DreamlandLividity
@DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 11 hours ago:
What coup attempts are you talking about? Let’s try to focus on coups that were at least attempted or has any substantial evidence of being in the works.
I am not talking about coup attempts. I am exactly talking about lack of coup attempts in countries, where you would expect superpowers to start one if they could. But they can’t.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 18 hours ago:
There is no logic in their claim. It’s an absurd what if. Monarchies were unable to suppress democracies. It’s like saying “what if communism causes the sun to exploded”. That would be bad, but it’s not reality.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 21 hours ago:
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I never wrote anything like that.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 21 hours ago:
The problem isn’t political systems, it’s superpowers intervening
There can be more than one problem.
Please prove me wrong and tell me how e.g. the coup in Chile 1973 could have been prevented by decentralizing power.
A coup still inherently relies on there being internal forces willing to execute said coup. I don’t dare say being capitalist could have stopped this particular one, perhaps it couldn’t. It it is at least more resilient in general.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 22 hours ago:
The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.
This whole thread is about communism always collapsing into authoritarianism so quickly it is not even ever “really implemented”.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 23 hours ago:
What is this bullshit argument? If a lightbulb stops working after 10 years, is it as useless as a lightbulb that breaks after 10 minutes?
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 1 day ago:
Do I have to remind you that capitalistic democracies other than USA exist? Plenty of them work decently well. Certainly still far from perfect, but well enough to prove these issues can be overcome.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 1 day ago:
Youre saying a political system can only work if there is not a single aspect that can be taken advantage of? Thats equivalent to every single person being controlled 100% in their actions.
I did not say anything even close to that. I am saying a political system can only work if it can’t be easily overturned. It has nothing to do with how much it controls people.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 1 day ago:
My entire point is that political systems like democracies are not isolated from economic systems. Democracies fail when combined with communism, because all power is concentrated in the political apparatus.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 1 day ago:
I don’t see how what you write relates to what I write other than what-aboutism directing attention to (non-fatal) issues of capitalism instead of addressing the fatal issues of communism.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 1 day ago:
A political system is not some random piece of infrastructure, like a solar panel. It’s more comparable to a padlock. It’s entire point is to manage human nature. If all people were benevolent and willing to work for collective good on their own, we wouldn’t need political systems at all. Neither would we need padlocks. A padlock that can’t hinder an intruder is a bad padlock. A political system that can’t handle human nature (greed, lust for power) is a bad political system.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 1 day ago:
Even if that’s true, so what? Immortality being impossible does not make the recipe from my example any more useful. You are just pointing out one possible reason why communism doesn’t work in reality. Still doesn’t work.
- Comment on Hrmmmmm 1 day ago:
You are missing an important point.
The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.
Yes. But what does that mean? If I have a recipe for potion of immortality, but anyone that drinks the resulting potion dies instead, it’s a bad recipe even if the promise of immortality sounds good.
If every time you have a communist revolution, it ends up being authoritarian, what does that say about the communist political system?
- Comment on Michael 1 week ago:
Yes.
- Comment on Michael 1 week ago:
Honestly, in a way, (fast) internet ruined gaming. When you had to buy a physical disks, there was no way to continuously monetize a game, studios had to make new good games. Back then, there were good games for phones as well, because most people did not have phone internet to enable microtransactions.
- Comment on Michael 1 week ago:
The Olympics shouldn’t exist as they are now in the first place.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
I did not even realize you could run games on these GPUs… It would still be hard to spend 5k on the rest of the PC without throwing money away on visuals and other performance unrelated stuff, but I guess you may be able to do it depending on what you still consider performance improvements…
- Comment on Tragic Titan submersible’s $62 SanDisk memory card found undamaged at wreckage site 3 weeks ago:
Encrypted. Was a whole thing to recover the keys from a damaged board, only to find old videos and photos from previous dives.
Apparently they were streaming the video to the inside of the sub, so it wasn’t saved to that card.
- Comment on The end of tt-rss.org 5 weeks ago:
🤣
- Comment on Why do companies always need to grow? 5 weeks ago:
I want a lot of things that I can’t have. They can want it, but the system doesn’t have to allow it or can discourage it.
- Comment on Why do companies always need to grow? 5 weeks ago:
I don’t know in what context this parable is used in the book, but this does not explain the need for growth in reality. It does not even show why you would need growth in the parable. No matter how many chickens or how much wheat the village produces, there still wouldn’t be more tokens.
- Comment on Why do companies always need to grow? 5 weeks ago:
Well, partially maybe. In the past, investors were happy with dividends instead of growth. There are extra factors making growth be preferable over dividends.
- Comment on Why do companies always need to grow? 5 weeks ago:
I think your are confusing company growth and prices growing, mixing them together.
- Comment on Why do companies always need to grow? 5 weeks ago:
no. You can pay interest out of your profits. And many businesses don’t have significant loans.
- Comment on Why do companies always need to grow? 5 weeks ago:
There are many answers to this.
First, this is not a general capitalism thing. It is more the specific flavor we have.
The original idea of capital investment is that when you need investment for your company (e.g. to buy better machines, expand production, etc.) you let people invest (by buying shares) and then give them a portion of the profits gained from that investment (in the form of dividends).
However, most companies have figured out that if they don’t pay dividends but re-invest the money, shareholders are still happy because their shares get more valuable as the company grows and they get to grow the company, which is good for CEO paychecks.
There are also things like economies of scale (if you produce million units of something per year, it is almost always cheaper per unit than if you produce ten per year). So if you don’t grow, your competitor that does grow could sell cheaper than you and put you out of business.
- Comment on The end of tt-rss.org 5 weeks ago:
Care to elaborate?
- Comment on Google's shocking developer decree struggles to justify the urgent threat to F-Droid 5 weeks ago:
So what is the case for most users? Are normal android phones getting compromised often enough it is an issue?
- Comment on Google's shocking developer decree struggles to justify the urgent threat to F-Droid 1 month ago:
Yeah, I was the one mentioning QubesOS. Since I they it and didn’t last a week because of how bad the user experience was. I am not a CIA spy, I am looking for a balance of security and usability and android is amazing at that. Sure, some things could be more secure. Sure, I can’t do some things because GrapheneOS can’t be rooted. But the balance is excelent.
- Comment on Google's shocking developer decree struggles to justify the urgent threat to F-Droid 1 month ago:
Well, yes. But then again, I would trust my GrapheneOS phone not getting compromised over 3 linux devices.
- Comment on Google's shocking developer decree struggles to justify the urgent threat to F-Droid 1 month ago:
The security I am talking about has nothing to do with being locked down. Linux could easily implement the same, but it probably never will, because it requires a bit of central management and vision.