• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • We are indeed more sexually fluid than most species and given it’s “most” and not “all”, this isn’t unprecedented. It’s also not a new phenomena, in Ancient Greek and early-mid Ancient Roman societies queerness was quite common. In fact homosexuality was so prevalent that that the Romans didn’t even have a word for heterosexual/homosexual; instead one was either dominant or submissive (e.g. giving or receiving) with the assumption being that most were bisexual and would take partners as they saw fit.




  • If by ‘String/Quantum’ you mean String Theory and quantum physics then you are wrong on the latter (and somewhat even the former). Quantum physics doesn’t replace classical physics nor are they necessarily in opposition, and quantum physics is as much a theory as classical physics; so bashing one for being ‘theory’ is just as true for the other. And quantum physics is certainly in common use as you simply cant do anything at the atomic level without it. For example, any modern computer would not be able to function if quantum physics wasn’t used to inform their design; in the same vein a modern computer would not function if classical physics was used to design them. It’s important to remember that the word ‘theory’ in this context doesn’t mean unproven, rather it describes a collection of confirmed, falsifiable, explanations of the natural world.

    As for String Theory, it shouldn’t be thought of as equivalent in scale to quantum physics, it’s really just an optional framework within quantum physics that attempts to describe the fundamental nature of particles in a way that supports quantum gravity. Due to this its usage is confined to theoretical physics and is dependent on which aspects of a system is being investigated, but it’s still used in some situations as its one of the best supported tools available.

    I guess my main point is that quantum physics isn’t fringe theory that shows up only in theoretical work, it’s very much a requirement for all fields and is thereby prevalent and very much in common use. I have a CS degree and many of my courses touched on quantum mechanics, from pnp/npn transistor design to quantum-annealing/gate proof cryptography, without getting too into the mechanics/math as we were not physicists.


  • So, in your eyes, discussion about anything but the absolute end-goal of communism is moot. That’s the most no true scotsman argument I’ve seen; I suppose if socialists can choose to do that then capitalist pigs can just say that their end-goal of a completely free market where competition solves everything is the only state of capitalism that can be discussed. All current or previous forms of capitalism are really just regulated capitalist systems and all problems within those systems comes from the different levels of the regulation of it.

    As I suggested to the other commenter, Read L. Mises Human Action , the latter part of part 6 chapter 33 completely agrees with my assertion that corporativismo was just guild socialism v1.01. The entire book is rather long (~800 pages depending on print) but damn does it set a good foundation for discourse.


  • sethboy66@kbin.socialtoCommunism@lemmy.mlProtestation
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Communism = stateless, classless, moneyless society

    “”“(at least as we’ve seen it in practice so far)”“” An idealistic definition of communism doesn’t help conversation on the practical; no stateless, classless, moneyless form of socialism has been seen on Earth in a few thousand years. The hunter-gatherers were on point though (assuming they were mostly classless).

    that’s as ridiculous as claiming Hitler was a socialist.

    Read L. Mises Human Action , the latter part of part 6 chapter 33 appears to be ridiculous. Be warned, the entire book is rather long (~800 pages depending on print); I’ve never been able to get through it all.


  • It’s weird to see the idea of the merging of corporate power into the state talked about with such derision in a sub entitled communism. Maybe I’ve been confused this whole time, but that’s one of the core tenants of communism (at least as we’ve seen it in practice so far); the people control the means of production through the state apparat, corporate power is the worker’s power and it is guided by the state. Mussolini’s corporativismo is just guild socialism with “definitely not communist” stamped on it, relating that to a corporatocracy is absurd.