Text Editor Releases 'Free Uyghur' Edition, Gets Swamped With Chinese Spam (theverge.com) 245
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: This week, the developer of the popular text- and code-editing software Notepad++ released a new version update. Nothing seemed particularly strange about it, except maybe the name: Notepad++ v7.8.1 is the "Free Uyghur" edition. In a blog post announcing the updated version, developer Don Ho writes about the plight of the Uyghur people, an ethnic minority in China that's faced persecution from the country's authoritarian government. China operates internment camps that are used to detain Uyghur people throughout the country's Xinjiang region.
Since the announcement, the software's GitHub "issues" page has been bombarded with spam, much of it in the Chinese language. "Stop sending meaningless political-related issues, it just makes you look like an idiot," reads one comment. Another one simply reads, "Bye ! Uninstall." There's a litany of curses, and one asks, "What do you know about China?" Others have moved in to criticize the Chinese government in response. Ho told The Verge that the software's dedicated site was also under a distributed-denial-of-service attack, but that it has been stopped by an anti-DDoS service provided by the site's host. Ho writes in the announcement that he anticipated potential pushback, saying "talking about politics is exactly what software and commercial companies generally try to avoid," but decided to take the step anyway. "The problem is," Ho writes in the announcement of the Free Uyghur edition, "if we don't deal with politics, politics will deal with us."
Since the announcement, the software's GitHub "issues" page has been bombarded with spam, much of it in the Chinese language. "Stop sending meaningless political-related issues, it just makes you look like an idiot," reads one comment. Another one simply reads, "Bye ! Uninstall." There's a litany of curses, and one asks, "What do you know about China?" Others have moved in to criticize the Chinese government in response. Ho told The Verge that the software's dedicated site was also under a distributed-denial-of-service attack, but that it has been stopped by an anti-DDoS service provided by the site's host. Ho writes in the announcement that he anticipated potential pushback, saying "talking about politics is exactly what software and commercial companies generally try to avoid," but decided to take the step anyway. "The problem is," Ho writes in the announcement of the Free Uyghur edition, "if we don't deal with politics, politics will deal with us."
Developer's MO. (Score:5, Informative)
It's FOSS, if you don't like it, you can fork it. But in the past he's had.
Plus other non-political releases like:
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the fork argument quite applies in this instance.
But I wonder, will he do a Notepad++ 7.7.4 Trump for 2020 edition? I rather think not.... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or even pro-Trump. Whether or not one supports the atrocities of China against humanity really shouldn't be impacted by what Trump thinks one way or another. Actually that is how it should work with most any issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Trump thinks that this argument is about China's treatment of "we guys".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. People concerned with the rights of a minority Muslim population in China are generally not people who have the same policy views as Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a fan of EditPad Lite personally. https://www.editpadlite.com/ [editpadlite.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you offering an alternative to Notepad++ because you hate the Uyghurs and like what China is doing to them?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if serious.jpg
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Waiting for someone to argue that Notepad++ is a publisher now and release naming is the new town square of free speech.
Re:Developer's MO. (Score:4)
Of course the project is a publisher and the release names are examples of free expression. I'm not sure anyone why there would even be an argument to be had since it is a given?
politics (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with tech deciding to use its platform to influence politics is that the tech platform is suddenly political.
I think things should be seperate, by all means campaign for your political issues, but don't let work and pleasure (!) get mixed up. Its happening too often today, from companies banning people because of some perceived political opinion they dislike, to T&Cs bveing changed to enforce a politcial viewpoint. It always ends in a clusterfuck of anger and mistrust.
Now can anyone answer why these campaigns always seem to be more "woke", no platform with a Christian or Muslim CEO has banned LGBTQ+ from their site yet, but I've noted Stack Overflow has come close to banning a Jewish lady for not being LBGTQ+ friendly enough (she is apparently, she's just not willing to bend over backwards to suit them)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:politics (Score:5, Insightful)
The lesson learned here is not to get political and not expect some push back. That is the very definition of politics
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard tried it, look where that took them.
Re:politics (Score:4)
I don't know everything that Blizzard did. From what I understand Blizzard tried to deny some gamer his rightful prize because some a political statement he had. Blizzard did this to appease the Chinese government, this making Blizzards stance political. Blizzard miscalculated the gamer community response and got handed their ass. Blizzard screwed the pooch and got what they deserved.
