As He died to make men holy
Let us die to make things cheap

  • 41 Posts
  • 1.61K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 8th, 2024

help-circle




  • I guess what is considered easy is very subjective. I seriously think Marx’ Manifesto of the Communist Party is not a bad place to start. It’s everything Capital is not: short, easy to read, somewhat superficial.

    I’d say the historical analysis is at the core of marxism as much as the economic one, and it’s summarized perfectly right from the start:

    The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

    Make sure to take a second to reflect on this and the Soviet Union and the failure of Marxist-Leninism. It was not the end of history, but another common ruin. Which brings me to the biggest problem of studying socialist theory: The line between theory and propaganda is often blurred. The Manifesto of the Communist Party itself, thought-provoking as it is, is a pamphlet made for wide circulation, and more propaganda than academic work. Marx’ understanding of history revolves around how proletarian revolts such as the Soviet Union go wrong and end up reproducing existing power structures. Yet many of today’s self-proclaimed Marxists are somehow blind to this and end up tricking themselves with all sorts of mind games.

    That’s why I think it’s important to start with Marx himself. Understand his view of history and his criticism of the economy, and reflect on what it means for what you see in history since it was written. It still holds, though the theory itself has become weaponized in the very historical and economical dynamics he is describing. If you understand this independently you’re less likely to become a sucker who falls for propaganda.

    And of course, Marx wasn’t a god, and he didn’t get it all right. I personally think the main problem is his understanding of history as having an “end” (a teleological account) - Marx believed every class revolt would lead us slightly closer to a classless society, and that eventually we would get there. This builds on Hegel, who had a similar understanding of history rooted in religion rather than communism. I think this is plain wrong - things very well might just get worse, and there is no end of history. But that’s me.

    Of course one shouldn’t focus only on Marx, but I feel like he’s important enough that it’s worth taking him seriously. And with all the stupid takes people have on his work, I think it’s a good idea to go straight to the source.









  • cabbage@piefed.socialtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I was talking about users, not developers.

    I’m under the crazy opinion that developers are free to develop whatever they want, and users are free to use whatever they want. If they are unhappy they can use something else or become developers.

    If I develop something you do not want to use I do not restrict your freedom. GNOME developers are not restricting your freedom by creating a product that’s according to my preferences. They are giving us both freedom to choose what we prefer. The fact that GNOME is so different from KDE increases freedom of choice.

    I don’t get what is so hard to understand here.


  • cabbage@piefed.socialtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I don’t know of a package manager with a GTK filter.

    This I could agree with, but the problem here is a lacking feature in package managers, not the fact that apps that you don’t personally enjoy using exist.

    I don’t particularly enjoy using KDE apps, but thankfully the K-centric naming convention make them really easy to avoid.


  • cabbage@piefed.socialtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    So apps look the way they are made?

    When I use KDE apps in GNOME they also look like KDE apps. Obviously - that’s the way they are made. If I want something else than what someone else created I will use something else, not complain about how they didn’t create it the way I personally prefer.



  • cabbage@piefed.socialtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    I’m happy I’m not the only one to experience KDE like that. I’ve had far better experiences with XFCE than with KDE, but I keep going back to GNOME because of the user experience. I’m happy people enjoy KDE though, so I don’t generally feel a strong need to trash it online. But my god can the user base be insufferable at times.


  • cabbage@piefed.socialtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 days ago

    As a GNOME user since forever, I find it fascinating how much time KDE users spend thinking about GNOME. They seem so obsessed with customization, yet seem incapable of understanding that people could have preferences different from their own.