piggy

Yeah I also subscribe to Easy/Hard - Simple/Complex.

Async is simply multiplying by 2 for Complexity

If myResult = doMyThingWithMy(args) is a 1 then

const myPromise = askToDoMyThing(args);
const getMyResult = await myPromise;

Is a 2.

If you're adding in error and flow control complexity, we're simply arguing about how everyone cargo cults bullshit syntax and practices instead of using sensible things like a Maybe/Result monad where you have Result<success, value> and exceptions always crash.

Which is just multiplying complexity in these cases by 3. If Complexity is a logarithmic scale it's just the next order. rather than the next next order.

I don't understand why async communication is so hard for a lot of people. I know not everyone can devolve discrete math problems in their head but it frustrates me to the point where I'm like have y'all ever been at a sandwich counter? Every fast casual counter service restaurant that separates ordering, constructing, and paying is a prime example of async communication that involves the customer in the process transparently.

The good thing about anarchist systems is that unlike computer systems the boundary between "internal and external" doesn't exist in the same way. For a computer system there is often a usage boundary where that system needs to abstract itself into a different form, e.g. distributed async to seemingly centralized sync (from a users perspective). Anarchism doesn't have that boundary.

Markets would be abolished in anarchist society by simply not having them. Markets are a top down mechanism of logistical distribution. They must be built to exist in practice. Anarchist societies can abolish markets by simply not practicing market logic. They are not a natural phenomenon despite what libertarian capitalist brains say.

If you actually read the literature that calls markets "natural" or posits some kind of natural tendency for them to form, it reads very much like the idea of the WAAAAGH in WH40K Orks. Orks have a magical power which is essentially "The Secret", by thinking something works a specific way Orks through their communal latent psychic abilities change the world to be that way. The more Orks, and the more unified and stronger their belief, the more true something is in reality around them. They are a belief society.

Markets are sold in this way in capitalist states. The idea is even if the market is not a physical place or a device, demand exists in the minds of people. That's a really fucking silly jump in logic from "wanting things" to "commodity form" (the essence of what a market is, a widget with supply and demand that follows capitalist economic rules). Just because people want things doesn't mean the commodity form is "natural" or "inevitable".

Anarchist economics is about building resilient voluntary communal economic cells and trading between them based on needs. This is difficult for a couple of reasons:

1. It is "inefficient" by classic economic understandings, but that is the essential trade off of economics something can be resilient or it can be efficient but it cannot actually be both because economic resiliency is the idea that over production of certain resources is key to maintaining economic function due to disruptions in other areas of the economy.

2. Voluntarism essentially means you cannot use the power of the state to take/enforce unfair agreements (or even mild compromises) which are essential to running large markets. If a bar of Lindt chocolate sells for $20 in the states, the farmer who farms the cocoa would never voluntarily agree to only $0.25 of it's price, they simply do because they have no other choice. This is difficult in a modern world because it essentially undercuts the treatlerism of modern life / advanced economies. Essentially you can't have all the treats your heart desires by design unless you can repay treats in kind.

3. Trade can be built on several different ways inside economic units and between them, one commune can be a gift economy, another could simply barter, a third can use Bakunin bucks (labor vouchers), some would use actual money. Anarchists have a hard time integrating into the global trade system historically simply because they do not want to issue currency, even if they end up doing it. Maknovischinia used regional currencies and eventually had to mint it's own for use in trade with non-anarchist countries.

4. Anarchist horrizontalism is hard, and slow. It requires time to convince people, time to develop capacity, time to develop trust and relations. The main difference between communists and anarchists in this regard is that communists have traditionally thought they can bring to heel the social inventions of the nation-state, market, industrialization, and wage-labor relations to compete with capitalism, while anarchists have typically rejected these forms unless they could be recreated in a voluntary way. Communists essentially think they can use these tools to build out a prosperous society and then in software terms "pay off the tech debt", but historically that has yet to be proven. Anarchists build slow and mindfully in comparison because for anarchists typically the anarchist social relation is more important in the long run than material conditions, since the social relation is actually what prevents exploitation (both Marxist and non-Marxist sense).

5. Because of #3 and #4 this has knock on effects on society especially in Western Nations that people are simply ingrained in. Supermarkets and global cuisine would cease to exist, seasonal and regional cuisine would be necessary to take their place. Likewise equipment would be difficult to procure until it can be made locally. In order to develop these industrial capacities communities may opt to purchase these goods through communal savings programs.

6. Until there are anarchist communities that have not just the anarchist economic orientation but the wealth to trade on the global market, it will be tough to develop without succumbing to the temptation of using coercive social/economic forms. Some communities may be luckier than others in what they can expropriate / scavenge that already exists. The reality is that it simply depends on the goal of the communities. If it's buying iPads being a poorer community is hard mode, but if it's being fair to one another being a poorer community is actually easier because you have more time to build the social relations and cultural attitudes to prevent becoming richer from adversely affecting your community through individuals hoarding, jealousy, etc. Communities with abundant resources regardless of goals are hard mode because teaching people anarchist social relations and developing an anarchist culture would be extremely difficult if the people you're working with are Western treatlers.

A good example of Anarchist societies working with global capital markets is the Zapatistas coffee/durable goods trade which can be found at https://schoolsforchiapas.org/ in their "Solidarity Store" which is pay what you want but with a price floor. You can learn more about Zapatista Coffee Coops here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_coffee_cooperatives. They've been incredibly successful at their mission despite wrecking from the Mexican government over taxes which essentially closed down Mut-vitz, but Mut-vitz proved the model was a successful way to create an international anarchist trade enterprise.

Also very funny you accuse me of being a debate pervert when you are exhibiting that exact behavior and that is the reason I commented.

