Communist

I do not, monkeys include the apes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CkO8k12QCP0

here’s a video from an evolutionary biologist explaining.

This is not a cladistically unsound notion, apes are a subgroup of monkey.

https://f-droid.org/packages/org.elnix.dragonlauncher

It’s not if it’s done right, android is problematic because it’s not a community project, it’s just a code dump.

case in point, the linux kernel itself

I recommend dragon launcher or lawnchair

dragon is now my favorite, the ring design is awesome and the dev is active, but lawnchair is the most like nova but open source.

It was actually pretty inconvenient because I found the syntax for “anonymous rules” basically undocumented.

They’re dirt cheap used now because everyone wants to get rid of them

You could have used rpm-ostree for that. All of that, actually.

What exactly is harder or impossible to do with immutables? As far as I am aware it is basically all upsides and no downsides honestly.

Feel free to send me a message:

@communist:4d2.org

Do you have the issue tracker for kwallets issues? This is my first time hearing of these. Out of all the people I have given this to not one has had any complaints with kwallet, it’s possible these issues were resolved, although none of my users were using vpn’s.

libreoffice uses xwayland, so that’s really on them to fix and there are simple workarounds.

both of which are pretty quick fixes, kwallet can be replaced and the libreoffice issue is a toggle in the settings. I usually set people up and make sure they can do everything they need to, these issues seem very minor compared to the issues with cinnamon

A lot of people are going to recommend you mint, I honestly think mint is an outdated suggestion for beginners, I think immutability is extremely important for someone who is just starting out, as well as starting on KDE since it’s by far the most developed DE that isn’t gnome and their… design decisions are unfortunate for people coming from windows.

I don’t think we should be recommending mint to beginners anymore, if mint makes an immutable, up to date KDE distro, that’ll change, but until then, I think bazzite or aurora if you don’t like gaming is objectively a better starting place for beginners.

The mere fact that bazzite and other immutables generate a new system for you on update and let you switch between and rollback automatically is enough for me to say it’s better, but it also has more up to date software, and tons of guides (fedora is one of the most popular distros, and bazzite is essentially identical except with some QoL upgrades).

How common is the story of “I was new to linux and completely broke it”? that’s not a good user experience for someone who’s just starting, it’s intimidating, scary, and I just don’t think it’s the best in the modern era. There’s something to be said about learning from these mistakes, but bazzite essentially makes these mistakes impossible.

Furthermore because of the way bazzite works, package management is completely graphical and requires essentially no intervention on the users part, flathub and immutability pair excellently for this reason.

Cinnamon (the default mint environment) doesn’t and won’t support HDR, the security/performance improvements from wayland, mixed refresh rate displays, mixed DPI displays, fractional scaling, and many other things for a very very long time if at all. I don’t understand the usecase for cinnamon tbh, xfce is great if you need performance but don’t want to make major sacrifices, lxqt is great if you need A LOT of performance, cinnamon isn’t particularly performant and just a strictly worse version of kde in my eyes from the perspective of a beginner, anyway.

I have 15 years of linux experience and am willing to infinitely troubleshoot if you add me on matrix.

I mean I think we all think that is very unfair.

xx-zones, ext-tray and dbus_annotations are the only protocols I think add anything of value at this point, wayland is pretty close to feature complete, it’s on clients for the most part at this point

you are fundamentally misunderstanding what marx set out to do, marx was not proposing a system of government or an executable plan. he was analyzing history in order to explain the forces that drive social change and to make conditional predictions about the future. within that kind of analytical framework, outcomes are how the categories are defined.

this is standard practice in historical and social analysis, which you seem unfamiliar with, you likely haven’t read any primary sources on this. a process is usually identified by what it produces, and a capitalist economy is one based around wage labor and capital accumulation. A feudal system is one organized around landed aristocracy and serfdom

and in Marxist terms, a socialist revolution is one that actually produces socialism. A revolution that claims the label but reproduces class domination has not achieved that outcome.

