areyouevenreal

Some of you should try ink tank printers. Low ink prices and lots of ink in each refill. They come out of the box with thousands of pages worth if ink! Only problem is they sometimes get clogged.

And you're completely delusional if you think that the existence of student loans makes university accessible. Many people can not afford living expenses to make it work without familial support, which I'm glad you had but it's not what many people have. It's privileged.

That's hilarious because I have literally seen people do it. You're the one who's delusional. I know people who get less support from their rich family than they would have gotten from the government had their family been poor. It's actually a problem with sliding scale student loans based on family income. What happens when you're family can't be assed supporting you?

Essential workers would be paid vastly more while the vast quantity of bullshit jobs(read theory) would be paid the bullshit rates they deserve.

So you actually want more income quality than I do by the sounds of it. Yet you call my ideas far-right? You're supposed to get rid of bullshit jobs entirely in a revolution. So that's not even a consideration. Besides that I think paying people who are educated or do more physical work or more dangerous work is reasonable. Getting a degree is worse than free labour; you pay them to do work! That work is repaid later by higher wages. Even making University free wouldn't be enough as you still are putting in labour during you're time and university and not earning any money for that time.

I really don't want you anywhere near the leadership of a revolution. I think you've managed to clarify for me why I dislike Marxist-Leninists. You don't actually think about anybody outside of the poorest in society and have no grasp on real life.

If she didn't charge it would be free labour regardless. Also if what I am reading here is true and she is russian then the wages are likely more poor than you think. $500 would be worth more in that country.

Any idea on if her accusations are actually true?

It is physically addictive. Research has shown this already I am fairly sure. It's not nearly as addictive as some other things like alcohol obviously. Psychological addiction also shouldn't be dismissed.

Sugar is dangerous? Maybe refined sugars are - especially if you're diabetic - but most sugars are actually natural and some form complex carbohydrates and fibres. It's a lot more complex than this hot take. Sometimes even diabetic people need sugar in an emergency condition called hypoglycemia. It's also not in any way a drug; really wish people stopped saying this. Also genetic material is partially made from sugars like ribose and deoxyribose.

There are real life consequences to smoking too much weed and this can include damage to your lungs and can negatively impact the brain. Brain problems is mostly an issue for people under 25 though so smoking after this age is less problematic. That being said it's still much better than some other drugs like you say. Before people ask yes this includes alcohol as alcohol is quite toxic to brain and body when consumed habitually.

Weed can't replace all prescriptions either. It's just not as good at blocking pain as opiates even if it's a lot safer. That being said if it helps you then that's great - especially if it's in edible form or spray form as this is healthier than smoking.

I grew up an area that's recognized as one of the most deprived in England. It's called Bridlington if you want to look it up. My family are not the worst off but we were never rich. My mum was a teaching assistant and/or teacher and my dad worked it hospitality as a manager. So not the worst jobs but also not the best. They both worked full time.

It's also a completely wrong that only middle class people go to University. We have this amazing thing called student loans that are only repayed above certain wages. You get bigger loans the less well off your parents are.

I don't know what you have to do to be classed as middle class because it's not an easier defined term. It's also not a term really used by marxism. They use the term petite bourgeois if my understanding is correct. I guess you could call my parents that as they were landlords. But at the same time they had to work full time at a normal job and all houses were mortgaged. So you could also say they are the proletariat. This is why the marixst class model dosen't actually hold up always in real life. Real life is too complex as people can be in multiple classes at once.

You're also going to get nowhere by disparaging other workers just because they earn more than you. That's what you seem to want to do.

It's also completely natural for some people to be paid more than others based on their labour. The Soviet Union had this exact policy for jobs that required more education or more physical work. That's exactly how it should be outside of a post- scarcity society.

It's good that rent was that low in the Soviet Union but you also have more needs than housing. Food comes to mind where many people starved due to collectivisation efforts in the Soviet Union at the start. I understand they rectified this later but it is probable that the early stages of a socialist society will have problems like this. Things are likely to get worse in the beginning - not better.

I agree about the state of the NHS. The fact is though we still have an NHS, America never had one. Lots of countries don't have healthcare either.

