That is a perfectly workable definition of socialism. Literally textbook. I would expect any red-blooded Leftist to agree with the statement "The means of production belong in the hands of the proletariat", or they're just fucking posers.
Please, Mister or Missues Vanguard of Leftist Vocabulary, enlighten us on what "Socialism" really means.
I think you fell for the typical right wing propaganda trope where socialism=marxism=communism. You presented the textbook definition of that propaganda and of communism.
This is the “propaganda” sponsored by most leftists, though?
Except not equality - stepping stones. Socialism is supposed to lead to communism, per Marx. That’s not a right wing take, unless you consider Karl Marx a conservative.
Communists call leftists "reformists", that think you can reform capitalism into a stable state (like i do). If you rest there, you are not a communist but a socialist, so its not a stepping stone.
I mean, those of us with Marxian biases define it that way -- not right wingers -- and see "social democrats" in the 21st century as being the people who successively turned the term to mean instead anything-where-government-does-stuff. That's effectively what it came to mean in the US.
Notably, the definition given by Marx and other 19th century socialists (worker controlled production) is doesn't even have to involve government or the state at all. It just came to mean that once proximity to power came into play. The "soviet" word merely meant local worker councils, not a state form, for example. But once the Bolsheviks took state power, the power of the actual soviets was successively demolished in favour of a centralized one party state.
So, notably: Self-called "Marxist-Leninists" in the USSR, and Social Democrats (or "democratic socialists" in the US), and Right-wingers all far prefer the term to mean "government controls things." The latter because they can then point fingers and call things authoritarian (but somehow exempt corporate power from critique).
But it is not at all clear that 19th century socialists .. from Proudhon through Marx etc -- who coined the term -- meant this at all.
Also this hard line between "communism" and "socialism" is fictitious and very schematic. All communists call themselves socialists, and almost none of them agree on what that means.
Social democrats trying desperately to sound respectable clearly want a nice hard line there. But they also have no intention of bringing about socialism.
These are overloaded terms at this point which is part of the reason so few actually comprehend.
Even Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism can mean different things depending on the context and interpretation which is another part of the collective confusion.
If we had clear definitions, it *might* irradicate the confusion, but I don't see that happening in the forseeable future.
There's too much at stake for every involved party to clear things up.
> These are overloaded terms at this point which is part of the reason so few actually comprehend.
this is perhaps the smallest of all possible reasons that "few actually comprehend" :) yes, the left is good at eating itself, but that self-destruction is not without a lot of external assistance!
Feedback on "ZGF". I think the fact that it's 2 letters off IDF makes it less good than e.g. IGF Israel Genocide Force. By swapping I for Z you're swapping Israel for Zionist, but those are the same thing. You're paying 1 letter for no upside.
At the same time, these are Stallman-level puns - they lose their impact because you need to explain them, so maybe it doesn't matter.
You know people love rUsSiA iS nOt ThE sAmE aS uSsR.
But having read "Stalin" by Stephen Kotkin I've concluded that the USSR was nothing more than a legal construction to increase Russian control over its neighbors.
Gerhard Schröder, chancellor 1998-2005, is well known to be best buddies with Putin and later (three weeks after leaving office!) worked for Gazprom. He is nicknamed "Gas-Gerd".
Schröder also famously called Putin a "true democrat".
> Let's never forget Netanyahu was a big part of the lobby for Bush to invade Iraq.
I'm going from memory, but I seem to recall that according to the book "The Israel lobby and US foreign policy", Irsael was initially lobbying against US invading Iraq because Israel wanted the US to invade Iran and thought Iraq was a distraction. Then, someone in the US convinced Israel that Iraq was going to be really easy and the US would do Iran right after, and Israel stopped being against invading Iraq. And this version is way funnier than yours.
The reasoning? "Saddam cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons"
It's crazy how little people seem to remember that we completely made up this insistence that Iraq had nuclear weapons (which is THE "WMD" we were screaming about before invading, not the chemical weapons!) which there was never any evidence for.
We fabricated cassus belli like the real world is some sort of Crusader Kings DLC, including the stupidly transparent nature of the fabrication.
Like, so many people seem to have just straight up refused to remember that we did this all before! The most innocent reading of our Iraq invasion is that Bush himself was so stupidly convinced of Saddam's evil that he refused to accept direct evidence to the contrary, and even that is an enormous red flag.
And yet, stupid americans still voted for him again. God forbid there be consequences for Republican Presidents lying directly to the public to put us into an unfunded war for years that we did not need and can't afford the debt for.
Phew, never have I seen in my life the goalposts move so fast.
It seems like even yesterday that the threshold for impressing someone is that the machine would have to be good at pretending to be a person. Now the threshold is that they have to be able to invent special relativity.
I wish I could, but there are so many people posting on here who explicitly signal their bad intentions that it's hard to maintain high-minded charity.
I agree there are a lot of people who do that on HN.
But https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801324 is obviously not one of them. There is a very natural and obvious interpretation of the post that has nothing to do with the motivations it's accused of having, and the only thing that results in seeing those motivations is prejudice. It's a single-sentence, top-level comment, written by someone who has been here since 2010 and isn't infamous enough for me to recognize the username.
I didn't know this - from wikipedia page on Enigma[1]:
> Despite the seeming difficulty in decrypting its messages, Enigma contained a number of design issues that left patterns in the cyphertext. Poland first cracked the machine as early as December 1932 and was able to read messages prior to and into the war. Poland's sharing of their achievements enabled the Allies to exploit Enigma-enciphered messages as a major source of intelligence.
Ok interesting, so why do people talk about Turing in this connection then?
