Except…

They do already. That’s info you can just buy.

Funny enough, I loved that app, and use it for news rather than Google news

A trap for people isn’t something I’d consider “useful”.

Just like a pedo van offering free food to kids… sure kids get fed, but at what cost?

And without my.comment, fewer hits because users cannot see it, which means less people provide training data.

No single drop feels responsible for the flood.

What gets us there is long term stability.

Grow organically, and they will come.

First, the tech enthusiasts, then tech journos, then normal journos, then normals.

It’s how online spaces grow.

I did, bc reddit locked up my content, and wanted to use it to train a LLM.

Let people ask again, here, in the fediverse.

I literally hate the new reddit UI, as do most peeps I’ve spoken with…

The new reddit UI is designed to push ads, and push premium subs.

We do.

It’s mailto or mime for the scheme. There’s even mbox as a scheme.

Might be news to you, but the US’s “definition” of communism is about as relevent as the US’s definition of “leftism”…

So, yes, the definition of what “communism”… It’s best to go to the source of the word, and what the talked about it meaning, rather than Joe McCarthy.

Secondly, you make no explanations for how Marxism-Leninism “drops the scientific aspect” of Marxism.

Ok, so show us a Marxist-Leninist society, that hasn’t turned into back into an oligarchy.

I’ll wait.

That is wholly incorrect.

Neozapatismo is also type Marxism, and is not Marxist-Leninist. They are a non-white manner of organizing a communist society. (They will claim they are “None of the above”, rightfully so, however, analysis will show it’s a Marxist-based ideology and system, with some Anarchist ideology too).

Leninism is in fact, a departure from Marxism, as it fully drops the “scientific” part of the entire ideology. In fact, Leninism, arguably, isn’t even socialist, since it merely gives us new oligarchs in lieu of the old oligarchs.

It could have been an experiment in Marxism, and I’d say it was an experiment in Marxism. However, it is certainly a failed experiment. The Neozapatistas have persisted for 30 years now, for example, and are so far doing much better than the Soviet Union did as a liberatory movement. Same with Maoism, which started off good, but made the same mistakes the Soviets did, and now we just have another capitalist state.

Its literally the communism described by Marx, which, is, by nature, THE Definition of what communism is: https://web.archive.org/web/20090605001014/http://www.economictheories.org/2009/05/full-communism-ultimate-goal.html

That’s literally the definition of communism.

Yes, Marxism works. Leninism (And it’s offshoots) do not.

and this new frame has no theoretical basis for being a road at all unless you can make the case that central planning and public ownership of underdeveloped sectors of the economy is reasonable unilaterally

There is no rational argument to say this. In fact, lessons borne out of past revolutionary experiments have shown us this is the route that leads to failure. Centralization of control, into the hands of the few, never leads to liberation of the working class.

That was a lesson he was learning, as well, and it was in its infancy at the time. We’ve had many more examples to learn from, and don’t need to try it again.

“Started down the track” is how I make that claim. He went from very staunchly “Seize the state, and use it to implement communism!” to “Well, thats not such a hot idea… we need to re-work that”.

You know, the “scientific” part of “Scientific Socialism”.

I never said he was an anarchist, and I never said he claimed it should or could be done in a single stroke.

Scientific Socialism requires one to learn from the past, and adapt as needed. It doesn’t mean a dogmatic prescription of “how”.

Marx started to rework (greatly) his ideas of “The state” and if it should be seized or abolished early. He started leaning to “abolished quickly, and early”.

Oh, I get what Marx had said… Marx also changed his view post Paris Commune. He started down the track that its impossible to abolish the state, after concentrating all power in the state, as those holding power will never give it up.

And yes, governance is not the state, and yes, Marx later agreed with that point, as well.

Communism requires no state, no class, and no money. So, yes, all communist theory calls for the abolishment of the state.