Biased, politicised science is real science. Not the platonic ideal you have in your head.

That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.

Respectfully, this is a weak sauce excuse, and a completely unscientific attitude. Scientists do not establish arbitrary barriers between different fields.

These kinds of statements 99% of the time come from people who don’t even do science, and whose understanding of science consists of “take down data points, analyse data points, be neutral” (paraphrasing your comment).

In reality, scientific names are usually given to honor specific people. The idea that the community just gives names to people who discovered things is simply ignorant of history. There are literally cases of people purchasing name recognition. There are also cases of people being honored by having their name on a phenomena they didn’t even discover, or a unit they did not create (typical for units, which are standardised by committees and not named after people in the standardisation committee)

Amazing to see people in 2025 who still believe in this nonsense.

structural issues like command and control policies

Planned economics is precisely the reason why China has grown faster than India and become so dominant. Because they can control their economy for long-term human needs instead of putting everything into finance like the west.

the dictator

Anyone who still thinks Xi is a dictator despite the very strong collective and decentralised governance of China doesn’t know enough about the country to pass an elementary school civics test.

The whole reason the property market bubble happened was because the Chinese government is way too decentralised. Local governments bet all in on property values as a way to boost tax revenue (land taxes are their main source of income). The central government should have stepped in way sooner, but that would have required centralising the Chinese tax base significantly, a tough thing to do because it would also require centralising public services. Not only would that require buy in from the vast number of local representatives and the national people’s congress, but it would have also interfered with the poverty alleviation campaign.

an economy built on unnecessary public spending

Pure neoliberal cope. I hope you are enjoying your deindustrialised austerity economy.

an educational system which continues to emphasise blind obedience over individualism

This is hilarious coming from westerners who have naught an original thought, only memes.

I mean the ruling class of Russia, China, and Iran, can also be my enemy.

The ruling classes of maybe Russia and Iran can be considered “enemies” (although if you live in the west, they don’t have any power and little influence over you), while the ruling class of China is neutral for westerners (and positive for the Chinese) in the most cynical reading.

Furthermore

1. Believing in the narratives of your ruling class is why you have such a negative perception of these governments in the first place. Otherwise, Russia and Iran’s repressive policies are not more repressive than most countries outside the west (and let’s be real, they are barely more repressive than the west)
2. These countries are playing a military role in dismantling western imperialism, and you should use this as an opportunity to weaken your ruling class, which is infinitely more bloodthirsty than Russia or Iran’s ruling class, and also maintains a global system of super exploitation whose downfall is the only way forward for humanity. Unless of course, you know of anyone else who is militarily opposing the west (Yemen is the only one else).

No need to be choosy when you can instead have solidarity with the mistreated and exploited around the world :)

The exploited and mistreated of the world in general have a net positive perception of Russia, and China precisely because these countries have a continued track record of helping these countries. And this is especially true with China.

It’s absolutely possible for the UK to increase its defence spending while also not harming civilians, in the Middle East or anywhere else.

Not for imperial Britain. It’s possible for other countries, but not for imperialists. If you have the slightest concern for the people of Britain and people in other countries, you should oppose all attempts made by the imperialists to arm themselves. I oppose the imperial British arming themselves for the same reason I oppose nazi Germany arming itself.

Has there been a single year in my entire life where the western powers were not at war against some third world country? If the British really can be trusted with a military, they should prove it.

it is perfectly possible for the UK to increase its defence capabilities, while also refraining from attacks upon the Middle East

This is for a hypothetical UK that has divested from the imperial system in west asia, a hypothetical UK that does not exist.

I think that’s a separate issue from the UK and its allies spending more on defence in order to protect themselves from Russia, though.

It very much isn’t. You don’t have 2 seperate militaries, one for defense against Russia and one for use against everyone else.

In any case I don’t think the UK is planning new military action in the Middle East.

You’re basing this on what? And who said that the UK’s future aggression will only be limited to the middle east?

Starmer recently criticised Israel for its conduct in Gaza.

Congratulations for the mildly worded letter while still providing military parts and daily reconossaince missions I guess.

You seem to suggest that a powerful military is a good thing then.

