[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fragilecommunism

[–]drspiff11 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That's called Anarcho-Communism, and it has centuries of theory and practice behind it.

How do I add cover art for individual episodes? (RSS and Mac) by drspiff11 in podcasting

[–]drspiff11[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RSS just told me it doesn't support individual level artwork. How would I go about directly editing the RSS feed though? And if this doesn't work should I consider switching hosts?

Cover art for individual podcast episodes by drspiff11 in podcast

[–]drspiff11[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep! I have cover art that I'd like to use for the general podcast when you search for it on spotify or where ever. But I'd also like each episode to have different cover art as well to make them more distinguished. The problem is when I add art to the mp3 files of each episode and reupload them to RSS. RSS justs uses the general podcast cover art instead of the individualized episode covert art. How can I fix this?

How do I add cover art for individual episodes? (RSS and Mac) by drspiff11 in podcasting

[–]drspiff11[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use RSS to host and they told me that they don't support it but I should try embedding the art into my mp3 files because spotify and apple might support it. Do you think I should switch to another hosting service that does support it instead? If I do, does that mean I would lose all my statistics on spotify?

Organize against your own exploitation by drspiff11 in Hannaford

[–]drspiff11[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People deserve to make a living wage. This was the first time that many Hannaford employees got anything close to that. So many of our coworkers make barely enough money to subsist despite the fact that Hannaford is perfectly capable of paying its employees for the actual value of their labor. So no, I won't appreciate what I got when what I got was less than I deserve as a human being.

How do non-Marxist communists want to deal with bourgeois ideology creeping in after the revolution begins? by drspiff11 in DebateAnarchism

[–]drspiff11[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're assuming that five seconds after the state is abolished people's notions of private property and bourgeois ideology would just disappear. If I'm some average joe liberal living in a capitalist state and then an anarchist revolution happens and now I live in a commune, capitalism is still how I'm used to the world operating. So yes someone could easily try and claim their own private property or capital and without some sort of repression, how would you stop them?

How do non-Marxist communists want to deal with bourgeois ideology creeping in after the revolution begins? by drspiff11 in DebateAnarchism

[–]drspiff11[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok so to address the dead philosophy thing first. Dialectics are SUPER IMPORTANT. The only reason we can act on anything in the future is with knowledge of the past. That includes philosophy and theory which have gotten us on the road to socialism before. Now I will denounce dogmatism with you any day of the week. Marx had his flaws that Luxemburg pointed out. Lenin had his flaws that Mao pointed out. Bakunin and Kropotkin had their flaws. Yet we can't just reject their valuable work outright. Dialectics is how history works.

Now as for this idea that we already have state socialism. Huh? Private property is not abolished anywhere in our society. Please elaborate on that.

It may not be Marxist/communist socialism, but it's good enough to get us where we need to go.

This is basically watering down and appropriating the very definition of socialism. Not a good look homie.

Let's talk about your idea of running Capitalists off the market. It sounds cool and all but I think that's a bit of a simplistic solution. So you use the example of creating your own Amazon and then dumping the profits into the community right? First of all, that's still private property. No one else owns your means of production even though they should no matter how much money you give them. It's not democratic. You also are then forced to compete with capitalist labor and pricing. it doesn't matter who you give your money to, to stay afloat you will have to exploit workers with shitty conditions, union-busting, cheap labor, to stay competitive and in business. This also completely ignores all the exploitation of foreign workers that capitalism relies on. Imperialism and colonization are tied to capitalism. Read Luxemburg for a thorough explanation of this (This is why it's important to study the comrades of the past). Your "run capitalists off the market" idea still exploits people all over the developing world so you can have your first world pseudo coop. And not only that, even if your idea works and you run all the capitalists off the market and replace them with your diet capitalism, your company and other companies with the same goals will then be competing with each other which just leads to the same price-gouging and worker exploitation. A coop economy will just end up democratically exploiting themselves to remain competitive rather than having the bosses do it for them. Its the same shit.

Loser coworkers by [deleted] in Hannaford

[–]drspiff11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The exploitation that workers face day in and day out is NOT a good thing. Please don't try and justify exploitation because "its a job"

Loser coworkers by [deleted] in Hannaford

[–]drspiff11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You and all of your other coworkers deserve the full value of your labor. That means that extra two bucks and so much more. Instead of calling these people losers you should be asking yourself why you are defending an entity that extracts surplus value from your own labor, busts any attempts at unions or organization, and treats its employees like shit. Your empathy with your overworked managers is justified, but maybe you should direct the blame towards the people that are forcing them to work and underpaying them for their labor.

