Hi people! I need a bit of a hand. So far, I know some of the very basic things about the far left and agree with most/all of it (redistribute power to everyone, overthrow the rich upper class, get rid of concepts like money, etc), but here's where my problem is.
Because I'm autistic, I have a pretty short attention span and can really struggle to engage in or understand very wordy and overly complex, and because a lot of communist texts and theorem are very much long and complicated and wordy, I find quite a lot of difficulty in making it past the first few sentences, and I have some pretty big questions I want answers to before I fully commit to the ideology, but the answers are often buried in deep and complex discussion that I can't bring myself to fully view because I know I probably won't understand them. So if you decide to answer, please give quite simplified, TL;DR versions of the answers that you'd usually give.
What exactly are the differences between anarcho-communism and authoritarian-communism?
What's Marxism?
How and why do people defend Stalin after the inconceivable scope of the horrors he caused? Do people really believe those tens of millions of people deserved it?
Are there any differences between communism and socialism?
How would we make sure that after power is taken from the rich, it's completely evenly distributed between the working class?
What things can I do to try and spread the message and get this whole revolution thing going?
I may come back and add in more later if I think of them. Thanks for reading and if you answer, then thanks a load!
That is: if Marxism is materialist and not idealist, then what is the motivating force behind class struggle? I have heard it said that abstract moral concepts like human rights and freedom are not meaningful in a Marxist framework, since those concepts look different depending on the ruling class. But Marxists are committed to changing the world for the better and liberating the oppressed; is this not an abstract moral concept?
In other words, are the tragedies of these two instances of communism indicative of communism as a concept? People talk about communism as if they are, but I’ve never been entirely convinced
I don’t know if this is the right sub for this but I was banned from r/communism for basically nothing so idk where else to ask this question
Mankiw is the 11th most cited economist and the 9th most productive research economist in the world. His “Principles of Macroeconomic“ textbook is the best selling macroeconomics book in the world by far.
This man’s book writes the definitions of macroeconomics. The same way Campbell‘s book does for Biology and Halliday, Resnick, Walker do for physics.
If you think you understand inflation more than this guy, you technically can’t. His book is the reference for the first and second paragraph on the wikipedia page for “Inflation”.
EDIT: Timestamped link: https://youtu.be/HDKfdmbCuvw?t=31615
You don't have to take my word for this argument. Here are the words of Aaron Schwartz, an instrumental figure in early Reddit history:
>So I have my own justification for freedom of speech: because we can. Human freedom is important, so we should try to protect it from encroachment wherever possible. With most freedoms — freedom of motion, freedom of exchange, freedom of action — permitting them in full would cause some problems. People shouldn’t be free to walk into other people’s bedrooms, take all their stuff, and then punch the poor victims in the face. But hurling a bunch of epithets at the guy really isn’t so bad.
>Freedom of speech is one place where we can draw the line and say: all of this is acceptable. There’s no further logic to it than that; freedom of speech is not an instrumental value. Like all freedom, it’s fundamental, and the only reason we happen to single it out is because it’s more reasonable than all of the others.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan
Or the General Manager of Twitter, 9 years ago:
>"Generally, we remain neutral as to the content because our general council and CEO like to say that we are the free speech wing of the free speech party."
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech
Or Jack Dorsey, the man himself, on the platform itself:
>Twitter stands for freedom of expression. We stand for speaking truth to power. And we stand for empowering dialogue.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/651003891153108997
They are not talking about first amendment protections. They are invoking the high ideal that communication between willing parties should not be restrained by government, individuals, or any other platform that offers to publish people's speech. It is universal in reach.
The Wikipedia page is 100% clear on this as well:
>Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
If you are arguing that Freedom of Speech somehow does not apply to corporate entities, you are wrong. You are of course free to believe otherwise, but you will remain wrong.
It is that simple. If you cannot separate the ideal that is Freedom of Speech from the Constitutional Right which protects freedom of speech, your thinking is, in this way, flawed.
People make this error both ways, b
... keep reading on reddit ➡Edited with more direct link: https://247sports.com/Article/NCAA-working-on-new-image-and-likeness-policy-for-images-137661019/
https://twitter.com/247Sports/status/1188880177981464577?s=19
Religious corruption and hypocrisy as well as the abuse of religion for immoral or corrupt ends is always something that has to be grappled with in the Church and religious institutions. For Christians the Bible itself offers a template of principles and theological reflections when confronting corruption and immorality practised either in religious settings or in the name of religion.
(i)Confronting sexual immorality
- The Apostle Paul when speaking to the Church in Corinth says about the issue "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons-not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you"(1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
- This text from the Apostle Paul is interesting for a number of different reasons. It distinguishes corruption inside and outside the Church. It is saying that just because there is corruption and sexual immorality in other institutions doesn't give the Church an excuse to pass the buck on confronting this issue. Which can be a common response when deflecting on the issue of corruption and sexual immorality. He states as members of the Church the primary responsibility is to make judgement on the conduct of those inside the Church.
- This text has a lot of relevance for Christians confronting sexual immorality in the Church. It can manifest itself in different ways. The mildest is adultery and unfaithfulness by ministers. The worst of course are the massive cases of sexual abuse in Churches, regardless of denomination. The Apostle Paul's instructions are clear that they are to be shunned and the community has the responsibility to drive out these wicked people from its midsts. Abusers, molesters, especially when they are in positions of pastoral authority are to be driven out. The scripture also makes clear the fate of the sexually immoral as those who will burn in the Lake of fire(Rev 21).
