pigginz

Surprising if you haven't been paying attention I guess.

a peace settlement would have to involve Putin giving up the plan with which he began the war, to turn the whole of Ukraine into a Russian vassal state

what

Hell yeah, fuck you comrade!

Wouldn't such operations depend on Russia wanting to conduct a military occupation of all/most of Ukraine? There's this big assumption in western media that Russia wants nothing short of complete territorial conquest of Ukraine, but that's never been one of their stated goals.

Of course there's going to continue to be Nazi terrorism there for decades to come, but history seems to suggest that a military occupation is a lot messier than border disputes and such.

Huge racks of servers consuming thousands of watts of power so that two AI algorithms can pretend to be humans at each other before anything can get done. Capitalism truly is the most efficient system.

I still cringe slightly at Linux updates because I'm on a distro with enough cutting-edge unstable stuff that every few months something gets a little broken for a few days. But nobody forces updates on me so I usually just let my system lag behind in non-security updates and let other people test the waters first.

I personally think GDP is a measure of extremely limited value anyway because I've lived in the USA my whole life and that static rate of growth has apparently resulted in the quality of life of me and everyone I know getting slightly worse every year. Where all that wealth is going matters as much if not more than how much wealth there is when trying to gauge how successful a nation is.

For sure. NAFO types especially don't seem to understand that military hardware is created to be destroyed. Whether it's a battleship or a bullet, nobody just makes one and expects it to last forever. It's a tool to be expended in pursuit of a goal. Battleships get blown up and bullets get fired, what matters is how quickly those losses can be replaced, and for how long those losses can be sustained.

Ah, that makes some sense. So state-led and centrally planned economics favor the profitability of industrial capital while the finance capitalists favor a big neoliberal free for all so they can just suck the country dry?

I'm glad you think I'm right but I wasn't asking rhetorical questions, I just actually don't understand what the difference is between capital and the bourgeoisie, lol.

In a liberal democracy, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, what is the distinction between capital and the state? The bourgeoisie both own the capital and control the state, so what do you mean by the state controlling capital or vice versa? Is it just the extent to which whatever faction of the bourgeoisie controls the state can bring the rest of the class to heel?

Albert Einstein never said that.