III go to your room

• Massive attack
• saint pepsi
• chemical toilet
• the pecan sandies

nationalized industry under a capitalist mode of production just turns the state into a collective capitalist

Besides the fact that Engels saw “state capitalism” as he defined it as a positive, final stage of capitalism (he was wrong on that since the transition to socialism has always occurred in feudal countries, not in the core countries where capitalism is strongest, but that discussion is better suited to lemmygrad or hexbear), as Lenin and later socialist leaders noted, state capitalism has different potential definitions:

“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly”

• Marx

“The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.“

• Lenin

None of these socialist thinkers meant the term to be used in the ultraleft definition you’re using, as a tool to demonize actually exist socialist states and decry them as “not socialist enough”.

China’s economy still runs on wage labor, commodity production, capital accumulation,

Good, developing the productive forces, building a thriving socialist market economy and putting that capital to use to serve the whole people, is the goal of every current socialist state.

massive billionaire class extracting surplus value

As I linked below, the PRC is a mixed economy, where the publicly owned and planned sector predominates, and there is also a restricted private / capitalist sector. I don’t expect an ultraleft to be familiar with the “bargain” strategy, but having a capitalist sector within an overall planned economy, has resulted in the export of tech and production to China, with it becoming an economic powerhouse and primary trading partner for most of the world, and real wages rising 4x in the past 30 years alone. The limited and short term wage exploitation in the private sector (in reality, its a small expense to buy off private capital and keep them operating within the socialist legal framework), has under a socialist government resulted in those incredible economic gains, whereas the capitalist 3rd world is still writhing in poverty, and completely at the mercy of western finance capital.

Plus, you can’t claim the working class controls the state when independent unions are banned, strikes are suppressed,

False. The PRC even supports more strikes than nearly any other country, which clearly irks the western finance rag I linked. Also, people don’t have much reason to strike because of the people’s congresses in nearly every workplace, and the wages rising so much recently. They of course don’t allow US-sponsored strikes and slowdowns, which do happen occasionally.

private CEOs literally sit in the national legislature

A small number of them do, which of course is a good thing if you want to make sure that they’re working towards the betterment of the country, and to avoid them organizing an opposition. Regardless, they do not control the state, and capital has no enshrined rights, especially to organize.

If you’re going to demonize socialist countries in the future, at least post sources for your claims.

I argue that class is inevitable under any form of administrative government. the goal is to tie ultimate power to the will of the people.

Then you’re disagreeing with the way all Marxists and even liberal academics define class: which is relation to production, and you’re also completely wrong that power is divorced from production, or surplus value.

The differerence between capitalist and socialist countries is the control over this surplus. US capitalists control production, the surplus, and have a puppet government enact their interests against those of its workers. Its members unilaterally decide how to use that surplus.

The PRC has the major key industries nationalized, and in that sector surplus can only be controlled by democratic decision-making, not the whims of private capital. No member of the NPC can unilaterally decide how to use that surplus in the same way a private capitalist in the US can.

A limited, restricted private sector of capitalists also exists, but they do not stand above political power, have no enshrined rights, and must follow the dictates of the worker state.

Wrong.

Is China State Capitalist?

• The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
• Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
• Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
• Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
• Is the CPC committed to communism?
• The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
• The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
• Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
• Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
• Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
• Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
• What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
• How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
• Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
• Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
• Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
• Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
• China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
• Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
• How the State runs business in China.
• 50% of the economy is in the socialist public sector and directly follows the plan (40% if you ignore the agricultural sector). 20 to 30% is inside the state capitalist sector, which is the sector partially or totally owned by domestic capitalists but run by the CPC or by local workers councils. The rest is made up of the small bourgeois ownership like in the NEP.
• China pushing forward Marxist training in colleges, attracts 1M students.
• China tells the US that it has no plans to weaken the role of its State-Owned-Enterprises, one of the US’s main demands in the trade war. “Beijing plans to make the state economy stronger, bigger, and better.”

Your CIA anti-communist playbook is really easy to see through.

Cool chart, what book is that from?

I’m referring to these new projects coded by AI from scratch, not existing projects which have an occasional LLM contribution.

People are submitting a lot of these AI projects recently.

I’m mostly referring to these new projects that are AI coded from scratch, not existing projects that might have some LLM contributions.

It would require too many server resources for lemmy instances to become video hosting services, but you can use torrents:

https://join-lemmy.org/docs/users/02-media.html#images-and-video

Are you seeing your instance as a means to patiently persue a certain ideology rather than allowing free speech and open uninterupted and respectful discourse?

We have no obligation to platform pro-genocide, patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive speech, and more, we have a moral obligation to silence those bigoted groups, deprive them of their right to speak, and prevent them from spreading their harmful views, and not only for the mental health of our users, of whom many are members of those targeted groups, but because we know that its the modus operandi of these white-supremacist/bigoted groups to set up nazi bars on social media platforms to spread their views, get people to associate and agree with them, and grow. The correct answer has always been, and remains, to deny them a platform.