(ii)Confronting religious hypocrisy and involvement in injustice
- The prophetic literature and the Gospels are especially instructive on th
Hey all!
After your valuable advocacy writing professors, administrators, after the the outcry over the numerous scandals regarding Proctorio and the AMS released the Open Letter Regarding the Usage of Proctorio, we have been working with your student senators, student leaders around UBC, and UBC administration on recently released Principles for Appropriate Use of Remote Invigilation Tools.
It is significant that UBC has stated "We recommend considering other approaches to academic integrity first, however, and limiting the use of remote invigilation tools where possible." However, while this is valuable step in giving guidance against the use of Proctorio, this recommendation is not enough.
The principles are as follows (more details in the link)
- Take students’ concerns about remote invigilation seriously and weigh them carefully in the decision of whether to use these tools or not, which tools to use, and how they are implemented (e.g., through instructor-controlled settings).
- Take a balanced approach to maintaining academic integrity rather than only focusing on enforcement
- Carefully consider whether any alternatives for promoting academic integrity can meet the needs of your course before deciding to use tools for remote invigilation. While such tools may be used to fulfill accreditation requirements in some programs, where this is not the case, prioritize using alternatives where possible. Consider asking students for suggestions on how to promote academic integrity,
- The decision to use remote invigilation tools, as well as the responsibility to communicate the rationale for doing so and how they work, should not be left to TAs; this must be done by the instructor(s), course coordinator(s), department heads, or others responsible for the design and / or delivery of the course.
- If remote invigilation tools are to be used in a course, this should be stated in the syllabus, with a rationale provided for why that approach and tool was chosen. An explanation of pedagogical choices is always valuable, and this allows students who do not wish to use tools like Proctorio to drop the course if they can. Be sure to return to this rationale in communications to students throughout the term, particularly shortly before exams.
- Schedule a practice tes
Hello fellow capitalists, I see that Capitalism in European Union and USA are very different. Here in EU it is totally acceptable and common to have public healthcare and education. Actually right-wing parties don't usually oppose it that much. On the other hand, Social Democrats (very common centre-left party) are pro-capitalists.
So why in the USA you call this socialist? You even don't have a left-wing party (Democrats are centre-right economically).
Capitalism should be about the equality of opportunities and strong individuals that build and work in the economy, right?
.
What can give to an individual more opportunity to apply his/her talent than a proper education for a start? And since you can't really expect everyone who just got to the adult age to earn tens of thousands of dollars in the teenage years, don't you think that giving them a little support for a start would be nice and good for people in general? They will pay later for that to future generations slowly in taxes. Of course there are also private schools that compete with free education and people who can afford that can go there (isn't really a big difference usually), but the opportunity for a good education should be for everyone.
Well-educated society brings a lot of benefits to the country, for example lower crime (so less investment risks), more respect between people, better competition in job market (thus making an incentive to always grow in skills) and between businesses.
.
About healthcare. You may know that Americans pay more on a person for healthcare than in any other developed country. You also don't get a better quality for that. You see that the "free" healthcare system in EU works quite well, we get high quality care, pay less on a person and we don't have to pay immediately in the hospital, but we pay for the acces to that service our whole life. Moreover, it encourages people to visit a doctor when they feel ill and to visit doctors regularly as a prevention. That makes society more productive and healthcare cheaper since you don't have to pay for expensive surgeries every time.
Do you think that when you are in a serious situation you will search on the internet for cheapest hospital with best service? Even when we don't count emergency, people with bad diseases tend to think more about their state and getting better than prices as the most important basic need in life is health, not money. That makes it easy to inflate prices for private hospitals.
... keep reading on reddit ➡Okay so they say they want “workers” to be in control..But how the hell are we supposed to have cool things like iPhones, PlayStations ect without private innovative corporations/ceos who specialize in designing and coming up with the stuff? We cant just have random ass every day workers be completely in charge of products like these, otherwise theyd turn to crap and wed have no form of entertainment or technology. Also, is the person who spent hundreds of unpaid hours to get their company up and running off the ground without even knowing for sure if theyd be successful or not not a “worker”? I mean they INVENTED the company for crying out loud. I think it was a hell of a lot harder to create the Apple company then it is to get a job at the Apple store dont you think?
Edit: Wow its nice to have people actually answer my questions for once instead of immediately getting banned like when i tried asking these questions on other communist pages lmao
I was 50 miles in for the day (in dog miles) and time came for a much needed warm meal. After finishing my last bits of ramen bomb from a ziplock I added some water, shook it up, and poured it out about 20 yards away from where I cooked. I spent the night and next day being chastised for my despicable transgressions. After hours of compelling arguments I still find myself opposed to drinking hotdog flavored water.
I'm now here before you, begging for both forgiveness and advice. How does everyone go about cleaning up while adhering to the principles of leave no trace?
Context:
Kuzma was the principle defender on Westbrook for 26 possessions Saturday -- with 25 of those coming in the second half, according to Second Spectrum. When Kuzma guarded Westbrook, the Rockets' offense averaged 92.3 points per 100 possessions. When anyone else was on Westbrook, that number spiked to 101.9 points per 100 possessions.
"Rondo kind of pulled me to the side at halftime in the locker room and just asked me if I could guard him, and I said of course," Kuzma said. "Westbrook was really hurting us in the first half posting up our guards and he's just tough, he's a tough load. He's a big, strong physical guard. In the second half, that kind of got eliminated putting a bigger body on him.
