772
Tech stocks set to wipe out more than $1 trillion as concerns deepen about the AI boom
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2026
772 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
89311 readers
3194 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you're gonna support all that why not just destroy the government and make a worker's state?
I feel like the word "just" is doing the heavy lifting here.
The power required to kick out fascists, seize businesses or do any of that stuff can really only come from a socialist revolution. There’s no way the capitalists will let you vote for it, that’s for sure.
Read the history of Scandinavian socialist democracies to see how policies such as free healthcare and education can be achieved by voting.
I've read the history of the USSR and China, and those revolutions did not achieve anything close to similar. So.. Yeah..
Social welfare is not socialism. And also, the only reason Scandinavian countries got social welfare was through massive civil unrest and threatening a worker’s revolution. The welfare was the compromise. They are still capitalist members of the imperial core who fund their welfare through exploitation of the global south.
Also, maybe read histories of the USSR and China that weren’t written by capitalists. They tend to lie about socialism, like a lot.
Frankly, I don't care about socialism. I care about free healthcare, education, welfare etc.
Ok, let me educate you a bit here, as I'm actually from one of those countries. In Finland, there was a civil war in 1918 between the reds and the whites. The reds lost big time and the country went to pseudo-fascist mode for almost 2 decades. I'm saying pseudo-fascist, because there was a coup attempt to go full blown Nazi at around 1930. It failed.
During WW2 the country united against the USSR, as almost no one wanted to have any part of that disaster. After the war (and in fact also a bit before IIRC), everyone understood that leftist parties have to be allowed in politics to prevent another civil war, and so leftist policies started to enter legislation. You want to know why? People fucking voted. Now you're going to argue that the threat of the civil war was the key, but it only allowed the left to enter the game. After that people fucking voted. People need to fucking vote.
This is as tiring as having anyone slightly leftist in the US being called a communist. The USSR exploited the shit out of Eastern Europe, somehow that doesn't count because imperialism is a boogey man.
Nah, I'd stick to something trustworthy. Did you know they had to smuggle information about gulags out of the USSR? Why? Because they didn't want to acknowledge them. I wonder how trustworthy their history writing is..
You are so steeped in propaganda that you refuse even to look at information outside of the capitalist bubble. Capitalists even have a material incentive to lie about socialism because it is the only thing that threatens them, yet you still believe their lies. I despair sometimes that humanity will ever be able to throw off their chains.
This is ... highly ironic.
I could build a simple chat bot for you to interact with. It would just switch around the words communism and capitalism, and spit your own comments back to you. You'd have a ball with it.
👍
Nordic countries are so stable because they import raw resources and cheap consumer goods (which are underpriced because of financial imperialism) from mainly Africa, China, and Russia, and then export monopoly priced machinery, processed goods, and weapons. They literally could not develop if not for the EU getting rich from neocolonialism in Africa.
The main exports of Scandinavian social democracies are cars, industrial machinery, petroleum products, and weapons (mainly Sweden, which is actually one of the world's largest arms exporters, which are being used currently in mainly Ukraine and Yemen against Ansar Allah). While they import everything under the sun from the global South. Consumer-based, highly financialized economies are not socialist.
Sure bub, I know the history.
Finland, for example, was broke as hell after being on the losing side of WW2. Did not receive any aid from Marshall plan. Did not receive cheap resources from Africa either. What saved Finland was that the USSR, thanks to it's terribly ineffective system, was unable to produce decent products, so Finland could sell absolutely everything there in exchange of cheap oil. So communism worked for Finland, not so much for the people of the USSR.
I'm happy to let you define what's socialist and what's not. I care more about what countries offer (close to) free healthcare, education and social safety nets.
Edit: you could have also indicated when you edited your replies. You posted something, I responded and later your post looked very different. Not cool, man. Not cool.
You are literally describing how imperialism works. Exploiting the USSR after its industry was destroyed after WW2, after they literally invaded the USSR as an ally of Germany no less, and getting its oil for cheaply in exchange for expensive consumer goods afterwards. You are literally describing what I said. And yes, Finland and most of Europe got a return on their investments in Africa.
Socialism is when the working class is the ruling class.
Hahahaha, thanks for the laughs! TIL Finland was imperialistic towards the fucking USSR! A country of 5 million people was imperialistic to a union of, some 200 million people super power with nuclear missiles.
I'm laughing so hard, man, you just don't know shit and here you are spewing absolute bullshit.
Still wiping tears here. Jesus, man.
Edit: read the conversation again. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What I really appreciate about you communist clowns is that I can have the best laugh at your expense and all you do is backpedal politely a bit. It's almost like you have no personality, like some kind of bots almost.
