Goals tbh

Mood ^^ well we both know where we were presumably raised at, so- yeah. Like recognizes like

Honestly seems like the world's best weather to me, but then I am a creature of the cold

Lolicon isn’t just porn, but attraction towards children in general, is it not?

Yes and no, "loli" is the.. genre if you will. The terminally online/creepy/anime way of calling it. Calling people or kids it in general is just plain wrong honestly IMO. The "attraction towards children" is pedophilia

There’s no gunning for undertones. If you replace the cartoon image with an actual photograph of a child it should be obvious.

Once again, cartoon. Not to say that makes "everything ok" but at some point you need to touch grass

The age of the commenters is irrelevant.

As for this... seriously? They were cringe but this is equally cringe. Basically at some point... you get my gist

c) The OC was likely created by an adult

I don't see how this has anything to do with the subject matter?

Even calling it "loli" is problematic and if anything the creepier thing, but IMO

(A) in the genchat we talked about the age of those two posters (my comment on the other hand was "sure kill me" but less explicit as it's the grad)

(B) the line drawn is iffy with age (not an Evangelion fan so didn't know she's 14) but even then at some point, considering the artstyle and that we're literally gunning for "undertones" at this point I think we need to touch grass.

(C) I agree the grad is really not the place for this sorts of things though

I know that... it might have been bilibili or something that did a literal "Marx" anime. I downloaded it but gonna look it up... here it is (The Leader)

Fingers crossed though, if and when they do launch- the rest of the world must return in kind and 1000x over. The rest of humanity is not defenseless, and if they wish to use such WMDs the US best prepare for MAD and to be eradicated off the face of the planet, this is the deterrence game the US has forced the rest of the world to play and if they want to push their luck they will die by it.

Ah, big oof

While they certainly exist, the Communist Party of Britain thankfully is not among them: https://archive.ph/F1Ow4

The Communist Party of Britain affirmed that it supports transgender people’s right to “live equal, full and meaningful lives” after J.K. Rowling, almost as well known at this point for her hatred of trans women as for penning the mega-popular Harry Potter series, expressed tacit support for its candidates. On Saturday, Rowling encouraged her social media followers to vote Communist, a move made in response to the anti-trans feminist group For Women Scotland tweeting that a party spokesperson had told them it stood “in support of [recognizing] the nature of biological sex.” A day later, a statement was released on the party’s official X account clarifying the matter. “For avoidance of doubt, the Communist Party supports the right of trans people to medically transition, to have access to healthcare and live equal, full and meaningful lives, socially, economically and politically,” it said. “We believe that such liberation will only be possible under socialism.” Rowling’s blessing, likely now to be rescinded, came after she published an op-ed in The Times of London on Friday disavowing the Labour Party over its support for trans rights.

This, 100000%.... and this is as a trans POC who has been exactly that, even did a small talking bit once for (insert certain corpo here)...

Even if some, or many people might have sympathies with all the minorities (LGBT minorities, religious and ethnic and racial minorities, etc) or for the developing world, womens' rights, or the working classes, etc. they ultimately are part of the system that's the problem, that churns up our lives (and particularly and with discriminatory preference, our lives) for profit. We're menu items, and nowadays we're also items which they use to absolve themselves of guilt and convince themselves they're not monsters, though they won't end the broader system of exploitation (they'll just create plausible deniability/distance to the direct exploitation at best, and when pushed they'll mostly go fascist as they always do).

Capitalism has always commodified those it oppresses, but now it also sells indulgences, just like the Catholic church of old.

If only something could come out of all the west's various fascist tendencies' infighting and internal accusations... c'mon, kill each other already, ideally as viciously and extensively as possible. Night of the long knives 2.0 (and 3.0, etc. ad infinitum), please.

Agreed, it's good that people are talking about this and hopefully (even if it won't mean much) it hurts their bottom line, but it'd be more surprising if something like this wasn't the case IMO. Blizzard has a history of being ghouls, Activision is made up of even worse ghouls (the worst kinds of bootlickers in the business, probably), and then they were acquired by Microsoft to make it worse.

Honestly, I'm fine with the collective west getting high off the copium and heading straight to hell. Even if I live in it. It's hilarious really, they've fallen for their own ideology to the point they've forgotten how to build up actual productive forces.

Honestly, I agree- the dynamics in the west are such that I just plain don't have much hope here, especially in the Anglo-settler countries.

Thankfully, the global majority is not white (and the west European-descended and dominated racist bloc rejected Russia), and demography even in the cores is on our side. And thankfully the world has now caught up and will leave the barbarian hordes (not all whites, but the "international community" and specifically those who have such imperialist mentalities) in the dustbin of history, where the western imperialists will have to decide if they want to rejoin the rest of humanity.

@adasgoodb

Just another reason to continue the Redfield bloodline, Leon...

(offers jugular)

Admittedly these three points more or less explained your concept to me, where I was stumbling on it prior:

Why not try to create a mini-China?

That’s… Actually kind of what I’m getting at. And maybe you phrased it better than I could have.

Sounds good to me, then.

pursue a trade surplus with the wider world

I just don’t see why that’s needed. Capitalists trade to accumulate capital, whereas a commune is interested in growing its ability to produce in a self sufficient manner.

