When the mask comes off, humans will revolt. Robots won’t.

Or, that’s the delusion.

Yeah I think there are some issues with my analysis (esp my understanding of the relationship between the Egyptian & Syrian govt, and their nations’ islamic fundamentalists). Neighbours isn’t the best way to frame it, but, regional opponents? Chiefly: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran & Arabia (though the Saudis have a sort of dual character, since they have to appease the west).

Israel won’t stop fighting upon gaining the historical borders of Israel & Judah. That was never the final goal, it’s just the current justification.

The Israeli state is sort of doomed to be in a constant ethno-religious war with its neighbours, because-

1. the Israeli state is full of fascists.
2. Most of its neighbours have islamic fundamentalist governments, or otherwise have authoritarian power structures that will have to bend to the religious right in times of crisis.

This means that Israel presently relies on an external backer for its security (the US). Its number one policy goal is to change that fact. As a fascist regime, it’s only really got one tool, which is to invade its enemies and engage in settler-colonialism (google Greater Israel). Like it’s doing in Gaza. The fringe ultra-right in Israel are already calling to annex Lebanon, to “eliminate Hezbollah”.

This is also doomed to fail and cause even more misery.

Anti-globalists unite across the globe.

Diabolical

Ima be real I’m not 100% sure what you’re on about. I’d agree that LLMs can’t really function to dissolve identitarian barriers, though they are clearly much more effective than prior methods. Things change and they rarely roll back, unfortunately.

First, want to note that I’m not arguing for anything like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I don’t think that language can really change your cognition, though it clearly has some affect on social organisation.

Those interests are not defined by language

While this may seem true in a sort of logical, definitional sense (one cannot construct a symbolic method for determining a person’s interests, given their language, or vice versa). It’s not true in a connectionist sense. The human brain picks up on associations between everything, and one of those associations is language-&-behaviour. In my experience people will often prefer people with similar socio-linguistic signifiers. One might call it irrational, but I’m not sure I would label it that, when there really is a probabilistic link between language and political alignment. Though, If you speak a prestige dialect you may not have experienced this, I would encourage you to keep your eyes open for it.

being isolated from other cultures tend to result in less developed cultures that have lower quality of life.

I’m not 100% sure what you mean by developed, as this is a notoriously difficult to define word. However if you’re talking about technological development, as in, the ability of the culture to impose its will over reality, then yes I would agree. I didn’t intend to make any moral statements in my original post. Note however, that if the goal of the people of the culture is (axiomatically), to retain their culture & language, then assimilating is not an effective way to achieve that goal, even if it grants them access to more effective tools.

Differences in language never prevented an authoritarian power to exert their will over minorities or neighboring countries. … I have not seen any example of this advantage shown anywhere ever

I would really encourage you to do some reading, if you look at the historical record, this is something that happens frequently, though it comes and goes throughout different periods. A few examples.

• The Romans were easily able to conquer Greece & (Greek) Egypt, in part due to the willingness of the Roman & Greek elites to cooperate, due to their shared use of the Greek language & its cultural-aesthetic signifiers. Contrast this with the rebellion-fest in Western Europe, where the Gallic speaking people were othered & subject to ethnicisation.
• During the middle ages, language was less politically important, because the nobility of each nation primarily identified themselves as members of a Latin-speaking internationalist group, (Christendom, or, the imperial sphere of the Catholic church).
• Austria-Hungary’s failed imperial project in Bosnia. Language was a major factor in this, as various groups called for a counter-force on the basis of their shared language. This contributed to the start of WW1.
• The decolonisation movement had a strong national & language-based character, though this is recent history so I’m sure lots of people would love to argue about the causes of it.

But again, it’s not binary. Language differences are not sufficient to prevent imperial influence, but decrease the probability of effective power projection. They also interlink with other factors i.e. cultural & religious differences often cause communities to resist external rule, and language mediates the spread of those ideas.

Uhh thanks I guess? You too

You also haven’t shown how being able to communicate is a disadvantage

Well, after wasting my time reading their verbal diarrhea, I think they may have a point.

On a more serious note, while communication efficiency increases productivity, it also alters the balance of power. In our case, it allows larger structures (i.e. the UN, US, international businesses) to more effectively exert their will over local structures. If you are for instance, a Chilean anarchist, a Russian businessman, or a Papuan village elder, it’s not in your interest at all.

solar panels, duhh. why’d you think they were called that?

blud thinks he’s on the team 💀

Woketangle is covering up the fifth side

Accessible to Capital.

Big Book → Capital, I’ve only read vol 1 though (2 & 3 are like a jillion pages 😭)

I started writing my complaints, but it’s taking longer than I thought. I’ll drop an update if I finish writing it. My issues are mainly about the assumptions Marx makes about the topology of production networks (particularly regarding cycles), and the classification system used to produce nodes (is a node one particular spindle, or all spindles generally: this has implications). I haven’t read any newer theory so IDK this has probably been adressed.

There’s also the transformation problem. I don’t think that’s as big of a deal as it’s made out, since you wouldn’t just be slotting these Labor-Theoretic Values in place of Market Values, but people do often suggest doing this and it’s really weird to me.

To be fair, I think my understanding of the theory has some errors in regards to the interaction of Work Intensity, Labor, and Productiveness, so I’ll have to do some more thinking. Might change my complaints.

Regarding Vanguardism, I don’t have a particularly sophisticated critique as I haven’t read the lit. The Vanguard’s position would change as a result of joining the Vanguard (now holding state-like power), this changes their relationship to the revolutionary masses and their stated mission, and would inevitably change their actions in much the same way that holding Capital would (i.e, probably they’d go mad with power). But again I don’t know if that’s been addressed.

I’m some kinda new-wave radical centrist, can’t call myself one after reading your big book. I believe in a lot of the criticisms and measures, but I think LTV & Vanguardism are the literal dumbest shit ever. But good luck with them, and thanks for taking an interest.

Removed by mod

Hello, different person here. It’s understandable that you’re confused by this tbh, but there are real proposals.

Broadly, there are two basic suggestions:

1. All businesses would be nationalised. You would develop the machine as part of your job, or sell the rights to the government.
2. There are still independent businesses like now, but they’re controlled by the people that work and use them. As a Kingdom is to a Democracy, an Owned Company is to a Participatory Company (Communists call them cooperatives, Corporatists call them corporations). The former country/company is controlled by the people that own it, whereas the latter is controlled by the people that are affected by its decisions (at least in theory). In real life people don’t really buy manufacturing machines, they do it through a company. So your sale would be the same, it’d just be to a different kind of company.

It’s not one or the other and they’re often combined.

It isn’t fair for a king to control an army and do what he likes with it, that’s dangerous. The army has to be controlled by the people of the nation. But, if you and your friends want to privately own guns, that’s fine. So long as you aren’t organising into a militia, it does little harm.

Critics say, likewise: if your machine is small, who cares. But if it’s sufficiently powerful, if it could concentrate wealth and power in your hands, create mass unemployment (maybe even allow you to wield military power): that’s harm. A machine like that should be controlled by the people.

Commie-site keys??? LIBERAL!!! GUT IT!

Sounds like he got confused looking at a view of a join.

SELECT holder_name, amount
FROM account JOIN transaction ON transaction.account_id=account.id;

-- WTF!! THERE'S DUPLICATES!!!