Librewolf?

That’s not how decompilations work

For game decomp what does it even actually matter? I think this is one of the best usecases.

I mean I think we all think that is very unfair.

xx-zones, ext-tray and dbus_annotations are the only protocols I think add anything of value at this point, wayland is pretty close to feature complete, it’s on clients for the most part at this point

you are fundamentally misunderstanding what marx set out to do, marx was not proposing a system of government or an executable plan. he was analyzing history in order to explain the forces that drive social change and to make conditional predictions about the future. within that kind of analytical framework, outcomes are how the categories are defined.

this is standard practice in historical and social analysis, which you seem unfamiliar with, you likely haven’t read any primary sources on this. a process is usually identified by what it produces, and a capitalist economy is one based around wage labor and capital accumulation. A feudal system is one organized around landed aristocracy and serfdom

and in Marxist terms, a socialist revolution is one that actually produces socialism. A revolution that claims the label but reproduces class domination has not achieved that outcome.

That does not make this a no true scotsman situation, that’s when definitions are arbitrarily narrowed to protect a belief. in this case, the definition is fixed in advance by structural criteria. If those criteria are not met, the category simply does not apply. this is no different from saying that an attempted overthrow of a feudal monarch that fails is not a successful revolution. that does not expose a flaw in anti-feudal ideology, it just reflects how we use words.

your criticism also assumes marx failed to provide a plan, which he never attempted to provide, this is like criticizing darwin for not designing ecosystems.

the project was explanatory, not prescriptive. he analyzed why capitalism arises, how it functions, and why he believed it generates conditions that eventually make class society untenable.

marx’s claim about socialism and communism is therefore conditional, not magical: if material conditions develop in certain ways, class antagonisms intensify and if class antagonisms are resolved, tthe state loses its function, where those conditions are absent or prematurely forced, domination reappears under new forms.

we as socialists are engaged in the practical task of trying to build a future that resolves those contradictions, but marx himself did not “fail” by not delivering an engineering blueprint, he never attempted to do what you are demanding of him. rejecting this because it’s not an instruction manual is a misunderstanding of the assignment in the first place.

every argument you’ve posed has been based in a misunderstanding of the reading and you should REALLY read some primary sources, here’s some:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

i think these would be the most helpful readings for you.

marxism does not define socialism as “more worker influence than before” but as an actual change in the relations of production. really the decisive question is which class controls surplus and exists and continues itself as a ruling class.

the binary is not 50 percent versus 49 percent. it is whether bourgeois property relations have been superseded.

before we continue this argument i’d like you to first admit you could not do what was asked of you.

the answer to your thought problem lies in dialectical materialism, not in institutional design or moral guarantees.

in a marxist framework, the revolutionary period is something that cannot be extended or terminated at will, it is produced by material conditions, and the duration is not decided by any leaders, but rather by whether or not class antagonism persists.

societies develop through contradictions between productive forces and relations of production and when they become unsustainable, things intensify until the ruling class is overturned. marx would argue that such a state cannot legitimize itself forever by rhetoric alone, because political superstructures ultimately depend on material relations, and if the proletariat no longer exists as a class, the state loses its function and withers away, if the state persists, that indicates unresolved class structures, not a valid permanent transition, essentially eternal revolution is impossible under the correct material conditions

I can expand upon this more if you need but at this point it is woefully obvious you have not read a single piece of socialist literature, these questions are kinda basic and covered in socialism 101, i suspect you’ve been getting your information from jordan peterson or prageru or something in that vein, i suggest you spend some time actually reading some primary sources.

your homework:

1. what is dialectical materialism and how does it explain historical change?
2. why did marx call communism the end-point of history, meaning the end of class struggle rather than the end of events?

sources to read from for the answers:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Contribution_to_the_Critique_of_Political_Economy.pdf

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

By this overly simplistic definition you would count infertile cats as non-cats. You also completely lose the ability to differentiate the species of non-sexually reproducing organisms. And then there’s the insanity that is hybridization. Is a mule a horse or a donkey? They can occasionally reproduce with either of them.

this is not the point at all… yes it was an overly simplistic way to explain how you’re using the fallacy wrong. You still used it wrong.

In just the same way with economic systems. Workers in different societies and periods exercise different levels of control (which is the underlying meaning of ownership) on the means of production, it’s not black and white. It can be very roughly defined as (workers control over the state) * (relative assets of state-controlled enterprises) + (relative assets of co-ops or other directly worker-owned enterprises). There is of course a lot more nuances to be discussed, such as the exact distribution of control between different subclasses of workers, or the social hierarchies arising from the structures of control.

no it cannot because it’s referring to whether or not the workers control them and on a societal scale this is a binary flip, at some point the workers are more in control than the bourgoeis and at that point it is socialism and at any point before it is not.

