Nix:

x:;

"Win"dows

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

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.

You replied to a direct quesion that I asked someone else, so… Who the fuck asked you?

I admitted several times that we don’t really have the possibility to change anything here, so I don’t get how this is supposed to be a gotcha.

I’m simply not a fan of people lying to themselves.

edit: wait a second… who the fuck asked you? O.o

Ok, now that’s just rude.

I’d like to inform people that they have a belief that’s morally pleasing, but ineffective in helping anyone.

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.

One example: in 1919, the politbureau was established, consisting of 5 members (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and two I don’t remember since I only heard the podcast). This was in tandem with the specific aim to fill the soviets with loyal party members who were obliged to follow the politbureau’s orders: Monopolization of power to the few.

Also, corruption was rampant with the commisars who used their official influence to sell goods on the black market. Corruption is also something that doesn’t happen without monopolisation of power.

Here’s my source: The Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan, S10E86 - The Communist Soviets

I’m still looking for the episode where it’s spelled out that the Bolsheviks shifted their slogan “all power to the soviets” to “all power to the party”, but it’s been a while, so I’ll have to re-listen a bunch. You should check out the podcast, it is really good.

There’s also the Book The Bolsheviks and Worker’s Control, which is a commented run-down of historical events how the Bolsheviks took power away from the workers (i.e. the factory councils) to bureaucrats. I’m still in December 1917, but this is already interesting, concerning the “General Instructions on Workers Control in Conformity with the Decree of November 14”, which is also known as the “Counter-Manual”:

Section 7 states that “the right to issue orders relating to the management, running and functioning of enterprises remains in the hands of the owner. The control commissions must not participate in the management of enterprises and have no responsibilities in relation to their functioning. This responsibility also remains vested in the hands of the owner”.

Which sounds pretty bourgeois to me…

But that can’t be. If the structure is the same as in a bourgeois economy, but the people with the correct ideas are at the top, that’s a materialist socialism, right? /s

The party took the decision making power from the soviets. Or at least from any soviets not loyal to them. Wait a sec, gonna relisten to the podcast describing this.

Your dismissal is duly noted. As well as the fact that you didn’t address my objections and we’re having different interpretations of what “idealist” means.

Happy to help.

Then what are you trying to achieve, exactly?

That’s all your war.

I doubt it, but ok.

Then you’ll have reached nothing but given a few people a feeling of moral superiorty and saved them a few bucks.

But it is not effective in the sense that these workers will be able to work in this sector again or will get their job back. A few folks complaining and pledging not to buy the game won’t scare Take2 to rehire the workers or stop unionbusting.

Your lack of interest hasn’t stopped the franchise being like the second biggest video game franchise. I’m afraid that this won’t notably hurt their sales. Especially since you probably weren’t gonna buy it anyway.

How does that signal reach Take2? How will Take2 know that these sales that will not have happened were due to their union busting?

When will those people “cave in” and simply buy the game whenit’s been released for 4 years on discount? These things don’t work without a PR campaign. I don’t make the rules. I’m sim’ly the messengere