I respectfully started a conversation and stated my opinion in no way did I try to fight FunkyStuff or merthyr1831 and in fact I apologized to merthyr1831 if it came off that way based on me replying to what was clearly a joke.

I actually work with....

Yeah after dealing with my annoying corporate job I also don't want to deal with computers, but it's not a reason to complain that people have found durable elegant solutions to running their own services on their free time.

This just smacks of jealousy. Someone has to write the yaml, if it's not you it's gonna be the people you're paying $X/mo to also steal your data/call the cops on you after they find IP finger prints/etc.

I wasn't trying to dress you down, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.

I was merely using the memery to explain how the OP tweet is completely wrong, because even within the context of Marxism there are Marxists who read the scantest of theory and are like 'WHAT DO YOU MEAN GLOBALLY I'M THE BAD GUY?'. This usually comes out when Conservatives point to the fact that the American poor are economically way richer than global poor. Which is correct and is merely a rephrasing of imperial capitalism. So upon seeing these arguments they usually dismiss them in an illogical way because the only thing they learned from Socialism in one country vs International Socialism is 'Trotsky bad'.

This reads as pro CIA.

It doesn't matter if there are minorities driving imperial machinery over minorities in the third world. In fact if the CIA was filled with only white men who couldn't gather intelligence and were bumbling morons, it would be a net positive for the world.

We're no longer in the Dulles Era. We've traded both Dulles brothers, Hoover, and Pappy Bush types for Brett McGurk, John Bolton and Adrien Zenz types. Let them shoot themselves in the foot.

Competent imperial managers are overall worse than incompetent ones. Take the W.

JDPON Don has done more in a month to destroy the empire than leftists have been trying to do since WW2.

exonym

China

Don't you mean Zhongguo Renmin Gongheguo.

Why don't you just come out and accuse me of whatever it is instead of trying to beat around the bush?

Is my communication style bad? Sorry I'm literally autistic.

Am I not fitting in? See above.

Am I an evil lib seeking to spread anti-China sentiment?

What is it?

It's complete debate pervert behavior to engage with a theory effort post by fixating on a technical label.

I'm using a common term not the technical term because if I use technical terms people don't understand what the fuck I'm saying. They might as well be called the FJKOSJAFAIFO if everyone calls them that. This isn't an academic paper. Also it's practically an exonym vs endonym issue. You should also berate me for calling it China and not Zhongguo or it's full endonymic name of Zhongguo Renmin Gongheguo.

it will have to be imposed on them from the outside.

I think historically this has been proven out to be the opposite after all the USSR fell.

The only real hope that this is a way is that the CCP:

1. CCP economically (and at one point militarily) is able to defend itself against global imperial capital
2. CCP brings about real communism, moving more towards MLM roots in terms of social and economic arrangements
3. CCP brings in the tanks.

I have doubts about the practicality and reality of each of these steps. Even if you believe that steps 1 and 2 are going to happen. Step 3 is the most tenuous of all. China is very much a mind your own business country. They CCP does not and will not care that the people of the imperial core are suffering. It's not their problem.

I think the real problem for Marxists is they get too stuck on the "scientific" parts, and assume that means "determinism". This leads them to advocate ripping off previous playbooks (What Is To Be Done posting) wholesale rather than understand what from each previous playbook would work for their specific situation. You cannot build even a nascent state capitalist state that is attempting to build socialism let alone communism through a set of replicable steps. When in reality Marx describes the interaction purely through base and superstructure. There is no "if this then that" of building communism, you have to move these structures into alignment and continually reinforce base and superstructure in the direction of communist development. What works in one society may not work in a different one, (See Sino Soviet Split) what works in one society in the past may never work again in the same society in the future.

It's a similar reason why typically our capitalist societies cannot make good software. Not only is there simply not a "single way", but most people have their own experiences from the negative problems they have suffered building software for previous companies. These experiences may reinforce practices that seem to be helpful, but were only helpful in the context of the previous company.

Meanwhile China has done great things for its people, but it has put itself into the same position as those in the imperial core. There are contradictions in the Chinese economy. In order for China to make good on socialism by 2050, it essentially needs to kill its guided capitalist prosperity engine. This is going to make a lot of people uneasy and upset and many of them are also people who are in the CCP. Chinese development has also made it become a treatler country in many respects, I think American Communists don't recognize that. I think in practice we're all just doing a prisoners dilemma with each other and ultimately ourselves.

A huge example of the difference between China and the USSR right now is food. The USSR had always been a seasonal agriculture country, because having Western style supermarkets that are both price stable and more-or-less unaffected by seasonal availability is based on a network of global trade that requires extraction by its very nature. If you cannot produce food half the year, and the people that can produce food the other half of the year are equals, you can maintain price stability of food through trade. But the reality is that the Global South where this stability is based in, are not equals. So the way price stability is maintained is through deprivation, extraction and manipulation of global markets. In a socialist global system we're back at third worldism, you have to convince people who have it good to sacrifice for those that don't in a place they've never been, for reasons that are extremely difficult to articulate. China is a rich country now and in this way has created this problem for itself and historically benevolent internationalism hasn't really been a cultural tendency. Culturally and politically to China trade is trade, no more no less.

No offense, but I think fetishizing movements in the imperial periphery is a way to absolve responsibility from people in the imperial core. Communism tells liberals they need to do more, Third Worldism tells Communists they need to do more. It's not a hierarchy based on who has to deal with the most suffering, it's a hierarchy of who gains more benefit from the current state of the world and therefore who has more responsibility and power to fix it. You are simply shoveling the responsibility to those who comparatively the hardest battles.

Hamas can't save us. That idea is the idea of Red Dawn -- the same silly fantasy that libs have about the poorest taking their things -- but for potential allies of the invading communist movement, rather than its enemies. It's Communist Big Mommy