I mean 8 crashes is not a lot to work with statistically to the point where this is nearly meaningless.

i’ve seen a car crash as soon as it came off the lot and if I cherrypicked that and 7 other crashed cars I’d probably consider that brand very unsafe.

This is never true in the real world, everything is a spectrum. Do you think there are any countries that are 100% socialist in today’s world? If yes, then I highly doubt it’s actually true, if not, I suppose you count them as “100% capitalist”, which is a classic “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

it’s not a no true scotsman, if it were I could use this argument against you if you tried to claim all cats are dogs, you fundamentally misunderstand how that fallacy works, these societies do not meet the well defined criteria and I would say no they are not socialist but may be attempting to build it. The point of this fallacy is when you baselessly claim something is not what it is not according to the defining characteristics but rather by a vague feeling. If I said no true cat mates with other dogs successfully, similarly, I would not be committing a fallacy.

i am stating that socialism is when the workers own the means of production, if they do not then it is simply definitionally not socialist in the same way that if it can only breed with other cats it is a cat and not a dog.

No, there is not a single currently socialist country. It is not a spectrum, either the workers own the means of production or they do not.

Oh, I’m a member of a small leftwing party in my home country and there are plently of old people there who were once Communists and still are anti-Capitalists who fought against the Fascist Dictatorship and in the Revolution against Fascism in 74, who agree with me. It’s only tankies and Chinese Propagand muppets who do not.

then my task should be easy, present a socialist philosopher that agrees with you. Do you want me to provide a list of ones that don’t? When you do everyone will know just how stupid I am and just how little I know what I’m talking about! Win-win.

Your “it’s not autocratic” interpretation is just you chosing to reframe the definition of property in such a way that confiscation by force of that which some people own doesn’t count as the state taking their shit.

revolution is indeed fundamentally authoritarian in that way, do you oppose the american revolution as well? Do you oppose every revolution in history? I thought you were talking about the society post revolution, which of course is not. And is what dictatorship of the proletariat refers to.

there is no reinvention of words, we use the original philosophical meanings, it’s funny that you say that, you’re the one using reinvented meanings, such as “private property”. Look it up! What do you expect philosophers from back then to do, update their wording with the times?

I don’t see how this gives sample size, are you considering every mile a sample?

i’m not worried about the sample size for regular cars but there’s like 10 of these driving right now.

Roughly, Socialism is a way to reach the state of perfect Equality of Outcomes called Communism, which requires an Revolution of The Proletariat where the Means of Production are siezed - so, an autocratic stage - to get there, and said stage is where all the so-called “Communist” countries are stuck - there is no nation in the World were everybody had the same, and there never was.

this is completely wrong and i challenge you to find a socialist who agrees with you.

since none of that is even vaguely correct the rest is not even worth reading.

edit: I read the rest and was correct, read socialist theory, that was well worded nonsense completely divorced from even one thing socialists believe and if socialists believed any of that I would not be one… but they don’t, this is completely wrong.

1. It’s dictatorship of the proletariat, which sounds autocratic until you realize that marx considered capitalism a dictatorship of the bourgeois, essentially this refers to which class gets what they want and has nothing to do with conventional dictatorship. It is actually less autocratic because proletariat control generally means a massive expansion of democracy.
2. Of course not, communism is the end of history that would happen long after the workers own the means of production and we live in a post scarcity world where currency no longer makes sense. The argument is not just make everything equal the argument is that given the conditions of society there will be no point in currency and thus class divisions.

0/10 you did not even read a small amount of marx. Or any socialist philosopher at all. I genuinely don’t get how people get this confident without reading any primary sources, you are VERY propagandized. If you want to make me look like a complete buffoon and prove me completely and utterly wrong show me any socialist philosopher agreeing with you.

no you wouldn’t, it would just make it less accurate

it’s correct that 8 is not the sample size, but they didn’t give the sample size, it would be how many cars there are and the number of miles, not just the number of miles, they also didn’t establish fault and this was with a human in the loop, i’m all for hating elon but this isn’t worth reporting without more info.

This is totally false, socialism is when the workers own the means of production and has nothing to do with state services, not everything socialists tend to want is socialism.

It’s not a scale at all, socialism is worker ownership over the means of production, socialists want things like free healthcare, yes, but free healthcare actually has nothing to do with socialism.

a society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.

This is based on a sample size of 8

It’s significantly easier to use and I wanted to create a maximally ergonomic setup that I designed the ux for.

windows wouldn’t let me choose, linux did, also when linux has an issue it’s never because someone was doing something malicious, on windows it nearly always is.