MacNCheezus

Sir, this is a Wendy’s. And that is a pizza. And you know damn well you ate it yourself.

Instructions unclear, now I’m addicted to crack.

I really hope you get to fulfill your dream of living in a commune one day so you'll have some actual first hand experience of what you are talking about.

I'd pay good money to see your face the first time you get outvoted on something you think you are absolutely right about.

I don't think you're wrong about the idea of micro-states forming, but I don't see how a communist cooperative isn't a micro-state by the same definition as well.

As far as cooperatives being naturally more efficient, I highly doubt that. Centralized structures are far more conducive to decision making. While your commune is still debating about whether both Marx' and Engels' birthdays should be a day off, the capitalists are already working.

Also, the idea that property somehow magically supports itself by virtue of being communally owned is complete fantasy. You clearly have no actual experience and are just spouting off a bunch of dogma you've read somewhere.

Right, that makes sense, although the article doesn’t go into detail about how the server decides when it’s time to delete a message.

It also doesn’t back up your claim that multiple devices sharing the same account will ever exchange messages amongst each other. Which would be a technical nightmare BTW since they could be located behind firewalls etc. and this still require a central server to coordinate. Might as well keep the middle man in that case and leave the messages on the server until they’ve been retrieved.

My initial point therefore is mostly correct: messages ARE stored on their servers in encrypted form for an unknown length of time, although likely not forever.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

How do they manage to make the same messages appear on multiple devices? I use Signal on my phone and two other computers. Even if one of them is offline, once I go online, it will show the same messages as the other devices, even if I have already seen them on my phone. They sure aren't going to connect to my phone to pull the messages from there.

I do think there is a limit to this feature – when you connect a new device, you will not see any history on there. Only messages you receive after activating the device will show up, so it's possible they just keep track of how many active devices you have, and once a message has been retrieved by all of them, it will be deleted from the server. But that would also mean that if you don't sign out of a device before retiring it, messages COULD potentially stay on their servers forever, unless they delete them after a certain period.

Discord stores all messages and media.

I mean, how else do you think they can make it so all your existing chats show up when you log into your account from a different device? Signal stores all your messages and media as well, the difference is they encrypt it on their servers. Discord doesn't.

If you delete it, or delete your account, its still there.

That's more problematic, and there should honestly be a law against that. Come to think of it, doesn't that violate the GRDP? Either they have to treat their EU customers differently when it comes to this, or there's a lawsuit waiting to happen. In the former case, you might be able to force them to delete your data by using a VPN to pretend you're in Europe.

Okay, as frustrating as it is to have you simply repeat your initial statements despite any arguments made to the contrary, it seems as though your point hinges on the distinction between personal and private property.

However, I don't see how private property couldn't be maintained as long as you have the ability to defend it. Hiring guards for instance does not constitute a monopoly on violence, since others can do so as well. In an anarcho-communist scenario, for instance, if the workers want to maintain control of the means of production after ousting the owner, they would potentially have to post guards as well, or the property owner could hire a bunch of mercenaries to take the property back.

The long and short if this is, I don't see how anarchy would favor either the creation of capitalist or communist structures of organization. Most likely, there would be both, and survival would be a matter of who is better at organizing.

I mean, first of all, have you taken a look at our current society, and second of all, this is just a thought experiment to prove that anarcho-communism is pure fantasy, or at the very least not inevitable.

I got this thing for you, it’s called taxes, you’re gonna love it.

I have a gun. Try taking it from me.

There are no laws saying I can’t have one, and there are no laws saying I can’t shoot you if you try to take it.

If the collective has to enforce collective ownership, isn't that just a monopoly on violence again?

Private ownership doesn't require a collective, or a monopoly on violence. You only get to keep what you can defend.