Re:politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Tech can't avoid politics. When your render a map does it show Taiwan as a separate country? Do you include its flag in your list? Do you include the "two men holding hands" emoji?
There is nothing wrong with people using the platforms they have to exercise their free speech, as long as they are willing to accept that there will likely be consequences. In this case a bit of spam and some lost users of a free product doesn't seem too bad.
Re:politics (Score:5, Insightful)
We all have to live in this world, and don't forget that FOSS is, in and of itself, a kind of political movement. People are politics, and turning a blind eye to that doesn't make you neutral, as much as we might wish it to be so.
I would stop short of saying that if you have a platform you have a moral responsibility to stand up for moral causes, but I think it's commendable that he's doing this.
It's really only his own ass on the line here, so as long as github can stay out of the fray itself, everything will probably be fine. But as a general rule, opposing dictatorships that put people like the Uyghurs in concentration camps is pretty inoffensive except to the dictatorship.
Re: (Score:3)
People are politics, and turning a blind eye to that doesn't make you neutral, as much as we might wish it to be so.
People aren't politics. [merriam-webster.com]
People aren't politics. [youtube.com]
Politicians are politicians. [merriam-webster.com]
Politicians are politicians. [youtube.com]
Politicians aren't people. [wikipedia.org]
Politicians aren't people. [youtube.com]
Re:politics (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's not the sole developer, I think he should have kept it to a blog. FOSS projects usually have multiple contributors and it's not fair to the other contributors that the code they submitted is now being used to advance a political agenda they may or may not agree with.
The reason we usually set politics aside for collaborative efforts is because reasonable people can and often do have irreconcilable philosophical differences and yet still see the benefit to working together toward a common goal. We don't have to inject our disagreements into every last thing. It's not as though we're always right, anyway. Humanity has a long and storied history of very poor ethical decisions argued very vehemently and passionately. Feeling strongly about something doesn't mean you're right.
I will say that I agree with this particular political agenda, but we have to consider the general case, not just this specific one.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all part of the same old game.
One group tries to label another group a "bad guys" to "feel superior" against and use that as a platform to take power and abuse those they hate. That Cycle is well known but always ignored.
1. Injustice happens.
2. Group is formed to fight injustice.
3. Regardless of success or failure of that groups fight a bad actor soon co-opts that groups message for their own gain.
4. Group mostly ignores the abuse of that message out of fear of becoming accused to now being the enemy
Your opinion (Score:2)
For some of us, politics, people's rights, people's wellbeing, aren't something that we compartmentalize, like work and going to the gym. For some of us, politics is part of how we live our lives. Clearly, the author of this software doesn't compartmentalize. I say, good for him/her. To make real change in this world, you almost always have to live it. Ghandi didn't do things part time. MLK wasn't pushing for civil rights only when it
Re: (Score:2)
Ghandi didn't do things part time.
Yes, he did. He was a politician who never did software development. I, on the other hand, am a software developer who never does politics.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with tech deciding to use its platform to influence politics is that the tech platform is suddenly political.
Perhaps the real problem here is every damn thing is political these days, thanks to identity politics.
Now the question is, how do you devalue that stupid shit in a world that loves narcissists.
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem with tech deciding to use its platform to influence politics is that the tech platform is suddenly political.
Hey, if you think this, then by all means, go and replace Notepad++ with Microsoft Word. In this way Microsoft will be the ones talking directly to the politicians and your software stays clean of politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now can anyone answer why these campaigns always seem to be more "woke"
I can answer that. Let's first define "woke". Mirriam Webster says it means you're "alert to injustice in society, especially racism". That definition sounds like it could refer to economic injustice, but my perception in current American culture is that it refers more to aspects of the progressive left around all kinds of identity politics.
Let's look at the political campaigns associated with Notepad++, the topic of this article:
Should "Update Notepad ++" be working? (Score:3)
I see 7.8.1 listed here https://notepad-plus-plus.org/... [notepad-plus-plus.org]
But when I click Update Notepad ++ in my current 7.7.1 version I get ""No update is available."
