yourmatenate

Oops - fixed it now - I'd set it to private while developing, but it works enough to play now.

I loved Sinclair Basic back in the day despite its limitations - it was my gateway drug into software and systems. When I discovered Boriel Basic a few weeks ago it allowed me relive my childhood, and finally finish making a game for the ZX Spectrum (albeit a remake):

https://github.com/nateProjects/adarkroom-zx

Missing the bigger picture? The need for food banks exists precisely because capitalism fails to provide basic necessities to all people despite abundant resources. Celebrating more efficient charitable food distribution sidesteps the question of why such charity is necessary in a wealthy society.

Tim Maughan's award-winning dystopian / utopian sci-fi novel, Infinite Detail is set in Stokes Croft. It's not hard to imagine it one day it becoming the small anarchist post-collapse refuge of the novel. - http://strangehorizons.com/wordpress/non-fiction/infinite-de...

There are a hundred things to do in this little Bristol microcosm, starting with breakfast at Cafe Kino, The Bristolian or the Craft Egg and ending the evening at The People's Republic, The Canteen or The Cube. - https://secretbristol.com/things-to-do-stokes-croft/

Note: I realise this is an April Fools joke, but I'd make a case for its raw charm and unique cultural heritage being preserved.

Yes, it wants to replace Neoliberal Capitalism with ... Oligarchic Capitalism ... so still Capitalism!

Looks like they already resolved it - https://www.thebookseller.com/news/bloomsbury-reaches-new-lo...

Neoliberalism propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Pencil

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48383050

https://crookedtimber.org/2011/04/16/i-pencil-a-product-of-t...

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2019/11/some-criticisms-of-i-pencil...

& my own - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/the-right-wing-...

Five European countries have just produced guides to help people prepare for war. Here's a version for Brits.

We seem spoilt for Spectrum remakes lately -

This ESP32 one is perhaps a more 'pure' example in terms of the user experience, and is similar to the PicoZX in some regards: https://www.tindie.com/products/bobricius/picozx-handheld-zx...

But some of the others come with extra bells and whistles:

Most recently, The Spectrum, which is not without its detractors: https://retrogames.biz/products/thespectrum/

Here's one you can take on the go: https://retroradionics.com/OMNI-128HQ-LAPTOP-p75106221

Of course the super Spectrum Next, which is scarcer than hens teeth: https://www.specnext.com/

But has its own clones: https://ultimatemister.com/product-category/zx-spectrum/zx-n... & https://zxrenew.co.uk/Xberry-Pi-p596973674

And here are some more DIY options: https://www.bytedelight.com/?product_cat=harlequin128 & https://retrocomp.cz/produkt?id=62

Hiya, I was looking for something like this, and am finding it fun to play with.

I just have one question ... How do I add a book to it?

It seems appropriate on May the 4th to look into the radical political origins of Star Wars …

* Did Vietnam inspire Star Wars? * Is America the Empire? * Is Darth Vader Nixon? * Is Andor an Anarchist? * & How does Stalin & the Ewoks fit into all of this?

Contrast this with -

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/28/natalism-c...

& https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/04/first-thing-...

I didn't mean to shoot the messenger.

I'd like to think the site was a joke, but if it is the joke stops too short for it to be very funny.

Really? Blaming the victims of poverty?

I kept expecting it to say "Just kidding!" but it didn't.

Being poor just takes one sad accident, one unexpected health problem, the circumstances of birth, bad luck, or a system that undervalues and drives down the value of your labour.

Really?

* https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

Also worth reading -

* https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Voter_fraud

Is it your extensive research into anthropology that leads you to call this a "garbage essay"? Or could it be your resistance to some experts (admittedly not all, but many do agree with Graeber) looking at the evidence and finding that it raises interesting possibilities about hierarchal societies? In "The Dawn Of Everything" Graeber and Wengrow do address alternative views, and why they believe theirs has merit and is better supported by the evidence. So maybe this shorter essay just doesn't fulfil that need for you, and you'd be better off reading the whole book.

Scholars will focus on what they find of interest, and are not exempt from having personal ideologies, but I'd argue that the fact that Graeber acknowledges this (at least in more detailed treatments of the subject) makes him more interesting (and dare I say it reliable) than those who pretend or claim to be completely impartial.

