What’s with these Reddit-style questions that are clearly designed to elicit PII?

There’s been a lot of them recently. Can mods do something?

There’s lots of those: ZFN, TALEN, zinc fingers, prime editing

CRISPR gets all the headlines

Who is RiF

Australia wants to force cats to have a little tuna, as a treat.

kewl

I don’t care

Let me be the devil’s advocate here.

Isn’t it using 7nm technology? Isn’t that 2018-tech? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Technology_Roadmap_for_Semiconductors)

Is China having the bet tech of six years ago really such a breakthrough?

I hate clickbait

Nice try, spycop

eh, I mean, I’m not gonna say it’s never a problem. Look up ‘red bourgeoisie’ or ‘new class’. Depends on when and where we’re talking about.

Communists aren’t perfect people who are immune to corruption; to think that would be utopianism.

Not a soldier, but one thing I am fairly sure of –

• WRONG WAY TO MEASURE MILITARY PROGRESS: Land gained. You might gain some kilometres of land at huge cost, if it’s well defended. The enemy might cede it to you in a strategic retreat that leaves you very bloody, and then you’ve got the land. Sure if the land contains something like a port that matters to the war machine it is real progress.

• RIGHT WAY TO MEASURE MILITARY PROGRESS: Are you deteriorating the enemy’s ability to wage war faster than he is deteriorating yours? Are you killing his men, smashing his machines, using cheap bullets to shoot down expensive helicopters, disrupting his supply lines to increase his costs? If you keep doing this, his war machine will collapse before yours does.

I’m not a military expert, but isn’t this what they teach? Isn’t this in Clausewitz and Mao’s books and isn’t it basically common sense? You don’t win a war by displaying encouraging maps on the evening news.

Even if it was, think about the numbers:

under capitalism, bosses take about 50% of workers’ value

suppose under corrupt communism, you had a red bourgeoisie siphoning off 1-2% of the workers’ wages; that would make them fabulously wealthy, but the workers would still be much better off

4. If you are given an option of yes or no, and you’ll be shot for saying no, you were never given an option. That’s common sense.

5. Russia under the NEP (New Economic Policy) did have the idea of profit. See The Economic Essence of Profit and Profitability Under Socialism from 1969 (https://sci-hub.se/10.2753/PET1061-199112013) and The Role of Profit in a Socialist Economy from 1963 (https://sci-hub.se/10.2753/PET1061-1991051010)

\8. That’s called ‘social parasitism’ and was a crime in the USSR. A slogan of Stalin’s was “he who does not work, neither shall he eat”. Again, this is based on the misconception that there weren’t things like wages and profits, like everything comes free or something, which was not ever the case. The answer to “What happens to someone who doesn’t work under socialism?” is a bit like “What happens to someone who doesn’t work under capitalism?” – they won’t have any money, and then how are they gonna pay for food and a place to live?

How would monetisation work on a decentralized platform? Would the creator be limited with merchandise and promotions without ads?

The patreon / liberapay model is the future.

When the chips are down, people normally fight for their self-interest.

The bourgeoisie fight for bourgeois interests.

Proletarians fight for labour interests.

Landlords aren’t going to willingly give up their free income and comfort in exchange for a life of labour. (Maybe 1% of them will.) They might say they will from the comfort of their armchair, but I’m talking when your life, your future are on the line.

fascination I suppose

1. and 2. – no. The idea that “communism is where everyone has the same salary” is a misconception

The Earnings of Soviet Workers: Evidence from the Soviet Interview Project DOI:10.2307/1928147 . The abstract says education and experience are rewarded. “As a first approximation,one can say that the Soviets use market-clearing wages to allocate labor.”

7. The USSR had two kinds of farms: sovkhoz were state owned where people earned wages, and kolkhoz were cooperatively owned. (In East Germany, these were called VEGs and LPGs respectively.) China collectivised farms under Mao and then decollectivised them later. Hungary and East Germany had their own things going on: including policies that you could hold a small amount (a few acres) privately. See The transition to socialism in China by Selden and Lippit as a source about collectivisation, or From Commune to Capitalism: How China’s Peasants Lost Collective Farming and Gained Urban Poverty by Zhun Xu. There’s also a couple of good books on agriculture in communist Hungary by Nigel Swain if we’re talking about the whole Soviet Bloc.

I don’t have much time, and there’s a few books to write in response to all your questions tbh

“Free markets are the most efficient way of allocating resource resources”

“How do you measure efficiency?”

“I don’t know”

then you have a baby AND a puppy to deal with, how’s that gonna help

Stop the war