Re: (Score:3)
Free Uyghur Post (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno we get a lot of spam from China.
Don't Like Where This is Heading (Score:5, Insightful)
Software App X - fork for liberals ...
Software App X - fork for conservatives
Software App X - fork for libertarians
Software App X - fork for REAL libertarians (accept no substitutes)
Software App X - fork for Scotsman
Software App X - fork for TRUE Scotsman
I like it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I do believe that is the point, yes.
obBrady (Score:2)
"Don who?"
Don Ho.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad he was able to keep his long career going by learning to code.
Free the Mallocs! (Score:5, Funny)
n/t
China wants to export it's culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:China wants to export it's culture (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that China's national identity is very heavily steeped in tradition and enforced unity. Anything that conflicts with those values is as disgustingly absurd to the loyalist Chinese as censorship and corruption is to an American.
Unfortunately, we're seeing the inevitable result of China's involvement in the global economy. Major Chinese companies like Tencent want to seek the profits and opportunities presented by participating in the rest of the world. For years, that's meant they played by two sets of rules: they follow Chinese rules for local dealings, but usually follow Western norms when operating globally.
For the old labor force, that worked fine. They grew up with traditional Chinese culture, and always put China first, as they were expected to. Now, the younger generations are growing up in urban centers, interfacing with the rest of the world (through those now-global companies) and getting a more Western perspective on values. They don't want to follow the millenia-old traditions. They don't want to conform to expectations at all costs. They want to have dissenting opinions and express them like their Western colleagues do.
The cultural shift is not universal. There are still traditionalists whose core values differ from the dissenters, and of course the ruling party still wants to maintain the policies that brought them to power. There are also those who would prefer to just let the whole thing blow over with as little personal damage as possible.
That internal conflict has now spread to the rest of the world, ignited by the Hong Kong protests. It's not really possible for a company to stay engaged with the Western world and still stay quietly non-confrontational in China. Blizzard found that out the hard way.
Ironically, China sees Western culture doing exactly as you describe. It's not enough for a Western company to stay in their own areas. They're now looking to force their culture on China and please don't get in their way. Everyone has to accept Western norms and toes the line. It'd be easy for a Chinese person to imagine getting fired for supporting the traditional Chinese culture.
In my opinion, the conflict is reminiscent of the United States political troubles in the 1960s. On one side are the new ideals and culture of a mixed society, and on the other are traditionalists preferring segregation and isolation. America only narrowly avoided a civil war over the issue. China seems to be headed that route.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, China sees Western culture doing exactly as you describe. It's not enough for a Western company to stay in their own areas. They're now looking to force their culture on China and please don't get in their way.
Western society has been exporting its culture, and more successfully than any other culture in history. Criminals in other countries have been known to demand their Miranda rights, in countries that don't have them. Estimates vary, but upwards of 2 billion people globally speak English, more than any other language in the world, including Mandarin. (A surprisingly large fraction of China still doesn't speak Mandarin.)
Everyone has to accept Western norms and toes the line.
If you want all the available foreign aid (bribes), then yes, you must toe the line. O
Well done! I will support this app even more now (Score:2)
I've already been using Notepad++ for years - great app and great developers.
Not the first time Notepad++ has gone political (Score:2)
- 7.6.2 Gilet Jaune Edition
Referring to the yellow vest protests in France.
- 6.7.4 Je suis Charlie edition
Referring to the terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo
- 6.6.4 Tiananmen June Fourth Incident Edition
Self explanatory
In a tweet, the author also asked users who voted Front National (French far right party) to uninstall Nodepad++.
Re: (Score:3)
Communism good..
American humorist P. J. O'Rourke on former Communist East Germany, after visiting it:
"It takes a special kind of economic system to turn a nation full of Germans into a third-world country".
Re: (Score:3)
If you think that China is communist or ever was, you are listening to the wrong people.
Er ... to the Chinese government?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that China is communist or ever was, you are listening to the wrong people.
Er ... to the Chinese government?
Exactly. I wouldn't trust them if they said the sky is blue.
Re: (Score:2)
This might be apocryphal, but it explains a lot, I remember hearing it quoted in an interview:
Bob Lutz(Former Vice Chairman of General Motors) to Chinese Vice Prime Minister:I thought you guys believe in Communism! But I see China moving towards Capitalism! What's your goal?
