askchapo

Be honest

Everytime I've shown concerns with the ideas of a single party state, of "democratic" centralism, of a planned economy, censorship, secret police, etc, nothing I say is ever really discussed in depth because people just tell me "read On Authority, just read it, its a 10 min read, it will change everything, just read it!"

No it didn't, this essay is frankly really dumb to me. It feels more like venting than an actual argument. Last time I posted doubts about planned economies and I got a much better view of it with everyone's polite answers, I still don't fully agree but there was at least a discussion with an idea I was able to more clearly understand. So my aim with this post is the same

My main reasons to propose decentralized systems with distributed decision making are:

1. Decentralized systems are less fragile both to internal failure and external sabotage, you are all on Lemmy so you must know this when comparing it to the centralized Reddit. A centralized system has one failure point and the higher-up it happens the more catastrophic the consequences, and no amount of representative elections and internal purges are ever going to fix this inherent fragility, they are temporal mitigations. Centralized systems depend on constant dice rolls and hope that the guy at the top ends up being good. With time, the dice eventually blunders, it's innevitable, and this ruins the system and deeply affects the lives of everyone under it

2. A small body of people (relatively speaking, in comparison to the greater body of people the system is ruling over) cannot physically and biologically fully comprehend the issues and needs of "the masses" so to speak, that is an amount of information that cannot fit into a couple or a dozen or even hundreds of heads even if all of them deeply want to try. Which most often they don't. This alienation from "the masses" so to speak happens the higher up you are, you start seeing everything as simply numbers, you need to make that abstraction to properly process things and decide, but in doing so you don't realize the millions of entire lives full of hopes and dreams and struggles you are affecting. This is why leaders can order genocides, they are never the ones that watch them being committed, they just see papers.

3. Any system first and foremost has to sustain itself and its authority, this is the highest priority, it has to be above any other goals, and sustaining a centralized system is much harder than sustaining a portion of a decentralized one, this is why they need censorship and purges and camps and police and information control and data gathering of everything every person is doing "just in case", all of this effort could be redirected to actually making the lives of people better, but security comes first! Security always eventually eats liberty. What purpose is the liberation of people if that makes them end up in a system where they're actually just as restricted as before?

On Authority addresses nothing of this. It's just a bunch of smug self masturbation and "uhhm actually"s.

All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy.

Nature imposes a necessity to do things in a certain way but this has nothing to do with how the decision making process of the people who are doing that thing is carried out. By this logic your stomach is being authoritarian when it's hungry.

Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

If you think nature is authoritarian the spinning wheel is just as much of an authority as the loom though! Both require things to be done in a certain way after all

Let us take another example — the railway. [...] Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority.

No, there is a key difference of relations and mechanics of decision making in both cases. Authority imposed and authority given are different things. A delegate has no authority, the purpose of a delegate is purely to help carrying out a mandate.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

He is being smug about not knowing the difference between delegation and representation. They are fundamentally different things though, and this is just a fact. He is mocking people for knowing things he doesn't. How is this supposed to be enlightening?

The mechanics and relations of power are fundamentally not the same. The point is not to never have a position where someone has to follow the will of someone else, it's to make sure processes and structures of things are laid out, approved, and can be changed and revoked by the people who are actually operating in them. It's not to not have a social structure, but to have a social structure that can be taken back and molded

If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! Centralization is a cancer. You fully kill it if you can, and if you can't, you try to reduce it as much as possible. Showing proof that some things have to be centralized is moot, we can centralize that thing specifically and not centralize everything else.

but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.

They fight preconceived notions that things have to be centralized when they really don't have to be. A lot of things are like that.

All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.

This has nothing to do with what's being discussed??? Also: "Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never has and it never will" -Frederick Douglass

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon

If you are being dominated and opressed and by armed means you free yourself that is not imposing authority. That is uh. Freeing yourself. That is self defense. If these things are the same then... basically everything is authoritarian. I get now why people say "its a meaningless word" - people like this guy are the ones who are making it meaningless.

Anyway, same as before, this post is not intended as a "checkmate dumbasses" thing. I'm actually interested in talking and learning. I mean no ill harm. o/

Pictured: A fumo communist

What I'm imagining is one currency ("foreign currency", let's call it) is used mainly for other countries to buy goods from the 2-currency country; this one would be "cheap" relative to other countries in order to encourage trade. That currency would be similar to an export country's currency (like China).

So let's say our hypothetical country wants to trade lumber, they'll price the lumber according to the foreign currency for other countries to buy.

The other currency ("domestic currency") is earned and used by the citizens of said country to be able to purchase goods (domestic and imported). This currency would be "strong" and could allow citizens to sustain a quality of life that allows them to comfortably afford a home, education, groceries, etc.

So the hypothetical exchange rate of "domestic currency" (DC$) for the "foreign currency" (FC$) would look something like this:

1DC$ = 100FC$

Another condition: Domestic goods for domestic purchase are not priced according to the domestic currency, they're priced at the foreign currency and can be bought using the domestic currency (by citizens).

So going back to the lumber example: a citizen wants to buy lumber. That citizen will purchase lumbar using the domestic currency, but the price of the lumber will be set according to the foreign currency (which is it's price during trade).

