and the bubble's been getting bigger the whole 9 years

as someone who still masks, its beyond depressing to see half my family and friends written off even by communists as "acceptable losses."

like even, basically all the communists ime, online and offline, are antimaskers. They might say or think that they aren't but in practice, they are antimaskers. They refuse to wear masks; they go to restaurants (and invite others); they host superspreading home parties and go to concerts and to dance classes and clubs and bars and on and on with not a single thought for their own health, much less those with weaker immune systems--and if any of this is brought up they look offended, like it's YOUR fault there's a plague and YOURE in the wrong for not wanting to die or spread death to ur family.

Antimaskers won.

damn to think that image has haunted my dreams for over four years now

comparing the v-man to kaustsky is an insult to kautsky

real

its the constant, casual allosexuality and alloromanticism creeping into every crevice of human life that rly fucks with me

the constant reminders of 'your friends will never consider you important as someone they're smashing privates (or hoping to) with', 'society won't consider you an adult until you get a partner', and 'some [a lot ] of people are nice just for sex' stuff that gets to me

and how all this means that basically every media has romance and sex--if it doesn't the fans will turn every platonic interaction into a sexualromantic thing because "people just don't [hug/cuddle/be a decent human being] unless they want sex or romance"

And even if there is sex or romance, fans will turn all the platonic relationships sexual anyway because "they have better chemistry" or "it's obvious Sam really wants to sex/romance Frodo; there's no other reason he'd go so far for him"

just,

Is there any way to perfect the tech that ISNT something out of a dystopian scifi?

Nope. The entirety of academic science is predicated on the dystopian scifi of modernity. E.g. the species of mouse that has been selectively bred to remain genetically identical (so it can be used as a scientific unit for experimentation) for more than a century, has been copyrighted, and is used in basically all testing. It's been squished, starved (lab animals are generally kept in a state of hunger to make them more easily controlled), diseased, burnt, drowned, cut open (while alive), shocked, etcetc. Similar treatment of many other animals (and humans in the global south, and people of colour and disabled people and women etcetc in the global north).

Our (Capitalist-European) ways of knowing are based on this brute force torture-science where we tear stuff apart to find out "what it is" (and more importantly, can it be made profitable or is it useless?) as soon as possible, and then we declare the results of this torture-science universally applicable, e.g. we declared animals stupid because we ran tests on animals we've captured, starved to ensure food motivation and locked up in cages for ease of access and tested on things humans find relevant (e.g. testing facial recognition on apes using human faces instead of ape faces; shockingly gorillas are better at telling gorillas apart than telling humans apart).

Like, it rly has to be remembered the basis of Academic European Science is rich fucks doing experiments for fun, using "raw materials" (living or otherwise) available to them as a result of their immense privilege. As their wealth was already based on e.g. literal chattel slavery they had no qualms doing literal torture on subhumans for fun and "progress", no qualms tearing up ecosystems to "study plants and animals" (bc of this, Academic science is still basically baffled by a lotta how plants and animals actually work in nature). They therefore had less than no qualms doing any of this to "improve the human condition (i.e. to make more shit for companies to sell)".

Capital was willing to work 2 year olds to death in lace mills for pretty dresses; it has less than no qualms about torturing apes or mice to death to ensure quality hair products or slightly longer human lifespans (for the rich, in the global north). Socialism (as it exists after imperialism dies, not as it exists while competing with imperialism) will likely have to (be forced to by the poorest) reconsider a lotta the stuff we in the imperial core take as necessities of life.

Animal cruelty? Causing disease? And general horrors? Another thing marx talked about (quote from Saito Karl Marx's Ecosocialism):

...Responding to...enthusiastic reports about the 'system of selection developed by English breeder Robert Bakewell, [in 1864] Marx wrote in his notebook: 'Characterized by precocity, in entirety sickliness, want of bones, a lot of development of fat and flesh etc. All these are artificial produces. Disgusting!'

Basically all of them afaik. Most of the big epidemics spread to humans from 1. domesticated animals 2. kept in very close/tight quarters

In addition to what others have said, remember that the US (and its client-states such as Canada, Britain, France, Sweden, Japan, etc) which have 'democracy' and 'welfare' have these things because and so long as the global south is under their boot. The majority of intense class struggle, the actual "propertyless-except-for-their-labour-power" proletariat, the majority of environmental degredation and all the repressive measures needed to maintain "order" in spite of this naked exploitation have largely been exported to the neocolonies, where such rights and democracies are more obviously nonexistant or fraudulent.

And even in these states, in times of crisis the mask of democracy falls off immediately (e.g. responses to anti-ww1 protests, responses to anti-vietnam war protests in the 70s, responses to environmental protests in the 60s, or responses to indigenous land rights struggles basically all the time.) The freedom of speech is also only freedom from government persecution for free speech. It is not protection from private persecution for speech.