Chinese VP:We will do whatever works and call it Socialism!
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, true communism is impossible to implement, since no one's ever done it in numerous attempts. Therefore, it's futile to try, especially since those attempts all seem to end in tears.
Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)
One, people are too selfish and greedy to operate in a social system where everyone is expected to be equal, humans always have that one who wants to be "more equal than the others". This is especially evident in the case of north-americans who are extremely individualistic to the point of pathology. Individualism is good, but when you put it above everything and anything, even above the lives of others, it becomes a problem.
Two, It's not enough that you call a regime "communism" for it to be communism. Governments like Stalin and Kin were plain old dictatorships who were "communists" in name only. It is the same with equally bloodthirsty dictatorships that you will not remember because they were capitalist dictatorships, as in Nicaragua, Brazil (1964 to 1980) Chile and Cuba before Castro.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
One: You mean people like having personal property? Weird. Are you willing to give up everything you have over to the State?
Two: How do you eliminate personal property and get everyone to agree with having no personal property without authoritarian force? I hate to break it to you but people disagree and communism's only solution to that is to get agreement by force.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
and this part of "OMG, I can't have anything that is mine, CHAOS !!" It is pure propaganda. I don't know if you're aware of this but there are a lot of people very interested in making you can't even imagine that you might have alternatives to the "I have mine, fuck everyone else" current model.
And before you ask, I don't "defend evil red communism." What happens is that I'm sick of it being used as an excuse to justify atrocities like the ones happening in my country right now, atrocities that would be justified "to fight communism" (which doesn't exist).
Re: (Score:3)
> . Communism don't even have a "state
Right... This is the no-true Scotsman. You need to "seize the means of production" or at the very least organize in some fashion to form a community that can articulate and actuate some defined goal. That organization must be recognized by the community members as having the authority to enact the will of the community to do such things like 'seize the means of production'. If members of the community disagree with the consensus of the authority, who gets their way?
Re: (Score:3)
> What I say before, that communism can't work with humans because they are too selfish?
Then I say, communism is a failure and will never work for humans. It doesn't matter what political system will work for ants or angels. What works for humans, flaws and all, is what's important.
>you are clearly unable to even imagine the idea of people collaborating for a common purpose without killing each other
I can. It happens all the time. Where we differ is who defines "common purpose". I think it's the indiv
Communists have no leg to stand on (Score:3)
Violent revolution and dictatorship are core values [wikipedia.org] contained in the founding documents of their philosophy, and embraced by their founding fathers. You would have to become something other than communist to become something other than violent and dictatorial.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all dictators are communists, but all communist governments eventually become dictators.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Communism doesn't say much about personal property. It concerns itself with what is known as "the means of production." This is typically factories and productive business models and the like, not houses or clothes. There are many different types of property, from real estate, to factories, to houses, to clothes, to intellectual property. We don't have the same set of rights for all types of property, even in capitalism. The set of rights that adheres to personal property is different from the set of rights
Re: (Score:2)
When does a 'productive business' go from my personal property and side business to 'means of production ready to be seized'? What mechanism is used to "seize" the means?
Re:But (Score:4, Interesting)
The means of production are "seized" by redefining certain property rights. I'd like to remind you that the bundle of separate rights known as "property rights" are, in fact, arbitrary. For an example, see how "copyright, patent and trademark rights" have recently been redefined to mean "intellectual property rights." If we can take something that was not seen as property, and make it property, we can (selectively) go the other direction.
As to where the line is, it is very clear cut. When you are in control of your personal business, and have no other employees, then you are already in the position where the worker controls the means of production. No action is needed. As soon as you hire an employee and do not grant him equal rights of control, then there is at least one worker who is not in control of the means of production. If you were to implement some collective decision making process, open to all employees, then once again there would be complete worker control of the means of production.
Re: (Score:2)
>As soon as you hire an employee and do not grant him equal rights of control, then there is at least one worker who is not in control of the means of production.
