I tend not to poo in my shower, though.

Every time you buy a HP goodie, you stream a HP film, you buy a new HP book, you play Hogwarts Legacy, you finance transphobia. And every time you speak about her works positively, you help her stay relevant, and you make other people buy her works, so you indirectly finance transphobia.

And you give your money to the art or the artist?

There are wrinkles in my soul.

Good try :-)

Hexbear is lemmy.ml under steroids.

deleted by creator

1. Everyone that oppose them is a fascist.
2. Anti-authoritarians oppose tankism.
3. Thus anti-authoritarians are fascists.

It’s not more complicated than that.

Even Virgil prefers Homer.

Even better!

Beautiful propaganda.

admitting to not studying it.

Where did I admitted that?

Disagreements on opinions and beliefs are sane, normal and even cool. I love a good debate! Disagreements on facts aren’t.

But you’ve already condemned any representative representative body administrating things

No, I never did that.

If you think workers had anything to say in the USSR, you’re delusional.

No. I defined what’s socialism for me (owning of the mean of production by the workers), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren’t that. Then I gave Marx’s definition of socialism, even if I’m not Marxist (a mode of production were the usefulness replaced the price as value), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren’t that. Thus they’re something else, and I used a term that Lenin himself used: state capitalism (which wasn’t limited to the NEP). Please stop with your strawmen.

And state capitalism doesn’t become socialism just because you call it that.

It’s more: koala bears are marsupials, even if they’re called bears.

You just wrote, in other words:.“It can’t be socialism before the global revolution but that doesn’t mean it’s not socialism”. Man, even Lenin called his system state capitalism… You’re not serious behind your big words, let’s stop here.

I’m not Marxist, so that’s quite normal. But even in Marxist terms, socialism is a mode of production were the usage value replaced the monetary value. That never happened in so called “communist” countries.

No. Socialism as a mode of production is the owning of the means of production by the workers, not the State. For a worker, it doesn’t change anything if their overlords are politicians or industrialists.