It's true that this should not be about communism, but about soviet state, which was an authoritharian state dominated by russian nationalism, but under banner of communism. Their kind of messed up the banner of communism for everybody. If used, it should be discussed with care.

This is so much better than relying on tweeter assuming it can be medium for some sort of commons!

They know from their parents and grandparents. Source: I am rather in the parent category.

The polls quoted are not representative because of the demographics change. The oldest part of the population, who grew up after WW2, prefers soviet union, but it's because it was their youth. Their children, who spent most of their lives in "developed socialism" are much less happy about it. Young people, who grew up in independent states, are overwhelmingly against soviet baggage. And since 2010, when some of the quoted polls were made, older people died.

The only ones who actually regret the decay are russians who morn loss of their empire. Soviet union was just another incarnation of it. Also serbs and hungarians who are a bit isolated in their space.

It is especially strange to see this comment while ukrainians, one of the largest postsoviet states, overwhelminly support and enact literal fight against russian restorational imperialism which tries to bring russian-dominated soviet state back. Or are you questioning this proposition too?

It seems like it's just one of the early videos that was fake, made coast on the existing story. Or I misunderstood?

I think labels are still useful for discussion, but I completely agree that we should regularly rediscuss what they mean and how they evolve.

What you are saying is not wrong, but it can also be true that the left is quite divided and lacks a narrative which can be convincing to the same working class the left aims to empower. In fact, the left got quite disconnected from the working class on a number of issues. The lie may be easier to make convincing, but the truth has some advantages too. In fact, some talking points of the right, like the anti-elite sentiment, are straight out of the left playbook. Why did the left not manage to deliver this point better?

Maybe it's just a bit much, not all that is animated is good. I read it's only working on firefox, or did it get support elsewhere already?

You will, however, presumably, rely on social care supported by less and less working people, potentially leading to very unfortunate choices made by these people. Or do you prefer not to retire?

I guess that's the best way put it I saw in this post. I'd just add that after growing up in soviet and postsoviet state, and later coming to western Europe, my first impression was that they somehow almost managed to build here what "communist" soviet party tried to build so unsuccessfully.

Even Marx thought that path to communism is through capitalism, what soviet state did is something very different.

The story of ukrainian anarchist communist, Machno, is interesting in this resect. Bolsheviks treated his so well. Russian revolution, although started occasionally with good ideas, quickly revealed itself as authorithian russian nationist imperialism.

As someone from postsoviet state, I could not agree more. Those pushing soviet union as example of comunist project are really not doing any good for the comunist projext.

They point out (and it makes sense to me) that problem getting worse is in part related to the sport getting more popular and professional. It's up to IFSC to decide how healthy will it be.

Volker and Eugen Burtscher actually resigned from IFSC medical commission in protest against this problem not being addressed.

There was a soviet joke about a banner "our party is fighting for the title 'communist'". I can not translate it well, but it shows that people sensed the absurdity of the continious slogans about fighting for something they forgot is related to the meaning of the world communism. In the last decades especially, thd pride in building a better future through emancipation was replaced by simply nationalist pride and the pride in ww2 victory.

I think, very broadly, climate change can be tackled by collective action or/and technologies which make climate-friendly action economically favorable. There was a lot of progress recently on the second part, including sizable contribution of Germany: rapidly growing contribution of renewables, electric transport, better heating and insulation, etc? I think good people putting themself to work on an important goal can achieve a lot for common good, I see this a lot in my area of research and technology. I realize there is a danger of thinking "technology will solve all" and relaxing, but what I am saying that it's part of the solution, and at least a cause for some optimism fueling further action. Furthermore, I see that as Europe gained a privileged position due to historical circumstances, it is its moral duty to leverage this position for helping to advance the necessary technologies.

For the first part it's harder since there is no consensus but I suspect this will be facilitated by progress in technology (yet, it's important to work on consensus). Also I see that some understanding of the need to act is increasing in the Western Europe population, is it not?

Maybe part of the challenge with US, Arab spring, and far right, is that after the fall of Soviet Union there was too much confidence in neoliberal system automatically bringing democracy, prosperity, and fairness everywhere. While delivering democracy as a gift of historic process is somehow antithetic to the idea of democracy, which implies active agency, individual and collective action. People grew complacent assuming that all gets solved for them by the market, and politics became sometimes a dirty word. Instead, it'd be better if people continued to practice political discourse about tough questions in respectable but honest way. But now it is becoming next to impossible to avoid engagement, which makes some people loose any hope, some turn to fascism, and some searching for a better solution. I think the last, better, way is not yet lost.

Technology development itself raises further difficult political questions, about ownership of new tools deriving from commons (like LLM AI), viability of common space in privately managed companies (social networks), and so on. People need to be engaged in this else the decisions will be made for them and not in their interest (even if their consent may be sometimes formally acquired following some misleading campaign).

This potential for action, and recent history of progress, in two related directions, technology and political agency, seems to be the cause for optimism. Even raise of fascism, as worrying as it is, indicates that people are striving for change, they just do not see a better option since it is not sufficiently developed and communicated to them yet.

In ChatGPT there is no accountabilty or expectation of veracity. It was really just a demostration. Hopefully newer models will do better than that.

As AI gets more involved in decision making, the politics of AI will become a big point I think. Reponsibility, accountability, and maybe something resembing rights, or maybe access capacities. It may be a tool, but it is gaining something like an agency. So the polics of AI might be communist one.

Regulated capitalism can be a lot of things. Even good things, I claim. Furthermore, unregulated capitalism turns into feudalism, which is someything we see now in digital sphere a lot. EU tries to regulate capitalism to get the best parts of it, like rewarding fair competetive environment - paradoxically, fair competetion favors collaboration. An alternative to favoring individual and collectove agency is authocracy, and dictors never remain benevolent for long.

Fascists are gaining power because the left could not offer a viable response to the majority concerns. And it sounds like what's left of it is just giving up unfortunately.

I am often surprised by so much pessimism of people in Western Europe. There are of course big problems, but if taken seriously, can they not be addressed? I do not deny that many people have reasons to be pessimistic, but maybe the cause is more lack of ideas for building better future. So much was achieved, in art, science, technology, reflecting in high quality of life, how can this be seen as a hellhole?