Why would anyone be interested in this? I don't want to run a business, or be involved in the decision making process at all. I want to do work that I find interesting, get paid for it, and then go home. I don't care at all that I have to give up a little of my productive labor to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people don't want this, and would be perfectly happy delegating their direct control to a representative control, as we do with our democracy. You, as a worker who was in control of his means of production, could do what we do with politics and simply decide to hire someone to represent your interests. The difference being, this person would serve you, instead of the interests of some wealthy, and in most cases, absent owner.
Re:But (Score:4, Informative)
I don't want to run a business, or be involved in the decision making process at all. I want to do work that I find interesting, get paid for it, and then go home. I don't care at all that I have to give up a little of my productive labor to do so.
You are part of the Lumpenproletariat [wikipedia.org].
Marxists disagree about what should be done with people like you. Lenin believed the lumpenproletariat had revolutionary potential with proper leadership. Others believe that people like you need to either get with the program or be shot.
Re:But (Score:4, Interesting)
> As soon as you hire an employee and do not grant him equal rights of control
I start a business by investing the assets I have. It's successful and want to expand and offer a job to someone to help. They get equal rights of control when they risked nothing in taking that job? If I take the risk I reap the rewards but not according to you. I risk everything and gain nothing more than if I didn't invest it. I guess I won't invest it and won't create a new opportunity for that worker.
More so, that person agrees to work for me without having 'equal rights of control' because they recognize what I have invested is more than what they have to offer which is their labor. Why does that person not have the ability to exchange their labor in a contract they accept? What business is it to anyone else other than me and that worker?
What you have created: People are not free to exchange their labor. People will not invest their personal property (however you want to define it in your commune) into a business thereby dis-incentivizing innovation and growth. There will be less jobs and less "means of production" as the economy will move to a crawl unless demanded by force by the government. Hey just like every example of communism that has been tried! But surely it will work this time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Typically, in a situation such as you describe, and based only on my experience with worker owned co-operatives, there would be a buy in process, either sweat-equity or cash based. No functional commune or co-op is going to let a newcomer enter into ownership without some sort of real investment in the process.
Cash is not "personal property." It is a very different sort of thing than a shirt or a even a house, especially once you start to get into an abstract monetary system such as we have. The rights arou
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
When does a 'productive business' go from my personal property and side business to 'means of production ready to be seized'?
In Marxist thinking, they key criteria is "appropriation of surplus-value". The idea is this: if you hire a worker and pay them a $x wage over period t, you're doing so because that worker's work will provide you a total $y amount of return over that period, presumably higher than $x. The difference $y - $x, your profit on their labor, also called their surplus-value, is wealth that worker generated, but which they didn't get their hands on because you got your hands on it by threat of firing them, sending the cops on them etc. Therefore, your business is to be seized as soon as you being appropriating (aka, stealing) that difference from your workers by paying them $x rather than what they actually deserve, which is the full $y.
One way to, presumably, avoid that seizing, at first glance, is by having your business be a full cooperative, with no salaries per se, but a perfectly equitable sharing of all the value produced among all the workers, so that everyone receives $T/n of all the wealth produced by the business. In practice it's more complex than this, but that's a good starting point to thinking about it. Another way is to not have workers at all, with society being composed only of family businesses, and of fully freelance professionals. A third, and Marxists tend to go with this one, is to have a State control things so as to avoid surplus-value being appropriated. And many other variations.
Re: (Score:2)
> wealth that worker generated, but which they didn't get their hands on because you got your hands on it by threat of firing them,
Wealth that could not be generated in isolation. The worker doesn't generate wealth on their own which is why their time and labor is what is valuable. They exchange that time and labor for money that a business has to exchange. If it doesn't benefit both parties why would either agree to it?
> that difference from your workers by paying them $x rather than what they actual
Re:But (Score:4, Interesting)
Wealth that could not be generated in isolation.
That's accurate. This is why in Marxist thinking the relationship between capitalists -- a term that classically means "owner of means of production" -- and workers is called "exploitative", and not merely "oppressive". In an exploitative relationship both sides depend on each other to survive, so that even if one side despises the other, at least one of them (the exploiter) cannot ever think of getting rid of the other (the exploited) lest they'd cease to be, and similarly the other way around, even if not to the same extent. So it isn't that workers don't benefit in any way at all from being in the position of being exploited -- that is, of having their surplus-value appropriated -- by capitalists. But capitalists definitely benefit much more.
