I’m looking for a country whose people or government mainly support my values.

For what purpose? Are you in a position to live anywhere in the world? The best most people can do is work toward improving the country they live in. Not many can simply go window shopping.

deleted by creator

You must be thinking of Börne.

While there has been a taboo against the changing of borders in Africa due to legitimate reasons, it became accepted that South Sudan should be created

Wut.

What is going on with the passive voice here? With whom has there been this taboo, and why did they think they had the power or legitimacy to define borders in the first place? The Berlin Conference? This sounds like 19th century white man’s burden shit.

I’m only familiar with the web interface. You might try using a browser to change your settings.

Sounds like you have a “don’t show me nsfw posts” setting that you need to change. How you do that depends on your client.

Your mom was sick because she swallowed a whole bunch of pills, and she refuses to talk about it because she doesn’t want her children to know about her suicide attempt. If I were you, I would never bring it up again.

Also, drugs aren’t a scam.

I’ve had my fair share of mini-mind blowns, and that time I realized this was one of them.

Noffin’ much. Just a lil’ neocolonial pillaging of the ex-Soviet states by the NATO states.

The USSR and all so-called communist states were underdeveloped countries where “productive forces” were at a very low level and it was not possible for them to have “communist production relations”.

I literally *sensible chuckle*d.

It’s a program certainly, but “just a program” is a bit misleading because it places it on the same footing as Doom or cat or an Arduino project. Linux is a ring 0 program, which processors give unique treatment.

You are as dense as you are obnoxious.

Russia hasn’t been communist for a generation so what’s your point? Yeltsin sold the Union off to European and Anglosphere neocolonial plunderering.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)#Post-Soviet_states

Is this a stupid person spreading his thoughts or is this a smart person spreading capitalist propaganda?

Or so we’ve been told our entire lives, by our capitalist governments, corporations, and “nonprofit” organizations, which are funded by those very same corporations and governments. Virtually all of the media we’re exposed to have had an interest in us believing that narrative, and you’re not going to see past their narrative if you don’t develop actual media literacy and learn real history and not the TV or Barnes & Noble version.

From Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds:

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism — not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience — could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not. As the political philosopher Carl Shames argued:

How do [the left critics] know that the fundamental problem was the “nature” of the ruling [revolutionary] parties rather than, say, the global concentration of capital that is destroying all independent economies and putting an end to national sovereignty everywhere? And to the extent that it was, where did this “nature” come from? Was this “nature” disembodied, disconnected from the fabric of the society itself, from the social relations impacting on it? … Thousands of examples could be found in which the centralization of power was a necessary choice in securing and protecting socialist relations. In my observation [of existing communist societies], the positive of “socialism” and the negative of “bureaucracy, authoritarianism and tyranny” interpenetrated in virtually every sphere of life.

The pure socialists regularly blame the Left itself for every defeat it suffers. Their second-guessing is endless. So we hear that revolutionary struggles fail because their leaders wait too long or act too soon, are too timid or too impulsive, too stubborn or too easily swayed. We hear that revolutionary leaders are compromising or adventuristic, bureaucratic or opportunistic, rigidly organized or insufficiently organized, undemocratic or failing to provide strong leadership. But always the leaders fail because they do not put their trust in the “direct actions” of the workers, who apparently would withstand and overcome every adversity if only given the kind of leadership available from the left critic’s own groupuscule. Unfortunately, the critics seem unable to apply their own leadership genius to producing a successful revolutionary movement in their own country.

Tony Febbo questioned this blame-the-leadership syndrome of the pure socialists:

It occurs to me that when people as smart, different, dedicated and heroic as Lenin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Ho Chi Minh and Robert Mugabe — and the millions of heroic people who followed and fought with them — all end up more or less in the same place, then something bigger is at work than who made what decision at what meeting. Or even what size houses they went home to after the meeting. …

These leaders weren’t in a vacuum. They were in a whirlwind. And the suction, the force, the power that was twirling them around has spun and left this globe mangled for more than 900 years. And to blame this or that theory or this or that leader is a simple-minded substitute for the kind of analysis that Marxists [should make].

To be sure, the pure socialists are not entirely without specific agendas for building the revolution. After the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, an ultra-left group in that country called for direct worker ownership of the factories. The armed workers would take control of production without benefit of managers, state planners, bureaucrats, or a formal military. While undeniably appealing, this worker syndicalism denies the necessities of state power. Under such an arrangement, the Nicaraguan revolution would not have lasted two months against the U.S.-sponsored counterrevolution that savaged the country. It would have been unable to mobilize enough resources to field an army, take security measures, or build and coordinate economic programs and human services on a national scale.

For a people’s revolution to survive, it must seize state power and use it to (a) break the stranglehold exercised by the owning class over the society’s institutions and resources, and (b) withstand the reactionary counterattack that is sure to come. The internal and external dangers a revolution faces necessitate a centralized state power that is not particularly to anyone’s liking, not in Soviet Russia in 1917, nor in Sandinista Nicaragua in 1980.

Engels offers an apposite account of an uprising in Spain in 1872 in which anarchists seized power in municipalities across the country. At first, the situation looked promising. The king had abdicated and the bourgeois government could muster but a few thousand ill-trained troops. Yet this ragtag force prevailed because it faced a thoroughly parochialized rebellion. “Each town proclaimed itself as a sovereign canton and set up a revolutionary committee (junta);” Engels writes. “[E]ach town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not cooperation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack [against bourgeois forces].” It was “the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other.”

Decentralized parochial autonomy is the graveyard of insurgency — which may be one reason why there has never been a successful anarcho-syndicalist revolution. Ideally, it would be a fine thing to have only local, self-directed, worker participation, with minimal bureaucracy, police, and military. This probably would be the development of socialism, were socialism ever allowed to develop unhindered by counterrevolutionary subversion and attack.

One might recall how, in 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations, including the United States, invaded Soviet Russia in a bloody but unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the revolutionary Bolshevik government. The years of foreign invasion and civil war did much to intensify the Bolsheviks’ siege psychology with its commitment to lockstep party unity and a repressive security apparatus

Communism in the real world will never achieve that Platonic ideal. And there would be government, just not a state in the Marxian sense. And there would be corruption that we’d have to continue to manage.

I chose socialism.

You may as well “choose” a unicorn. How do you expect to achieve socialism when you’re rejecting the only method in history that has worked for more than a few weeks?

I don’t know and am too lazy to go read the code, but it probably overwrites because that’s the easiest and most efficient way, and there’s nothing to be gained by retaining the old versions in this case.