It is a good thing if only it is used for defensive purposes. Other than WW2, the UK has practically never seen a defensive war. However, I am using your logic here. You want a powerful military for “national security”. I am telling you that your politicians are not creating a powerful military.

I don’t believe in the UK harming anybody in the Middle East.

Then you are not keeping up with the news. The UK has provided a lot of arms to the occupation in Palestine and runs daily reconnaissance missions for them. Furthermore, the UK has been a willing partner of America in its war on terror.

This is cope. It is precisely because the British people keep falling for idiotic nationalistic cope that their nation has become so catastrophically de-inudstrialised and impoverished.

Your politicians gut everything resembling a healthcare system, education system, energy infrastructure or useful industry, things that would actually allow you to create a healthy, innovative and powerful military. Then they throw money at consultants and contractors in the PMC sector and trick you into believing that you are strengthening your national security.

No, the only thing you are doing is subsidising the lifestyle of a few scammers. In exchange, you will get a small amount of overbudget and late weapons that will be shipped off to kill people in the middle East.

Defending the UK

From what? Affordable living costs and welfare? Middle Eastern people being alive?

deleted by creator

Gold mining is fairly expensive. According to this website, gold mining currently has a operating profit margin of 30%, while the average public company has an operating margin of 27%.

This lines up relatively well with this other dataset of US companies reporting 32% gross profit margins (go to the bottom of the page).

So it seems to me that gold mining isn’t really that “special” compared other commodities.

Kelp snacks are pretty nice. It’s the combination of having this wet chewy texture with savory flavours that really does it for me. Great to munch on in the summer.

1. Rainy, damp, cloudy, windy weather is peak weather and beats a “nice sunny day” 80% of the time.

2. Ice cream is winter food and not summer food because of how fatty it is. Popsicles are summer food and not so appealing in the winter.

3. All countries should be making a 100% effort towards eliminating all meat (except that produced by subsistence farmers and the like) in their diets for the sake of the climate. Poverty is not an excuse because vegetarian diets use many many times less resources (which is why wealthy countries eat much more meat).

4. Large wealthy countries should provide free vitamin supplements worldwide to reduce diseases.

By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace.

I mean, nationalising all industries and creating minimum/maximum wages is a fairly standard left-wing policy template.

What would a music phone look like? I’m not arguing, I’m genuinely asking what features are ‘camera phones’ lacking that could be installed into a ‘music phone’ (but not in a '‘camera phone’)?

Oh, I didn’t even realize this. Thanks.

A number of proposals have been kicked around for decades. There hasniot been the will to implement.

That’s the point. A dictatorship of the bourgeoise will not implement progressive policies unless you fight hard for them. They will however, in the absence of resistance, implement increasingly reactionary policies in a heartbeat.

The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class.

No, the overarching goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless and moneyless society.

Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.

No. At best, you could say that coops are a proto-socialist element within a capitalist society. Firstly, I am using the term “socialist” as separate from “communist” here, and secondly, a proto-socialist element is a very different thing from an enclave of socialism within a capitalist world.

The simple problem is that capital is capital. A capital is a self-reproducing social relation that competes with other capitals in a sort of evolution by natural/sexual/artificial selection on the markets. The problem is capital itself, and the solution is to destroy capital. Creating a new type of capital that is less destructive, or one that operates under less destructive modes is fine for countries where development has not reached to the point that they can directly gun towards communism. However, for advanced, and especially late-stage capitalist economies, the task is not to pursue further development of market forces, because market forces have already matured. The task is to eliminate market forces (although this may take time).

Coops may give a more equal distribution of wealth amongst the workers, but the aim of the communists is to abolish wealth, because the very meaning of wealth is that a private individual gets to command the labor of others. That is the fundamental social relation that money embodies and facilitates. The only way to remove the power to exploit other people’s labor is to remove the ability to command labor. But if you cannot command labor, then money becomes worthless and your ownership of the coop doesn’t mean anything.

Are organizations focusing on this and I just don’t know about it?

Yes. A quick google search shows examples such as the international labor organisation

If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?

Part of the fundamental problem is just that the bourgeois class is not stupid. They want exploitable workers and profits. If you deprive them of that, prepare to face their wrath as they abandon all pretenses of human rights or fairness or the sanctity of markets.