If you want recent coverage from everyday people, you can find social media posts from Chinese tourists. You can always Look at the state media. You already know they’ll be bias in their own favor, but that doesn’t mean everything they publish is fake. Look for other sources for confirmation. Most of it will be boring reports, which is less likely to be exaggerated.
I have no problem with communism(i think socdem is a better system but thats a discussion for another day) but the moment a tankie here mentions anything about the soviet union being better than capitalism just look up holodomor.
No duh, they were built to be very affordable so you wouldn’t have as many homeless people. It’s incredible that you thought that answer was somehow insightful
They were built to be affordable for working class and had nothing to do with homelesness… Communists/socialists did not acknowledge existence of homelessness because it would mean party admitting of making a mistake or system being flawed.
Affordable and available housing has everything to do with homelessness though, it’s one of the best ways to actually keep people from becoming homeless in the first place. If more people can afford a place to live, less people will be homeless. Won’t fix all of it but a huge chunk anyhow
I have no idea if or how much old Eastern Bloc countries lied about the number of homeless. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, but I haven’t seen any studies or statistics about this so I can’t assume they were all lying or that the situation was universally worse than in Western countries.
So if one person picks 1000 apples per day and the second picks 2 apples, then they split apples 501 to each. Good luck convincing the first person that this is good for them
So Instead, one person picks 1000 apples, gives them all to the property owner, and then receives enough money to buy 50 apples, yet you’d prefer that over having to split the 1000 apples evenly.
And for both situations I would need ask at least one of them “Why do you need so many apples? Why not give some of them to those who need them instead of accumulating them?”
Think about it, you’re already living the situation you presented but the person picking two apples is in a managerial position and gets to keep the thousand apples you picked in exchange for the two apples they picked.
Except we aren't talking about two people, are we? We're talking about entire populations of people.
And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.
Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.
Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don't work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we're paranoid that they might just be lazy.
We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others' throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they "don't deserve".
You still have the problem of misaligned incentives together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion. This is why all communism inevitably leads to authoritarianism. The strength of capitalism is that it can absorb and indeed is designed to allow for the fact that humanity’s cooperative impulse --due to the fact that we evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to live in small bands of about 30 to 150 people-- cannot work at the level of the modern nation state.
You still have the problem of misaligned incentives
Not really sure what you mean by that. Socialism leads to better alignment of incentives. If everyone is benefitting from the system, contributions to the system are incentivised.
That is the opposite of capitalism, where the individual tries to gain any advantage they can, even at the expense of everyone else. And broad advances and contributions of work benefit very few people, by design. That leads to lower trust, which further entrenches the idea that the individual has to look out for themselves, and is thus incentivised to game to system.
together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion
But that’s not the point, the point of this approach is that like in cooperatives, there are minimum productivity goals and many roles to play, and so on. Obviously like you point out, no one is that stupid.
Now, consider the needs of people who are old or need help. Like helping your old man, I’m sure you don’t mind getting more apples. I wouldn’t. Like you, I would get angry if I’m the only useful one hahaha, but that what productivity and organization is for. No one lives in a bubble.
Now… What you said, I’ve seen it happen in capitalism. Not in small businesses, normally the owner is in the store too. I mean when we talk about the big bucks like a better example. They expect you to handle of those apples, and ain’t offering you a comfy home neither.
This is disingenuous: the fundamental principle of socialism and Communism is democracy. And, credit where credit is due, capitalism forced us to socialize the production of goods and services (it now takes many people to “produce” anything). Currently, there is no discussion about who gets the profit of socialized labour, it goes to the people who own the workplace, which are rarely the workers.
So, to make your example realistic, you and this other person are part of a community that grows apples (pick any rural community). Together, you all own the fields.
How do you decide what each person gets? You come to a consensus. There are so many variables; is the other person injured?young?sick?old? Or really bad at picking apples? Maybe you are on some apple picking super serum. How do you decide who gets what? The same way people usually do; you decide together.
