[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Email is inherently insecure and should be treated as such regarding corporate-government surveillance. This goes double for any company hosting an inbox. At minimum you need to control your own inbox, but of course that just means you're as vulnerable as the outbox of who sends you emails and the inbox of those you send emails to. Using gmail is just making it extremely easy for a spying-friendly group to see all your info, but degoogling isn't enough to have decent infosec.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 months ago

Capitalism developed over hundreds of years and is inextricable from European colonialism. The shift to capitalist relations themselves being ubiquitous is just a couple hundred years old, but the conquest by the bourgeoisie goes back more like 500-700 years.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 months ago

The mode of production is never human nature. Human nature is a factor, but the mode of production is something that is socially constructed and subject to material constraints, like tools and the environment in which people live.

But socializing and sharing empathy is virtually universal, and the impetus to share food or shelter or community is something that capitalist society teaches us to avoid. So one of the things we strive for through the abolition of capitalism is the restoration of human connections and care that are currently robbed from us. So I can totally see where you are coming from re: the extent to which the communism we want to build constitutes a return. But it is even more a step forward, a transformation into the future constructed from the bones of the present.

Re: what Marx called "primitive communism", which we might better call egalitarian societies based on hunting and gathering and sometimes agriculture, such societies have actually existed everywhere people have lived. You can find clear historical examples of such societies in the Americas and Australia, yes, but also in the Middle East, Ukraine, Great Britain, Ethiopia, Pakistan/India, China, etc. As you mention, any of these societies did not have written records or they were lost, but we can understand how they lived based on their homes, food, tools, dress, cohabitation, and spatial distribution of all these things.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Consent of the governed exists basically nowhere, including so-called liberal democracies. There is no "do you consent to this government?" question that results in a major change if you or even a majority say no. All are subject to an oppressive state, the only question re: consent is whether you want that state organized for or against the ruling class.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 months ago

It also still almost worked. This is how subservient and propagandized the US political electorate is. The idea of supporting mass murdering children was only a dealbreaker for a small minority, but enough to do most of the work in tipping the scales.

Kamala probably would've won with false promises to end "the war", some token Arab speakers, and "I see you and hear you" pandering.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 2 months ago

There was no opposition to genocide.

I know people with disabilities caused by police responses to our fight against genocide.

Genocide apologist, beg for forgiveness.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 months ago

Capitalists will never let you vote them out of power. The field in which politicians can operate electorally is already heavily restricted and biased by donors and a donor-focused campaign machine that is further entrenched by ever-changing thresholds for candidacy and redistricting. I encourage you to run as a principled person as a third party and see how it goes. I would encourage you to run as a Dem but the time when a politician learns they are also enemies is after they've already helped entrench the party. If you ran as a Dem with principles they would not help your campaign and might fight it. Once in office they'll stymy most of what you attempt.

Voting for every general election is just picking which of two capitalist parties will dictate policy. And the "good guys" are actually detrimental enough that they make their potential voters apathetic or opposed to thrm, as they cannot resonate with their experiences or needs. You know what folks actually need? Rent cut by 90%. Real estate is a financial legalized crime to create "passive income" for the wealthy. That would be incredibly popular. It would also be impossible for a capitalist party in the US, it is their antithesis.

So the serious, adult question is to state what the existential problems are and then ask what solutions could be sufficient to solve them. And there is at least one thing we know well in US electoralism: just voting for Dems will never be close to enough, abd even believing it is particularly important will just keep you ans others from spending the time to work together and do enough.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 6 months ago

What is the bias?

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 6 months ago

It seems pretty clear you just don't know what imperialism is full stop.

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 6 months ago

New levels of PR laziness

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 years ago

This is why all political discussion is banned at lemmy.world. In fact, there is only one community on lemmy.world and it's about playing checkers (but without saying "king me" because kings are political).

[-] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 years ago

Lemmy was created by and continues to be maintained by communists.

Liberal instances try to recreate their echo chambers and continue to cry about it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

CarlMarks

joined 4 years ago