Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yeah, communism has never been implemented - it’s a stateless, class-less, money-less society. Neither has socialism, actually - just social democracy (in a lot of the world) has.

This government isn’t fascist. This is an authoritative policy, yes.

I don’t need a dictionary when I have an MA, thank you.
LOL. As if an MA means someone is intelligent.

Communism and socialism have always been attempted but always fail because they are morally bankrupt. As Winston Churchill said, “Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.”

When a government starts locking people up for posting memes on social media, they are fascist. You don’t need a master’s degree to understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaymc
Who remembers when China was vilified for violating human rights and being totalarian for doing similar acts?

1739034564933.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: verdi1987 and jaymc
That is simply not true.

They think like it all the time.
Seems so. Sadly, what a cast of dimwits and losers they have had as PM in recent years. But the gold medal for lunacy etc. has to go to Liz Truss. What a train wreck and she is still trying to cash in on her brief, but not brief enough, time in the spotlight.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: decafjava
Yeah you’re wrong. You’re confusing “authoritarian” with “fascist.” The Soviet Union and Mao’s China were authoritarian, but weren’t fascist.

And before you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, I have a degree in political science and a degree in German, and spent considerable time studying fascism, including a course entirely on fascism, it’s tenants, common attributes of fascist countries, etc. Communism and fascism are diametrically opposed to each other, despite having common characteristics.
Interesting point of view. What about the shared characteristics of centralized power and control? How do you explain that?

I don’t think the world’s definitions have evolved to encompass what is happening to Liberal governments who embrace tenants of fascism, authoritarianism, and communism.

Of course, it doesn’t really matter for the people who are living under it because the effects of all of those systems are largely the same— incarceration, lack of freedom, privacy, and free speech; no right to property; sometimes torture and violence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: decafjava
LOL. As if an MA means someone is intelligent.

Communism and socialism have always been attempted but always fail because they are morally bankrupt. As Winston Churchill said, “Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.”

When a government starts locking people up for posting memes on social media, they are fascist. You don’t need a master’s degree to understand that.
Yeah, no they haven’t been tried. At all. Here’s one tip: socialism isn’t when “you run out of other people’s money”, to paraphrase M Thatcher.

The government haven’t locked people up for some “memes”.

When the MA is related to politics, it does.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: jaymc
Interesting point of view. What about the shared characteristics of centralized power and control? How do you explain that?
I would argue that’s a function of authoritarianism vs. one of the two “isms” we are talking about. For a couple of easy examples of differences - communism argues everyone is equal regardless of race, country of origin, class, etc. (although clearly that doesn’t actually work out in practice), fascism argues that some countries/races are superior. Communism denies the role of religion in society, often going as far as banning it , whereas fascism often co-opts religion as a tool for national unity.

I don’t think the world’s definitions have evolved to encompass what is happening to Liberal governments who embrace tenants of fascism, authoritarianism, and communism.
I agree lack of a common definition doesn’t help anything.

Of course, it doesn’t really matter for the people who are living under it because the effects of all of those systems are largely the same— incarceration, lack of freedom, privacy, and free speech; no right to property; sometimes torture and violence.
Agree with this 100%. They’re both terrible and any attempts to move democracies in those directions should be vigorously opposed.
 
You can do end to end encryption with a master key that unlocks everything. You can even break that key into two parts and you need both parts to unlock the data.
If someone other than the user has the key, then what's the point of end-to-end encryption?
 
As Winston Churchill said, “Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.”
Churchill didn't say that. He said Democracy is the worst form of government except all others. Capitalism and democracy are two entirely different things and people need to stop conflating the two. Capitalism can exist in an authoritarian country and many forms of socialism exist in democracies.

Capitalism by itself is also, at best, morally agnostic (and at worst, can also be just as morally reprehensible as communism). Even Adam Smith (you know, that guy that kindof roots for capitalism in a book) acknowledged that unchecked capitalism can lead to concentrations of power that have to be tempered by governments (because the "invisible hand" only works when there's competition).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ksec and jennyp
While I agree that would be a good solution for Apple to implement (although disagree about forcing Apple to do so), it appears the U.K. could prevent them from offering that feature. From this BBC article, emphasis mine:
How would allowing users to back up and sync data between devices using their own drives be a security issue?
 
How would allowing users to back up and sync data between devices using their own drives be a security issue?
I agree with you 100% it shouldn’t be considered one, but if the government is going to say ADP can’t be offered, I could also see the government saying that’s not allowed because people could encrypt their drives.

I’d say it’s low probability, but I would have said the situation we are in now was low probability.

That said, I hope Apple is working on your suggestion.
 
Yeah, no they haven’t been tried. At all. Here’s one tip: socialism isn’t when “you run out of other people’s money”, to paraphrase M Thatcher.

The government haven’t locked people up for some “memes”.

When the MA is related to politics, it does.
Spoken like a true naive who actually believes these systems could work. Now we know your degree is just overpriced validation wherein you absorbed the leanings of very socialist professors who have never experienced the real world outside of academia. More importantly, we can now safely say you do not know what you’re talking about.