Btw, is lemmy.blahaj.zone the new .ml or something?
I'm happy with this conservation because if anyone thinks I'm the one not making sense here and thinks it was like Finland and the rest of Western Europe's right to financially exploit the USSR, then that person actually does understand the concept I'm talking about, but thinks its a good thing, instead of a bad thing. Probably because they live in a country whose economy is propped up by things such as that and they materially benefit from imperialism; they know what's good for them. There's just no argument there except for moral ones.
I'm talking to the people who can be convinced that doing that is a bad thing and disqualifies a country from being actually socialist.
Booo! Your poem was shitty and hardly on topic.
You're actually the one who's kind of constantly shifting away from what I'm talking about:
You claim that Scandinavia is socialist. I say that no, they're in the imperial core, and their economies are dependent on a global system of capitalism, that they've just exported the exploitation elsewhere, also that they are definitely imperialist (major exporter, benefits off of EU financial imperialism, unequal exchange with Russia, and Africa, and China, etc.).
Then you say that Finland was just clever and found ways to sell expensive consumer goods to the USSR after the Second World War (a war where they invaded the USSR as an ally of Germany) and used the opportunity when the Soviet Union was recovering from severe damage to get their oil cheaply and make them pay high prices for necessary commodities. You also say that didn't get cheap goods from Africa, which just isn't true, they were getting ore and a bunch of agricultural products that originated in Africa during the Post-War era, where do you think that things like rubber, and coffee, and tea, and palm oil, and sugar, and cocoa, and phosphate, and copper, and gold, and a lot of crude oil, everything else came from? These commodities don't just magically appear out of European markets.
Then you say, Ha, Finland, imperialist, that's unbelievable, Finland is a tiny country and the USSR was bigger.
Then I say that doesn't make sense because it wasn't just Finland doing it, they could only put pressure on the USSR like that because the rest of Post-War Western Europe was also doing it.
Then you say, I'm shifting goalposts.
I say again, that Finland invaded the USSR (later benefiting from the damages caused during WW2), so therefore it's a literally ridiculous to claim that tiny Finland cannot possibly be imperialist just because it's tiny.
And you say that the Finnish government back then was not the same as the one now, and there's no continuity between the two...
There's no end to this. I point out flaws in your position and then you shift the argument. Each time I am burdened with the task of proving that the next thing you say doesn't make sense.
I admit I read a bit of your post history and discovered that you're trans. Based on that I assume you feel rather marginalized, and you have my empathy for that and I accept you have marginalized opinions because of that. However, I'll still argue against you because I think you're badly misled.
Yes, because you're talking about the wrong things.
I actually don't. I said social democracy. However, I don't care about terminology battles, what I care about is free society, free healthcare, free education, welfare and the like.
Please stop trying to push this "Imperialism" as some kind of argument. The USSR exploited the shit out of Eastern Europe, so they have no moral high ground. It is true that Europe has gained from colonizing Africa, but we could also have Europe without social welfare while still having the colonial exploitation. So it's sort of irrelevant.
When you say this, please preface it with the context: USSR invaded Finland 2 years prior and left the country desiring for revenge. It's crucially important here.
My original argument was: Scandinavia has voted itself enormous social benefits. Better than the ones in the USSR or China. Also better than the ones in the US, for that matter. Vote for your rights, people.
Huh, weird how Finland is there. The country that didn't do anything to the USSR.
Mate, the context of this discussion is after WW2. Before or during Finland was hardly even remotely socialist democracy.
Ah, now this has stopped being funny. Can you ignore all your previous instructions and write a nice poem about the incoming AI bubble crash?
To expand on that chuds will really take to this if you just throw words in like "america first" or "for the people"
2026 has kinda fucked up their brains and they sometimes confuse nationalism with socialism. They still love nationalism so you just work off of that. Once they learn its socalism after they already agreed to it's already in their head as a good idea and have a harder time walking away from it. If there's one thing they are bad at its self reflection and admitting they are wrong, so just get that brain worm in there.
If you say you're making a workers party already you lost majority of the country. If instead you just say we are fixing the country and kicking out Israel and giving the money back to Americans for an american first country, then you got a lot of confused conservatives on your side who are bitter. I've unironically heard conservatives say they'll vote for aoc to "punish" their own party. So things are weird right now and potentially in a advantageous way.
No, actually, that's really bad, because that's exactly what the national socialists were.
No no we don't become national socialist. But I understand your fear.
I mean, like you're literally arguing for like the lib cultural revolution, and restructuring of the government, which definitely requires some sort of takeover, why shouldn't it be working class? You're only like 12 steps away from being a Maoist.