That does not make this a no true scotsman situation, that’s when definitions are arbitrarily narrowed to protect a belief. in this case, the definition is fixed in advance by structural criteria. If those criteria are not met, the category simply does not apply. this is no different from saying that an attempted overthrow of a feudal monarch that fails is not a successful revolution. that does not expose a flaw in anti-feudal ideology, it just reflects how we use words.

your criticism also assumes marx failed to provide a plan, which he never attempted to provide, this is like criticizing darwin for not designing ecosystems.

the project was explanatory, not prescriptive. he analyzed why capitalism arises, how it functions, and why he believed it generates conditions that eventually make class society untenable.

marx’s claim about socialism and communism is therefore conditional, not magical: if material conditions develop in certain ways, class antagonisms intensify and if class antagonisms are resolved, tthe state loses its function, where those conditions are absent or prematurely forced, domination reappears under new forms.

we as socialists are engaged in the practical task of trying to build a future that resolves those contradictions, but marx himself did not “fail” by not delivering an engineering blueprint, he never attempted to do what you are demanding of him. rejecting this because it’s not an instruction manual is a misunderstanding of the assignment in the first place.

every argument you’ve posed has been based in a misunderstanding of the reading and you should REALLY read some primary sources, here’s some:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

i think these would be the most helpful readings for you.

marxism does not define socialism as “more worker influence than before” but as an actual change in the relations of production. really the decisive question is which class controls surplus and exists and continues itself as a ruling class.

the binary is not 50 percent versus 49 percent. it is whether bourgeois property relations have been superseded.

before we continue this argument i’d like you to first admit you could not do what was asked of you.

the answer to your thought problem lies in dialectical materialism, not in institutional design or moral guarantees.

in a marxist framework, the revolutionary period is something that cannot be extended or terminated at will, it is produced by material conditions, and the duration is not decided by any leaders, but rather by whether or not class antagonism persists.

societies develop through contradictions between productive forces and relations of production and when they become unsustainable, things intensify until the ruling class is overturned. marx would argue that such a state cannot legitimize itself forever by rhetoric alone, because political superstructures ultimately depend on material relations, and if the proletariat no longer exists as a class, the state loses its function and withers away, if the state persists, that indicates unresolved class structures, not a valid permanent transition, essentially eternal revolution is impossible under the correct material conditions

I can expand upon this more if you need but at this point it is woefully obvious you have not read a single piece of socialist literature, these questions are kinda basic and covered in socialism 101, i suspect you’ve been getting your information from jordan peterson or prageru or something in that vein, i suggest you spend some time actually reading some primary sources.

your homework:

1. what is dialectical materialism and how does it explain historical change?
2. why did marx call communism the end-point of history, meaning the end of class struggle rather than the end of events?

sources to read from for the answers:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Contribution_to_the_Critique_of_Political_Economy.pdf

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

By this overly simplistic definition you would count infertile cats as non-cats. You also completely lose the ability to differentiate the species of non-sexually reproducing organisms. And then there’s the insanity that is hybridization. Is a mule a horse or a donkey? They can occasionally reproduce with either of them.

this is not the point at all… yes it was an overly simplistic way to explain how you’re using the fallacy wrong. You still used it wrong.

In just the same way with economic systems. Workers in different societies and periods exercise different levels of control (which is the underlying meaning of ownership) on the means of production, it’s not black and white. It can be very roughly defined as (workers control over the state) * (relative assets of state-controlled enterprises) + (relative assets of co-ops or other directly worker-owned enterprises). There is of course a lot more nuances to be discussed, such as the exact distribution of control between different subclasses of workers, or the social hierarchies arising from the structures of control.

no it cannot because it’s referring to whether or not the workers control them and on a societal scale this is a binary flip, at some point the workers are more in control than the bourgoeis and at that point it is socialism and at any point before it is not.

I mean 8 crashes is not a lot to work with statistically to the point where this is nearly meaningless.

i’ve seen a car crash as soon as it came off the lot and if I cherrypicked that and 7 other crashed cars I’d probably consider that brand very unsafe.

This is never true in the real world, everything is a spectrum. Do you think there are any countries that are 100% socialist in today’s world? If yes, then I highly doubt it’s actually true, if not, I suppose you count them as “100% capitalist”, which is a classic “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

it’s not a no true scotsman, if it were I could use this argument against you if you tried to claim all cats are dogs, you fundamentally misunderstand how that fallacy works, these societies do not meet the well defined criteria and I would say no they are not socialist but may be attempting to build it. The point of this fallacy is when you baselessly claim something is not what it is not according to the defining characteristics but rather by a vague feeling. If I said no true cat mates with other dogs successfully, similarly, I would not be committing a fallacy.

i am stating that socialism is when the workers own the means of production, if they do not then it is simply definitionally not socialist in the same way that if it can only breed with other cats it is a cat and not a dog.

No, there is not a single currently socialist country. It is not a spectrum, either the workers own the means of production or they do not.