Maybe there’s a variety that does?

Magma from borax, lime, or galena? All are definitely minerals and definitely fluxes.

“Intent to destroy in part or whole”. Number doesn’t matter, and consequently neither does not keeping up with population growth it’s still genocide.

Indeed I’ll stay an anarchist no matter how much tankies and/or wokescolds whine. Have a good day.

it was created by nazis for a nazi agenda.

Source on that? I’m serious. I did a bit of googling and do see that the likes of Ben Shapiro have been using it, but that’s definitely not where I have it from, and you’ll also see plenty of left-wing uses of it.

I have zero patience for people who side with fascism.

I referred you to a quite precise definition of what I mean by the term. Can you explain to me how criticising the things encompassed by that definition would put me “on the side of fascism”? Fascists have come up with plenty of terms leftists use all the time, an obvious example would be the word “fascist”. Allegiance to fascism, I’d say, cannot be inferred merely by use of some shared vocabulary, you have to go deeper than that.

In any case, and I hope you see the irony, going nuclear over the use of such a term, to drill down on syntax instead of semantics, is not unlikely to fit the wokescold pattern of behaviour. Depends a bit on how you do it but overall I’d say it’s likely you’d hit at least some of the checkboxes Zena+Poppy are giving.

I’ll just quote Zena+Poppy on the term. You may not like it, you might prefer clinical analytical language such as “puritanical progressive” or whatever, but from the context I used it in (making direct reference to social dynamics) it should be obvious that I used it in that sense.

And, no, tankie is not a “horrible fucking word”. It is precise and succinct, also, tankies hate it.

What, the term “tankie”? A term coined within the Communist Party of Great Britain? The CPGP is alt-right, now?

Calling the term “alt-right” is just a quick way of telling me you’re a tankie without telling me you’re a tankie.

Oh. “wokescold” is another possibility but that’s rather unlikely, while the right has appropriated “woke” I’ve never heard them use “wokescold” which is precisely used by people who know and understand the original meaning and simply want to call out certain problematic behaviours done in the name of, but not to the benefit of, wokeness.

I lost track, you never noticed you had none from the start, we’re not the same.

Rojava is a decentralized capitalist region

And the USSR was a centralised state capitalist system. China has even left the “state” part behind and is nowhere nearer abolishing class than it was at the start of the revolution. It actually regressed in that regard.

But, fine, call Rojava that if you will. Just shows how you can’t see any possible roads to communism that don’t involve the failed experiment that is state capitalism.

though it was managed centrally by the EZLN

The EZLN does not manage centrally. The EZLN is not even a governing body. It’s a decentralised milita that councils tasked with matters of military security. It is those councils which are the governing body, not the EZLN. Rojava operates alongside the same lines, though details differ because cultural, material, and other differences.

I know it might be incomprehensible to you: A literal army, with all the capability it could wish for to order the local population around, sat down with the local population and told them about their ideas. The population then told them about theirs. They discussed, mutually refined their ideas until there was a consensus on how to move ahead, leading to what you see now. No shot was fired, noone was sent to gulag. They’ve also been capable of large organisational reforms, deliberated to consensus, implementation happened just a couple of months ago.

Maybe you should set aside some time and actually study those regions, not just read tankie cliff notes about how they supposedly work, or don’t, or are secretly authoritarian, or whatever.

The Bolsheviks who established the USSR were also “social democrats”

The Bolsheviks were never democrats and the French social democrats still call themselves communists. But that’s rather besides the point: The Cuban revolution was in the late 50, by then the split between SocDems and communists (both liberal and authoritarian) was not just done it had hardened. Heck the revolution ended in 59, after the word tankie had been established, which was 56, in direct reaction to the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

The point I’m making here is that Fidel & Co came to the US, said “We’re eyeing doing something like your European allies are doing and want to be friends, you know, unions, welfare, worker’s rights”, the US said “nope, can’t have you not be slaves to Bacardi and United Fruit you’re our colony after all”, Cuba said “never mind then we thought we could be friends then we’ll go with our second choice, the USSR”. The USSR, then, demanded from their allies a heavily authoritarian slant, so Cuba adopted it, in the interest of national survival not out of preference. Which is also why they are by far the furthest along among the surviving ML states when it comes to democratisation. Vietnam is second, with quite some distance, China makes no moves in that regard and North Korea, well, North Korea is only ever getting worse, not better. Oh, Eritrea. Same.

You can’t create a stateless, classless communist society from capitalism without a transitional socialist state that breaks the monopoly on force and propaganda that capitalist states have — specially in a world ruled by capitalist superpowers like the US which constantly coups and invades non-capitalist states.

Ask the Zapatista. Yes, the US tried to get rid of them, couldn’t, learned better and now is just letting them be. Rojava is an even better example as the US wilfully allied with them.