How exactly is unskilled labour a myth? Maybe I should use the term less skilled or just easily replaceable since it's not 100% unskilled? Either way the result is the same: some labour takes way more time and training than other forms of labour. I don't think you can complain when a scientist or doctor that spent 7+ years at University while not getting paid gets a higher salary at the end. If you think this is a radical idea I really don't know what to tell you. I don't think anybody should be on poverty wages.

This is factually incorrect. Low income votes go left while high income votes go right. There was a blip created by brexit where this was not the case because everything became the single issue of brexit.

I am reporting what I have seen amoung students rather than the general population. The ones who have already been in work or are having to work hard to support themselves while studying are more centrist or right wing.

4.2million children live in poverty, out of 12.7million total.

By third world country standards they are probably rich. Poverty is very much relative. Some people make less in a day than minimum wage in this country for an hour. It's still not a good thing by any means, but that's sadly the reality. I don't think a socialist revolution is going to guarantee everybody has enough food, clothes, and other resources. A lot of people would inevitably end up poorer than to start with, at least for the foreseeable future.

Then it's a bad analogy. Kbin and Lemmy work independently. Linux and GNU are part of the same stack. Like it's not remotely comparable. They are also written in two different languages so I doubt they share that much code on the backend at least.

You realize things in the UK aren't that bad, right? Like we have it way better than America. Nobody I know is seriously struggling. We luckily still have free healthcare and a social safety net. I hate to say it but you're screaming over a much better situation than lots of countries are dealing with.

Even those remotely close to struggling don't blame capitalism and are actually right wing or centrists. At least this is what I have seen personally. It's not like these people are transphobic or racist either.

It's people like you guys that scream endlessly that are part of the problem. You're never going to convince anyone who doesn't already support the cause like that.

We also know the shit show that happened in Russia the failed ML revolution there, and basically everywhere else that tried it. Backing ML is getting you nowhere fast. Anarchists have more luck these days.

I think it's also worthwhile to point out that striking in the UK does almost nothing. This is partially because people don't strike at the same time. If they did it would be utter chaos. Things might even change.

It's also true that lots of strikes are not skilled labour. We all know jobs like bus driver are not paid very much, yet people complain anyway, and I can't help but think: you knew exactly what kind of job you were getting into. I sort of know better because bus drivers are an essential function regardless of what you think of them, so they should be paid fairly. Lots of people won't think like this though. It's also dead easy to replace unskilled labourers so scabs are always going to be a problem.

Also even the conservatives come up with schemes to help the people that are public spending heavy. Examples include furlough, eat out to help out, and the £2 bus faires that are happening right now. They aren't neoliberal at all. Schemes like that are not true right wing anymore than labour is true left wing in this country.

That's actually rather interesting. It's good to see a justification of why places like Beehaw disallow downvotes. I can sort of understand how this relates to YouTube removing downvotes as well, though maybe this shouldn't be applied to videos that are a potentially more damaging medium.

I thought Kbin was much newer than lemmy. So Kbin would be the new stepchild?

I have never heard if Tito or Tionism. How could I have argued about someone I have never heard of. Maybe I described his ideas without calling him by name?

What SWCC? Any searches I ran came up with organisations not related to socialist politics.

I think you might be right about socialist appeal. People have actually called them a cult before. It wouldn't surprise me if they have turned people off marxism before. The issue is they are probably the best at recruiting young people, they were the only polticial organization to show up at my university for instance. They also have posters everywhere.

Liberals? What do you mean by liberals? If you mean the American party then I don't like them either, though they do beat the republicans. If you mean libertarian then all anarchists and even some marxists are libertarian. So are right wing capitalists and some people in between. It's a very broad term that basically equates to freedom of speech and some other freedoms.

I hope you don't actually support Stalin though. From what I have been told what he wrote in his theory is somewhat reasonable, but dosen't at all match what he actually did. The writing was mere propaganda. I have also spoken to people from ex-soviet countries, they basically all hate the USSR. It's what caused a friend if mine to stop being a Marixst-Leninist.

You are right that I haven't read much theory. Theory is incredibly boring especially given it's mostly in older English and hard to understand. Poltitics isn't something I plan to do for a living - at least not any time soon.

I have yet to see any evidence that marxism is a science. I also don't believe modern capitalist economics is a science either. I have a very high bar for these things. When has marxism done controlled studies of different economic or polticial systems? If you have never done a controlled study then your not a science. Maybe there are some studies on this that I don't know about. I would love if you could show me some.