I get it, you won’t buy because you think it’s expensive. I think it’s expensive as well. Actually, even if I thought the opposite, it wouldn’t make a difference because I don’t have the money to buy something like that to begin with.

What I wanted to say is, even if I can’t afford it, we will benefit from the development of this industry as well. Because the Linux system is an operating system with a vocal (but extremely disorganized) free software community.

You are treating ideas and actions – theory and practice – as if they were separate and isolated things. As if any action is not also guided by the ideas. In the days before the Russian revolutions, when Russian Marxism was but a seed, there was mainly one “ideological communist”, which was Plekhanov. Although Lenin would later correctly criticize Plekhanov, he credits him for the growth of Russian Marxism through his published books. Lenin was also called an “ideologue”, and what would later become the Bolshevik Party was called a “study club”. The Bolshevik Party would later become the guiding force of the 1917 revolution.

You ask where did Lenin possibly go wrong in ensuring a dictatorship of the proletariat when you talk about the dissolution of the USSR 80 years later, while ignoring the fact that this was the first dictatorship of the proletariat in history for 80 years. The burden is on your back to show where Lenin got wrong, because he has shown in practice the feasibility of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the theoretical correctness of his analyses.

The PCF’s abandonment of the term is therefore a political washing of the term so the dictatorship of the proletariat is said to be something from the past, and not actually possible to implement in practice. This is a defeatist and infantile point of view, and is in opposition to Marxism in general. I should remind you that Marxists do not underestimate the importance of theory and its relationship with practice.

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. (Marx, 1843, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, bolder emphasis added.)

PCF’s ideas reinforce the defeatist position, when history has shown us that it is in fact possible for a dictatorship of the proletariat to be implemented, so yes, this should be insisted more vigorously indeed. You sound like the Anarchists who thinks that we can “abolish the state”, and consequently, “abolish classes” overnight. You ignore that a socialist revolution in encircled by capitalist states, which promote counter-revolutionary activities and intervention. The position you are defending is in fact the idealist one. You also seem to ignore that

1. Marx was mostly an ideologue (as in a propagandist and theorist). His practice included insisting on his position during his life.
2. Marx defended the dictatorship of the proletariat long before Lenin. Here’s a 1852 Marx letter:
   
   Now as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. (even bolder emphasis added)

This should enlighten your confusion and hopefully invite you to study this debate further.

If you think Marxism-Leninism is a “finished” theoretical framework, then you haven’t grasped at the idea that history is constantly ever-changing, and that theory needs to adapt to space and time.

This article however, reminds us that while Leninism is not a closed theoretical framework, the dictatorship of the proletariat still stands as a real political objective to be pursued.

But if on the other hand you remain content with a superficial view of these contradictions and of their historical causes, if you remain content with the simplistic and false idea according to which you have to “choose” between the standpoint of theory and that of history, real life and practice, if you interpret Lenin’s arguments simply as a reflection of ever changing circumstances, less applicable the further away they are in history, then the real causes of these historical contradictions become unintelligible, and our own relation to them becomes invisible.

Systemd is supposed to be simply an init system. It does way too much than its function. It’s also produced by a corporation, Red Hat, so we can be sure this creeping feature of systemd is by design. I use OpenRC, and I actually feel my laptop doesn’t hang like when I used systemd and it initializes faster as well.

Systemd also launches updates constantly, rarely because of security, and ot updates so fast that it’s hard to track the changes in the software and audit what the software is doing with our computers.

The billionaire corporation Red Hat “donates” to Desktops like GNOME (see their supporters) with one of the conditions being that they use their software. The creeping design of systemd locks desktops into their ecosystem because there are no alternatives for an init system with so many functions, because an init system shouldn’t do what systemd does in the first place. And since systemd dominates the market further and further (Sep 2020, KDE adopted systemd as well), there seems to be no solution for that. Most software are developed with systemd in mind. I’ve seen way too many applications developed with systemd in mind and depending on systemd software. This is locking the user in their ecosystem.

I understand people doubt me, but my experience with OpenRC showed me how an init system is supposed to be designed. And Red Hat is a profit machine, so I wonder if systemd isn’t doing some creepy stuff on your computer. At least my computer doesn’t hang and crash as much as when I used systemd.

The largest landowner in the US has a 6 million acre land

This could be merely a question of time, any new “paradigm” could make its way into the average consumer if it shows to be affordable and usable. Linux was actually very used in peripheral countries for a while to prevent the abusive fees Microsoft exploit through intellectual property when an institution uses a pirated Windows copy. The government of my country used GNU/Linux for a long time, and we even had a GNU/Linux operating system of our own, Kurumin Linux.

The only reason Windows became so prevalent in peripheral countries after a while is because now manufacturers of computer machines have a clo$e relation$hip with Microsoft’s very fat offers and the sellers become obliged to sell the machines with Windows installed if they do not wish to get heavily fined for it.

Still, Linux accesibility has nothing to do with its design or its ‘mentality’, in my opinion, but it’s admittedly rarely used nowadays.

How haven’t you heard of International Publishers?

Linux development took way too much time to enter the market, and therefore will face tremendous difficulties, but it is indeed a step in the right direction. Having GNU/Linux phones can open many possibilities in software development, and most definitely, free software. You’re right about the ecosystem issue, though. I have no idea how they will pull it off, but PinePhone has been able to do wonders with their resources lately.

systemd is a bloated mess. Don’t ever use it.

TL;DR: “Reading is hard for me and I make no effort to read anymore”

How does it treat Khrushchev’s 1956 speech?

Do they mean abolishing serfdom and improving overall living standards? Yes, the US definitely doesn’t come even close

I see a new Linux distribution everyday

China and DPRK actually have a multi-party system, but in any case, if the working class interests are the center of a party, there’s no need for other parties to guarantee democracy. Democracy is developed both inside and outside the party. This idea that you need multiple meaningless choices is ingrained in bourgeois ideology. But here we are, in bourgeois states with no democracy whatsoever when deciding what our nation produces, why it produces it, how it uses its resources, who benefits from them, but hey, we have 37 different choices of bubblegum flavour and 20 different options of bourgeois parties (all defending the interests of the bourgeoisie).

If you consider the anticommunist nature of US ideology, you may consider US was a fascist nation for the whole of the 20th century. Racial apartheid and terrorism, slavery, the amount of Nazis inside the US was no joke. Hitler was actually inspired by the US and thought of it as an exemplary system

How can you see all this and consider yourself a “Libertarian” communist? Don’t you wish the people united to hang and shoot those parasites that exploit us so that they get what they deserve?

What is the context of this post?

Fun fact: the top-level domain name for Mali is the one we use for Lemmygrad: .ml

“As a descendant of a fascist state supporter, I support a fascist state”

Usually I download images here to share in other spaces, mainly bourgeois social media, and they don’t handle those very well