• -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    10·
    1 day ago

    Hey! It’s one of these nerds again! TranscendentalEmpire @lemm.ee, I’m not sure if they had their account removed or not since I can’t tag it but essentially they were doing the same shit as this but started off with a analysis of Russia and Ukraine and deevolved into actual racism and gargling about “world” systems theory to which their interpretation of such was that "Well, whenever country dies there is vacuum and since we have a hegemony if this hegemony dies China will simply become a new hegemony and do the same stuff because systems theory says so.

    There is zero understanding or interpretation of historical conditions, nothing more than just “it will do same thing because humans bad” and I don’t even think he was grasping world systems theory very well in the first place. Is this a new lib-meta with loser STEM-nazis using systems theory in lieu of historical materialism in order to actually have a memory longer than an election cycle? Evolution really is a messy process.

    Found the quote:

    ""Or, it just creates more and more war because people keep supporting far right governments.

    I don’t think people understand that global system theory is just theory, and a theory entirely dependent on the continuation of capitalism. If you actually believe in a hegemony as it’s written in global systems theory, then it precludes the chance a country like China will ever overthrow it with anything other than another capitalist hegemony."

    hmmmm…why is there so much manifested support for certain far-right governments out of nowhere?

    • Bureaucrat@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee I think you just placed the @ at the wrong spot you gotta do it like this @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee

      Anyway incredible quote. It’s like arguing with a fundamentalist christian. There’s no reasoning, it’s just “well the theory says so”. And they don’t even understand it themselves.
      Like okay why does it say so?
      “That’s just how it is.”
      Okay why?
      “You just don’t understand that’s just how it is.”
      Yeah I don’t, why is it like that?
      “Because it is. That’s just human nature.”
      It isn’t though.
      “It is in theory.”
      Which one.
      “Mine, which is the correct one.”
      On what reasoning?
      “The correct reasoning.”

      I don’t know if they did it like that, but the current doofus did.

      • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        3·
        1 day ago

        I put it like that because it linked to an email instead of an account like normal, not sure what was going on there other than email formatting kicking in. Assumed he was banned.

        That’s about correct when pushed on systems theory itself. Otherwise, he proceeded to make racist comments against Russians and then get banned for it.

        I think that’s the primal lizard brain of most lemmitors, especially from lemm.ee; it all comes back to racism.

  • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
    29·
    2 days ago

    As a person who literally did a systems theory course last semester, one of the things I learnt was that it is definitely possibly to predict and plan the growth of an economy with a reasonable amount of computing resources.

    Furthermore I unironcally have 0 clue as to what this guy could be referring to with “mathematical proof” that Communism leads to authoritarianism.

    I swear to God if you neglect your philosophical education the only thing you will get out of STEM is a fat wallet and a brain full of rubbish, good only at a narrow set of tasks.

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      14·
      2 days ago

      But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. 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 — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

      Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

      –Fredrick Engels, 1874

      Full text here.

      The dumbass lib doesn’t know what they’re talking about. “Authoritarianism” is a nonsense concept. Especially when you consider the authoritarianism of capitalism. If anything, the authoritarianism of Marxist movements is a good thing. It’s what allows them to destroy the servants of reaction. Neither the Bolsheviks nor the CPC would have made it very far if they were unwilling to suppress anti-communists.

      We’ve seen what happens when leftists insist on being “anti-authoritarian.” Their movement is quickly infiltrated and subverted by reactionaries or they become liberal as they’re unwilling to purge opportunists.

      The lib in this discussion is right that Marxism results in authoritarianism, but that’s what’s required for any revolution to be successful, regardless of the revolution’s ideology.

    • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      14·
      2 days ago

      Furthermore I unironcally have 0 clue as to what this guy could be referring to with “mathematical proof” that Communism leads to authoritarianism.

      That’s most likely because they just made it up on the spot lmao

  • Crucible [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    41·
    2 days ago

    I love that this started as ‘AOC isn’t bad, actually’ and they’ve had to shift their goalposts so many times that the only point they hold on to is that because some people can’t learn to read no system is good. I’ve never had the joy of watching someone do the ‘screaming ‘I’m not owned’ as I turn into a corn cob’ tweet in real time

  • PaX [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    2 days ago

    Fuckk, this is good slop lol, I went in and spent a little time arguing with them

    Very interesting, I’ve never seen this from the (their words) “system dynamics, distributed systems, and its intersection with political theory” angle before. It just makes sense to me if you see a mathematician or logician last-sight doing it (tbh I feel like the reason a lot of math people aren’t interested in philosophy of math is cuz a lot of their stuff has… bad metaphysical implications. And the ones that are are usually very anti-communist lol at least in the imperial core) but a “systems theory” person? Wild, considering the history of systems theory in the imperial core is basically a project to rehabilitate dialectical thinking without the communism lol

    dear god thats literally a fucking seminar worth of work. plenty of people have already written about the mathematical weaknesses in both communism and capitalism I dont need to rehash it

    I asked who these people they’re referring to are, I expect no answer lol but would be pleasantly surprised if they clarified even a little about wtf they’re talking about

    • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      13·
      2 days ago

      If I had to guess I’d have to say they’re talking about the “Economic Calculation Problem” which says a planned economy is impossible because there are too many variables. There are a few of these nerds. Hakim made a video about it 3 years ago.

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        23 hours ago

        It’s wild that people talk about ECP like it’s some highly theoretical string theory that we could never test empirically. The largest corporations today are managing production far larger in scale than entire countries back when Marx was writing, or even during the Bolshevik era. Amazon is proof of not merely the possibility, but the current ability to coordinate production of a national economy.

        Marx himself thought that the development of complex division of labor within private capital would produce the conditions for socialist production. This is obviously the case and it’s why capitalism undermines itself.

      • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
        5·
        1 day ago

        I love how the bourgeoise always have this “2 wolves inside you” thing going on (dialectics?)

        Their beloved ai models are like “fuck it, we’re going to process billions of variables to make a single image of porn”

        but foe economic planning they go “uwu 100 million variables is too much for our smol bean data centers”

  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    31·
    2 days ago

    Mathematically the concept of “people only have as much as they need” is actually impossible in a finite world. Mathematically the concept of “infinite growth” is possible in a finite world. The math I’m using was developed by a preschooler but you can’t argue against it because I didn’t tell you that.

  • Juice@midwest.social
    14·
    2 days ago

    “Okay honey, I’ll talk slow and use small words so you understand me” proceeds to say the most incomprehensibly convoluted, hare brained shit they obviously just are making up based on bias and superstition

  • roux [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    2 days ago

    Can we see the math on how finite resources == infinite profits? For example, use the United States that totally isn’t an authoritarian police state, if we are gonna use the big bad scary words.