within_epsilon

Further, assuming intelligence is measurable by an IQ test.

I hope Marx's prophecy is true. It would be nice to have stages toward communism like some sort of continuum. For the Yankees, they get fascism. Spain, Germany and Italy didn't do a socialism after their fascism. The USSR went "socialism" to fascism. China is a successful capitalist state under Deng Xiaoping. Let's keep betting that we'll progress to communism by proping up the right heirarchies.

The current reality for the USA is the concentration and merger of economic and political power. More public lands are becoming private. Labor has been told it will be made competitive again which can be assumed to mean a reduction in wages. Capital might be on-shored again? The current major lie is other countries will pay a tarrif. Workers will suffer for gains of the state. We can likely agree the state serves the capitalist under capitalism.

Won't someone think of the poor Yankees? Luigi does some propaganda of the deed and terrorises those in power. Propaganda of the deed is ineffective long term, but shakes the heirarchies tree short term. I would argue it is too loud. Instead, we should focus on building horizontal power.

Collectivism requires people coming together to create horizontal power. Building horizontal power is in spite of any existing vertical power. Normal economic requirements like land, labor and capital need to be acquired for the benefit of the collective.

The point is there are no stages to communism. The prophecy will not save us from heirarchical power. Extraordinary claims, like those of Smith, Marx or Lenin, require extraordinary evidence. Instead of relying on a heirarchy, which continues to fail due to centralized power, we must build communism collectively with shared hands.

Liberals of all political persuasions tend to believe in monopolies created by the state through private property rights. Owners of private property maintain a monopoly on the use of the property. There are progressive liberal arguments proposing the state can keep monopolies in check.

Elections worldwide have been pushing right. I argue monopolies have consolidated power and are better equipped to misinform and buy elections. Liberals see this system of monopoly as justified (right) or controllable (left).

Leftist propose different economic and representation systems. One such system is anarchism. As an anarchist, I favor horizontal power structures with property not directly worked by a person held in common. Elections should give way to consensus building. Heirarchies, though sometimes necessary, should be answerable to the represented people. The tools of violence should be democratized to prevent the formation of unnecessary heirarchies that would create monopolies on violence.

There are alternatives to anarchism that could be considered leftist. The Marxist-Leninist propose other economic and representation systems. I will not represent them. There is definitely infighting amongst leftist.

Weird flex. Meeting material needs can be accomplished under different economic systems. I would say as a Liberal Capitalist you believe in a private property system where owners can take the work of others for their own benefit. I would respond, "If you don't work, you don't eat", but that applies to the capitalist owners in the same way as their workers.

I know we are engaged in other conversation. I will read the other comment when I have time to kill.

I need to respond to the continuum idea of politics namely: capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The continuum is a creation of Lenin in State and Revolution. A similar anachronism is suggesting there is a continuum to evolution. Continuum's are silly for evolution and politics.

Thank you for the sincere response. Your knowledge of ML and anarchist thought is appreciated. You make some great points. Specifically the acknowledgment that communism is different for ML's and anarchist. I appreciate your insight.

I will begin with the production of a smartphone. The smartphone, in its current form, is an innovation of capitalism. We can both conceive a ML or anarchist smartphone. Given I am an engineer, I will speak to the engineering process. I live under capitalism, so can provide non-idealist insight there. I will follow that with ML and then anarchist production.

Regardless of political system the engineers get an initial set of requirements from somewhere. The initial requirements inform the engineers regarding what needs to be done. Prototypes are created. Tests verify met requirements. Shortening the user feedback loop allows better iterations since the initial requirements likely do not match end product requirements.

Under capitalism, the capitalist has minions that decide what needs to be built based on the profit motive. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager, the capitalist and consumers. The capitalist has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of the capitalist no longer work as an engineer.

Under Marxist-Leninism, party leadership decides what to needs to be built based on information from their subordinates. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager and party leadership. Party leadership has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of party leadership no longer work as an engineer.

Under anarchism, the commune decides what needs to be built based on information from consensus. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from the community. The community sways the iteration process since engineers that fail to move their community forward no longer work as engineers.

Perhaps my arguments are misconceptions. My experience with engineering has been shortening the iteration time by letting the user sway requirements, without a master with outsized power, allows products to meet the needs of the user. Current engineering practices are dominated by capitalist. The profit motive allegedly informs their decisions, but Smith's "invisible hand" is about as magic as Engel's "withering away of the state". A world where ML or anarchist engineering practices, not influenced by the profit motive or capitalist, would be riveting.

Outside of engineering, we have raw materials, transportation, manufacturing and distribution. I know less about these areas since I do not work in them.

