No, you are not.

You have not been targeted if you were not also targeted under Trump. You are not a victim.

No, you haven’t.

As much as I can without harming those who depend on me.

Technically, Lemmy itself is a “radical left” platform. That was its purpose in creation.

To be fair, choosing Lemmy over Reddit is absolutely a political choice, hence people here are going to be more politically-minded.

Spoken like someone who has never been targeted based on the political climate, and hasn’t cared for anyone who has.

It’s also good to not use it, if you can afford to keep it and spend normally. HSA space is extremely limited, because it’s by far the best retirement account available. FSAs are fantastic for spending, as they don’t have as many restrictions and don’t carry over year over year.

You actually don’t have to spend money with an HSA, ever. You can invest it, and it rolls over. FSAs must be spent within the year you contribute, though.

It can only happen at a global scale. There are numerous answers to your question, but again, it isn’t as simple as removing all incentives. Read theory, Marx never pretends to know what Communism must look like, which is why Communists focus on achieving Socialism first, as we can very well transition to that now.

Nope, just like it doesn’t require unlimited resources and automation to get you to do your chores. However, at a societal scale, its definitely a futuristic goal, which is why Communism is only achievable after Socialism, which is similar to modern society except industry is collectively, rather than individually owned.

People don’t get everything for free until productivity is so high that it’s practical, which comes from development. The distribution is handled by the Socialist State, typically, until it becomes vestigial and no longer necessary.

Neither. It’s a replacement for money, based on hours worked. The difference between money and LVs are that LVs are destroyed upon first use, ie you create 4 hours of Value, then trade that for 4 different hours of Value.

Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.

Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.

They are.

To argue for Capitalism over Socialism, you must reject the idea of democratizing control of productuon in favor of dictatorial control. You can whitewash it into “meritocracy,” and pretend that ownership is a mystical concept that chooses those with the highest competency, but ultimately Capitalism is a rejection of Worker Control, and thus an affirmation of control in the hands of the few.

Similarly, to believe that this dictatorial control is worth it, you typically must also believe that growth is either non-existant if the Workers direct it, or pales in comparison to when Capitalists control production.

Therefore, you are rejecting the concepts of decentralization and democratization of production in favor of the “good men” theory, putting all your chips on Capitalists either being good people or being replaced by better Capitalists without input from the Workers.

Did I deliberately highlight the flaws of your thinking without putting the kid gloves on? Yes, and I won’t apologize for it, as the claims are logically a necessity to hold your beliefs.

Development did, not Capitalism. The countries that developed the most in the 1900s were the ones rejecting Capitalism in favor of some form of Socialism.

Do you think that people get richer when a group of people decide they have no rights of ownership and one person owns everything, or do you acknowledge that democracy and decentralization are good?

You’re continuing to compare a fully developed superpower that never had skin in WWII with a developing country the rest of the world tried to oppose at every step, that’s still completely disingenuous. The graph was volatile because the USSR was founded in Civil War, had a famine in the 30s during the horribly botched collectivization of agriculture, then had their bread basket invaded during WWII while they took on the majority of combat against the Nazis. After that, steady!

Decentralization is firmly a Socialist ideal, and is incompatible with Capitalism. Capitalism requires that workers have no power, otherwise it wouldn’t exist.

You then go on to completely butcher the definitions of Socialism by assuming it means state control, rather than collective control, of the means of production. State control is merely one path of Socialism.

Private Property requires a monopoly of violence to enforce, ie a state. You cannot have private property without threat of violence via a state, even your example proves this.

All in all, you’re frustratingly bad at arguing anything coherent, and it’s clear you don’t actually care about proper definitions.

Theory is a plan for reality. If you can prove that tools have a mystical property that causes people to turn evil if they share them, be my guest. You can’t actually tie that absurd claim to reality though, so you won’t.

Personally, I love the idea of decentralization, collaboration, and democratization, which is why I love FOSS and am on Lemmy rather than Reddit.

To be fair, the political compass is a vast oversimplification itself. For example, there cannot be an Anarchist Capitalism in any fashion, as Capitalism definitionally has a requirement for hierarchy to exist.

It’s better to understand values and positions than try to place people on an imaginary grid.

It’s also the worst. It was the backbone of both Nazi Germany, and modern Social Democracies. Capitalism is incredibly broad, both the most evil and most benign states in history have relied on Capitalism.

Socialism similarly is broad, and isn’t at all synonymous with Stalinism or Maoism.