within_epsilon

We should only consume domestic media. Good thing the Bible is domestic media. \s

How is there less risk to Americans on a platform like X(itter) instead of TikTok?

I've been thinking about the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. The extreme form of protest rattled people that oppose the genocide. Genocide supporters used the act as a way to point at service members that don't support genocide. The people that needed the message of his protest do not care. I contend Aaron Bushnell could have done more by continuing life.

I am not you. I do not know your story. I do know you brighten up my Lemmy feed with your posts. Your message reaches me.

I have a gallows sense of humor about the current systemic issues. I have been watching a police officer patrol the neighborhood in a SUV with a massive rack of lights on top. Welcome to the future, I suppose.

Politically, "power to" is important to me. I feel empowered knowing that I have the "power to" end my life, but have chosen not to, because we are stronger together in the fight against over-policing and the heirarchical power structures that use forms of violence to restrict our "power to" do things.

I medicate with music. Since you are already in a dark place, here is music I medicate with to feel empowered when I am reaching the end of my rope. It is not what you would get from a crisis line.

This life is fucked, this life is shit We never even asked for it So with that I'll do what I please Spray my brains all over the trees Only thing waiting on the other side Is six feet of dirt, there's no surprise to hide

• Give Up / Vas a Morir by Akil Godsey of End It

And if I die as a partisan, oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao and if I die as a partisan then you must bury me.

• English translation of Bella Ciao, Italian folk partisan song

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

• Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) by Karl Marx

I do have disdain for the phases laid out by Marx, but this slogan is wisdom.

You are right. The video shows a dermal electroencephalogram (EEG). The article talks about the "60 Minutes" video using an array being an inspiration. Both an array or EEG are tech from the 2010's. I am enthralled by the tech/research and wish it paid better.

Seems valid enough. The rhyming with USSR is some Putin and Stalin. DOGE is consolidating power under some leader from independent agencies.

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.