If I believe what I have read, raw materials like cobalt are being mined for dominating hierarchies like corporations by independent contractors in exploited countries.

Transportation is being done by independent contractors on behalf of dominating hierarchies. Transport of raw materials seems decentralized. I am confounded why transport differs from distribution in terms of centralization under capitalism.

Manufacturing is capital intensive and tends to be centralized for complex production since not everyone has a clean room at home. Less complex production seems to follow the independent contractor model since most people can sew. I imagine this is a difference in the cost of capital.

Distribution is mostly centralized and seems capital intensive with fleet maintenance. I know there have been attempts to decentralize distribution similar to how Uber decentralized taxi services.

In closing, I would like to see engineering that benefits communities. I would like to see sharing of ideas and collaboration between communes. The assumption is that humans are social and helpful. When we assume humans are selfish and not social, then individual autonomy should be squashed by hierarchical authority.

I think there was a misconception. The QA worker can say things are bad. The other workers would then build consensus on next steps. The QA worker still needs to build consensus with relevant people, but can act if immediate action is required. Immediate mitigating action like stopping someone from walking into a busy street is a required imposition of hierarchy.

Wow, that was long. I probably have many misconceptions of ML ideas.

How do you feel about the name State Capitalism? I implied it in the replacement of capitalist with party leadership.

How do ensure those with "power over" subordinates do not abuse their subordinates "power to" do something? Under anarchism, the QA worker may be unreliable and the community can build consensus to not listen to concerns.

How is ML different from other domination heirarchies like feudalism, oligarchy and monarchy? My understanding is Stalin was God-King due to the heirarchy he commanded as General Secretary. Benevolent, omnipotent kings are a great form of government until you get a Nero.

How can we prevent Great Leap Forward's fulfillment of the Peter Principle, where individuals in heirarchies rise to the level of their incompetence? This is not unique to ML. Heirarchies can't promote productive workers. Nothing would get done.

I will have to re-read Lenin's "State and Revolution". I ended up engaging with Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon and Goldman more than Lenin or Mao. My readings may have been cursory.

I appreciate your points. I know we are of conflicting persuasions and finding ML's that engage outside their echo chambers is difficult. Driving our convictions is the common goal of communism: a stateless, moneyless, classless society,

For complex production any necessary hierarchies should be managed by the workers and not a vertical power structure like a party. Assuming horizontal power structures are incapable of managing complex production seems unjustified. Workers produce, masters exploit. Socialism should be ordered from the bottom up to prevent exploitation by masters. Any necessary hierarchy to ensure communication happens between autonomous workers should be accountable from the bottom. A QA worker can let others know there are issues without a boss.

Engel's argues tools have authority over workers, thereby authority is unavoidable. The author of the linked essay would thereby push that to, "I need to breathe; Engel's says authority" which may be hyperbole. If I constrain someone's airway, they no longer have "power to" breathe and I have "power over" their ability to breathe. Authority thereby cannot be defined as natural like breathing or tool use. Authority instead is a constraint on "power to" imparted by another with "power over". I do not need a boss to tell me when to breathe.

Marxist-Leninist's (ML) like to cite "On Authority". Here's an anarchist view: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punkerslut-on-authority-a-response-to-friedrich-engels

I have never heard this version. Still addresses elimination of heirarchy. Happy New Year and thank you.

"No gods, no masters" also applies to demagogues like Pinker or Dawkins. Disconnecting an idea from the people associated with bringing it into your life can be difficult.

New feature with terrible syntax. There are features of every language I choose not to use. As a C++ developer, I would choose not to use this syntax, so that my team can write better designed code. However, I am an oddball on my team for loving trailing return types. In peer review, the schlong operator i.e. ---> would only be used where it makes sense which should be nowhere.

Peer reviewing this seriously would require knowing more context. Instinct tells me MyClass**** is probably allocated from the heap. A possible reason for so many levels of indirection are jagged arrays. Maybe the function only gets the first element of each level of the arrays. The function name doesn't make that clear. This is poorly designed. Please re-design/re-write. I will happily review those changes. I expect unit tests to show example use cases.

I would suggest using a stack allocated array with sentinels for missing values to improve cache coherency. Without context, I assume looping over the jagged structure will be common. Loading more into cache should improve efficiency in loops, but benchmarks are required.

Wait... I should join the crowd. So I say, "down with C++" and up with some safe alternative. Maybe rust: https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs.

Lenin consolidated hierarchical power. Lenin's Testament may have been an apology.

If it's out of the bag, then it's out of the bag Now that is a powerful cat

• Mindful Solutionism by Aesop Rock