They kinda are necessary, given how they’re the byproduct of capitalism’s private property model and its commodification.

You could technically remove them by having the state manage all the housing, but that’s overly idealistic given how that’d go against the ruling class interests which would cause heavy lobbying by big landowners. It would also make the state a monopoly landowner which would have its own implications.

In other words, they’re necessary not because they’re useful, but because of how dogshit the system is.

I love how NK is being directly compared to a literal monarchy here, accidental self-aware moment

ML’s when you point how many resources USSR had traded with Nazi Germany, which allowed them to commit to their war effort in the first place.

It’s a different use case - bottles is really good for playing games outside of steam (like pirated titles or non-steam games) since it has sandboxing + you just drag and drop the game folder, then add executable as shortcut and run without having to fiddle with paths and set up each game individually. Convenient for software too that runs better on proton too.

If you don’t do/have a need for any of that, then you don’t need bottles.

I like them as an option, there are some programs like Bottles or specific game launchers that work under flatpak better than the versions available via native package manager (with Bottles in particular, you can use various built-in sandbox features via flatpak which makes things a bit more secure), but it’s also a bit of a pain because it’s an additional package manager you have to update separately now, or tweak if things go wrong.

Yeah, pretty sure its the devs of the game that are ultimately responsible for moderating their game forum, making internal employees or trusted players mods and so on. The main issue comes from communities that aren’t being moderated, or from the general steam forums.

Not as bad but still quite terrible are probably the steam forums. There are some systems in there that literally encourage and reward saying the most stupid/offensive shit, and with a very lax moderation it’s just a complete mess.

I mean, even this kind of argument doesn’t really work in reality. We already live in “hell on earth”, and via electorialism usually two choices are given: the progressive “nothing ever happens” option (so your socdems, democrats, you’ll be lucky to get a good policy or two but no real change to the status quo) or “literally hitler” option, maybe some parties that stand in the middle of the spectrum if the country is “advanced” enough.

In other words, via electorialism you can either preserve the hell on earth or make it worse, and the process of voting legitimizes this status quo as it’s what “people have decided” rather than who the ruling class cast as candidates, who had the most money and media influence for campaigning.

It’s important to see electorialism for what it truly is.

That name rings a bell

Wonder if Musk will get half the spoils for the crypto scam Trump pushed at the start of presidency

socialist candidate

looks inside

another socdem

Think the billionaire is safe, even more so considering the proposed pro-business policies by the candidate

Critical support to imperialist conflict

Yes, nothing gets me going like innocent proletarian blood spilled in bourgeois conflicts like these

Calling it right now: it’s a nothingburger as nothing ever happens

Long walk through the park is quite nice - no cars, no pollution, just lots of birds chirping and strangers passing by

Showering only every 2 weeks during summer back when I was living in a peasantoid lodge where getting water and a bath/shower ready is a major pain in the ass.

Been in the same exact position :(

Hope you get to make up for the lost time

At least his critique is clear and coherent.

If validity of theory was based on what its writers had done, then Marx would be worthless and Urban Guerilla doctrine would be invaluable.

Trade and wage labor also aren’t exclusive to capitalism.

Yes, trade isn’t exclusive to capitalism, I never claimed otherwise. However, there is a distinction between commodity exchange for exchange-value (capitalist trade) and international distribution of goods to satisfy needs (socialist distribution), whether through planned allocation or transitional forms like labor vouchers.

Wage labor is specific to capitalism, it’s a sale of labor-power as a commodity, exchanged for a wage, with surplus value being appropriated by a class/managerial apparatus. This is THE fundamental relation of capitalism, and you’d be better off reading theory than blindly quoting it.

Though I will give a concession - socialism is such a meaningless term that it means like 4 different things depending on who says it: liberals would say it’s social democracy, ML’s say its state capitalism, Marxists and Leninists say it’s socialist mode of production (post-transition period) and Posadists would say it’s when nuclear annihilation. A word doesn’t make a thing so if you consider state capitalism to be socialist - fair, all power to you. However - Marxists, Leninists, Liberals would all collectively disagree. You did drop a Lenin quote to strengthen your argument so let me do the same:

• Lenin, The Tax in Kind

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

In the same text he also calls NEP USSR as state capitalist due to the concessions he had to make for the transition, which is explicitly made distinct from Socialism.

And I’m adamant that it’s a mischaracterization. Identifying the dominant mode of production is not a “one drop rule”, it’s literally foundational Marxist analysis - modes are defined by prevailing relations of production, not how it’s managed or ideological labels put onto them.