ok, i can understand this. so it’s small-business are private run while bigger businesses are organized differently?

Very small businesses would tend to be private. At least that’s the trend. But keep in mind even a worker-owned co-op is a private business so it’s one of those things where the exact implementation has varied. And many businesses that would otherwise be private and might be partially nationalized, requiring certain standards, barriers to creating a storefront, strict rules on employment (or not). It’s something that countries can experiment with. Struggle doesn’t end after revolution and the development of productive forces changes employment.

The best targets for nationalization are the big industries, the developed ones. They are much easier to plan and run and expropriate. But a country could do so earlier if conditions allowed. Keep in mind that every country with a socialist revolution has faced constant attack, so they have been under fairly desperate conditions to industrialize or otherwise abandon more idealistic forms of work, e.g. being the primary target of Nazis.

to sum it up, i’d like to add a point. businesses spend money mostly on 4 categories:

raw materials wages for workers machinery (this one has to be largely paid up-front) profits to shareholders

In Marxist terms you can usually summarize it in two: material inputs (dead labor) and labor. Profit isn’t an input to production, it is actually variable and is just what is left over after all expenses. Income vs. expenditures. Raw materials and machinery are just commodities you buy to do production.

so to “socialize much of the gains” means that company profits are either redirected to the community (“state-run enterprise”)

It could be business taxation or it could be a redirecting of productive capacity (provide X prefab concrete widgets to this state project). Profits don’t need to be redirected, that’s just an accounting question. They may be made unprofitable by a given expropriation. But in countries taking this approach, like China, it’s mostly business taxes.

or redirected into extra wages (“co-ops”)

If the co-op runs the business and is functional then the workers are basically setting their own wages and trying to optimize their business to pay as much as possible while still doing well as a business. If this is basically private enterprise then over time the state will begin direct involvement as it grows in size, observing production, expenditures, living conditions, etc. If a state allows small enterprise run more like a capitalist business, then eventually the state may step in a force cooperative governance, ensures a state-meditated union, etc.

But really this is exactly something that countries have experimented with, it’s not just one prescription. And it has varied based on conditions, particularly external ones from imperialist countries.

Posting something on a private platform is actually not public. It is the private property of the platform owner and they can make it public or private any time they want or find ways to commodity it in their terms of service when you sign up.

I say this to back up what you say about the myth of the digital commons. Most online networks are not a commons at all, they are the exact opposite, they are an enclosure to extract profit from what would otherwise be a commons, usually built by finance capital to have appealing features at first, generated at a loss, and then once profit needs to be taken the alleged “commons” is increasingly closed and monetized. Journalista don’t really understand this, sure, but neither do most people. They expect, correctly, that social interactions should be analogous to chatting with someone on the street or at a public square, and social networks try to give that illusion.

Regarding individual choice, well a person is surrounded by the exact opposite of what we are saying and all their friends are on their addiction habit social networks so what would you expect them to do. These things don’t just happen on their own, people must work to organize and educate on the way capitalism turns their social lives into profit.

Workers owning the means of production is not an overly prescriptive idea. It means the bourgeois have been deposed or substantially oppressed such that workers actually dictate production. This is only really possible for a society after a revolution, as the bourgeois ruling class will not allow themselves to be deposed or substantially oppressed otherwise.

This is one of the more flexible and interesting ways in which socialists can experiment. Experiments have ranged pretty widely. Some subgroups tried forms of primitivist agricultural communalism, though this can only exist for any significant duration under the protection of an industrialized state. In the context of industrialized production it can look like co-ops or state-run enterprises or various forms of oppressed bourgeois or all of the above simultaneously at different levels of productive forces (start more bourgeois and get stripped of it as production becomes so developed it can be more easily run via planning). Chile wanted to experiment with cybernetics developed with Stafford Beer before being murdered by US-backed fascists, the left leadership murdered in the tens of thousands following this. Can’t stress enough the importance of that revolution part - Allende rose via liberal democratic means and capitalists asserted the true basis of their rule, which is violence and coercion.

So to answer your question, it would probably look petty bourgeois at first (individuals incorporating a business) under most near term circumstances, and does in countries run by socialists, but what to do as the enterprise grows varies. And sometimes a state may coordinate production even early on. For example important technologies may be developed by university researchers and to enter production they are state-funded and forced to collaborate with other researchers, with a petty bourgeois payoff (salary, ownership that dwindles until it enters a certain tier, etc). The latter also happens under capitalism but the profits are entirely privatized, capital feeds off the state funding, whereas the point of this industrial policy in socialist states is to either build missing productive capacity, to socialize much of the gains, and eventually turn over to co-ops and state-run enterprise, etc.

Literally the prison system inherited from the tsar but downsized and with improved conditions.

Go read a book.

One large Howitzer shell would at least disable it.

Do not fall for the Fourth Reich Wunderwaffe lies. Their military doctrine only works with complete air superiority, mostly killing civilians, small groups of “the enemy” (people defending their country), and destroying infrastructure.

Hope everyone is enjoying their further proletarianization! Rents? Up! Transportation costs? Way up! Healthcare? Lucky if you can get it at all. Go to college? Enjoy 20-30 years of debt. Jobs? Down!

Gulags were just prisons and people regularly escaped from them. The soviets actually dramatically decreased the scale of gulags vs. the tsarist period.

A ‘gulag’ alias should just be a leaky pause or backgrounding or something. rm -rf is forceful denazification.

No

Both countries are run by ML parties following revolution and would therefore be designated both socialist and communist based on like 100 years of precedent.

