Love how the exact same thing is now being said about the US lmao (the collapse part at least), I LOVE the media machine

Oh I absolutely agree, my comment was mostly just a joke.

But that would mean I'd have to start supporting JD cause he finally did something good.... (i dislike organized religion)

Just because something is initially successful doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, and I'm saying that as a proponent of a vanguard party or similar form of centralized organization, given how it's a necessity post-revolution.

USSR's revolution was successful thanks to the Bolshevik Party, but after a while it was clear that the party had replaced the proletariat as the ruling class and instead had started to direct/rule over the workers (in order words, the party became Substitutionist). Later on, the party had fully succumbed to revisionism and eventual collapse. Similar thing happened to China, and even though the party didn't disappear, it's without a question a bourgeoisie party and you'd need insane amount of misinterpretation of Marxist theory to claim otherwise.

For other revolutions like in Cuba or Vietnam, even though the same thing applies right from the get-go (given how Stalin is a revisionist), one could argue that they weren't Marxist revolutions, but rather part of anti-colonial wave of the 20th century that's more in the ballpark of "bourgeois-nationalist revolution". Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh was particularly explicit about this.

And to go back to the first point I made, a fun example that would push this kind of logic would be what's happening to US right now - Trump has successfully gone into power twice now, it doesn't automatically mean that his success means that he and his policies are correct.

While I do like your writing style and think you're quite talented at it, that's just a bunch of ML revisionism/State capitalist (Dengist) apologetics that misrepresents Marx.

Not gonna thoroughly debunk it cause it's a wall of text, but ownership =/= mode of production. Marx never said that public ownership alone makes something socialist, what matters is how things are produced: Is it for exchange or use? Is labor still waged? Does surplus value still exist and get extracted? If yes - that's still capitalism therefore not Marxist.

You also claim that "Marx didn't think you could abolish private property by making it illegal" which is true cause else it would be idealism, but then you use this to spin it into "that's why we need to let firms develop then make them public" while in reality what Marx meant is that we should abolish capital relations, not co-exist with capital and preserve businesses until they're "ready".

You're also trying to spin the "by degrees" quote from the manifesto to act as if Marx argued for gradual market-led process of evolution from Capitalism to Socialism (or in other words, keeping Capitalism and Markets for decades after the revolution) and not a revolutionary process of abolition of Capital entirely.

That isn't Marxism, but maybe I'm just too ideologically pure and idealistic. Still, I think being more honest that it's not actually "classical Marxism" wouldn't hurt.

If you maintain public control over the large firms and industries, and the proletariat controls the state, you remain on the Socialist road.

Agree, there has to be DOTP directly after the revolution which has to retain some capitalist features, mostly for economic survival purposes.

However, once the military struggle against capitalists are over and economy is sufficiently reorganized, a country has to quickly abolish the value form and actually turn to a socialist mode of production, else it risks either backpedaling to capitalism and/or turning revisionist. This is precisely what happened to USSR, given how they couldn't transition to socialist mode of production due to their peasant problem + Stalin's delusions of "Socialism in one state".

If there's an active maintenance in post-revolutionary period of capitalist mode of production, then the country is capitalist even if the production is nationalized or owned by workers.

Markets themselves are not necessarily Capitalism.

Historically markets predate Capitalism, so yes, but they're never socialist or communist given how socialist mode of production does away with commodity production. If commodity production is abolished, then commodity exchange (markets) can no longer exist. This does mean that market socialism is capitalist as commodity production remains, the law of value remains, all that's different when compared to Capitalism is that the state regulates it which doesn't magically make it socialist.

Anarchists would still have to deal with scale in terms of trade, production and centralization - after all, not every commune would be able to produce penicillin, insulin, chips, phones, steel, etc as a hobby. In other words, they would still have to replace capitalist system to a decent enough extent to be able to meet all their needs.

Pretty much, it all comes down about what maximizes user's time on the platform so they can see the maximum amount of ads and produce the most amount of unpaid labor in the form of comments/content.

Social media can be good though if a creator is genuinely a positive role model that a teen otherwise wouldn't have due to their environment (speaking from experience), but given this focus on profit rather than positive social change and connection, it just ends up being hateful shit most of the time.

Capitalism is a global system, it is based on exchange value and things being produced and sold for a profit, not for use (which is known as commodity production), and if you want to trade internationally, you have to follow this capitalist mode of production. Communism, on the other hand, aims to abolish the production of commodities (money included) and instead produce goods for use. Notice how these two systems differ so much, international trade between actual communist and capitalist countries becomes impossible given how differently they value things.