> Turing devised techniques for speeding the breaking of German ciphers, including improvements to the pre-war Polish bomba method, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine
Ok so Turing just improved an existing method. Without being an actual expert it's impossible to know how much credit he actually deserves.
Two more references: the Polish method was called "Bomba" [3] invented by Marian Rejewski [4]
Google itself isn't great either. It's biased by google's interests. The fact that users don't have control over how documents are retrieved is a problem and hopefully everybody understand why google's results keep getting worse.
The Intercept was created for the purpose of publishing the Snowden archive. After a few articles, they decided they weren't going to do it any more, for reasons which are never entirely clear (Greenwald gave different justifications each time). And Greenwald was very aware of this:
> On 12 March Poitras was told on a telephone call with Greenwald and Wilson that Greenwald and Reed had decided to shut the archive, because it was no longer of value to The Intercept. On the same call, according to her account, Greenwald said the decision should not be made public because it would look bad for him and for The Intercept. Two days earlier the problem had been money, but now it was "value".
Speculation: the Intercept was a move by the NSA to shut down the last copy that hadn't already complied. Get a friendly billionaire acting as a concerned citizen, shower the key individuals with money, and once they're hooked make it clear that if the publication continue the money stops.
> In October 2013, tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar founded First Look Media (FLM), a New York nonprofit, as a collaboration with Greenwald, Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, with a promised $250 million in funding. FLM's first publication, The Intercept, launched on 10 February 2014 with purpose to report the Snowden documents.
( ... )
> The Intercept paid its senior journalists well. FLM reported $1.6 million to Glenn Greenwald's company between 2014 and 2017; $349,826 in total compensation to Jeremy Scahill in 2015; $368,249 to Betsy Reed in 2017. Charles R. Davis, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, noted that such figures "are large for digital media and noteworthy in the world of progressive, nonprofit journalism."
negligence and incompetence can act as very good cover for malice. The same reporter that leaked Reality Winner's identity, Matthew Cole, has also been suspected by multiple other whistleblowers of exposing them as well.
On a tangential note, watching the documentary on her was the first time I viscerally understood that people with very different ideas about how to live can agree on some fundamental political principles, and don't have to stuff themselves into right/left boxes for easy manipulation. They went after her hard because a culturally-conservative, intelligent, hard-nosed soldier type who sticks to virtues that are not completely in-line with our warhawk doctrine is their worst nightmare.
I think we have to distinguish between people who outright post Russian propaganda like Scott Ritter and people like Greenwald and Mearsheimer who say the Ukraine war is a US proxy war and was provoked.
The latter applied to many US (and historically British empire wars, from where the US learned).
Greenwald had a Rumble contract for daily videos during the Biden years, so I think it would be fair to say he was a Trump influencer.
He also has many enemies in Brazil (e.g.. Supreme Judge Moraes), so that video could have come from anywhere.
But yes, he could also have been threatened over the Snowden files earlier.
> I think we have to distinguish between people who outright post Russian propaganda like Scott Ritter and people like Greenwald and Mearsheimer who say the Ukraine war is a US proxy war and was provoked.
The Russian government literally finances Mearsheimer's books. It's written on the title page. Doesn't get any closer to government propaganda than that.
Valdai financing in 2023 does look bad. But his 2015 talk "Why Ukraine is the West's fault" does not appear to have any financing and says the same already.
In 1993 he advocated for Ukraine to keep nuclear weapons:
I found the debate with Sikorski very illuminating. Sikorski is the foreign minister of Poland, with a long and distinguished career in the US (scholar) and EU (MEP) in addition to Poland. He's been in the dirt too, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as an on-location reporter in the 1980s. During the debate, Mearsheimer tried to lecture him about things that went on at diplomatic gatherings where Sikorski was present (and led a delegation) and Mearsheimer was not.
He's a total hack and his brand of "realism" has nothing to do with reality. Dude can't even read Russian, yet thinks he's an expert on Russia. The only reason we're discussing him here right now is because Russian troll army has been promoting him hard; like most charlatans, he has the appearance of someone who knows what they're talking about.
Mearsheimer says that there's no evidence Putin had imperial ambitions before 24 Feb 2022; that the war has forced him into this. Some of the closest people to Putin say that he told them fucking 20 years ago what he was going to do with Ukraine.
Mearsheimer is weird. His book "Israel lobby and US foreign policy" is outstanding. But when he speaks about many other things it feels like he's improvising all the time.
Suppose that I grant you that the Ukraine war was "provoked by the US" - which I most certainly don't. But suppose.
It might still be the case that something is true AND propaganda. Good propaganda has a grain of truth. The key for identifying propaganda isn't "is a statement false?" but "is one of the sides pushing the statement, because it's benefitial for them". In this sense, "the Ukraine war was provoked by the US" would be propaganda even if it were true - which it's not.
That said, I think you have to be proficient at mental gymnastics to believe that the aggressor is actually the victim.
> That said, I think you have to be proficient at mental gymnastics to believe that the aggressor is actually the victim.
That is a fine example of propaganda: All people, including historians who evaluate different possibilities, surely want to paint Russia as the victim!
I've known people involved in the creation of the Intercept. It wasn't funded with the purpose to report the Snowden documents, but rather that came along as an opportunity that they thought would create a big splash for the launch of a new news platform that would shake up the industry. The billionaire involved didn't anticipate the fury from the authorities (i.e. receiving personal, serious phone calls from various govt. figures and agencies) and they quickly came to regret everything and adjusted course. I know this is a "trust me bro" comment but it's worth sharing.
Makes sense. OP is leaning I to conspiracional adhoc reasoning. I’m sure Pierre would rather keep his Hawaiian island than to field questions from the agencies
That's not the definition of socialism in any case.
reply