No translation of money into power maybe in the case of GDR. But a lot into mobility.

Only the rich may prosper in scenarios of radical regime changes. They simply translate money into power, security, education or mobility. Everyone else has to step down and to suffer more or less.

Aside, fascism and capitalism aren’t congruent. There is more to fascism than just economic exploit and vice versa, etc. This is why I said you mixed up categories. Or maybe you are just overgeneralizing.

Finally, transformations into Socialism have to happen globally (Marx said, I believe). That’s due to the “constant siege and thread” radicals get; why things turn out bad. You just can’t come up with completely new rules within a game of 280 more players.

Sorry, you mix up too much for me. What’s a low disparity in an overall poor country worth anyway.

Fascism is not an economic category. How was far broader politically suppressing, normalist, centralist GDR not been fascist anyway.

IDK why you bring up fascism and how to put Maxist analysis in context. I doubt state overthrowals ever had been beneficial for the working class, certainly not more than for the rich.

You should include prison and work camp inmates in your disparity considerations. A non-economically forced, neglectable income in context of exponential aggregation should weigh a lot right there.

Also, how capitalist was that Marshall Plan exactly?

Sub-account “Merch cost”

Having read Luhmann (systems theory) and being grown up in post-GDR East-Germany I’d say: Capitalist democracies (power) delegate most resource management to a different functional system (finance). Transparency is strongly regulated, can be fought for through a third separate functional system (law) and can be observed though a fourth functional system (mass media).

In GDR, all these delegated systems strongly depended on the centralized planning. So to make one possible conclusion: to fix that transparency issue to a certain degree, you could delegate resource plannig to a decentralized, self-managed system.

I understand, that some present decentralized, self-managed systems are Monopoly games, also considered capitalisms. But this doesn’t hold true for all. Most are just very decentralized and just almost self-managed systems. Law fights monopolies. Lawmakers dampen extreme aggregation and extreme poverty.

Approaches to transparent Socialisms should not only include transparency as a starting condition but also the constant structural reproduction of it from within. From scratch, it is hard to come up with completely different functional systems (not power-finance-law-media) that harmonize better than what we have. (game theory) Luhmann said, we have to fix it step by step until we come to a better, different system. Marx also knew that wanted workers to become self-aware, solidary and tough enough to accomplish adjustments against the rich. You see, this democracy already looks totally socialist when compared to the 1920s.

Cheaper rents (though flats overflow) would solve a lot of Germany present day problems like

• lack of flats
• vanished income disparity between minimum wage and basic income (in some cases, it doesn’t pay off to work because rents for receivers of basic incomes are paid 100% but not for low income workers while rents explode)

It has to be done using public investment (tending or subsidies). We don’t have that yet. Workers should fight for THAT and NOT for lashing basic income receivers harder.

That architecture’s principle is older than WW1 and had been invented for british colonies. I’d call that early capitalism.

how do you think the homelessness problem would be solved from a socialist/communist perspective?

Socialism is (supposed to be) a solution to homelessness, regardless from which perspective. But homelessness is not the only problem societies develop, honestly. For example, GDR had huge fairness issues as the planners of resource distribution completely lacked transparency of checks and balances.

Above architecture was at least never meant to be for their leader and his staff (six degrees of separation) but for workers (everybody but them regardless of performance).

I think a lot of people living in such architecture have mental conditions. Also, some people own enough now to make room for homeless ones and live somewhere else but they have mental conditions now.

You can’t, really?

deleted by creator

RawGraphs.io

SankeyMATIC

Had the same thought. But how would you then include the total revenue?

Isn’t that “anglicization”?

We should clarify when we say “user” and when “account”.

My take is: while “users” refer to the humans who use PieFed, accounts are the entity used to authorize users. Users cannot be banned technically, but accounts can.

• all strings about authentication, blocking and privileges, etc. should talk about accounts, not users
• there’s nothing but user accounts, so drop the “user” in and keep just “accounts”
• because users never use their real name, we shouldn’t talk about user names but about “account names” or “identifiers”
• “account” is independent from it’s user’s name, gender and most further traits
• other subjects are problematic, too: “Moderator added”, “Replier blocked”, “Block author”, “Number of known subscribers”, “Manually aprove followers”

Options:

1. we could generalize the User/Account differentiation for all problematic subjects: “Mod account added”, “Replying account blocked”, “Number of known suscribing accounts”, “Manually aprove following accounts”

• “account” repeats a lot, maybe that’s an opportunity for finding a rephrasing that is unique for PieFed? “Fedi”?

2. we can drop the subject where possible and instead focus on the passive predicate: “Moderation reinforced”, “Source of reply blocked”, “Number of known subscriptions”, “Manually aprove follows”

• to avoid military tone, maybe use more humorous exaggerations?

3. how can we maintain a friendly, close sound while attempting these linguist acrobats?

• Talk to “you” where ever possible.
• Mention “your peers” or “your equals” more often.

4. Benutzer, _Benutzende, _Nutzende, Nutzys, Mitglieder, Leute, ~Meine Kerle~

• Don’t risk too much. Normies are welcome, too.
• How about an additional language next to de_DE: de_Gendered

In den Büchern gibt es andere Peaks:

Frühe populärwiss. Veröffentlichungen in 2010…2012 speziell zu Vitamin D:

Auf Google Trends nachvollziehbar:

Chlorbleiche ist aggressiver. Über Vit D lassen sich leichter Halbwahrheiten in offiziellen Quellen nachlesen.