Note that e.g. Walmart, Amazon, Google, and other entities, despite being larger than some nations, are private, are autocracies run by a CEO appointed by money through its physical representatives, the shareholders. There is nothing to stop an employer from firing you from excercising 'free speech' to criticise their practices (if one is even lucky enough to live somewhere where the employer requires a reason to fire someone). As, on the average, all of these CEOs, shareholders, owners, etc share class interests, and the managers, supervisors, etc have delusions of sharing class interests, this works out to a fairly extensive network for suppression of dissent.

Much as the feudal king didn't have to raise the national levies for every uppity peasant, the bourgeois has no need to raise the national armies in response to every uppity citizen-worker. The feudal king would leave such small matters to local lords, priests, or voluntary action of middling landowners; the bourgeois leaves such small matters to the petite-bourgeois, managers, and the 'middle class' generally.

In general wrt 'convincing libs', in my context (imperial core, cannot speak for non-core folks' experiences) I focus more on showing them that our country is evil, that our system is evil than trying to show that e.g. China is good. The fact of the matter is that no matter how good China is, it falls short of the imaginary-utopian America/Canada/France/'The West' the average lib has in their head. No actual real state with flaws will ever measure up to their imaginary utopia; it needs to be shown to be false first.

I'm not shocked tbh. My (unstudied, mostly just based on Molotov's memoirs) impression is Khrushchev was very much a true believer; he was just incompetent and foolish. Quotes from around pages 203-205.

Molotov basically says that Stalin had a carrot and a stick but Khrushchev had only carrots. Stalin had an understanding of socialism as a very, very long (unknowable) period with lots of hardships and setbacks and requiring sacrifices and few luxuries until the inevitable fall of capitalism; Khrushchev turned this to "socialism as a...period with...few luxuries until the inevitable fall of capitalism" and by the 70s it was "socialism as a ... period with ... luxuries until the inevitable fall of capitalism". This was taught in schools, it was clung to, to quote Molotov "as if it were the sum total of or main thing in Stalin".

Molotov says Khrushchev's fatal mistake was the "communism by 1980" promise. "The Bolsheviks have never drawn up such rosy, such deceptive plans that promise that we shall live under communism by 1980. But Khrushchev promised it."

Molotov also says Khrushchev and post-Khrushchev leadership clung to some of the few theoretical failings of Stalin; two being "to each according to their work" and another being "money-commodity relations to be maintained through socialism"

Marx and Engels said, to each according to his work, but in an economy that has abolished money-commodity relations. In our country they say, on the contrary, money-commodity relations are indispensable, they are the main thing. Why do we write that way? We should say, according to one's work but with the gradual abolition of money commodity relations. We preach the opposite. Our 1961 program states: money-commodity relations are to be retained through the entire period of socialism. It has things turned around. Stalin said, "I acknowledge theory, I interpret it as follows: 'Life is one thing, theory another.' " That is why I sit, write, and pore over mountains of material . After all, it is horrible-what they write is confused beyond all bounds. Here I look at these Academicians--economists, philosophers--after all, they know they are lying day after day! Those Academicians and professors-no one raises a voice against them. Marx and Lenin said exactly the opposite. In Lenin's State and Revolution the words "commodity" and "money" are not even mentioned. Why? Everything was already based on them. But these are vestiges of capitalism. It's not a simple question but a complex and very serious one. Here we see young people growing up; honestly they say: this is stupid. What our elders babbled to us does not correspond to reality.

Marx isn't anti-religion because "lol man in the sky silly". Marx is anti-religion because it is the product of an inverted world, a class society. Marx believes that, if class society is abolished, if the topsy-turvy (this is the word he uses in e.g. "On 'The Jewish Question'" or the rest of "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law") world is turned upright, religion will wither away into nothing. Marx believes this is only possible when all the social relations that underlie society are laid bare in an understandable form (i.e. with communism), and that it will not disappear until the topsy-turvy material world disappears.

As Marx states in the former essay, Marx doesn't believe religion can be abolished by decree (and he points out that state secularism is often just reskinned Christianity). In both essays, Marx actually details how the state itself, money itself, are religions; for Marx religion is the work of human mind alienated from humans and dominating them.

In the full quote (which emizeko posted) Marx outright refers to religion as the general theory of this world (i.e. the topsy-turvy world), as an encyclopaedic compendium. Elsewhere (either in Contribution to the Critique or in On the Jewish Question) Marx refers to religion as a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind. Based on Marx's usage of various bible quotes and themes in his work (even Capital), it seems likely that he treated religion as he would e.g. liberal economists or members of parliament (i.e. with critical analysis and an eye towards useful stuff for his own critique)