Especially since calling a laptop “<some>book” is hardly a civilization-level achievement, hardly even an idea, it’s fashion and I approve of Chinese treating trademarks like this.
I think trademarks and patents should die. We’d see a better world without them, and very quickly.
It’s still more like a townsquare with everyone talking than like a bunch of thematic pubs, so - doesn’t feel the same.
Not exactly.
Leftist ideologies include dogmatic statements. Just like all other ideologies. Otherwise we wouldn’t use the word “ideology” at all.
If this were true, you’d say that left ideas are the closest to your expectation of what’s best and that’d be fine, and not call yourself leftist. Now it’s as if you are putting ideology above practice.
Which would be the same as me always feeling as if I were lying while, say, saying that I’m a libertarian or a distributist, because I have no permanent attachment to any ideology, just these seem sane now. So I rarely say that and feel bad when I do.
Which efficient and not failing systems does your kind of leftists propose?
Leaving it open is a valid political position of making efficiency more important than ideology.
I don’t know which architectures may be invented in the future to work, I’m not against them coming from leftist premises, but I’ve met fewer leftists interested in even imagining them than libertarians or even conservatives.
When most leftists are too busy with hating on groups of people and thinking about what others own, it’s really hard to talk to them about anything real.
I’ve literally finished my comment with it.
If your point is …
You know, of course, that the answer to that “if” is usually “no”, and this is called a strawman argument.
… then I’m afraid …
No reason to be afraid! Sing and dance and hug your family, friends and house animals.
… relatively few historical examples … people sharing tools …
People have been sharing tools since eating less fortunate breeds of people, the optimal architecture of that is the point of contention.
Never tried for real, I see.
Why would one hate right ideas then, of the libertarian kind.
Historians studying them don’t hate, true, but we also don’t hate plague or dog shit on the road.
There’s no such thing as bad or good taste, when it’s limited to one’s choices.
When you are calling your own taste good, or some other person’s taste good just because, and make it something social - that’ll always be bad taste.
Yeah, and market doesn’t have anything to do with taste.
About the photo - if not for that horrible floor, I’d like it. Should have made it solid dark gray.
EDIT: LOL, I see a few people strongly disagree with the fact that it’s really bad taste to pretend that taste is not subjective.
That’s actually the only thing determining “bad” and “good” taste - when the thing’s appearance clearly shows that the author thought their taste is “good” by association alone, like Disney Star Wars or maybe by imitating a style which is “good”.
There are, of course, things like laws of composition and colors chosen etc, but these are still not objective and differ for various kinds of art.
The current government rejects the SR
Legally it’s very appreciative of it. Ukraine is probably the only ex-USSR state which hasn’t just discarded anything Soviet as “legacy of occupation” or whatever else in legal domain, where it matters.
And, of course, the “recognized borders” and so on they just love.
and endlessly lionizes the OUN and shit like that.
How do I say that … Some of the Ukrainian patriotic songs which you can find on YouTube or somewhere else, performed and recorded and popular and known in the USSR, had authors from those nationalist organizations.
USSR’s policy on nationalism since after WWII in every republic was controlling and directing it. Plenty of historical revisionism of today in ex-USSR takes root in official historiography of Soviet republics.
Making OUN itself etc heroes was, yes, something out of mainstream in the USSR. But it doesn’t make for a contrast.
it’s not a useful comparison
In the context I started this comment with - it is.
like, idk, being more accepting of ethnic pluralism
It’s not. It’s about the same. In many cases worse.
or being preferred by Donbas
That’s history. If you can somehow assemble all the refugees and people who left the area since 2014 and have a vote, I’m pretty certain you won’t get any signs preference for Russia.
or not lionizing actual perpetrators of the Holocaust
Yeah, just employing neo-Nazi volunteer battalions like DShRG “Rusich”.
Yeah, can’t agree with that. Ukrainian society is fucked up, but I fail to see how changing the flag and trying, say, to restore some formal entity from USSR would make things better.
Also it’s administratively still quite close to an SSR, more than Russia.
It’s ironic you have an Ukrainian flag next to your handle. Ukrainians tend to adore Israel.
That aside, many Israelis already accuse anybody of views sufficiently different from them, like this newspaper, of being allied to Hamas and whatever else.
My two comments combined do not contradict what you say.
Thx for the link, I’ll look at it
OK. Natural prices exist as an unreachable ideal point, but there are no absolutely natural prices in real world. I agree, and, BTW, no ancap would argue with that.
there is no such thing as a ‘natural’ price.
Have you seen a middle-eastern market? Of the kind where they bargain. Like in fairy-tales.
That’s how markets actually look in the wild.
And the natural price is the mathematical expectation of the price you get by bargaining.
It’s very simple and in this particular case “mainstream” economics and libertarian economics get along pretty well.
You can be killed with steel, which has a lot of other implications on what you do in order to avoid getting killed with steel.
Does steel fuck it all up?
Centralization is a shitty backwards idea. But you have to be very conscious of yourself and your instincts to neuter the part that tells you that it’s not to understand it.
Distributivism minus Catholicism is just so good. I always return to it when I give up on trying to find future in some other political ideology.