I don't know if this question even makes sense, but let's say we have a group of people debating a set of ideas. Over the course of their discussion one idea starts to win out. Not because of a material base, but like the philosophical rigor of the argument is the best. That wouldn't be dialectical materialism, the ideas would be resolved by an idealist dialectic. Assuming they're talking about pure math or something like that. Or is the Marxist idea that even mathematics is a result of materialism?

I always believed religion was incompatible with a society rooted in addressing material reality, although I know we have have religious users and wanted to hear people's takes.

By this I mean some sort of media IP, but one that isn't privately owned. How could an IP like this be managed, including characters, lore, etc?

Sort of related, but Pulgasari is rad as fuck and it would be cool to turn it into some kind of shared project. Maybe a dumb idea, but I just think it would be neat.

Seriously, though. Are these things really that popular?

Asked this a year ago apparently, and now that we have some new comrades here, let's see how this thread goes!

"Since 2008, gender reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy have been available free of charge under Cuba’s national healthcare system."

What's the waiting time and quality of care on this? Is it actually well implemented or is it just a law with no funding behind it? How tolerant is the Cuban culture? Is the remaining intolerance mostly from the Spanish colony's Catholicism or did Castro's homophobia leave a lasting impact? Why was Castro homophobic? Were there really concentration camps?

"Since 2008, gender reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy have been available free of charge under Cuba’s national healthcare system."

What's the waiting time and quality of care on this? Is it actually well implemented or is it just a law with no funding behind it? How tolerant is the Cuban culture? Is the remaining intolerance mostly from the Spanish colony's Catholicism or did Che's homophobia leave a lasting impact? Why was Che homophobic? Were there really concentration camps?

????

I've looked it up a bit, but the search algorithm is so inundated with shit around the topic I thought I'd try here instead for some pointers.

When libs bring it up I usually engage in some 'whataboutism' and pivot to saying if they think that's an assault on democracy, what about CambridgeAnalytica, or worse, what about the fact that the US funnels EXORBITANT amounts of money into global media manipulation to destroy entire countries.

Good sources anyone? Reading? Podcasts?

BONUS: I'm also struggling to find the source of the exact figures of the US funnelling money towards destabilisation of countries, sometimes worth more than the networths of the countries themselves, or something absurd like that.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies. Somehow the reality of it was lower than my already very low expectations.

So I do like Star Trek a lot, especially TNG, DS9, and Below Decks. Voyager and TOS are fine. Space socialism is pretty good and I can't get enough of it. There are a few common tropes that irk me. tho.

1. Baseball is cracker Amerikkkan nonsense - You telling me that all these different species and planets get together to chill, and the vibe they're gonna channel is Ohio?? Football (soccer) or some version of hockey make a lot more sense, you can pick up and start playing immediately. I can't imagine Worf wanting to learn all those pointless rules about balls and strikezones and fowls. Sisko is arguably the best captain of any series, and I really get pulled out of an episode every time he drops some awful baseball trivia. It's only slightly better than Nascar. I actually know one Scottish person who really likes baseball, and he's literally the worst person I know.

2. The tribunal - It's so damn common. It seems like every season there's got to be a court-martial, hearing, or appeal against a Starfleet decision. I guess Law and Order is big there. It's probably a minor critique, but it does reinforce the ideology that Western courtrooms are fair.

3. Kirk is a sex pest - This has been said to death, but leave your subordinates alone.

4. Poker in TNG - Poker has to be the worst form of entertainment, and I genuinely like maths. I blame TNG for reigniting the poker craze of the 90s and ruining all my guy friends' personalities.

Just accepted a part time grocery store cashier position, it's going to be my first real job. I was worried about having to stand in one spot for 6 to 8 hours a day, but I recently found out that California has a law called the Suitable Seating Act. Here's the summary:

(A) All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.

(B) When employees are not engaged in the active duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall be placed in reasonable proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.⁠

Does anyone here have experience with this kind of thing in California? I hardly ever see grocery store clerks sitting, so I thought it'd be a long shot that I'd be allowed to sit down on the job until I found out this law existed. Am I interpreting it correctly?

i'll start. i saw a ask reddit post saying something along the lines of "men of reddit whats something women can't understand" and the comments were just. oh my god. the main one that made me want to puke was "when dudes walk by each other and nod" and the whole fucking thread was just fedoras with arms soypogging like it was some secret language or something. "when you nod upwards, it means respect!!!!!1!!11 when you nod downwards its aggression!!!1!11!!!!!" as if women dont do the same shit.

do you guys have something similar to share?

All these politics podcasts are making me sad, and I need shit to listen to, at work

I don't really know much about him except that everyone seems to hate him too.

Unrelated ramble: This election reminds me of the leadup to the election that Ventura won in Minnesota with 2 guys everyone hated leaving it ripe for a weird third party to win. I don't suspect RFK could pull it off, because I think Ventura's celebrity and centrism was an important part of that formula.

Just over the last few years it went virtual reality, blockchain and crypto crap, and now chatbots.

What will the next fad be? I'd like to know so I can convince one of these VC ghouls that they should give me money for vaporware.