The worker doesn't generate wealth on their own which is why their time and labor is what is valuable.
That's precisely what a "means of production" is: something that allows work to be turned into wealth. The main characteristic of Capitalism, in Marxist thinking, isn't merely that it has private means of production, but that it involves the accumulation not of wealth, but of the means of production. A capitalist is someone who uses their means of production to generate wealth -- by appropriating the surplus-value of those who don't have means of production of their own, and so must sell their raw labor to be transformed into wealth using the capitalist's means of production --, with which they in turn acquire more means of production, with which they generate more wealth, with which they acquire more means of production etc. Most workers, in turn, become trapped into a spiral of never being able to acquire means of production of their own so as to stop merely working for those who own most means of production. End result: more and more workers without means of production, less and less (relatively speaking) capitalists owning means of production.
In theory, if everyone owned the means of production, then everyone would be entitled to the full output of their own work employed on those means of production, that is, on the full wealth they produced by means of those means of production. Marxists think this is a more desirable situation that the one in which a small group of individuals own most means of production, most people need to use those means of production to generate wealth, and therefore the bast majority of the wealth generated end in the hands of the few owners of the means of production.
20th-century history suggests to be a false idea, but Marxists argue the problem isn't with the principle itself, but with the over-the-top way its implementation was attempted. I myself have no opinion on the matter. I'm still studying both the theory and the historical failures.
If it doesn't benefit both parties why would either agree to it?
That's a valid point for a very rich first world country in which there's plenty of social mobility and a wide network of welfare initiatives to keep most of those who find themselves without a job afloat. That isn't the reality for most of the world though. In most countries, if you don't have a job, you're under a serious risk of starving (not to mention other threats to the life and well-being of oneself and one's loved ones), and even if you do have a job most of the time you're still under severe risk, just less so.
In those contexts, there isn't much agreement involved from the weaker side. And it isn't Marx who said so. Adam Smith wrote on the topic, contrasting how the typical English peasant at the time had only enough accumulated wealth to last a week before beginning to starve if they lost their job, while the typical business owner, if they were to suddenly lose all their employees, had at least 18 weeks before the same happened to them, what created a clear imbalance in negotiating power between both parties.
One major failure in Marxist theory
Re: (Score:3)
which means that value must be mandated
Not exactly. The idea is that if people become free from the need to work for others lest they starve, and able to work in whatever they enjoy doing, work itself become an end. As in, you go work because you love doing whatever you do, you produce whatever you love producing because you love producing that, and people exchange those things with each other not out of need, since there wouldn't be needs, but out of enjoyment in each other's accomplishments. So idealistically this seems very nice and all.
The p
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, you can see at least one example where this is currently working: Cuba.
Clearly you have never been to Cuba?
Everyone is poor, but hey at least everyone is poor equally! (except for people in a position of power, as usual)
And don't you dare blame the US embargo for all theirs problems. Food being rationed and never being able to own your house is not something anyone aspires to. They're not even allowed to leave their country, because otherwise people would be leaving en masse.
Re: (Score:3)
Try not paying your rent (property taxes) on the house you "own" and see how long you "own" it.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
One: You mean people like having personal property? Weird. Are you willing to give up everything you have over to the State? Two: How do you eliminate personal property and get everyone to agree with having no personal property without authoritarian force? I hate to break it to you but people disagree and communism's only solution to that is to get agreement by force.
I have a bunch of family that lived behind the Iron Curtain, they had personal property. The party theorists broke out in green boils whenever they thought about it but private property existed. The Bolsheviks tried to abolish private property and inheritance rights but they gave up on it and by the 1940s Soviet citizens were able to buy or build their own house which was their private inheritable property. In the GDR this was also all constitutionally guaranteed. Advocates of pure socialism have always discovered that certain concessions like this have to be made just like advocates of pure, everything is allowed, zero government capitalism discovered to their chagrin that the richest guy usually ends up being king because he can afford to hire the most mercenaries which is the end of everybody else's freedom. So they need certain laws, regulations and restraints. The US got a taste of this when Reagan deregulated everything in sight which led to drug dealers abandoning drug dealing and moving into forged aircraft parts because it was more profitable. The enthusiasm for complete ideologically pure deregulation ended when Reagan was informed that counterfeit parts had been found in Air Force One. Nothing ever works without compromise but that has never deterred fanatical puritans of both flanks of the political spectrum from trying to achieve their ideologically pure utopia. They have always failed.
