That only works if what you want doesn’t also affect other people. If you buy a giant pick up truck that endangers other people, for no other reason than your own ego, you’re probably an asshole.

There is a difference between use value and exchange value

Yeah but the way you said made it seem that value (exchange value according to Marx) is determined by cultural factors, thus making it untrue. The debate around labour theory of value have existed since the 19th century.

How is it culturally biased? It’s a theory of how exchange value functions within capitalism

Considering they gave him the nobel peace prize I have to assume there is someone out there that really hates us.

Not voting for Trump doesn’t take a stance against genocide either. Both support genocide and you can argue back and forth about who wants more genocide in Palestine. In the end the argument is pointless because if you want to actually prevent genocide you need to organize outside the electoral system.

Yes, because everything must always be literal and if something is not words just don’t have meaning anymore /s

Nah I’m saying you have less moral understanding than most basic hollywood movies.

This reminds me of that movie where the bad guy takes a bunch of hostages as a human shield and the good guy just kills all of them so he can kill the bad guy. Wait… that never happens

Maybe take a couple of deep breaths and calm down before you post on the internet? It’s an example of self-governed autonomous and democratic communities. If you disagree with that maybe you can explain why it’s wrong instead of throwing a fit. Also, maybe you should read up more on what you’re talking about because you didn’t even use the correct name nor seem to know the meaning of the word Subcommandante.

You can use FOSS without knowing how to code though. I wasn’t completely serious I know Marx didn’t predict FOSS but I do think it’s an example of how the means of production being shared could look like. It would be great if that also included open hardware as well.

Edit: I realize it means the workers doesn’t actually own the means of production but it’s a step in that direction and I don’t think it contradicts what Marx said is my point.

Marx wasn’t a technological determinist though. He believed that a workers revolution would bring the end of capitalism. He even thought it would happen druing his lifetime.

Marx did talk about individuals owning the means of production. For example farmers or craftsmen owning their tools before capitalism. Marx talked about the means of production being shared under communism and not owned by one specific person or capitalist. If anything Marx predicted FOSS lol.

No country has ever claimed to achieve it but there are societies both past and present that have created similar societes. Like chiapas in Mexico and Rojava today.

Communist China is the closest to what you might you believe in

Either you didn’t read what I said or you know nothing about communism. Also like what is with people not understanding that no country has ever claimed to have achieved communism? It’s just an objective fact China or the Soviet Union for example never claimed they achieved communism.

No country has claimed to have achieved communism. Many other places have tried but it’s usually crushed by capitalist or sometimes even by states claiming to be socialist. It’s also a really simple and tbh ahistorical explanation to claim that communism didn’t work simply because “it was confronted with reality”.

Communism focusses too much power in too few positions

Literally the opposite of communism

Learning more about technology and having more control can be really empowering. I don’t think dumbing things down even more is going to make people more tech literate and it’s definitely going to make them more dependent on shitty corporations.