Usually with Linux, once you start out you’re gonna get a ton of issues and you’ll have to troubleshoot them one by one. However, afterwards it should just be a smooth sailing.

Also as a word of warning from my personal experience, official support isn’t something you should be that concerned about. When it comes to software, when some corporation makes some official version for a specific distribution (like Ubuntu), it usually is made by some B-team and doesn’t work that great. If the program is good, it should be available on most major distros rather than just “an official version for just one” if that makes sense.

Also good call - if one distro is causing a fuck ton of issues, just give another one out. The main difference for users between distros is what kind of software setup they are going with, and some setups are just prone to issues on some hardware or wasn’t tested properly. Still, I do hope Fedora treats you better.

Sounds like you’re mentally drained after work to be honest. Nothing you can really do about it except play on some days only when you have the energy for it, or on the weekends.

It’s not that the entire system needs to change for this to work, it’s that this working changes the entire system.

Would it really? Capitalism is fundamentally a system of economic social relations, workers sell their labour power to the capitalism and so on - that’s the fundamental of it and all the various institutions inside (e.g. the police, financial sector, etc) aren’t essential/fundamental to the system. They can be changed/tweaked or abolished when the need arises, but the economic social relation between the two main classes cannot be.

Creating some self-managing community that focuses on eliminating the need for police doesn’t fundamentally challenge the system (economic class relations), neither does it really challenge the police as an institution given how they’ll still exist outside that community and, as you point out, is able to crush this community anytime if it ever becomes a legitimate threat.

Community self-management would quickly result in the redistribution (and hopeful removal) of the inequalities

The community would still operate under capitalist system which reproduces inequality - after all, the community does need money for things like food, rent, utility, essentials, etc. This requires participation in wage labour/markets which means there’s still income inequality, inequality in time one has to participate in the community, some people possibly having extra leverage due to private property ownership or their income/education, therefore new hierarchies spawning as a result, etc.

A commune like that under a capitalist system would be good as a survival strategy where the least well off can be supported and be kept over the poverty line (therefore reducing the need for theft but not eliminating it), but it wouldn’t remove economic or social inequality - it will just seep back in from the outside.

The entire system would need to change for this to work though - there ain’t no way that in an unequal society such as ours where not everyone’s needs are met (and crime essentially staying as high as it is today) community self-management would be sustainable.

Often crime is committed out of frustration (like violence born of inequality) or necessity (theft), so imagine being in a community in some larger city and having to deal with this every other day - I’d argue most people would just grow apathetic.

I mean you say that, but…

1. Western world has been living in liberal democracies for 100+ years, yet labor unions are weaker than ever (both in numbers and power), especially when compared to the union zeitgeist 100 years ago.

2. Worker rights are no longer a hot button issue people rally behind, nowadays it’s pretty much all about immigration, LGBT rights, taxation to a certain extent and whatever else. It’s legitimately difficult to find a representative in most countries who cares about expanding worker rights and giving more power to unions - best you can hope for is someone who won’t suppress them.

3. Relying solely on voting to get expanded workers/union rights leads to passivity from the workers (as in them stopping to do anything outside electorialism to fight for themselves), and there’s no guarantee they won’t get rolled back later anyway as history shows, with infamous examples being Thatcher and Reagan administrations.

I could go on and make this unreadable, but essentially electorialism isn’t the way to go when it comes to workers rights or especially when it comes to abolishing capitalism entirely.

That being said, your comment isn’t entirely without merit as there’s not that many movements nowadays actually fighting out there for better working conditions outside electorial politics. There are some international efforts though, like International Communist Party or Class Struggle Action who have helped to organize, keep strikes alive or spread propaganda to help the workers in their fight - small scale action but action nonetheless.

That’s never gonna happen, especially in Germany where the historically largest parties (both socdems and conservatives) can be essentially boiled down to “nothing ever happens”. Hell, I even doubt that Die Linke would be able to do much if they were somehow magically the majority in the government.

If you want a better future, elect people who understand this properly and fight for workers rights.

Oh you sweet summer child…

It’s quite interesting how the way a person thinks isn’t necessarily universal - some people are more rigid in their beliefs which has some correlation with a different chemical balance within brains and vice versa.

However, I’m quite skeptical when it comes to the concept of “ideological thinking” or “being prone to ideology”, as that’s not really how ideology works. Everyone is an ideological thinker, its how we view the world, have it make sense, it encompasses our thoughts and opinions at our most honest, lowest level. If anyone says that they’re not “ideological”, it’s only because they don’t recognize/understand what ideology truly is - after all, the classical definition of ideology is “that which you do without realizing it”.

Having the ability to change ones opinions and be a more “open thinker” can be part of ideology itself - after all, that’s what most people are taught in schools, and is part of the liberal MO (but with lots of exceptions on what can be changed of course, like what is “moral”). Reactionary ideologies promote the opposite view: the perfect world was in the mythical past where all was well, we should turn back time and go back to exactly how things were in that past.