On the other hand many of the objections to Graber and Wengrow (and notable others) conclusions have seemed have come from those who have strong personal biases in favour of hierarchy, negative views of human nature, fundamentalist religious beliefs, or positive views of capitalism. So this gives me good reason to be suspicious of their motives or perspective (especially when they don't acknowledge them, or consider their presumption beyond challenge).

There are several different attempts at Solar Punk Manifestos: (As there should be in a decentralised non-hierarchal philosophy)

* From the short - https://www.solarpunkstudio.com/manifesto

* To the bright - https://www.solarpunkstories.com/our-manifesto

* To the metamodern (post-postmodern?) - https://www.joelightfoot.org/post/the-metamodern-solarpunk-m...

* To the Italian (in English) - https://solarpunk.it/what-is-solarpunk-a-manifesto/

I for one welcome our positive post-capitalist future ... if we can get it started while we still have a chance.

When I wrote this article I would have never expected anyone beyond a few friends to notice it. My blog has been mainly a place for me to think through ideas I'm interested in by writing about them.

I love the book recommendations. I'll share them with our local Utopian book collective. For those interested in positive sci-fi futures ... The club has a blog here - https://justutopias.com/just-utopias-blog/

Undoubtedly prompted by this well-received drama - https://www.itv.com/watch/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office/10a046...

Is anyone meant to take such articles seriously from a well known conspiracy theory source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/UnHerd

Love books that teach coding in new and novel ways.

Its almost as if being on the precarious end of a precarious system lets down the most vulnerable.

I'm not sure of the value or veracity of this theory, as one of the few real life cases that was said to have supported it was inaccurately reported & the real events may have made exactly the opposite point -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Inacc...

Does this one include Dr. Halliwell of the Spice Girls as one of the scientists?

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug...

This new one seems to have about as much credibility as past petitions by so called 'Scientists'.

(Just so you know - from Rational Wiki)

"There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars." — The Machinery of Freedom, chapter 29

Friedman is much more radical than many anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard. Both he and the Rothbardians believe that all functions of government should be privatized and replaced by competing companies, such as private security firms, toll road operators, and arbitration courts.

However, while the Rothbardians believe that all the competing companies should enforce a single body of law that has been reached by consensus, somewhat like how things were done in the medieval Icelandic Commonwealth or in pre-Cromwellian Ireland, Friedman believes that the legislative process should also be privatized, and there would be no rules at all except cuius regio, eius religio, or its equivalent with secular law. How (or whether) democracy then sets in is another debate altogether.

Friedman also differs from Rothbardians and other natural-law anarchists and libertarians in advancing purely utilitarian arguments for the model he advocates, without reference to ethics except in the context of the operation of law.

You are right that Socialism is a broad word and Socialism is a broad tent. I tend to personally use it more narrowly than some Socialists, but acknowledge that others consider universal social policies or co-operatives as at least partial Socialism, or part of an effort towards it.

It doesn't suit me that Norway isn't fully Socialist. I'm glad that some policies started by Socialists have been implemented that offer some relief from the worst economic injustices of Capitalism, but I don't think it is sufficient or goes anywhere near far enough.

I agree that those seeking to introduce universal social programmes in America could use some better strategies. For example pointing out that Americans already pay twice toward healthcare in taxes as what Canadians do (3 x what some Europeans do), but are getting nothing in return for their high taxes most of their lives (if they don't qualify for medicare / medicaid or pay for exorbitant insurance on top of their taxes). But the right has done a good job of labelling any universal benefit - even if it saves people money - as Socialism, so maybe it is an unescapable label.

The United States has it's own social welfare programs. Some of which can be traced back to American Socialists. But I'd say the biggest of welfare program these days by expenditure is the American military, followed by corporate welfare in various forms (subsidies, overlooking tax evasion, government contracts, paying for externalities by taxation). It would be a stretch to call these Socialist, but they are definitely the government doing stuff, and I reckon have a lot in common with Lenin's state capitalism or even Mussolini's corporate fascism in my eyes.

Having said that Americans with a positive view of Capitalism has been going down, and a positive view of Socialism has been going up (especially among younger people). This seems to be true across most of Europe too, where it has never been as dirty a word as it is in the U.S.

Capitalism also suffers from the same broadness. I'd argue it only means "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." But many people who aren't private owners of industry consider themselves Capitalists because they work for wages, have a house, and go shopping for things.