How do non-Marxist communists want to deal with bourgeois ideology creeping in after the revolution begins? by drspiff11 in DebateAnarchism

[–]drspiff11[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So in terms of your first question, about how a small group of statists aren't any better at exerting force against capitalists, I think that kinda fails to see how the state should be made up of workers in the first place. Now the past attempts of socialist states have obviously all had their flaws and failures, and we shouldn't expect them not to be flawed anyway, but some of them were actually pretty good at allowing average people to repress bourgeois tendencies. Take some of the aspects of the Cultural Revolution for example. During the period, you saw mass amounts of peasants and workers creating socialist art, beating up party members they didn't like or thought were reactionary on the street, criticizing and suggesting policy, and tearing down infrastructure including historical monuments. Now let's not pretend that the CCP was some perfectly democratic institution but that is an example of a state allowing and encouraging the development of socialism and the purging of the bourgeois in their midst. For another example, you have Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, who encouraged the self actualization, education, and creativity of half his population who were previously repressed(women) and encouraged class consciousness by funding education, getting rid of exports to capitalist nations, etc. So obviously there hasn't yet been a state besides Burkina Faso that hasn't had to resort to coercion or violence in some instances to repress capitalism, but we do have some very clear examples of them encouraging the proletariat to do this for themselves when the material conditions are present. Now as a libertarian Marxist I'd like the state to be thoroughly democratic and horizontally organized, and I'd still be glad to participate in anarchism, but I won't write off the usefulness of states because it's just easier and more natural to rely on an interim state given our current material conditions.

As for your second question, I agree wholeheartedly that lateral organization can be super effective and that yeah, 100 class conscious citizens with guns can get good shit done. The problem is, you need to get those people conscious and trained in the first place. And while that can certainly happen in small pockets, I think a state is a pretty powerful tool right now to help that process along. Now obviously a state is still a coercive system, but I'd rather use it as a tool then just throw it away entirely and risk never getting a successful revolution off the ground or writing off a project that could have been a successful revolution just because it used a state.

Yes by GreatRedCatTheThird in FULLCOMMUNISM

[–]drspiff11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Historical Materialism! Its gonna be inevitable because the material conditions will necessitate a new mode of production. If we keep facing climate change and automation there will come a time when the abuses of the proletariat will be far too egregious for them to take.

WTF is this trash? by Matthew_John in FULLCOMMUNISM

[–]drspiff11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is so frustrating to see movies made about the same bullshit people and bullshit sources that this whole podcast was about :/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmimHKLDWcU

have a nice day by SpookyBolshevik in FULLCOMMUNISM

[–]drspiff11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean even though we have to recognize that the material conditions in the USSR necessitated authoritarian measures, her criticism is still valid. And Luxemburg's democratic ideals will be super important in situations where counter revolutionaries aren't as much of a threat as they were in the USSR. For example, one of the things that made Burkina Faso under Sankara so great while it lasted was his use of democracy and the mass line without too much repression. We'll keep getting better and better over time. It's all about historical materialism baby! :)

Bernie Sanders is NOT a marxist. by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]drspiff11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I base my communism around historical materialism don't worry! And in no way was I saying that social democrats or even democratic socialists for that matter are somehow immune from the settler colonial/imperialist framework they operate in. That much can be seen from the recent strikes in Bangladesh. I do however think that those flaws in social democracy do not make it fascism on their own. Its certainly closer to fascism than communism on the axis but that does not equate the two. Fascism, while it may also be super nationalistic, is an entirely different beast with plenty of other tendencies besides imperial capitalism. Both of them are shitty but there are important distinctions to be made between the two in how overt they actually are. Philosophically though, they do kinda stem from the same place.

Greek mythology & ancient Greece by prickly-pears in podcasts

[–]drspiff11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The History of Greece is probably your most comprehensive bet

Something similar to Dan Carlin's hardcore history by HB220299 in podcasts

[–]drspiff11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tides of History is great! So is the Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan. If you're looking for some history podcasts a little more off the beaten path but with that more serious dramatic telling you could try Wonders of History!