At least from my perspective, a better conclusion could be that those who aren’t as rigid in their thinking can actually change their ideology easier. That’s how someone can step from conservatism to liberalism and vice versa, from liberalism to marxism, from conservatism to ultra-nationalism, but I’d argue that it’s mostly up to our environments to make us disillusioned with our current ideologies/removal of the social reinforcement of them rather than there being something inherent to our brains.

To add to this, Capitalism directly benefits from “traditional family values” where everyone is straight, reproducing, no abortions, women stay at home raising children via their unpaid labor, etc. As grim as it sounds, children to the capitalist system are just future workers ready to be exploited, so any movement that even remotely threaten to make a dent in that (abortion rights, queer rights, women’s liberation) get demonized and are vehemently fought against.

There’s a reason why the current pro-natalist movement is getting quite strong nowadays, and if you look at who supports and promotes them, 99% of the time its business owners.

Funnily enough, the exact same argument can be applied to the progressives who often rally behind LGBT and minority rights to also distract from doing anything meaningful to fix the economic issues.

This essentially results in an endless back and forth between progressives and right-wingers, where the ball is the minorities.

While that might cause a crisis, it’s in the best interest of the state, central banks, the capitalist class who are the most influential to preserve the capitalist system and do everything in their power to do so. They’re not going to sit idly by - there will be restructuring responding to the crisis, maybe even austerity and bailouts like in 2008 (which, mind you, didn’t end capitalism) - things might get tough, there might be a shock but it by no means would magically bring something like socialism.

Capitalism is a system that’s entirely about social relations: who sells their labor, who owns production and how do these production owners use their accumulated value - this is what has to collapse for capitalism to be destroyed. Financial instruments like insurance exist within this framework, they’re not capitalism itself, they can develop and change and they do so regularly in response to crises.

Absolute truthnuke

What a horrible article - capitalism won’t suddenly get destroyed because insurance companies won’t be able to operate anymore with some regions having houses devalued. In fact, it’s quite the opposite in reality: capitalism THRIVES and NEEDS crisis, that’s why you have regular boom & bust cycles to get rid of overproduction, wars, etc.

Capitalism can only be destroyed by the working class, it won’t miraculously go away on it own after some severe crisis, and especially not after a nothingburger crisis as insurers having a harder time.

Finally, some good food

Yes, that’s implicit - you build something in order to use/live in it. The end I was talking about was referring to the end of the gradual transformation from capitalism to communism, it’s not an instant process.

It is, pretty much every communist including ML’s here fully accept and support the notion that communism at the end is going to be stateless, as the state itself would become unnecessary. The differences come from the means which this end would be achieved.

it isn’t, so jesus is also an idiot (sorry but this is true…)

What you described is pretty much how electorialism works in the real world, both in the past and the present, and thanks to that we live in an absolute utopia.

But on a more serious note, liberal democracy is just an illusion of freedom and an illusion of “power for the people”. In reality, it’s been meticulously crafted to only benefit the rich with its barriers for entry designed to keep the poor out - for instance, one has to get an expensive education to even get started (or have a load of money to buy a degree outright), having enough money to fund a platform for yourself to get enough supporters to form a party, then do expensive advertising of your party’s message, having funds to combat any kind of political meddling from the competition, connections that one wealthy enough might get are also incredibly helpful, etc. There’s a reason why the vast majority of politicians parents links are blue on wikipedia - it’s not a meritocracy.

There’s many more critiques like how checks & balances are there to keep the capitalist system and not necessarily to stop abuses as certain populists are demonstrating nowadays, how people are essentially powerless after voting for the next 4-5 years, electorialism being used to distract from class struggle (via reactionary politics, culture wars) which keeps people from turning against the rich properly and instead choosing which side of the rich one wants to support, etc.

In short, if there’s going to be any meaningful, good change for us workers, it isn’t going to come from electorialism, and its important to be aware of this fact, not grow too complacent.

At the same time, there’s no revolution to be seen, partly precisely because of the things outlined above so yeah…

(Allegedly) murders a healthcare CEO

The only thing he achieves is online liberal LARP and some fantasies from some angsty guys/girls

Gonna go against the grain here, but some of you might need to think about what was actually achieved via this kind of activism. It didn’t weaken the healthcare industry or the ruling class in any way, as the murdered executive got replaced quite quickly, other healthcare executives got spooked for around a week and removed their contract info from websites - that’s it. Individual or small-group “adventurist” acts like these aren’t going to achieve anything.

If we’re talking about the big, rich EU counties, then yes. But for poorer ones, EU has genuinely fucked some of them over via imposing austerity and offloading debts onto the working classes of those nations, often via strong arming.

Greece is an explosive example of this, being fucked over by their incompetent government, sure, but also by Troika who literally strong armed them into taking bailouts fully knowing they wouldn’t be able to pay them thanks to extreme austerity measures, leading into an even deeper crisis. When Greeks elected anti-austerity parties who resisted, Troika cut off Greek banks from emergency funding, leading them into a collapse and offered an even more predatory deal afterwards. Even when looking at the more successful crises (Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Cyprus), it’s debatable whether or not Troika did more bad than good with their imposed austerity.

Wall of text, blah blah - EU is still overall good, don’t get me wrong, but it’s idiotic to say that they’re free from criticism and anyone who does so is just deep in the propaganda.