I'll admit that people calling themselves Socialists have done some pretty dumb things (bad crop planning, playing with missiles), especially in the early days, and a few so-called Socialists who sought for power and gained it abused it (Lenin and Mao). Capitalism has had it's share of major problems too (slavery and imperialism for example), and has had horrible dictators all of its own (Pinochet and Putin for example).

I would argue that when Socialism has failed it has been in trying to be more Capitalist (Lenin & Mao's biggest critics were Socialists and his harshest acts were against Socialists, and his worst acts were either against them or in response to trying to out-Capitalist the West). I'd also argue that Capitalism's biggest issues are inherent to Capitalism - see the Iron Law Of Oligarchy & overthrowing peaceful democratic countries for the benefits of corporations for example.

As for questions of state enforcement - maybe I associate with a different set of Socialists and maybe a different group are getting airtime here in Europe where I'm living right now, but I'm not hearing many people on the left speaking about enforcing state Socialism and banning much of anything. Most avowed Socialists parties here (which number millions of supporters this side of the pond) aren't arguing for this.

The most radical Socialists I know (Anarchists like me) don't want a state at all, and do want to see an end to the Capitalism that is being enforced at the moment, but I recognise I am in a minority, and offer solidarity in areas I can find agreement with other Socialists, with whom I may share some general ideals.

what is your definition of socialism?

This is the probably the best point to start from when discussing Socialism. So it was the point I started with:

"Socialism is about how workers organise their workplace (owning, managing and sharing the produce and profit of their labour)"

As the Oxford Dictionary says:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

So Socialism is something very specific, but Socialists often associate themselves with other principles that they believe are in line with their moral values, see as a helpful strategy for achieving their ideals, or their Socialism is part of a larger political philosophy (Communism etc.) This association (and some detractors using the word Socialism to define everything they don't like) are what lead to confusion.

Socialists joke that detractors believe "Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does the more Socialist (or Communist) it is." But some commentators - see current popular right-wing American opinion pieces - really do seem to believe this.

There is no mention of state, government or rulers of any kind in most definitions of Socialism (most Anarchists are Socialists too). Of course some Socialists have believed that the state can act in the interest of the public by being stewards over these resources with the ideal of later devolving this to the communities and workers. Which has led to State Socialism (which Lenin called State Capitalism) on the one hand, and Social Democracy on the other. Some (like myself) think both strategies are flawed as do non-hierarchal Socialists (Anarcho-Communists, Syndicalists, Libertarian & Council Marxists, Democratic Confederalists, and maybe Agorists etc.)

There is also no mention of private - non-personal - property (although some Socialists like myself are against that too, but other Socialists see the issue as an irrelevance or inevitability).

Some see Socialism as sufficient in itself, others see it as part of the progress toward Communism (stateless, classless, moneyless as stated before).

Do you have a different definition of Socialism?

many people feel that way under socialism

Assuming this is true then we have two economic systems in which people feel limited in their opportunities - albeit in different situations and for different reasons: the capitalist one by prioritising roles that have value to those with capital (corporations etc.), and the Socialist one by prioritising value to the community. I suppose it is a question then of where we individually find greater personal value and what fits in with our values.

Would you consider "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" a form of coercion?

I would consider it a form of coercion, because artificially restricting access to food when it is plentiful is intentional cruelty. "Serve me or starve" is an abusive relationship. Where there is safety net - at least to the basics needed for life - people can make more rational choices, and hold out for better choices.

Note: This aphorism attributed to St. Paul seems to be diametrically opposed to the rest of the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus as well as to basic human decency, and is one (of the dozens of) reasons I think Christians should reject Paul as an authentic apostle (as Jefferson, Shaw, Tolstoy, Ghandi, Kierkegaard & Sagan did).

any form of freelancing is typically forbidden

I suppose this is question of what you mean by freelancing. There are always highly skills craftsman and experts in very specific fields whose work isn't limited to one workplace etc. But who is forbidding it? Are you mistaking Socialism for the authoritarian Soviet system?

Apparently I created negative value and still got paid for it, therefore I robbed someone.

Value is very subjective in Capitalism. Luxuries may be cheaper than essentials (television vs house), some eccentric professions are valued far more highly than those necessary for human survival.

But a worker is almost always in a far more precarious position than an owner.

there are no startups in socialism

Really? I see Socialism as the possibility for all sorts of start ups that would provide human benefit that no share holder looking for a profit would ever invest in, but would enrich humanity greatly.

