I think it can count. It’s not an organised boycott, but the devs have asked people to pirate it/not pay for it, and people seem to be following suit, so I’d say that counts as a boycott.

And of course Disco Elysium if you haven’t played it

Are we still boycotting? If so you wouldn’t want to get it on Steam then

Is it only asking for “books” in general that makes you a turbo-nerd? Tbf I find it weird for an older child to ask for “books” instead of specific books. But I have asked for specific books as gifts my whole childhood… I think when I was like 6-ish I would ask for “books” because I just knew I liked reading but not any specific books. But by that age I was asking for specific books.

They meant that they wanted to do a test to see if they would get any gpg-encrypted emails from people who saw the hat in real life; the “experiment” doesn’t work if you allow internet strangers to email you too, as then you don’t know where a person may have gotten the email address/key from

OP never claimed the encryption of WA and iMessage “work for us”. They just said they were encrypted. That’s a neutral statement.

??? What does that have to do with what OP asked

What do I use the most or what do people use the most? I use Matrix the most as most of my friends are on it (+ have it bridged with some chats that aren’t on Matrix). Then after that SimpleX. I don’t know what the most popular encrypted messengers among the general population, except for the ones you listed, are.

Moved to an English-speaking country where I lived for some years as a child.

ime as a subreddit mod that was nearly exclusively used for harassment, usually transphobic harassment. In the one or two cases where there was a report for someone who had suicidal or self-harm ideation, there’s still zilch I could have done; I would just approve the post so the user could get support and speak to others (the subreddit was a support group for a sensitive subject, so it wouldn’t be out of place for a post to say that the stress of certain things was making them suicidal).

Exactly. People with those views should not be able to freely express them without fear of proportionate retaliation.

How you know the shooter was a lefty: they didn’t miss

The verb “maximising” suggests a measurable “utility” which can be “maximised”, rather than needs which are either met or not.

The important thing to understand is that even if you hate capitalism, neoclassical economics provide provides a pretty useful framework for analyzing and understanding it

It really doesn’t—which was Marx’s whole project as a critique of political economy, not “communist economics”, not “Marxist political economy”, etc.

But my point is that what people call a “market” in neoclassical economics is literally just any situation where you have a bunch of relatively autonomous groups of people all trying to accomplish various goals all interacting with each other

Communism abolishes the individual as economic subject, and the conflicts of interests found in a “market”. Communism abolishes exchange, and abolishes economies. So, no, there is no “market” in a communist mode of production, even by your definition.

what you think utility is

“Utility” is not a concept I subscribe to per se, unless you just mean use-values in the same sense Marx uses them. I am responding to the concepts you are using. In a communist mode of production, production is, in the famous quote, “according to need”; in a capitalist mode of production, production is divorced from need, and we find production for the sake of production.

who do you think is being exploited in economic institution that literally has to internalize all of the external cost

Marxists use the word “exploitation” differently to its colloquial use. “Exploitation”, in Marx’s critique of political economy, refers to the extraction of surplus-value. I’m not sure if you know what that means or not. I can explain it if you want but you can also look it up; it’s a pretty basic part of Marx’s critique.

Also believe it or not I didn’t actually express any political beliefs here so I would appreciate it if you didn’t just assume that because I’m challenging you on your conception of things, it means that I disagree with your politics

I’m assuming you’re not a communist because you don’t seem to be familiar with communist views, and seem to be advocating for/in defence of a mode of production that is not communist. I don’t know how exactly you label yourself politically but it seems based on this short conversation that we can exclude communism from the list of possibilities, meaning we disagree.

I am opposed to “maximising utility” because I am a communist. Production should serve needs, not production for the sake of production.

compulsively reinvest all their excesses and internalize all of their external cost

Ok, still exploitation.

I can see that those are your political beliefs. You are welcome to have those political beliefs. OP is asking about communists, and communists do not want this, so this is rather orthogonal to the question.

Do you think that it’s not possible to interact with each other outside of a market, outside of capitalism?

Because they are subjected to market forces. I’m not referring to the decisions an individual worker in a coop might make—an individual may well decide to give away all their money and become homeless, that doesn’t mean it’s in people’s interests to. In a market, you must compete with other businesses, otherwise you will be out-competed and not survive. The “profits” obtained by a coop are still surplus-value; all the laws of capital outlined by Marx are still at play. Marx’s critique of political economy did not really hinge upon the specific boss/employee relationship; it’s about impersonal domination of the market over people who live in a capitalist mode of production. In Capital Marx spends quite a bit of time talking about how even capitalists are subjected to and dominated by capital; the domination is impersonal, and the domination of (hu)man by (hu)man is only secondary to that impersonal domination.

The hell of capitalism is the firm itself, not the fact that the firm has a boss.

The forces of the market and of capital do not go away just because the workers own the company. In worker-owned cooperatives, the workers exploit themselves, because the business still needs to grow. They simply carry out the logic of the capitalist themselves on themselves, using their surplus value to expand the business’s capital, and paying for their own labour-power reproduction. i.e., the workers all simply become petit-bourgeois.

There are extant organisations (some political parties, some NGOs) that push for more workers’ cooperatives, and none of them are communist nor call themselves communist. If you believe in a cooperative-based economy, you are not a communist. I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s just a fact, the same as if you want, for instance, the current US economic system, you are not a communist. You can advocate for coops but you would fare much better in that political project if you didn’t try to put it under the banner of something it’s not, and something far more controversial than just “worker coops are good” anyway.

Lmao https://xcancel.com/grok/status/1922035350945595471

The article is about the UK, where you’re not even allowed to carry pepper spray let alone 3D print a gun. And guns are at least heavily restricted in most countries so I assume that, even if 3D printers sold in the US don’t have gun detection, it might be in 3D printers sold outside the US.