Depends on which instance is doing the removing but around here it’s usually just racism and orientalism getting removed on this kind of post.

You haven’t listed a single genocide denial. None of these are genocide denial.

For example we objectively know that most of the claims against Stalin were falsified. Not to say he was perfect but even the CIA admits they falsefied it.

Literally nothing about genocide.

Salvador Allende was a great democratic socialist who supposedly did everything right and look what happened to him

Literally nothing about genocide and you seem to completely misunderstand kittenz orientation to Allende.

[Captain AmericaCX image captioned with “No, I don’t think I will.”]

Obviously a reply to someone telling them to stop talking.

So you have nothing. I think you should take some time to ask why you are so confident even though it really seems that you are having difficulty reading and understanding what’s in front of you. I don’t mean the latter as an insult, it is perfectly fine to not immediately understand something. The issue is that you act very certain about a topic where you are actually uncertain.

exercises in Japan, Malaysia, Philippines

China has zero military exercises in Japan, Malaysia, or the Philippines.

that is indeed my inquiry…

You can’t name them you just demand evidence to the contrary vaguely.

Jorunn did

Except they didn’t. Those screenshots don’t show any genocide denial.

I fail to read China or Uyghurs anywhere in the screenshots. Could you show me which one I am missing?

I already did in another comment it’s just them saying they don’t think there’s scholarly consensus. Why does everyone else have to describe what kittenz actually said but you don’t? Produce actual quotes not screenshots that don’t deny genocide.

PS you are messing up the quote feature.

None of that has kittenz denying a genocide.

It’s hard to say I think this person is deeply confused

It’s impossible to competently read those screenshots and come away with the idea that, say, kittenz is “denying genocide” re: Pinochet. The others are similarly ridiculous, they just don’t mean thst at all.

Instead of gesturing to a post with like 10 screenshots of text, why not quote kittenz and say what you think is genocide denial.

???

The accusation of genocide denial had no specific context given so you just have to guess. These are lazy anticommunist liberals they gobble up invented genocides when it suits the narrative of their masters.

Unless you can specifically ground exactly what genocides were denied? Show the posts and comments.

Well, right now PRC is still aggressively demanding shores and sea routes of other nations.

Your link is just to a Lemmy search but I’m guessing you’re referring the SCS? And China isn’t really demanding the SCS it just plain has it.

I have seen some documentaries on mistreatment of Uyghur

That is just another link to a search on YouTube, not a documentary. But there was a concerted effort to produce spurious reports and manipulative documentaries so this could mean almost anything in terms of the accuracy of what you watched.

but I am talking about kittenzrulz123’s own genocide apologetics which lead to their removal in 196 as moderators.

Are you? You haven’t listed them and the only implication so far is that it’s being minimally media critical regarding accusations against China’s treatment of Uyghurs. A position that is correct and that I already explained can be twisted in bad faith to be labeled genocide denial. Why are you just repeating things? I already responded to this!

Am I lead to believe kittenzrulz123 would dismiss others concerns of genocide?

???

One thing to consider is that the people you’re describing as accepted are fundamentally already in the in group that is oppressed - gay or bi. Chasers are basically universally cis men treating trans women as a fetish object. The dehumanizing aspect is different when it is in no way self-referential and when the basic identity is what is fetishized.

Another way to think of it is that for a group of people oppressed in their societies, one of the few ways those (cis) societies “value” trans women is as a taboo sexual fetish, often an exploitable one.

This does relate to gender in that these societies are misogynist and treat women’s bodies as available for purchase in one way or another, plus a long ladder up to that actual act - simulation, imagery, drama, etc. The act of “acquisition” is gender biased in the extreme and coincides with the impoverished of women, and not coincidentally trans women. What is the value of a woman?

Ah, I thought so. Honestly don’t really have the time and energy to go back and forth with these massive walls of text, so I’ll just say that you’ve fallen hook line and sinker for Russian propaganda.

Ah yes it’s my fault that you have no response. Just throw in a thought-terminating cliché.

Ukrainian Nazis exist, just like there are Nazis in literally every country on the planet. They weren’t in control of anything, nor were they in any way in control of the government.

See how you are just going on and on about things I didn’t say rather than responding to what I did say?

Though Ukrainian neo-Nazis absolutely were in control of exactly what I referenced: running front-line militias that shelled Donbas. This was widely reported until 2022 when Western media needed to push that to the side.

The “ethnic Russians” were primarily Russian army troops out of uniform.

No the ethnic Russians I am referring to are about half of the people who lived and live in Donbas. Civilian population centers were shelled.

There’s piles and piles of evidence about this.

No there aren’t.

The low intensity war between Russia and Ukraine was to destabilize Ukraine to attempt to force it back into Russia’s sphere of influence against the will of the populace.

Historical revisionism that ignores Euromaidan and the grassroots response in Eastern Ukraine to the coups and anti-ethnic Russian, anti-left campaigns that followed. Do you think it was the Russians that locked union organizers in a building and set it on fire?

If that isn’t imperialist, I don’t know what is.

Yes, exactly, you don’t know what imperialism is.

I don’t know why I’m writing all this out, tbh. You’ve drunk the Kool aid.

Self-soothing to help rationalize why you have no actual response to what I’ve said.

Anything “an enemy of the west” says is believed uncritically, no actual thinking, just regurgitation.

Oh? What specific claims by “an enemy of the west” have I believed uncritically?

Have a wonderful day regardless, and I honestly hope you’re doing well.

Uh-huh