SloppilyFloss

You gotta find a Mastodon instance that you'd like to join then go to their main page then sign up there. Keep in mind some instances have closed registrations or registrations where you send an application that can be accepted or rejected.

https://fosstodon.org is an instance for FOSS enthusiasts and could be a good starting point. I'm assuming you're a FOSS enthusiast because you managed to make your way to Lemmy 😋

Could you give me an example of something that isn't too political in your eyes?

The English writer Wells went to the Soviet Union a few years ago and visited Maxim Gorky, a great writer who is gone today. He proposed the creation of a literary club from which politics would be excluded, for, to his mind, literature is literature and politics is politics. Gorky and his friends, it seems, began to laugh and Wells was annoyed. The fact is Wells saw the writer as being outside of society, while Gorky and his friends knew full well that it just is not so in life, where, in truth, all things are linked together—whether we like it or not.

It's a fork of Lemmy made for the now defunct /r/ChapoTrapHouse community from Reddit. It does not federate with Lemmy.

I wouldn't want Facebook to join the Fediverse or adopt the ActivityPub standard. Forcing them to use ActivityPub while still maintaining their dominant social and economic position would lead to another Chrome situation. Facebook could use their position to heavily influence the ActivityPub standard and end up becoming the de facto social media platform, just like Chrome is the "de facto" web browser due to Google having so much influence over the Web's specs.

If you say so. I guess when your enemy makes mistakes, you should quit pointing those out. And when I say “you”, I mean me.

Nah you should definitely point out space billboards, but pointing them out isn't enough to formulate a useful political program, basically. And you shouldn't point it out at the expense of the more "micro"-horrors of capital.

It's true that communist spaces could do with having more queer feminist theory under their belts, I won't deny that. Luckily, there exists communist feminist literature, so encouraging people to read that would do wonders. I try to recommend Caliban and the Witch as much as I can because of how it outlines the effects of early capital accumulation on the bodies of women. I know of Leslie Feiberg as well, though I've never read any of their work. There's plenty out there if we look, and we should definitely look.

In fact, if you think it's a problem, you should share texts or express your ideas to Lemmy and Lemmygrad. I'm sure people will appreciate it.

Even better, read some non-Western feminist texts and try to apply them to the DPRK in a constructive way. This means that you'll need to have a better understanding of the DPRK, though. Just like truly understanding queer people's problems involves stepping outside of the mainstream media's views on queer people, the same is true for the DPRK. You'll need to read Juche works, learn its history, read news straight from them, etc., and not be satisfied with what some reactionary news source has to say about them. Don't toll the line of capital and imperialism, because giving the West more leniency on its attacks against the DPRK won't do the people living there any good, including women and queer people.

Of course communist countries will also have problems with sexism and partriarchy to some degree, no one here has said otherwise. But to jump from that to thinking that they'll micromanage their populace to such a degree as mandating haircuts and that the people will simply shut up and take something like that is a stretch.

You're orientalizing this society and using feminism as an excuse to do so. You can engage in feminist critiques of the DPRK as much as you please, but don't do so in such a way that reinforces the imperialist understanding of the DPRK. That's a disservice to non-Western feminism.

Do you seriously believe that the DPRK is limiting what haircuts people can have?

As for crackdowns on South Korean culture, all sites seem to lead to this article by Daily NK, whose evidence is a piece of paper supposedly smuggled out of the DPRK. Thankfully, they've provided us a look at all 3 pixels of the paper. I guess with all of that NED funding they couldn't afford a scanner or good camera.

While things like "space billboards" would be a good thing to talk about when it comes to anti-capitalism, it's also a little too obvious for it be primary area of focus. I don't think it takes much convincing for most people to see that space billboards are a ridiculous idea. Sure, the prospect is scary, but the truly horrific parts of capital propagate themselves through capillary pathways between people and others and people and the material world. Thus, they'll be largely invisible and require an understanding that goes beyond "space billboards are bad" to instead asking, "what are the processes capital goes through that lead to the possibility of space billboards' existence?"

Basically, "space billboards are bad" is too narrow an idea to focus on if we want to convince people to become socialist. It's still a good idea to bring it into other discussions, though, as an example alongside other things.

the bourgeois are merely the upper middle class.

No...the bourgeoisie are those who hold control of the means of production, it has nothing to do with the amount of wealth one has, and everything to do with one's relationship or perceived relationship to the means of production (PMCs or the labor aristocracy).

The system we have now is a mixed economy (fascism for the wealthiest, capitalism for the middle classes, and socialism for the poor classes).

Sorry, but this is politically illiterate. This completely misunderstands every one of these politico-economic systems. Where did you get this idea from?

Capitalism is merely allowing anyone to own capital - be that a home, the building they operate a business in, their own farm land, investment properties.

Capitalism allows for anyone to own and accrue private property, but the existence of private property necessitates the existence of people without private property, as Marx analyzed.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. - Marx in the Communist Manifesto

Allowing anyone to own capital will always lead to this "squeezing out" that you mention, it's how capitalism operates, even if it's against your principles of HOW it should operate.

But, classes? There will always be classes. As long as there is a free flow between the classes, that is fine with me.

The return of Kautskyism and the rejection of the class struggle. Please read Lenin's State and Revolution to see why this was bad 100+ years ago and remains bad now.

Perhaps Stalin meant ‘classes’ that could not be escaped from - in the sense of Dhalits in India or Etta in Japan.

Stalin was a Marxist, thus I'm fairly sure he means "classes" in the Marxist sense, not the Dhalits or Etta don't still count in the conversation of abolishing classes. I'm sure the lower your status in the Indian class system, the higher chance of you being a part of the proletariat class. The two systems are still linked.

Your last name can’t prevent you from being hired or promoted usually - nor can your skin color or sex. You can rise in the world.

This is false. Social mobility is rather limited in places like the United States, especially for those not already related to people of higher social classes, or people of color, or women.

Even if it weren't, it's impossible for everyone to "rise" from the proletariat class to the bourgeois class. Capitalist development necessitates further and further concentration of capital into fewer hands, hence the creation of monopolies and the rise of wealth inequality. There has to be more labourers than bourgeoisie, otherwise production at the scale necessary under capitalism would be impossible. However, as capital is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, you see the increase of the proletariat and lumpenproletariat. It's one of the contradictions that shows why capitalism will fail. Death, the victory of the dialectic.