If other servers, following the line of reddit and other US social media companies, want to platform those views to increase ragebait engagement and their user counts, there’s nothing we can do about that, but at least here we can think about the long-term mental health of our users, which is far more important than user counts.

Fediverse instances are like email servers, if they call something spam and don’t want to host it, then that’s their prerogative. Arguments for “free speech” do not require them to host what you want them to host.

We also don’t buy the liberal notion of “free speech”, and think that even if there was such a thing, liberal countries and spaces don’t actually practice it. Much like all liberal countries have a long history of banning anti-capitalist / anti-imperialist speech, organizing, and communist political parties, the instance you’re on also doesn’t adhere to “free and open speech”: they’ve blocked the most popular leftist instances in the fediverse (hexbear and lemmygrad), to shield their userbase from those views.

I don’t understand why we need this division, and though you decry it in your comment, through actions or inactions, communities and moderators on your instance are allowed to amplify this division.

We have a be respectful rule here, and we do enforce it with temp bans, however it is unavoidable that some people (especially when venturing outside of lemmy.ml), encounter extremely bigoted and pro-genocide takes, and that makes them understandably angry. Still, if you see people from our instance breaking that rule, then report it, and we’ll get to it when we can.

How come you seem to allow communities who are moderated by a single user who repeatedly bans people just because they don’t like what someone says in an instant?

To be instant banned for a few paragraphs. Then being name called by that mod, in a community without any rules, and then being banned with the reason ‘Zionist’ while I am just about 180º the opposite is not the way to persuade people like me.

I don’t know the circumstances, so you’d have to be more specific, linking examples. We made the modlog public, and its possible to link to every modded item to see what happened.

I listed the challenges, how hard it was to communicate, how I was past the point of all hope to see it ever improving. Then the person said to me: “Good. So what are you going to do about it?”

Despite ideological differences, and some loud users on other servers demanding more defederations, we actually have good relations with most other fediverse server admins and runners. We don’t make demands on each other, each server has full autonomy to take mod actions on both local and federated users, and that autonomy is respected.

is people making assumptions about other’s beliefs based soley on their instance of choice. It’s not helpful, it’s not generative, and it’s a waste of everyone’s time.

Spot on. Taking countries as an analogy for fediverse instances, we shouldn’t make all the citizens of those countries into an ideological monolith: there’s always a diversity of views, even if some views are more predominant than others because they’re encouraged from the top.

And above all we should not be alienating and unecessarily divisive to those who, with a little education and prodding in the right direction, will side with the majority of the world’s workers. Our job is to make allies, patiently educate, and create more caring people.

I don’t doubt that these incentives also drive the push for passkeys, but passkeys are much more opaque and tightly integrated with the OS, and is thus more vulnerable to centralization.

I’m not sure what you mean by integrated into the OS. I use a FOSS password manager on android (keepassdx), storing passkeys both for apps and websites. When the browser or an app asks for a passkey, android uses the password filling service you’ve chosen (in my case keepass), and it loads up, no differently from when there’s a password prompt. I’m not sure how it works on other platforms like iOS, windows, or linux, but at least on android, you can use a FOSS password manager not integrated into the OS.

They are. Authy is the biggest offender I know.

Specific sites aren’t locking down TOTP, this seems to be an EEE scheme of Authy specifically, since as you say the TOTP codes provided by sites still work with other authenticators. I’m referring to the case where say, amazon forces you to use their app to login, or creates their own custom TOTP or passkey app, and won’t let you log into their site without it, and then you have no control over your login method or codes.

I’m sure a lot of people (like myself) would refuse to install a special custom TOTP app just to be able to use one site. They’re only hurting TOTP adoption by doing that, and thus increasing the amount of support resources they need to allocate to account hacking / hijacking.

I’m sure there are other companies too willing to go against their economic interests for various reasons, but they’re going to be in the minority.

Once you can correctly answer the question you responded to, you’ll see why its against their material interests to EEE logins, whether its TOTP or passkeys.

No, but the “normal, worst case” usage of passwords is still far worse than even that case. Most people just re-use the same password for everything. This is why almost all companies use phone numbers and text messages as a totp now.

If we’re comparing worst usage of passwords vs worst usage of passkeys, passkeys still wins.

Question: Why did these corps implement TOTP? You should be able to answer this from an economic perspective of them trying to save money.

Another question: why aren’t these corporations locking down TOTP to restrict them to their own validator apps, in the same way you’re proposing that they might do for passkeys?

That’s entirely optional and not forced. You can use FOSS password managers that store your passkeys, that can log into all those services.

If you’re referring to proprietary password managers (IE like google or apples), then that concern applies equally to all the passwords you’re storing with them. So that concern is not specific to passkeys.

I’m using a FOSS password manager for like 6+ passkeys right now, on some of the biggest sites. So this is just demonstratably false.

but in practice they’re being pushed as a way to increase lock-in

Which ones are doing this? Give specific examples of sites that are forcing you to use a specific TOTP or passkey validator.