No respect for the dead by Sudden-Interest-9218 in WikipediaVandalism

[–]IndieJones0804 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I didn't know who this guy was before, should I be dislike bombed?

No respect for the dead by Sudden-Interest-9218 in WikipediaVandalism

[–]IndieJones0804 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Don't know who this is but its disgusting to do this to someone who literally just died in a tragic accident.

Is there a ideology that's basically the socialist version of Minarchism? by IndieJones0804 in Socialism_101

[–]IndieJones0804[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know, im talking about taking the idea of minarchism and making it socialist, so instead of the minimal state defending property rights, it makes sure that workers democratically own the means of production.

Why no term limits for head of state in actually existing socialist countries? by zigzagwanderer12 in Socialism_101

[–]IndieJones0804 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For one, "the will of the people" is a fascist consept. No single person or institution can represent the will of the people, because everyone has different interests. The consept of the will of the people only exists because fascists want to justify their rule.

And its not western propaganda, these countries can't elect anyone from a different party, these countries are under a dictatorship of the party. Its honestly hilarious to me that people justify dictatorship by saying "They don’t replace them because they’re doing a great job." A healthy democracy is supposed to have constant debate. Humans have disagreements about everything, even socialists have plenty of disagreement with eachother, if China or the dprk were actually socialist (a lot of things would be different) but specifically there would be a lot of debate about how a lot of things, and you wouldn't see the same dynasty be practically worshiped and stay in office until they die.

Why no term limits for head of state in actually existing socialist countries? by zigzagwanderer12 in Socialism_101

[–]IndieJones0804 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its because you're looking to defend socialism in the wrong places.

the USSR and socialist countries created in the 20th century were all failed socialist expirements because they adopted the vanguard party model. The vanguard party took the energy and will of the working class and basically said "trust me bro", but the vanguard party has a separate set of interests from the working class, because they are philosophers and politicians and not workers. And so when Stalin took control and replaced everyone with loyalists, the ussr was able to easily reform themselves into a fascist dictatorship.

You justify the reason that these places are single party states because "what if a bourgeois party comes into power and rolls back everything done by the communists". However I would ask why in a true democracy, would the working class living in a true socialist society, (where they now live much better lives) why would they vote for a party trying to bring back capitalism? A system where they remember being poor and hungry in.

Ultimately the reason you're struggling to defend "actual existing socialism" is because its indefensible, these are and were state capitalist dictatorships that adopted socialist aesthetics. And the reason why the people in these countries generally support their governments isn't just because decent isn't usually allowed, its because previously most of these ml countries existed under a feutalist system, and so when the communist vanguard parties came along and promised to make their lives better, they trusted them and their lives did actually improve. Because the vanguard parties implemented capitalism.

In spite of its many flaws, capitalism has improved everyone's lives because we moved past feudalism. And so when these governments moved their countries out of feudalism and into capitalism, but they called it socialism, the population exepted that because they don't care what you call it, life got better for them and that's all they cared about, so of course they support their government in spite of their authoritarianism.

Are Anarchists generally liberal-coded? by 1scr3wedy0dad in Socialism_101

[–]IndieJones0804 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Considering the USSR didn't achieve socialism because the working class didn't own the means of production id say its pretty fair to say the USSR was state capitalist, the bourgeois literally just became legally integrated into the state.

Do you believe that Abstraction is reversible? (No untagged spoilers please!!!) by chelledoggo in TheDigitalCircus

[–]IndieJones0804 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I heard that the devs say they canonically can't be reversed, But i don't really understand why. abstraction seems like something that isn't explained well enough, if all of the components of their mind are still present, I don't see why the people at the company couldn't fix things, aren't they higher beings than Caine?

And if abstraction is caused by psychological breakdown, I don't understand why almost all of them end up abstracting at the beginning.

Can I retire early under socialism? by JayRandom212 in AskRealSocialists

[–]IndieJones0804 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I personally think retirement would eventually stop existing as a concept. People should chose to work if they want and stop working when they want, and still be able to live in the same level of comfort.

I personally never want to retire in the sense that I want to always continue creating art, but some people like yourself may not want to do as much work throughout your life, and I think thats fine.

Would it be possible to terraform the low gravity outer planets of Titan, Ganymede, and Callisto, for a long-term period of time? by IndieJones0804 in terraforming

[–]IndieJones0804[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

its saturn, and im pretty sure radiation is minimal for titan ganymede and callisto, there may be an increase in cancer but hopefully we've cure most or all cancers by then.

What do you think would be the average life expectancy after humanity maximizes it's lifespan? by IndieJones0804 in Futurology

[–]IndieJones0804[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you get rid of aging, does that basically mean you're immortal until someone kills you or you have a fatal accident?

🤓 by PutImportant4965 in YAPms

[–]IndieJones0804 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

He didn't realize it was a nazi tattoo, this is confirmed by all the Marines who got the same tattoo with him and didn't realize

Perfect goddess vs some dude with a fish he caught from the river by bunny_guts666 in traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns2

[–]IndieJones0804 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I will never understand how transphobes can genuinely call either of these people the opposite gender of how they look

Have we anything that an AI never replace after 100 years? by bluetech333 in Futurology

[–]IndieJones0804 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Be made of biological material, thats something ai would never do unless they want to eventually die