Figures if your revolution isn’t centrally organised by Moscow or China post-McCarthy US doesn’t actually care. Present-day US would’ve also let Cuba be SocDem, as was the original intent of the revolutionaries, instead of pushing them into alliance with the USSR.

lemmygrad is full of full-on tankies, the type who would willingly send birthday greetings to comrade Stalin while imprisoned in a gulag, lemmy.ml once was a default instance and thus has random folks on it but is admin-wise run by tankies and generally seems to serve as the preferred instance for lemmygrad folks to have alts on. Stay away from political communities there e.g. their worldnews community is a silly place. Hexbear is hit and miss, not so much hardened tankies there but wokescolds and random lefties who don’t quite realise who they associate with, why that kind of social dynamics is no good. Might have some inane takes, occasionally prone to dogpiling, but at least you can have a conversation with them.

Anti-auths don’t have any issues with caprese We do have issues with fruit salads, though.

…or something along the lines I lost track of the isomorphism it could be that we don’t have issues with fruit salads but have issues with caprese. But you’ll get it, eventually, as long as you stop confusing stuff by equivocating.

You’re almost there.

If something is granted it’s not imposed. Those two things are mutually exclusive. If Engels was honest in his argument he’d have used “imposed authority” to characterise what anti-auths were criticising, not the general “authority”.

Anti-semitism like stopping the holocaust, but ok go off king

Anti-semitism like this.

“Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine”

It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There’s a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.

The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.

The employer also doesn’t get a say. The citizen overall, though, does get a say (in liberal democracies at last), as to how large the universal allowance is. The Labourer outnumbering the employer in the liberal democratic process thus gives an overall tilt towards the labourer, the ability to ensure that it’s large enough to be able to tell bosses “Shove it, I quit”.

Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you’re basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful

On what? Housing? People spend it on housing. They can pool it into cooperatives, no issue there regarding economies of scale.

I corrected the conversation to show how to correctly apply widening and narrowing in regards to “fruit salads”

What you should’ve done instead is apply it to Engels’s widening of the term “authority” to mean things that don’t fit into a fruit salad, any more.

Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with “Rothschild’s”?

Nah I’m more side-jabbing at Soviet antisemitism, dunno whether you share it it’s not a universal. Could’ve just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. “Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we’re falling behind, they’re exerting authority over us” give me a break no they’re not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.

higher life expectancy than the US.

Yeah saying “we’re better off than the US” is just as convincing as American saying “we’re better off than Haiti”. Darn low bar. Do better.

not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could’ve meant

Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels? Why isn’t he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn’t argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.

I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.

Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money. In one case you can consume those goods, in the other you can choose which goods you consume. You can forego expensive food for a while to save up for canvas and paintbrush, if you so please. You can choose whether you spend the money included for purposes of recreation to travel to a metal concert, the opera, or a beach bar. You can choose to spend that recreation money on better food or a new hammer, if you so please.

Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it’s still miles better than “work for a boss or starve”, or “work for a boss or don’t get to choose your meal”. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The statement of the cooks, “these are fruits, we can turn them into fruit salad” is perfectly accurate. There’s no error in there. In my example it’s the botanists which make the mistake by widening the definition of “fruit” without double-checking whether that widening changes their understanding of “fruit salad” to become something different from what the cooks were saying.

The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.

The cooks made a statement about fruit salads, not salads in general. It is not under contention that caprese is a salad and includes tomatoes. It’s also not a fruit salad.

Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?

Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that’s because the Rothschilds don’t want you to succeed. Couldn’t be because the plan was shit.

I use the “Monopoly on violence” definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)

There’s no monopoly on violence in Anarchism.

Democratic centralism.

Have you actually read Lenin. That’s not a method to organise a society, it’s a method to organise a party. All it basically bogs down to “Once the party has made a decision, party members are to stop arguing and get to work implementing it”. It has numerous problems when it comes to de-facto centralisation of power, as well as inability to address and correct decisions that were, or have become, wrong.

The “decision” or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.

That’s literally the authority of the shoe-maker. Being a specialist and therefore trusted to make expert decisions is not the same as having power over people. Anarchists freely bow to the shoe-maker when it comes to matters of shoe production, but not when it comes to where to walk with them.

Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It’s this abstract that Engels is referencing

No they’re not bound by that decision. There’s plenty of reasons why one would want to change their mind.

A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say

It takes power away from capitalists by giving the labourer the option to walk away from job offers they don’t like. It is not a total overhaul of the system, true, but you should be able to appreciate the juicy irony of fighting capitalist power with market mechanisms.

Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing.

People need more to live than housing, also, you’re being paternalistic. “Here, live in this place, eat this stuff”. What if I want to take the same amount of resources and live in another place, and eat different stuff?

A superpower which doesn’t exist any more, it was torn apart by its own lack of productivity and internal contradictions.

The industrialisation went quickly, true, but heavy industry was the only thing the Soviet Union ever got remotely good at, its state apparatus failed to incorporate advances made elsewhere, heck it was so bad that the GDR started its own chip programme because the Soviets wouldn’t and they needed chips to stay competitive in the market of industrial machinery. Did you know that in the 80s VW Wolfsburg was full of GDR-built machines? They used the proceeds to buy things that are necessary to keep Prussians happy and not rebelling, such as coffee (I’m being absolutely serious here coffee was a big political issue in the GDR).

Meanwhile, rapid increases in lifespans and living standards aren’t exactly rare because it’s not actually that hard to get half-way decent when you start from a point of utter destitution.

The USSR did achieve nothing special in that regard, and definitely nothing special enough to justify the abuses that come with their approach.