In your example, having a blanket rule as you suggest would never work, and would be unfair, but it is what happens now in our advanced capitalistic economies. If you pick 1000 apples for a company, how many do you keep? Or more realistically; once the apples are sold, how much of the.profits go to you? You have no choice. You work, get paid, and go home. You work harder and you end up with just about the same amount at the end. The only saving grace is if you work hard enough, one day you might be promoted by the generous owner to a position where you are no longer the poor schmuck who does all the work. But that poor schmuck will always still exist, it’s just no longer you.
This is under the assumption that there is a surplus in society that can satisfy the needs of everyone. Marx’s point is that technological development and industrialization could make this possible. As such, the need to motivate people to work harder is not necessary.
Prior to such a surplus existing, the distribution of goods would be more akin to “From each according to their ability, to each according their contribution”. That ensures people are motivated to maximize their productivity as long as that’s still necessary.
Thanks, i pride myself on making innovative memes that point out the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism in new and inventive meme formats. Thankfully the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism have been around for decades giving me plenty of material for OC. /s
Lmao what is fictional about this?! Are you saying the homeless camps are fictional? Or are you saying the soviet priotitizing prefabricated apartments to increase housing supply is fictional?
Woohoo both systems suck. You can actually believe that just because one system is bad, what is considered the opposite is also bad. Marx was not some omniscient doctor manhattan. He had some ideas. Some were good critiques on capitalist culture. Others were fantasy that do not function in the real world.
Notice how the folks arguing in favor of Communism have sources and receipts, while the folks arguing against it have done nothing but regurgitated Capitalist propaganda. Also note folks who are opposed to Communism and Marx’s philosophy are always forced to admit that it only works on paper, because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty…
I have a whole fucking family, who lived through the USSR. Not a single one of them misses it. Being spied on every step you take, my grandma has the “you never know who’s watching” mentality to this day.
That’s not to say they don’t hate the current regime, but it’s nothing compared to the absolute atrocities of the USSR’s secret police.
Bruh there is a reason Putin is framing his imperialist ideations as a revival of the USSR. Also I’ve watched a shit ton of bald and bankrupt videos where all the old people he talks to go on and on about how times were better under the Soviet governments. Facts dont care about your feelings
You know, it’s a universal thing. That’s what MAGA is about, that’s what Hitler pushed. Glorifying distant past no one really remembers, reinventing it, it’s fucked up, especially if it’s promoted via selective parts of it. You can’t use political stunts as a proof of anything. They sell you dreams because they can’t show something real, they can’t show important systemic improvements. In times of fuck ups, they show you that billboard, shining so bright it’s blinding, while bread prices climb 2-3x to what they were a decade ago. And people indulge in that constructed feeling of it being better before, while government can do whatever they want.
Ok, how about people currently living through communism? 83% of Chinese people believe they live in a democracy, more than in the US. Chinese citizens are on average around 4 times wealthier than their parents. Millennials are the first generation in US history to be poorer than their parents. Most of the wealth in the US is held by boomers who lived through the tail end of new deal social democracy.
Do you also disregard these accounts by people who are currently living through communism? Or will you move the goal post again?
Things got much worse for most citizens of the USSR after it collapsed and state industry was privatized. Life expectancy dropped pretty severely. It shouldn’t be surpassing that anyone who suffered under that economic collapse would tell you the USSR was better.
You’re claiming communism is so great and when presented with links you just go “WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THIS HUH” and then completely ignore the above. It’s ridiculous. Actual text book definition of what about ism. Seriously stop and think for yourself for two seconds without restarting to this tribal shit slinging mentality.
Yeah, capitalism is bad, we live in it, we can see that happening around us, but you’re eating literal propaganda about communism and ignoring actual verifiable evidence. This isn’t a capitalism vs communism debate, there are more than two fucking systems you smooth brain chud
The holodomor narrative surrounding the ussr wide famine of 32-33 was literal nazi propaganda from open nazi collaborators and was used as a justification for the mass murder of jews in Eastern Europe during the holocaust.
It was debunked in the literal 1930s in the US and now it re-emerges like a zombie during an era where fascism is on the rise. Even anticommunist academics like Applebaum, Davies, and Conquest say it wasn’t a genocide.
What a crock of shit. Practically every historian says it was caused by soviet policy. The only debate that occurs if whether it was due to stupidity or intentional genocide.
Literally none of your sources definitively claim it was a genocide except the university of Minnesota one which cites Davies and Applebaum who later says it wasn’t.
Also lol, you use Wikipedia, a random university of Minnesota webpage, KellogInsight, and I dont even know where you got your last source but it literally cites Wheatcroft and Davies amongst others who do not argue it was a genocide after examining the soviet archives.
Gonna tell me how the Holocaust was a lie too?
No, the holocaust is a well documented historical fact, unlike the holodomor. The soviet wide famine of 1932 and 33 is a well documented historical fact, it is also not considered a genocide by mainstream anticommunist historians, who argue to what extent soviet policies and which policies worsened the famine.
Also ironic that you ask “do you also deny the holocaust” given the holodomor myth was used as justification to kill Jewish people during the holocaust and was later used as justification for collaboration with the holocaust.
Here is a well respected Jewish historian and activist on it:
Wow the lengths commies go to deny actual genocide.
We all know communism is an ideology strictly for the uneducated and violent, why try so hard to make it seem like something else? The countless sexual and ethnic minorities murdered by communism due to its inherent hateful nature is something only the nazis on the other end of the fascism-spectrum rivaled.
The lengths liberals will to go to buy into fascist atrocity propaganda that was used as justification for the mass slaughter of Jewish people by nazis and nazi collaborators
The countless sexual and ethnic minorities murdered by communism due to its inherent hateful nature is something only the nazis on the other end of the fascism-spectrum rivaled.
You’re literally doing fascist propaganda. Here is a liberal Jewish holocaust historian and activist writing on it:
Fascists kill minorities, wow, who would’ve thought. It’s amazing how many commies pretend to label themselves as anti racist and pro trans rights, yet just so happen to advocate for an ideology based on murdering people on the basis of their ethnicity and sexual/gender orientation. Coincidence don’t you think?
Started off? Which minority was slaughtered in Cuba? What about Korea? How about Afghanistan? China? Vietnam? The USSR? I mean at the start. The USSR did do some legitimately bad things to minorities (particularly German, polish, and Korean) in the lead up to and during ww2) but that was later on and those paled in comparison to the crimes of their capitalist contemporaries.
Please read upon actual history before pretending to know any of it. Every nation you mentioned slaughtered their minorities, it is intrinsic to the ideology, a core foundation. Communism without unchecked violence, aggression and ethnic cleansing isn’t communism.
Also loving the token Whataboutism™ at the end, sign of a true tankie lmao, y-y-yes all communist nations have cleaned off their trans folk b-b-but there are some liberal nations too that did it, even though liberalism is the only ideology that has the capability to support a non-violent society lmao get fucked transphobe.
Please read upon actual history before pretending to know any of it.
Could you give me a recommendation on history books that go over the slaughter of minorities in Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea then? Since you know so much about it.
Oh, that is what I thought. Have you considered actually talking to Cubans, either people who live there or cuban immigrants who arent aggrieved about their grandpa’s plantation?
Communism without unchecked violence, aggression and ethnic cleansing isn’t communism.
Fuck I gotta tell my local commune that they aren’t really communist
Also loving the token Whataboutism™
Fallacy fallacy. If we are judging ideologies on how many atrocities they commit, you have to judge them against other ideologies.
even though liberalism is the only ideology that has the capability to support a non-violent society
Lol 20 million people die a year of starvation or lack of clean water under liberal hegemony.
The archetypal liberal state shoots thousands of black men a year, and creates conditions that mean 40 percent of homeless youth are lgbt. It has the largest prison system in history, and has killed millions of civilians in wars of aggression over the last 20 years. You’re projecting the crimes of capitalism onto communism, consider criticizing communism for what it actually did wrong.
No one is going to deny that making perpetual motion device is good. How are you going to do that?
Do you have source and receipts for real life communism solving housing problem? Not being better than capitalism. Solving. Being better than capitalism is kinda low bar you know. There are plenty of other things that real life capitalism does better than real life communism, hence communism failure. No one is going to show up with receipts and sources because obvious.
You show us tents as a capitalist solution. That’s not a capitalist solution. That’s the problem itself. You’re misleading.
because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty…
Can you at least try to sound less douche about things?
The joke is that Capitalism DOES NOT have a solution to homelessness because there is zero profit motive to solve it. And facts dont care about your feelngs, you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest. Capitalist Economists study Das Kapital because Marx was so fucking spot on.
No need to refute Marx, reality has already proven time and time again that communism doesn’t work in practice.
Btw your argument only applies to “pure” capitalism, without any government interference. Homelessness is not really an issue in many European countries.
Tell me you haven’t read Marx without telling me you haven’t read Marx.
Seriously though, Marx is like the guy you go read if you want a ruthless critique of idealism. I’d go so far as to say it’s the reason his theories became so popular in the first place.
You’re right, nobody has ever cared about Marx. No communist revolutionaries anywhere have ever called themselves Marxists. If they did, then their projects must have surely collapsed by now. That’s because Marx was very clear that his political theories were not made to be adaptable or revisable based on new information and changing conditions. No, that would be far too scientific for someone we can agree was clearly an idealist.
Yes, that’s why there is no pure capitalist country anywhere.
you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest.
Why are you keep doing this? I said I don’t disagree with Marx. It’d be nice if communism can happen. Facts don’t care about your feelings either and all the shitty attemps of communism failed due to human being shitty. If you have to kill off people to keep the ideology, only to fail after about few decades, it has some reality problems.
And again, I cannot stress this enough, can you please stop sounding like a 16 year old kid who just read few paragraphs of Marx going iamverysmart about it?
The existence of state run social services and regulations does not mean a country is not fully capitalist if you’re using Marx’s understanding of what capitalism is. Additionally I think there is a misconception that communism depends on altruistic behavior. It really doesn’t.
I mean even in the case of USSR they had to wait for more than a decade to actually get a livable apartment, not to mention severe lack of infrastructure…
But of course, better than people just kicked out to the streets. But then again, less is not none. The housing situation definitely didn’t do USSR’s overall economic status any favor.
Soviet Union? It was uncommon for a family of 6 to live in a small apartment. You can even see it in old soviet movies where apartments would be separated by curtains (common comedy trope).
In Communist countries people starve to death because of famine, in Capitalist countries people also strave to death because of famine while still starving to death after famines are over because they cant afford groceries. https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/13aca946-0a00-4d6f-80d5-f014778b2cbe.jpeg
Yeah that’s called late stage Communism, which we have never achieved as humanity. Late stage Capitalism is currently pushing more and more folks into dangerous housing situations like the bottom right quadrant of this meme. Capitalism and Utopia are oxymorons while Communism and Utopia are synonymous.
There were still people that lived in the streets in the USSR. Also, the housing the USSR provided wasn’t really that… great… I watch a Russian YouTuber (NFKRZ) who has talked about Soviet architecture in not just Russia, but other former USSR countries and shows that yes it’s good they were built, they weren’t very well built.
The USSR had many problems, and bureaucracy was a big problem. I never understood why tankies love the USSR so much when the USSR didn’t truly get rid of class. Those in the government lived like kings compared to the common man, who yes lived better than they had before but still not that well due to the bloated and mismanagement of the government.
Idk, the fact that they even had a centralized government like that seems like… the opposite of communism to me.
I think what people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.
As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.
They don’t call you old fashioned for that, they call you tankie. It’s because they’re mad that you don’t buy the bullshit they push. Look at all the claims they make about the USSR here while providing no evidence or context for the situations they claim people were living in.
They compare apples to oranges when it’s communism they are criticizing and stick their fingers in their ears while screaming when it comes to criticizing crapitalism.
Not a tankie, but the USSR had mostly solved this problem, despite all its other issues. There did exist some homelessness, but nowhere near the extent of current USA.
Well, I’m from a post-USSR country and a substantial part of this was the criminalization of homelessness. Can’t have homeless people, if you lock them up (be it in a prison or asylum).
Then again, just about anyone, who did not conform to the party’s message got locked up. Getting your place bugged at the slightest hint you might be up to something disagreeable and all that good stuff. The secret police could disappear and or beat you up without any real justification.
I hate late-stage capitalism as much as you, but coming from a country that’s been through this, I am extremely reluctant to give the rotten and frankly repugnant USSR regime any credit.
Sure, you could get a piece of land in Siberian tundra at any time, I would not call that housing.
Moving to a city was way more complicated than in capitalist US. You could not simply buy an apartment. You had to be allocated an apartment by the government. And you needed connections for that. Or bribes. Ideally both. If you think your local rabid Republicans do not care for little wage slave men, you never experienced USSR, it was like that but 100x worse.
Vodka had been linked to the Russian economy under multiple Czars. I’m not sure that Stalin could have separated the two even if he had wanted to. Admittedly it doesn’t appear that he wanted to.
I’m pretty sure that the USSR was screwed the moment that Lenin returned from exile in Germany, or when Wilson was elected. Take your pick.
The Menchaviks would have been a better government.
The mechaviks literally wanted to continue ww1 and have a psuedo democracy where the bourgeoisie were literally guaranteed a majority of seats, wtf are you talking about?
I wasn’t aware of that. I was under the impression they were less extreme than the Bolsheviks, and didn’t want to execute everyone that wasn’t a hard core Bolshevik
They were more extreme than the bolseviks but less extreme than the monarchists, they were just on the side of capitalists so were painted with a nicer brush by capitalist historians
In a communist society i would most likely have to live in a building like that, in capitalism i can use my skills and effort to earn money for a nice home. Only the lazy, unskilled people want communism.
Listen, I’m no tankie by any means (in the libsoc camp) but that representation on who calls themselves a communist is so bias and obviously full of venom and spite.
Are there some lazy people who like communism? Yea. There are also some lazy people that heavily push capitalism. Being lazy doesn’t predispose you to a certain economic belief structure.
Yes in Communism you would have to live in a building instead of being a bumbling idiot looking for your bootstraps to pull up in a tent underneath an overpass, while Capitalism builds luxury high rises your dumbass will never set foot in. People arent homeless because they are unskilled or lazy, they are homeless due to Material Conditions outside of their control.
“Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders”
So even if you’re right, you’d condemn the other 1/3rd to homelessness to spite the others? People that made bad decisions are still people. I hope you’ve never made any bad decisions…
Also, you’re condemning entire communities. People in desperate situations often have to turn to crime. Paying for their incarceration (or healthcare for that matter) COSTS MORE THAN JUST PROVIDING FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We should help everyone, even if it means "bad people" can take some from the system.
We should not help anyone but a tiny fraction of people so that no "bad people" can benefit from the system.
Personally, I don't really favor making the world that much worse to avoid some spoilage. We can do better than hurting a lot of people so we get the "bad" ones, who in my view are responding to material conditions, neurology, and history.
I don't know that any particular person said it, but I agree with the notion that the first sign of civilization was a human corpse, with a femur that had been broken, and then healed. A human with a broken leg is pretty screwed on their own. Someone had to help that person get food and water long enough for it to heal. Civilization is when we help each other fulfill our needs, and that's beautiful.
Your task is not to prove that drugs exist in the homeless community. For your point of them “fucking their lives up with drugs” to be true, you have to prove that their personal drug use was the catalyst for their living conditions. Do that or take the L.
And to check yourself, you might want to look up the prevalence of drug use in more affluent communities. Hint: it’s a lot.
You provided a source that says most of the homeless people are unemployed (53% of sheltered and 40% of sheltered have jobs). I provided a source that says 2/3 of homeless people have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Do you not know what the words “most” and “majority” mean?
No, my argument was that drug use lead them to being homeless. A lot of homeless people are in rehab programs, and it helps them a lot. The source i listed is one of those programs. You seem like the one with reading comprehension issuses.
“If someone uses drugs, they deserve to be homeless.”
“It’s impossible that people would pick up a drug habit to cope with their homelessness problem.”
“Anyone else who becomes homeless is just dumb or lazy. It’s their fault they don’t have my privilege and I’ll ignore any amount of evidence to not rethink my shitty, self-entitled world view.”
YOUR source said only 1/3 have a current substance abuse issue. And my source said that 53% of homeless folks in shelters have jobs while 40% of unsheltered folks have jobs. Most homeless folks start out using shelters and then transition to living on the street as they loss hope and ergo lose employment as their Material Conditions worsen. I am done arguing with your surface level understanding of a complex crisis. I pray you and yours never experience the crushing hopelessness that is living on the street and not knowing where you will rest your head.
“A 2021 study from the University of Chicago estimates that 53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed.” Most homeless folks have jobs and lose them due to worsening Material Conditions. Facts dont care about yohr feelings. source
so more than half of them are unemployed, and others are prioritising other things to spend their money on. You cant tell me 7.25 bucks per hour isn’t enough for a home and food.
Why do you think people go to drugs, most of the time it’s because their life was already bad and the drugs just made it worse. Yes, there is a percentage of people that are lazy but it is only a small margin of homeless people. There is enough well researched material on youtube about these topics on youtube. If the system doesn’t help homeless people at all it will not get better even for the people that aren’t lazy and their life just didn’t go the right way or they were exploited at their workplace to a point that they couldn’t afford living anymore.
Just because the concept of capitalism says it is possible to “work” your way to the top doesnt mean it is happening, almost every single rich person got their wealth by some means of exploitation of other people
A third of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. On average people spend a third of their paycheck on housing. That’s not a lot of room for any kind of bad situations before they become homeless. It can be something completely out of their control like a car running a light and killing their mother which sends then into depression.
Their own fault? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Yeah because most home less people are in that situation ONLY because of their own choices, not bad circumstances, right?
Like people affected by natural disasters… 🌧 🌧 🔥 🌳🔥 who had their homes destroyed and couldn’t afford to rebuild - welp- MUST BE DRUG ADDICTION
Aside, even if it is addiction, why are those people undeserving of help now? Just because there are callus jerrks who don’t care about other humans generally, doesn’t mean we’re all like that. Grow some compassion, eh?
Try to indulge me, as I try to humanize the people you are talking about in a way that might resonate with you.
Imagine you work 40hrs a week, getting paid minimum wage or next to minimum wage, the housing market continues to worsen around you as rent continues to increase but wages don’t. If you have a place already and are just barely scraping by living paycheck to paycheck, which a lot of people are these days. One small bad financial day from an emergency or unexpected cost and you’re screwed. You miss your rent payment and you get evicted. Now, if you don’t have a safety net of people, which we can’t guarantee everyone does have living family or friends that will take you in for a month while you get back on your feet, you become homeless. You get fired from work because you’ve taken too many unpaid days off to try and get your life sorted so you don’t have to sleep on the streets. Now you can’t get another job because most places won’t hire you without an address, and collecting unemployment becomes difficult because if you have no address and no direct deposit you can’t get it mailed to you to claim.
As for the drugs that you say they have chosen to ruin their lives with, a pack of cigarettes, a small bag of weed, some opiates, or alcohol costs a whole lot less than rent for a month or even a motel room for the night.
The financial and housing situation for a lot of people out there in the world is really fragile, and if you add on other issues that I didn’t list such as mental health issues, lack of education or job experience with any education you have, or existing addiction, it can really add up and make it so your going from sleeping in a small bachelor’s apartment one night to sleeping on a park bench the next.
I don’t fully ascribe to the concept of communism myself (it’s a good label for most folks but I’m too picky about nitty gritty stuff so say I like it when I would want to adjust a few things about it), but I definitely think social housing is how you fix homelessness. Cities and states / provinces waste more money dealing with homelessness the way they do now then just building them socialized housing.
It’s very expensive to add the actual image picture into the blockchain, so most NFTs actually contain a hyperlink and the NFT owner “owns” (because to my knowledge there’s no legal base to assert ownership) only that hyperlink within their token, not the image itself.
Thats true but they also usually contain things like the pictures hash so as long as you have the file you can always claim it (even if the hyperlink becane invalid).
Pretty much any kind of data related to the image is useless for verifying the actual image. For instance saving the exact same image with a different compression algorithm will make a new hash.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.