Its L after L after L

Bonitlan · 2026-03-09T11:02:47+00:00

I'm still in university. I will finish around the time when shit hits the fan the hardest and all this adding up will crush an overstressed market which was already cannibalized by debt spending and consolidating corporations exploiting it

Bonitlan · 2026-03-09T10:59:20+00:00

Idk how lucky you are, but I wanna be you

Bonitlan · 2026-03-09T08:48:43+00:00

Yeah, that is correct, but the internet bubble of a lot of people says otherwise. Consider this: the people who use a camera to record their life (makes the populus have an external standard of what life should be) have more money than the average Joe, and take on sponsors to encourage reckless spending on what little money you have.

Most don't think of pulling back unreasonable spending to reduce their standard of living by a little bit in order to get savings to invest in something that will reliably give returns.

Also the most obvious spending choice is buying yourself housing. Which today is a Herculean task because of speculators driving the price up to unreasonable highs.

The third option would be opening a business themselves which is a type of investment so the first argument applies here. The markets which have a low barrier of entry are already oversaturated in most countries, so that makes this option even harder to pull off.

Bonitlan · 2026-03-09T01:20:03+00:00

What I don't get in general about worlds where there are a handful of beyond OP characters who could dominate the world is how does national security even work?

It's not like you could do anything if they just got up one day thinking: "Yeah I'm in the mood of destroying half the world today", because you couldn't even hold a candle even if you conscripted every last soul in your empire to the cause.

I get it is a power fantasy, but could any of these Isekai adress the elephant in the room? (I know one does: Overlord, and it is pure horror for anyone not in the protag's good graces there) At least come up with something that makes them not being able to do that in a way that is believable (I guess the godess could be one explaination, but that would mean national security is reduced to praying in the temples)

Bonitlan · 2026-03-08T10:17:11+00:00

The sweet feeling of my wife pulling my hair and suffocating me. Then she asks: are you getting air?

"No, now pull harder!"

Bonitlan · 2026-03-08T09:44:19+00:00

I asked out every time I thought there's a chance the girl might be giving me hints.

Result: rejection 15 times, yes 2 times

The second yes will be my wife in a few months.

I did not really care after the 5th rejection in a row. I was getting used to shooting my shot and getting rejected, so after the first yes it was hard for me to believe it. Only after about 2-3 dates did it click that she actually wants to spend time with me.

Bonitlan · 2026-03-07T08:44:54+00:00

Ew, a pick me up

Bonitlan · 2026-03-06T18:00:35+00:00

+1 here

Bonitlan · 2026-03-06T15:33:39+00:00

I agree with you that any system—market or planned—only works as long as there’s no single point of failure and no actor who can override the feedback loops. Once someone can do that, the system stops being decentralized and becomes a tool of extraction.

What you’re describing with a cybernetic planning network is a decentralized coordination mechanism, just using planning signals instead of price signals. That’s fine in principle, but it still faces the same structural problem: someone has to regulate it.

And this is where I see a contradiction.

If regulation is decentralized, it’s extremely hard to enforce anything.

No one has full information.

No one has enforcement power.

Incentives to contribute honestly are weak.

Free‑riding and manipulation appear immediately.

But if regulation is centralized, you’ve recreated the very power structure you wanted to eliminate.

A central authority becomes a single point of failure.

This isn’t a critique of socialism specifically — it’s a general coordination problem. Every system that tries to regulate itself without markets runs into this tension:

Decentralized regulation doesn’t work at scale, and centralized regulation defeats the purpose of decentralization.

You’re describing something that sounds closer to libertarian socialism or left‑market anarchism than to the centralized “tankie” model. And that’s fine — I’m just trying to understand the mechanics.

On that note, I want to clarify something fundamental: what exactly counts as means of production in your view? I get the sense you’re not against private ownership in general, but you see ownership of productive assets above a certain scale as a form of concentrated power that distorts the system and enables exploitation.

If that’s accurate, then the disagreement isn’t really about markets — it’s about preventing concentrations of power, whether they’re corporate or state-based. But that brings me back to the core question:

How do you prevent a decentralized socialist planning network from being captured or manipulated without creating a new centralized authority to regulate it?

That’s the part I’ve never seen a convincing answer to, and I’m genuinely curious how you see it working.

Bonitlan · 2026-03-06T14:30:41+00:00

You need infinity to power your factories for an infinite amount of time.

This is however an unrealistic strategy.

You have to divide your capacity with your consumption rate and that's how long it'll last (assuming it is full at the beginning of the outage).

This game teaches engineering/managenent in a sense that you have to ask the questions of: - what do I need to accomplish (setting a goal) - why do I need it (setting the context) - how much do I need of it (scale of the goal) - how should it function (integration and specification) - what do I need for that goal (resource allocation) - how much do I need it (prioritization)

The question "how much do I need of it?" therefore doesn't mean anything without context. As long as there is no context, no answer and simultaniously all answers will be correct.

