sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Forced labor is when labor is done involuntarily, under the threat of penalty. That would be what the working class is subjected to under capitalism. You must work for your capitalist overlords to give you enough for basic subsistence. Don't work, face the repercussions of poverty, even though we already produce enough to feed you.

The USSR never fully achieved communism, even by its own admission. So they still operated under a capitalist mode of production with respect to the global economy. So people were also required to work, but there were many improvements. Worker conditions and rights we're far better in the USSR. The USSR had the "right to work" policy, meaning as long as you are willing to work, you're fine, even if it means sitting in an office doing little. The USSR also operated the means of production in a centralized manner towards bettering its society and reducing working hours.

You called it "directed labor". Not sure what you mean by this, but you later called it "slavery". I suppose you could call it wage slavery, as it still operated in surplus production, but it was an improvement on capitalism and towards achieving communism. People were working for their own interests and needs, not for capitalist profits.

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

My issue with this definition is how vague it is.

You first start by talking about marrying liberalism and minarchism. I assumed you meant that as an intro and less as a definition, but if you meant it as a definition, I would need to understand: what of liberalism and what of minarchy are you taking? Should I just take the Wikipedia definition and trust that you'll follow it?

You then said maximizing rights and freedoms of the individual, and minimize the size of the state.

The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough? Some see States in modern Western nations as small, not intervening as much in personal matters compared to the 3rd world, and they offer many freedoms in comparison. But some view them as too big. If you left that up to the reader to decide, then some will call the US small enough, at least in its internal politics.

And then which rights are necessary? Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school. Is the right to hate speech required? Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required? Who even decides and enforces that?

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I love how you ignored everything in the article except what could possibly agree with your viewpoint. On your first quote, the link they cite does not exist anymore. In the video you linked, I hear gunshots but don't see people running away from them. As someone from a country that saw unrest and shooting at protests, I can tell you that people immediately start running when they're shot at, emptying the area. Not continue to March nonchalantly.

In the end, I want to conclude with saying that I didn't deny that anyone died (although the comment I linked does seem to imply that. My apologies for not clarifying, as I was only using them to back up my opinion). What I said in the original comment is that it is not an issue worth my attention. I've seen and read about so many government rerpression, and this is far from being in the top 10. It's an unnecessarily magnified issue.

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Plenty of evidence cited there from multiple sources. You don't have to open it, but the evidence is there shall you question it.

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Plenty of sources provided in there (ny times, reuters, etc), but if you were the kind to examine evidence, you wouldn't be here anyways.

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

Reading comprehension. Learn it.

Can you please tone down the unnecessary aggression? I understand politics can be sensitive but we prefer to keep this place civil.

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I'd be happy to tackle this with you, but just to avoid the frequent "actually, this isn't libertarianism, this is the other X system", can you please define libertarianism from your perspective?

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah acorns doesn't count as an investment,

view more: ‹ prev next ›

cyclohexane

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF