I truly don't understand. No matter how funny or unfunny, true or untrue, pro- or anti-Biden a post is - if it contains his name or face it gets downvoted like crazy.

Edit: I just scrolled further and found a counter example. My god...

Why is everything containing Biden being downvoted to oblivion?

Und daran dass niemand auf andere herab- oder hinauf geblickt hat, da man mit jedem Job ein Leben führen konnte, ohne sich Sorgen um Essen, Miete oder medizinische Versorgung machen zu müssen. Oder dass Kultur, Sport und Gemeinschaft extrem in der DDR gefördert wurden. Die Menschen waren nicht sozialer, weil sie das mussten, das funktioniert sowieso nicht (denk an Kassierer*innen, auf der Straße Werbung machende, usw.).

Die Produktionsverhältnisse und der Staat haben trotzdem einen riesigen Einfluss auf das Soziale. Wenn die Einkommensunterschiede viel geringer sind und die Leute zwar nicht reich werden, aber jeder ein mehr oder weniger sorgenfreies Leben führen konnten, sorgte das für mehr Vertrauen, eine durchmischtere Gesellschaft, niedrigere Kriminalität, usw. Du kannst dir auch vorstellen, dass unter zB Feudalismus der Umgang der Menschen untereinander ein ganz anderer war.

Finde ich unpassend, da gerade das soziale Leben und soziale Gerechtigkeit in der DDR von Ostdeutschen als deutlich besser als in der BRD eingeschätzt wird, was kein Wunder ist bei den ganzen Sozialprogrammen.

Hier ein paar sehr interessante Umfragen https://www.bpb.de/system/files/pdf/RXR7GV.pdf

Since caffeine drops exponentially, it would last somewhere between 2.5 and 5 hours and would be half as strong.

Capitalism is an oligarchy

When you satisfy the needs of your population, have cheap birth control and good sexual education (which was given in almost all socialist countries) people will naturally have fewer children. In poor countries people have the most children.

Under capitalism, people in many rich countries are panicking because fewer and fewer working people have to feed more and more elderly, even though we have the resources to easily meet their needs. But profits have to keep rising, so the shrinking working population has to be more and more productive. The superexploited growing populations in the global south are what keeps this system alive, so overpopulation is even encouraged under capitalism.

I study mathematics at university and I remember it being in the definition, but since it follows from the sum's limit anyways it probably was just there for claritie's sake. So I guess we're both right...

Mathematics is built on axioms that have nothing to do with numbers yet. That means that things like decimal numbers need definitions. And in the definition of decimals is literally included that if you have only nines at a certain point behind the dot, it is the same as increasing the decimal in front of the first nine by one.

Impossible with modern reactors, technologyimproved a lot since then.

51st state

AMOGUS

Yes, let's learn what happens between a cute little calf being born and a steak on your table. I'm sure they give their meat voluntarily...

Not true at all. Socialist countries were pretty much the only ones being able to feed their whole population with no one getting left behind. Sure you didn't have bananas all the time but that's beside the point. The only real famines in socialist countries occured in the very early years (after coming from different systems with famines being a regular thing) or during war.

Meanwhile under capitalism, millions starve every year even though we produce food for 10 billion people and could feed billions more without the unbelievably wasteful animal agriculture.

Genau die will man ja. Wenn mehr Leute fahren macht man mehr Geld mit Autos...

Stalin's 20 million and Mao's 70 million both come from a book called 'The Black Book of Communism' where th authors tried to inflate all the numbers as much as possible to arrive at 100 million deaths under communism in the end. The really high numbers come from taking the difference between the population decades later and what the population would have been if the borth rate hadn't dropped (even though lower birth rates are an indication of better living standards).

Also, if you leave out the USSR's purges (Soviet archives revealed around 800k), almost all of the deaths come from 'man made famines'. Completely disregarding that in both China and Russia there have been famines all the time before their revolutions. Both countries were among the poorest and most backward in the world. No government on earth could have prevented all famines immediately. After some years after Mao's and Stalin's reorganizations of agriculture, famines were eliminated (except for during WW2). Life expectancy doubled within 30 years under communist China. Very quickly in the Soviet Union as well.

Of course you can argue about the governments having been able to do it better in hindsight, but even then the deaths certainly weren't cold blooded murder.

Considering this, you certainly won't arrive at the tens of millions of people killed just by the US military. Many, many more if you factor in indirect deaths (by embargoes, sanctions, refusing to allow other countries to produce their vaccines, etc.).

Things that benefit the working class: Labor protection, minium wages, free education, etc. Without these things greater profits would be made. And every capitalist country slowly removes these benefits until major uprisings.

Let me guess. America?

Organize the working class