Cowbee

IP in general is a very difficult idea to support. In theory, it's supposed to reward innovation, but in practice it results in stagnation and price gouging.

I'm no Anarchist, but that's not what Anarchism is. Anarchism is a fully developed horizontal system, rather than vertical. The idea that Anarchism is simply "no rules" is an unfounded stereotype, there's lots of Anarchist theory.

While I personally think it's very difficult to achieve, it wouldn't be for the reasons you've listed. Simply destroying government isn't an Anarchist ideal, building up parallel structures like networks of Mutual Aid to replace the state and make it redundant is Anarchist praxis.

Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchy established in property rights. Doing away with hierarchy does away with Capitalism. Unless, of course, you're arguing for Anarcho-Communism or something.

Sorry, but you're highly wrong about your misconceptions of Communism. Communism in no way starves human impulses to succeed or grow any more than Capitalist success does. Communism eliminates the profit motive, yes, but that is historically a highly flawed motive in general.

Socialism/Communism/Anarchism are not fairy-tale Utopias where everyone magically gets a pony, people still work to produce goods and services. However, this production is democratized, in opposition to anti-democratic privatized systems.

Communism is, at first, Socialism. You're confusing Communism with Monarchism, or Oligarchy, when in reality Communism and Socialism are primarily about democratization and decentralization.

Compare 2 factories.

Factory 1 is Capitalist. It is owned by a businessman, and he employs workers to use said factory to produce commodities for sale on the market. The largest forms of voice the Workers have is Unionization, or, failing that, working somewhere else, if available.

Factory 2 is Socialist. The Workers are the Owners, and as such elect a manager to represent them in worker councils.

Looking at the 2 structures, Socialism is more democratic, and more decentralized, in theory. We must take this theory and see why or why not historical examples have measured up to this, from a practical, Materialist perspective. Tools aren't mystical, they don't corrupt the minds of those who share ownership of them.

It's easy to see why Lemmy, a platform based on decentralization and a rejection of the Profit Motive, has far more leftists.

All labor is unskilled labor, but compressed in some manner. Labor is just actions, if those specific actions must be trained, then that training is compressed labor.

Gas is better than shitty electric, but induction is better than both shitty electric and good gas.

Everything is political, you don't get to decide what's okay or not okay depending on how you personally feel about it.

Nah, it's just compound labor. "Skill" is just the expressed form of training in current work, ie labor is only worth that which labor is required to replicate it.

Leaving Reddit was one of the best things I've done for my phone addiction. Lemmy isn't nearly as addictive, and the lack of a profit motive to fuck things up and encourage mass clicking helps control the content.

I'd actually say it's the reverse, all labor is unskilled labor, but some of it takes previous unskilled labor to perform and is thus compressed.

Yes, and my point still stands. Lemmy is explicitly modeled in leftist fashion, not liberal or fascist, or any other conservative ideology.

It's just interesting, that's all. Choosing Lemmy isn't an accident, it's a fringe community formed due to the failures of Reddit. Choosing Lemmy over Reddit is an inherently political choice.