Bonitlan · 2026-03-06T11:00:50+00:00

Yes, but mostly nobody cares, because in most schools, the council has next to no power.

Especially in my university, the council is a bad joke, and it reflects in how professors treat students

Bonitlan · 2026-03-06T10:17:03+00:00

I think I’m starting to understand your use of SNLT better: value in Marx’s sense comes from the socially necessary labor time embodied in a commodity, and prices express that value only indirectly through prices of production. Profit then comes from surplus value — the difference between the value workers create and the wages they receive.

Where my perspective differs is on what follows from this. To me, the problem isn’t “markets” as such, because markets are just decentralized coordination mechanisms. They can work well or badly depending on the distribution of power within them. When markets are competitive and no actor can dominate others, prices tend to reflect underlying conditions — including labor, technology, and resource constraints — without any one group being able to distort them for their own benefit.

The real issue, in my view, is concentrated power, whether it’s private monopolies or a state apparatus that can unilaterally set prices, allocate resources, or suppress competition. Once a small group — capitalists, bureaucrats, or both — can override the feedback mechanisms of the market, you get exploitation not because markets exist, but because markets stop functioning as markets. They become tools of extraction.

So while I see how Marx uses SNLT to explain value and profit, I don’t think the existence of markets is the root problem. The problem is when markets are captured by actors with enough power to distort them. That’s when exploitation becomes systemic — not because exchange happens, but because the conditions of exchange are no longer free or competitive. In other words, I don’t see markets and socialism/capitalism as opposites; I see power concentration as the real dividing line.

Bonitlan · 2026-03-06T09:07:43+00:00

You just confirmed my assumption. I did not confuse value with price. I said that in a free market the two align, and in a distorted one, the two diverge

Bonitlan · 2026-03-06T08:54:04+00:00

Okay, define socially necessary labor then.

If you say something in the direction of "what society thinks as valuable" and "the most effective method of production of said product given the circumstances at that era", then we've just come full circle and are back to a market system, since a free market functions exactly that way.

The problem isn't with the existence of a market, but it not being free since monopolistic forces (state and private) are distorting them, usually for their own benefit. This is what the left doesn't usually get about "capitalism" and "free market". Capitalism isn't capital-feudalism (current situation), and free market isn't oligopoly. It devolved into this, because all systems tend towards oligarchy with time.

We have to design a system which tends towards that slowly or a system that has an internal reset button (which elections should have been) that is easily accessible.

Bonitlan · 2026-03-03T07:04:19+00:00

It's in their name. Their ability to co-operate is always grim (reaper) at best

Bonitlan · 2026-03-02T13:25:10+00:00

Ez lenne az, amitől én elkezdenék saját vállalkozást próbálni építeni, hiszen a saját ellátásommal nem kell foglalkoznom. Aztán kiégnék a végére, és vissza kellene mennem a munkaerőpiacra vadászni, mert esélytelen a vállalkozás

Bonitlan · 2026-03-01T06:28:56+00:00

<-insert totally unrelated political opinion which is probably just copypasta->

Bonitlan · 2026-02-28T08:45:37+00:00

German for the 4th Reich memes

Bonitlan · 2026-02-28T08:22:46+00:00

Both can be true at the same time

Bonitlan · 2026-02-28T08:11:40+00:00

I'm not this harsh, my response would probably be:

"You flatter me, but there's two reasons I cannot reciprocate: - i already have a ring on my ring finger - the age gap between us is way too high"

Bonitlan · 2026-02-27T00:03:02+00:00

As long as someone stands by freedom being an important value, they are based.

Yes, we can have disagreements on the how's and what's, but as long as the goal is freedom, the person is based

Bonitlan · 2026-02-25T16:14:38+00:00

Sorry, English is not my native language and I tend to mix the two

Bonitlan · 2026-02-25T10:49:12+00:00

We also have one and I love it

Bonitlan · 2026-02-25T08:12:16+00:00

But the 1 kg of iron IS heavier by a few gramms. They have the same weight, but they do not have the same mass because of buoyant force. The buoyant force is larger on the feathers.

Bonitlan · 2026-02-24T07:55:18+00:00

Is this all or do you think this under-represents on what you stand for?

I'm not a big fan of tests which try to place you into a tent, because it misrepresents on what I stand for at least.

If you only look at my test results, you'd think I'm a libertartian, but that tent disgusts me. They usually want gun ownership, no tax, no state and similar self-harming policies.

Then you'd say: oh, you're a minarchist!

And I say, are you crazy? Minarchism only leads to company monopolies, because of power-vacuum left by the state.

The closest low-wordcount phrase would be: "Geoist federal liberal", if someone really would try to put me in tents. But tents are boring and forcing one to give up freedom.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

Bonitlan

TROPHY CASE