalize the catastrophe, and undermine the socialist alternative.

After West Germany annexed the German Democratic Republic, for example, one of the first "transition measures" was the dissolution of every Marxist-Leninist institute and university department, expelling or reassigning their staff — a move justified as the "enforcement of freedom" and "de-ideologization."

Across the Eastern Bloc, USAID-backed institutions, Soros foundations and other Western NGOs systematically reoriented universities toward Western liberalism, colonizing intellectual production.

The contrast is starkest when we look at countries that retained the socialist path. Despite the deep crisis following the USSR's collapse, Cuban men saw life expectancy rise from 72.2 to 74.2 years, while Russia's declined from 63.8 to 57.7 over roughly the same period.

Other countries were not so lucky. The collapse of the USSR, as a counterweight to imperialism, had a devastating impact on structures of accumulation globally. After 1991, wages fell, access to food declined, labor reserves exploded all around the world, and the forces of resistance faced a historic and multi-generational setback.

As I argue in 'The Neoliberal Holocaust', an essay for @plbmagazine, it is essential that we rescue the story of Eastern European socialism from the triumphalist, bourgeois framing in which it has been trapped. A sober look at the consequences of capitalist restoration in the region is one step in that direction.

Read more in "Peace, Land and Bread" Issue 6: https://www.iskrabooks.org/plb6

As the title says. This is something that has always confused me, but why was it so easy to dismantle the Soviet Union? The blame is usually put in Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but the Union wasn't governed by just a single man. The whole CPSU was responsible for the government's actions. How was it, that these opportunists managed to get in there and just tear the country apart?

Also, how was it impossible to restore the previous order? So Yeltsin, a liberal sell out, is in power and nothing can be done to remove him and restore socialism? Why were the protests to bring back socialism not enough?

This is somewhat theoretical and somewhat based on observation, so take it with a grain of salt. I am not privy to the inner workings of most game studios, so I have to do some extrapolating. But there are glimmers of insight at times into why things go wrong, such as the disaster that was Anthem's development: https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964

Mistreatment of workers, management who flip flops on what they want, tools that are not fit to purpose, and more.

Beyond this, there are capitalist factors like how some games get designed to be more about extracting money than being fun or interesting. See "Let's go whaling", for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4

But what I'm focused on here is more about things that go wrong even when intentions are good and people are trying to make a genuinely good experience. We could try to say that most of it comes down to capital not caring about quality and leave it at that, but I don't think it's that simple. One of the elements that the video game industry is known for, is exploiting authentic passion in people who choose to work in video games. Another element that it's known for, and I don't know how true this still is right now, but I remember it being a thing in the past, is that equivalent jobs in other industries tend to pay more and have better treatment for workers.

So I think it's safe to say there is a lot of good intention going around among the working class of game developers. Yet games still tend to have many problems in development.

Ego and advancement

The easy target for criticism here is ego in management. Game directors with grandiose visions that don't account for the time and labor it takes to fulfil them. But it's not only them who are encouraged to focus on their own advancement. Regular grunt workers are encouraged to do much the same under capitalism and further encouraged in the individualist mindset of self actualization and self fulfillment.

Want better pay? A more advanced position? Job security? Being able to say you worked on XYZ project at a company that did something meaningful for it is important. It doesn't sound impressive in the same way to say that you worked on a team who accomplished something meaningful. How much did you do? What tasks did you complete? How were you useful, so that you can be useful in this other company over here?

Whether you have the ego or not, it's often made about you. Your performance, your contribution, what you as an individual bring to the table.

This is a mistake that individualism continually mistakes. The success of an organization is not the sum of the skill of each individual employee. People who can complement each other's strengths and shore up each other's weaknesses will do more together than people who can act like "rockstars" as individuals. But individualism and the structure of capitalism actively disincentivizes people from viewing organized work in this way. It instead encourages the "rockstar", the "great man theory" figure who looms larger than life and carries the project to victory against all odds through weight of their sheer "talent."

In reality, the closest thing to real such figures are not "rockstars" in their profession, but are highly skilled organizers. They can appear from a distance as if they are larger than life because they are skilled at getting other people to do more together than they would do alone. The individualist perspective takeaway here would be that they should be celebrated as astounding organizers, people whose "talents" are difficult to grasp because they are so beyond the normal, the average, the mundane. The more collectivist perspective might look more like that they symbolize the value of careful, studious, and dedicated organization.

In other words, the individualist only sees a "great man". The collectivist sees a symbol of "us" at our best, together.

Chaos glommed together

Looping back to video games in particular, these are heavily creative projects, complex and unwieldy. Developing them is often not a linear, well-treaded path. A lot of experimenting can happen and a lot of ideas will only ever become half-realized. This kind of context is surely one of the worst places you could have individualism so heavily going on. Instead of having a process through which something is iterated on and refined, you will more have a process through which something chaotic and scattered has to be glommed together into a rushed whole before a deadline is reached. And the primary motive is not to make something that is greater than the sum of its parts, but for the individuals involved to have something that looks good on a resume and fulfills their sense of individualist, creative pride in a job well done.

This can still produce good work some of the time. It's not like it prevents all success and produces nothing but dreck. Many a game has aspects of it which are memorable and enjoyable, and get a cult following, if nothing else. But many a game also has aspects of it that seem out of place, confused, disjointed, or outright unfinished. Some of this can be laid at the feet of poor management, but it's also a matter of plain consistency of themes and design, and accountability for the work of others; that is, if you see it as work that is partly your own, rather than work done by someone else, whose work won't matter so much on your resume.

Games, like any other project, work best when people are working toward the same thing, in a way that is agreed upon as something of value to work on. But the culture of individualism and capitalism encourages them to work toward their own thing, or to work toward the confused "visions" of an individualist leader who is reading the tea leaves for signs of a breakthrough in design that will make their place in "great man" theory. This is consistently going to have disastrous results.

My chaos

Now you get to tell me where you think this is accurate or not, and so on, so that hopefully we can arrive at something better than what it started as. Because I am no "great man". :)

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/38157114

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/37962709