Why are you saying “a Linux PC” three times in a row?

The list is too cropped. Can I use it as lube, too?

Just asking questions.

Didn’t want to be rude, if you’re a real person. I’m mad that I even think I should be paranoid about bots on lemmy.

:&

Because you’ve got a lot of comments simply describing the images of the posts you comment on. I’ve seen obvious bot accounts with that behavior.

Are you a bot?

I’m pretty sure that’s hou the tower of Babel collapsed, though.

Let’s define a language to interact with this multilingual language large language model. I call it: The multilingual language large language model language.

Nix:

x:;

Which is the case, because traditional penetrative sex (penis in vagina) does not stimulate the woman particularly much.

I think that’s a waaay to broad claim to hold true for all vagina-havers.

AFAIK, it’s an anatomical predisposition. Some get more stimulation from penetrative sex(I think because the clitoris “wings” are more snug with the vagina), others get less.

"Win"dows

Couldn’t find it in a quick search for nixos. Is there some option I missed?

Gives real gonna get shot in Sarajewo vibes.

Friendly reminder that Rockstar is currently union busting it’s workers that actively worked on GTA 6.

Here’s some info on it (about a week old)

And here’s their fundraiser.

Don’t know any more recent news and couldn’t find any in the short time.

Where iphone bill?

I never had that problem.

I could not reproduce. (⌐■_■)

I’d say it really depends on the channel. If it’s some hobby project by some 'tistic nerd who really likes to compare dehumidifiers, it can be ok.

Before all the slop-deluge, you had some chance that some niche channel had an actual human behind it who knew their shit.

Some handyman on youtube helped me learn how to install kitchen counters, cupboards, sink etc. a few years ago.

I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.

I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:

Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).

I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.

What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives.

Ad hominem. I don’t know if Mike Duncan is an ideologically committed socialist. What he definetly isn’t is an anti-communist. The same argument works the other way around. Authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) communists usually minimizing the negatives etc.

incredibly progressive

Never disputed that. My initial claim is that the Bolsheviks monopolized decision making power.

and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically.

So is capitalism. That’s not an argument that the USSR was socialist. It’s completely consistent with the claim that it was state-capitalist.

Early on in the USSR’s history, Lenin folded the factory councils and unions into the state. This may be what you’re referring to as “erasing worker control,”

He monopolized power into the hands of the bolsheviks, yes. Which was my starting thesis. So you agree that he was authoritarian by an anarchist definition.

There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels.

The factory council members were the workers in the factories. What leverage did they have to use as a basis for corruption? You can only be corrupt if you have some power to abuse. That simply seems like a very pro-bolshevik read to me, without any basis in structural analysis. Especially the claim that corruption was so widespread.

You could argue that the factory councils were only interested in their own factory. This is a realistic problem. But that doesn’t mean any countermeasure is justified. And it doesn’t contradict my initial thesis. It is merely a justification for the monopolisation.

Your quote seems very pro-bolshevik. Especially since it fails to mention the fact that the trade unions were incredibly close with the bolsheviks. I highly doubt that Russia had so little class conciousness in 1917, considering that the vast majority of the election in autumn 1917 voted socialists. And it doesn’t contradict my thesis either.

There was no method to abolish capitalist relations, what was needed at the time was stability while consolidating power in the socialist state, and by extension the working classes over the capitalists and landlords.

That is an assumption by you that additionally equates the state with the workers. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that you’d need to prove it. And it again: doesn’t contradict my thesis.

The administration and party were not a “ruling class.” Not only was production and distribution collectivized and planned, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom, which itself was well-taken care of. Previous Tsarist systems had that gap at thousands to millions, and that gap is even further today in the modern Russian Federation.

Wow… just wow… are you fucking kidding me? So, let me get this straight: you call yourself a marxist, define “authority” exclusively based on the relation to the means of production… but allof a sudden, you define “class” not based on the relation to the means of production, but on the proportion of one’s wealth compared to the “bottom”? Are you serious? Is late 20th century scandinavia now socialist, too? O.o

I reiterate: Control of the means of production lied in the hands of state bureaucrats. This is - by definition - not socialist, but more closely resembles a bourgeois society.

If you want to call them a ruling class (even if that isn’t accurate), they perhaps were history’s least effective rulers at aquiring wealth for themselves at the expense of the people.

That’s why it’s not (private), but rather state capitalist. Just because it’s not “as bad” as something else, does not mean it’s fundamentally different. Again: Late 20th century scandinavia was still capitalist. And the people then also had it better than Russia under the Czar.

I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling.

I’m aware of confirmation bias, thank you. Are you? Do you think you’re immune to it?

Edit - in conclusion: please try to stay on topic and refrain from blindly regurgitating the standard talking points you use when defending the USSR from attacks from liberals. I am not a liberal.