Maybe it's time for lefties to stop viewing every business interaction as "robbing", every salary as "slavery", every cheesy comment as "rape" and every disagreement as "genocide"?

If one has the basic assumption that value is created by the worker and that capitalism is taking that value unethically then robbing seems an appropriate word for it, likewise a system in which a worker's choices of employment and the wages from it are limited artificially to support this system then people may feel like serfs (although it could be argued that serfs had more capital and a higher return on their labour - at least in England after the Black Death when they were in a better bargaining position).

Who is saying cheesy comments are rape though? Who sees disagreements as genocide? Did those disagreements lead to actual deaths?

comparing US prisons to Gulag is laughable.

As someone with family in the US prison I have become very familiar with its human rights abuses, which would not be tolerated in any other European country.

Isn't it a funny coincidence, that socialism and dictatorship usually go hand in hand

I guess I wasn't clear. I was talking about capitalist dictatorships that people wish to escape from. See Pinochet's Chile, Putin's Russia, Orbán's Hungary, Erdoğan's Turkey for examples.

What an obscure way to say "capitalistic".

As the meme goes - Socialism never works! But Norway is Socialist and they are doing great. They're not Socialist - they are Capitalist! The lets adopt their policies. No, that's Socialism!

These countries are Socialist when a Capitalist wants to criticise them and Capitalist when a Capitalist wants to praise or excuse them.

It is true that they are not wholly Socialist. They are "Social Democratic" (what Bernie Sanders calls "Democratic Socialism") But Socialist parties seeking to implement Socialist-inspired principles were the ones who usually introduced universal* healthcare, pensions, housing, vacations etc. This is because the concept of decommodification is integral to production for use and need (rather than profit). It is an underlying assumption about the worth of people that motivates the worker led, owned and shared workplace.

*free at the point of delivery for lower taxation by shared liability (public insurance)

You do realize that none of them are even considering abolishing private ownership?

The abolishment of private property is Communist - not Socialist. Now, some Socialists are in favour of it, and most Communists (at least those who fit Marx's stateless, classless, moneyless definition) are Socialists too. Some of these European governments have a great deal of social housing, public land, public utilities etc. that was - at least in part - seen as progress toward minimising the negative effects of (rent seeking) private property and working toward it's elimination, but as I said that isn't strictly Socialism in itself.

"obviously not slavery"

It is admittedly not traditional chattel slavery but I happen to agree with Frederick Douglas that, "there may be a wages of slavery only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other." Which was a sentiment echoed by Abraham Lincoln.

I'm pretty lucky with my profession, but many many people feel coerced into a narrow range of job options, alienated from their work, and robbed of a significant part of the value they produce.

Note: In most first world countries in the world outside of America losing a job or ill health does not lead to potentially losing a home, or no longer having access to medicine or care. America is quite unique in that regard, and more similar to third world countries.

As for the "Gulag" America has a larger proportion in prison than Russia (or China) ever has (and I am far from a fan of those authoritarian countries).

"immigrate from socialistic states to capitalistic ones"

Most mass immigration is coming from people fleeing dictatorships and / or poor third world and often war-torn countries which are far from Socialist. In fact they are often capitalist dictatorships supported by America (sometimes with previous left-leaning democratic governments overthrown by America).

It is true that many of them migrate to the relative peace of places like America, but great numbers also migrate to neighbouring more left-wing countries in places like Africa and South America.

Although I don't consider China or Soviet Russia any more Socialist than most European countries which have Socialist inspired social programmes, there have been major mass migrations into Soviet Russia in the past (even from Americans during the Great Depression) and into China in more recent times (economic migrants from Africa especially). As for European countries with Socialist policies: they have millions of migrants per year, some as refugees, but many drawn by their "Social Democratic" ideals.

No sane person thinks that the current system is exploitative? No sane person thinks that it takes advantage about a power differential due to who has the capital (land, factory etc.)? I guess I know a lot of insane people.

How many people really get paid how much they think they are worth under the current system? Not many I know.

How much does the person with the capital risk compared to the employee who might lose their home with the loss of their livelihood? Do most employees really believe that they have a rational and fair choice of the risks they enter into? (including the risk of surviving on a low income)

I guess I'm not meeting these swathes of workers completely satisfied with their wages, risks, and the system they live in.

I know plenty of Socialists who believe in different benefits for different levels of effort or danger, especially as in Capitalism most of those people are the most poorly paid at present.