Simply not true (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't comprehend what it's like to not be allowed to own a home/apartment. To not be allowed to move to another town, not to say another country ! If you are from your Misisippi you can get up and leave, that was something
Re: (Score:2)
Communism always results in dictatorship. First of all you need a dictatorship to implement it and then you need a dictatorship to maintain it. Nazi Germany was started from Socialism/Communism, USSR, China, Korea, Cuba, ...
The default for humans (without government) seems to be capitalism (barter and trade) to maximize one's own survival. More assets to barter for food, protection and sex improves your chances at survival.
Equalizing everyone would be fine if everyone was a robot, but as soon as anyone perc
Re: (Score:3)
READ again what I said. Because is very clear that you did not do that. And read again, anda again, until you understand. Or if you prefer like this I'll give you the simplified version:
a) Communism never really existed because human beings are too selfish to work;
b) Calling a government communist does not make it communism
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why mod
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, true communism is impossible to implement, since no one's ever done it in numerous attempts. Therefore, it's futile to try, especially since those attempts all seem to end in tears.
True capitalism is impossible to implement, since no one's ever done it in numerous attempts. Therefore, it's futile to try, especially since those attempts all seem to end in tears. No 'apparently' about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, true communism is impossible to implement, since no one's ever done it in numerous attempts. Therefore, it's futile to try, especially since those attempts all seem to end in tears.
Maybe not impossible, but it's definitely time to go back to the drawing board before trying again. Democracy took a long time to get right (and by right I mean "better than monarchy"). No reason to believe communism is out permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: But (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, that's why planes are impossible too!
Impossible things are only impossible until someone does them right.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally yes. The reason why you shouldn't try is because people suck. It's a laudable goal, but completely unworkable in anything but the smallest societies.
Remember, under capitalism man screws over his fellow man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, the point of a communist government is to guide the country until it reaches communism, at which point the government is no longer necessary. Therefore by definition no country with a communist government has communism. Chris Mattem's comment is more to the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians are not anarchists. They do not want to abolish hierarchy like anarchists do (this is literally why libertarians split from anarchists), they simply want a privatized hierarchy. So no, libertarians do not want THAT kind of an end to government, i.e. one that leaves the people in control. They just want an end to governments protecting the people from private tyranny. If they wanted to end hierarchy, they'd just identify as anarchists because, you know, opposition to hierarchy is in the name its
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So on one hand we complain because of the reflexive response of Chinese citizens to any insult to their country which seems to follow a written script On the other hand, there is a response to this that is exactly a reflexive recitation of incorrect assertatations about communism in order to follow the far right political dogma. Were an extraterrestrial civilization to be studying humans they might conclude that these two groups were the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can fuck right off with your "no true scotsman" excuses. China under Mao was the very epitome of communism.
The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is a fallacy because there is no authoritative objective comparison point, it is always a subjective measure. Quite differently there are specific books and documents by Marx and others which DO provide an objective comparison point for the thing they named Communism. Unlike the Scotsman claim, you can indeed state that someone is or is not behaving according to the specific published works. Someone can objectively be meeting or not meeting the requirements of The Manifesto
Re: (Score:2)
In the last decade there seems to have been a redefining of "communism" in certain circles, sort of bringing back the red-scare view from the 50s and 60s into modern political life. So communism for many of these people is not a political theory but is sort of a synonym for tyranny, anti-democracy, or whatever they're opposed to. It also brings back the old idea that unions are a gateway to socialism, and socialism is a gateway to communism, and therefore anything that even vaguely socialist is to be resis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it was communist until the communists even realized that communism was a failure so they chose the logical solution for an authoritarian government. Fascism.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh great, not only have I never heard of this country before, but it's in trouble too?
Re: (Score:2)
It's King Kong's ugly brother.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, you're hired. You start next monday with a salary of nothing per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Communism = Despotism. There's no way to impose communism and maintain it without a despot.