The goal of pursuing a trade surplus would be for much of the same reasons, as why China has done so. To further promote and concentrate the development of productive forces (industrial/agricultural) within the region, and to create a foundation from which local productive forces within the commune can exist long-term in the broader world, without being subsumed or made irrelevant by external capitalist production, and working towards actual political (socioeconomic) influence.

but I don’t see why remaining a commune

Not intended to stay that way, which is why I called it a starting point!

Admittedly, I still stumble on your explanations here, though it is not due to the language (your English is perfectly fine). I'm just not understanding the specifics- so, is the commune a "starting point" to inspiring other communes and an ever-expanding commune, or is it a "starting point" towards expanding beyond simply being a commune?

In hindsight, I suppose it doesn't overly matter (though for the former, at some point it does sound like trying to create a "state within a state,") or wouldn't matter overly much within the short and medium-term, anyways. Though in regards to promoting actual socialist development then, if things were to expand past a certain point, the issue would rise up again- whether to create an insular system or framework of systems despite the external government, or to develop so as to slowly acquire political power within the pre-existing government and society.

As for this-

Can you please expand this point? I don’t quite understand what this “more concrete arrangement and…” is exactly, and why it’s needed.

My point was that politically idealistic, self-sufficient communes with considerable assets (productive capabilities, land, expertise, etc) past a certain point cannot expect to be left alone, without interference from the local government and from the other forces of external capital. In fact, even tiny, negligible communes would receive at least some scrutiny now and then.

A "more concrete arrangement" would be the aforementioned things I described- expanding outwards into the broader society and world, and in doing so acquiring economic, industrial, societal influence and political power within the broader society so as to be a force in your own right, rather than a tasty snack for capitalists to devour when so inclined.

The goal is to produce what the members of the commune need. If that can be produced locally, I don’t see a need to compete.

There's no need to step on local industries' toes (without good reason), sure. But if it is not produced locally, or if what production exists locally is not locally-owned, I don't see why competition should only be fair game, but beneficial (for the broader society and the collective/commune itself).

you’re asking why only serve the limited number of members of the commune, and not other people in the same region not part of the commune.

And as for this, that's what I was asking, yes. And if the commune remains solely a commune and confined to that framework, it could expand, sure, but wouldn't it only ever remain an insular, "petri dish" of a social experiment? Its expansion would be arbitrarily restrained, and it would not be promoting systemic change (or acquiring the means to promote such change), and it would not likely have the means to benefit the broader society (which it would be more or less built away and in relative isolation from).

It would not be a bad thing, to create such a commune all the same. But such a commune would not exactly be a "starting point" as described in the title here- at least, it would not be a "starting point" for anything other than the creation of more communes, which so long as they retained the same structural limitations, would have little impact outside of their small circles, and would be vulnerable to the broader capitalist society's possible predations (should they get large and developed enough as you describe) due to lacking political power.

Why shouldn't it compete with private industry (and in doing so, promote its own ideal of locally-owned, communally-organized industry)? Why, especially in developing (ie. colonized) countries, should the focus be on a limited commune's development rather than promoting industrial and economic development in the broader region within a healthier framework than that of private capital?

Personally I don't quite get it- if a group of people were to head to a developing country, purchase land and invest in it, and bring and develop their own talents- why would they then limit themselves to an insular commune model?

The majority of countries, developing countries included, are also capitalist. You will still need to exist within these socioeconomic frameworks, and come to an understanding with the local governance (which may or may not come with its own serious difficulties). Small, negligible communes in remote, neglible regions can probably(?) get by, but past a certain point (and especially with expansion and the kinds of political and industrial development you seem to be describing) a more concrete arrangement and place within the local economy, etc. would be more ideal (and probably necessary for survival/viability) IMO.

Capitalism (and particularly its highest form, imperialism) is the devil, yes. Yada yada (though I do think it is so)... But people will generally work in their own self-interest (and for projects past a certain scale it should be banking on that fact)- not necessarily "selfish/sociopathic interest" like the west likes to promote, but an insular, limited commune only has so much appeal, and so much sway in the world. Within the current global system, and the systems as they exist in most developing countries, I don't quite understand why things should be limited to a commune alone, when those with such resources to start such a thing could also genuinely create the foundations for something even more broadly-reaching and potentially, politically/etc. potent. And I don't understand either why the production should be limited to simply self-sufficiency rather than taking advantage of the typical advantages developing countries have in the global market (cheap production costs, etc) to pursue a trade surplus with the wider world and promote the development of the region (ideally while promoting/creating a strong foundation for labor organization and co-operative ownership, etc- hell if I know).

This is all just coming off the top of my head, so it's not necessarily the most coherent or well thought out of concepts. But if a group with such resources were to head to a developing "third world" country- why create some commune of "splendid self-sufficient isolation?" Why not try to create a mini-China? It could start off as a commune (and it might very well be easiest to start off as such- akin to how China developed its own """ghost cities""" as the west liked to mock) for many reasons, but I don't see why remaining a commune (retaining the commune/communal spirit and organization would be another thing) would be so ideal.

(edit) simply a quick thought- but if you were to ask me, the initial humble beginnings of a "commune" model for instance of the scale described, could just as well be directed towards creating a planned community (with the goal of expanding into a town, or eventual city). And if such a group were to have the means and skills to create such a developed commune- as described, why not create for local markets and foreign exports as well, and thus help break the broader regions' dependencies on foreign industry (or agriculture, etc)?

And why not seek to make the commune (whose organization presumably could develop/transition into a co-op or union of some kind, alongside some form of municipal govt.) indispensable (economically, technically, politically, etc) and expansive within the broader society itself?