Socialism has been tried and every time in turns into communism with extreme poverty, horrible human rights abuses and lack of freedom. The Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cuba, Venezuela, they have all failed or continue to fail. China’s is the only system that one could argue comes close, and that’s because they embraced Capitalism to a degree.

Socialism will never work because it’s antithetical to human nature to be satisfied with the status quo. Someone will always try to get ahead— and that means either it turns to capitalism or corruption and poverty for some.

We could get into Hobbes and Locke but since now we know where you fall on the socialism spectrum it’s not even worth it. You just need to experience real life…as you type replies on your Mac or IPhone bought and paid for by the benefits of work and production within a Capitalist system.

You do know Apple would never even exist in a socialist society, right? :)
 
I would argue that’s a function of authoritarianism vs. one of the two “isms” we are talking about. For a couple of easy examples of differences - communism argues everyone is equal regardless of race, country of origin, class, etc. (although clearly that doesn’t actually work out in practice), fascism argues that some countries/races are superior. Communism denies the role of religion in society, often going as far as banning it , whereas fascism often co-opts religion as a tool for national unity.
That’s very interesting but it seems to be wrong since A) most historians believe Hitler’s fascist Germany would have eventually done away with traditional Christianity in favor of a more secular take; B) The Chinese Communist Party has not denied the role of religion but has also co-opted it, forcing religions to register with the government.
I agree lack of a common definition doesn’t help anything.
Governments are evolving so the definitions must evolve with them. “Politics is for the moment, an equation is for eternity.” —Einstein
Agree with this 100%. They’re both terrible and any attempts to move democracies in those directions should be vigorously opposed.
I’m glad we agree on something!
 
Churchill didn't say that. He said Democracy is the worst form of government except all others. Capitalism and democracy are two entirely different things and people need to stop conflating the two. Capitalism can exist in an authoritarian country and many forms of socialism exist in democracies.

Capitalism by itself is also, at best, morally agnostic (and at worst, can also be just as morally reprehensible as communism). Even Adam Smith (you know, that guy that kindof roots for capitalism in a book) acknowledged that unchecked capitalism can lead to concentrations of power that have to be tempered by governments (because the "invisible hand" only works when there's competition)
Yes, you’re right on that quote— I did misremember it.

Social democracies are an interesting experiment. And I doubt you’d want capitalism in communist China, where it’s all regulated and essentially owned and extremely dictated by the government.

I agree that aspects of capitalism can be morally reprehensible as well. Competition is necessary. Overall, it seems people are more prosperous and happier with relatively free markets and a spectrum of democracy than with any of the alternatives.
 
...communism is anti-capitalism.
If you offer me free alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs I will reject it. This is the only proper way to understand communism and yes it borderlines religion when you really think about it.

Money is nothing more than an information about the exchange of goods and services.
 
If Countries would stop illegals entering into their countries without vetting they would not need to know who is coming in they would all ready have this information.
Stranger in your house? Where is your keys?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rmadsen3
The citizens of the UK really should consider forcing change
Well they do that. They call it "general elections" where they decide on the government. Yes, there is the old problem of democracy - that there's no logical contradiction in proposing that the people may sometimes make a poor choice, based on irrelevant or transient factors. And the available parties aren't exactly brilliant options. Personally I'm not one for tribal politics, though it is good to see those in power changing regularly and often (unlike some other countries I could mention). As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others."
 
E2EE is good, but only good if implemented properly. And to make E2EE effective, there needs to be no exceptions, terrorism or not, otherwise we’d enter the world where buying a loaf of bread would need ID because of “choking hazard”.

Spying on citizens happens everywhere, dictatorship just does that to an absolute extreme. US government would never openly admit that they were spying on all US citizens regardless of where they were, without the Snowden leaks.

At least the government (any of them) don’t pay enough to get the decent cryptographers and researchers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki
Here’s a good analogy: if you have a safe in your home and the government gets a warrant, they can enter your home and open the safe. But you don’t have to give them the combination to the safe. Ever. This backdoor is like giving the gov’t the combination to the safe without a warrant and letting them have it in perpetuity, which means you have no security, and no privacy. Ever.
I think the news have been heavily distorted by how Apple framed it and newspapers reported it.
Their "completr access" goes through regulations, which just means it ain't complete.
Since the alternative seems to be "there is data that the government should be 100% unable to see", which has horrible consequences for criminal use, and that's the scenario they're trying to avoid, framing it as 1984 is pretty ridiculous.
 
I think the news have been heavily distorted by how Apple framed it and newspapers reported it.
Their "completr access" goes through regulations, which just means it ain't complete.
Since the alternative seems to be "there is data that the government should be 100% unable to see", which has horrible consequences for criminal use, and that's the scenario they're trying to avoid, framing it as 1984 is pretty ridiculous.
If there is any way to get encrypted data, that means bad guys will be able to get at it too. Full stop. There’s no such thing as “a back door only the good guys can use.”
 
According to the BBC: “The UK government has demanded to be able to access encrypted data stored by Apple users worldwide in its cloud service.” Worldwide, so essentially everyone on the planet. Apple had better cease iCloud in the UK or no one will have privacy. 🤬
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki and I7guy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.