Now consider how today's capitalist nations are so dependent on trade, and it's because trade allows nations to prosper, to grow, to have increased standards of living and gives the nations access to materials they otherwise couldn't have produced within their local borders. If a nation goes full isolationist, it loses access to all of that and the nation becomes crippled.

So there's three ways for communist countries to go about the global capitalist system:

1. Go full isolationist, which would cripple a country substantially.
2. Participate in the capitalist market, meaning the country would be forced to produce commodities and participate in capital exchange which would make them, in one definition or another, capitalist. This also heavily risks the country to fall into full capitalism with time (as seen historically).
3. Support worker movements internationally en masse and hope they succeed with achieving their revolutions. If they succeed, only then can exchange value be safely abolished, goods be produced for use instead of profit, and international socialist/communist trade can actually happen with people having their needs met.

It's clear that international communist revolution is pretty much the only viable way forward, and the only opportunity to do so failed (with Spartacist uprising, Hungrarian Soviet Republic, etc being crushed, leaving USSR standing pretty much alone).

So to answer your question with all this nonsensical wall of text in mind, no. Actual communist/socialist mode of production has never existed (therefore whether communist ideology works hasn't been proven), as any experiments so far had essentially been capitalist.

There's just a lack of good role models out there for kids, especially on social media. If one is unlucky enough to be born in an environment where "Tateism" might "make sense" (like bring sheltered, not having friendly interactions with girls or having masculinity drilled into you by parents), then the narratives the manosphere provides can become very compelling.

At the same time, kids are always up to stupid shit so it's possible that this is just some edgy phase one can overcome with life experience.

Stalinists, Maoists and Socialists (at least the reformist ones) are pro-capital, just under a different form. They love their commodity production and wage labor...

The revolution will be achieved through endless shitposting from the comfort of our armchairs

Coal mining, I fucking love mining coal

Not an anarchist, don't agree with its theory but I'm glad to see posts like these actually encouraging people to read.

Never said Anarchists are against democracy as a whole, only that they're against liberal democracies and I'd argue even more so than other anti-capitalists.

After all, it is a form of rule, it directly supports a system that has private ownership/state monopolized violence/social hierarchies, the majority vote can still lead to oppression of the minority (like we see with US, UK, right-wing regimes across the world, erosion of workers rights), etc.

It is critical of liberal democracy, yes, but not all democracy like for instance, democracy in labor unions.

Not really feeling like writing a wall of text, but essentially, liberal democracies are just a form of a class rule of the bourgeoisie (the class of factory/land/business owners) given how much disproportionate power they have over the proletariat (the working class) through their media control, the need for campaign financing, the level of entry needed to even get into politics and connections needed, etc.

Notice how even with liberal democracy that we're told is the greatest thing since sliced bread or "rule by the people", the working class is weaker than ever in the west and the world is drifting towards fascism. It's not by accident, if there's any actual meaningful change to be had, one needs to act outside the democratic system, action which is inherently undemocratic.

I simplified it, but this isn't some radical looney tankie take - any Marxist or even some Anarchists might share the general sentiment.

I'm on Linux, using Bottles to run pirated games. It adds a little bit of sandboxing, compatdata is usually a weird environment for malware to effectively work in (unless the malware is written specifically for it), if the game is really sketchy then I'd just disable network access for bottles flatpak too just to make sure.

All in all, I do sometimes have a little bit of paranoia and look through processes to see if there's anything running and periodically go through some folders to see if there's anything weird or unusual there, I'd still consider my machine to be safe.

As for the last question, PDF's are an attack vector and should be used with caution. As for other file types, it depends on the software you use to run them - if it's something pretty barebones that just plays it then it's usually fine, but if its something more complex and reads some custom data embeded into those files, then it can be a vulnerability. Not a security expert though, but it's the gist I got from looking at some historical vulnerabilities.

Hey, I've seen this one before

We're definitely not getting out of Capitalism, especially when:

• The loudest anti-capitalists don't even know what capitalism is exactly (why read and study it when you can go for vibe based approach) or are outright pro-capitalist but instead pushing for a more "humane" version of it and sometimes fighting actual anti-capitalists.
• Most people are content with accepting the worldview they were born into (the liberal/Capitalist one) instead of actually attempting to examine reality for what it truly is, seek answers and do a double take on who they should be supporting, especially nowadays.

Interesting, verbatim searches work perfectly for me. Maybe it's some search engine that doesn't support them? I personally have bing/google/duckduckgo selected.