• 0 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle



  • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlSpot the difference
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 days ago

    A state where the biggest capital holders

    So you admit it is capitalist?

    are regularly punished if they break the law or step out of line politically is not a state where capital has final say.

    The state are capitalists, they employ workers in state enterprises and pay them a wage in exchange for their labor. They are just a different aristocratic rank then the private capitalists

    There’s been no counter revolution in China, the organs of proletarian power remain in place even as reforms have been undertaken in every facet of life in China.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system

    This system would NOT be possible in a DoTP.




  • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlSpot the difference
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 days ago

    It is not defined by it being present even in the microscopic.

    Yeah, China does not have a ‘microscopic’ amount of commodity production, it is infact, dominated by commodity production.

    Answer, why do you think Marx and Engels wrong in the context of my quotations?

    They aren’t in that a certain level of productive forces are required to be present before the early stages of communism (socialism) can begin. No nation state has ever reached Socialism, in fact, it is impossible for a “Nation State” to really be socialist, from Engels principles of communism:

    Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

    No.

    China is a bourgeoisie nation state, with a DoTB like every other nation state.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system

    This system would NOT be possible in a DoTP.



  • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlSpot the difference
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    13 days ago

    Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual.

    Agreed. As in, Capitalism is also a transitional stage to Communism. China is a decidedly capitalist society, as evidenced by their production of commodities.

    Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers.

    There will be no “employer” class under communism. A communist society is classless. China does not use labor vouchers even, it has a system of money.

    Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.

    The state is the Bourgeoisie in centrally planned economies. They extract surplus value from the Proletariat just like in a private market economy. The difference between the State Bourgeoisie and the Private Bourgeoisie, in China, is just aristocratic rank.


  • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlSpot the difference
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    13 days ago

    At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis.

    The PRC is not socialist because, it produces commodities (the commodity form), Has A Dictatorship of The Bourgeoisie, The Wage System, and an employer-employee distinction.

    Which um, is in the passage you quoted:

    The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour.







  • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zonetolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldIT Department's Plan
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Also: don’t trust your employees to boot into safe mode. Trust a 3rd party to freely install system level files at any time.

    Exactly. This is exactly the problem, and unless people wisen up the software security problem is only going to get worse. Companies and Governments need to rethink how they approach security entirely. This is a preview of what is to come, its only going to get worse and more damaging from here, and none of the vendors care.


  • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zonetolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldIT Department's Plan
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’m pretty sure Windows is plenty secure.

    Haha sure. Windows NT MIGHT be considered ‘secure’ from an architectural standpoint but literally of this falls apart when you tape all the Microsoft Dark Patterns on it that ruin the security. Its a joke, and that’s the entire problem.

    Think: Microsoft Accounts, now the “secure” Windows NT Local User Authentication is effectively backdoored by MS and makes you vulnerable to phishing attacks. Windows Update: Constantly pushing dark patterns and ‘features’ that it discourages people from updating so then guess what, people don’t update! The fact that Windows so easily allows Crowdstrike to make system level changes like this without trying a whiny fit is also apart of it. Think about the fact how easily Microsoft allows stuff like Valorant anti-cheat and Crowdstrike, which are effectively rootkits, to be installed with one UAC prompt. In reality this issue is not really Microsoft’s fault directly, but in a bunch of indirect ways they encourage this and allow it to happen, and we have seen time and time again, Microsoft DOES NOT CARE ABOUT SECURITY.

    If anything this “Crowdstrike” software showcases the endemic problem in software security and how our system is failing and continuing to fail us. Its an anti-virus, but we already HAVE Windows Defender. These corporations should not be using some random 3rd party Antivirus, I doubt it even does much good, its just cargo-culting “oh, this is industry standard, so we have to use it.” This is the kind of thinking/approach that Microsoft encourages.