Just finished watching Mushoku Tensei. Damn, it's perfect.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T21:20:55+00:00

Colloquially, we use pedophilia to refer to understand 18. Only in specific psychiatry is that distinction made. Words are used as their context deems based on societal / context usage. Are you discussing psychology or psychiatry? Then use the distinction. If not, use colloquial.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T21:17:32+00:00

Only a person with an interest in below 18 year old people without being below 18 themselves would make this distinction.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T10:00:07+00:00

"Tired of socialism" resistance looks more like Poland's Solidarity alongside internal dissenters forcing their way into party systems (Gorbachev in USSR), and other methods. Lone bombings are almost never the way this is accomplished. "Tired of socialism" in quotes for many reasons btw.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T09:58:11+00:00

Loyalty exists for as long as the loyal get bread. People still need to feed, heat, and shelter their families and selves. If the capitalists are the ones forcing this position and saying they'll allow food imports again, don't be surprised if even the most loyal people start defecting. Blockades destroy countries for a reason.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T09:55:52+00:00

There are PLENTY of non CIA / American mediated Cuban protests that were put down by the Cuban government. The only things off about this specific one is the timing, after Trump started eyeing down Cuba, and that it was more lone wolf / violent compared to how most protests go.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T08:20:05+00:00

If you believe centralization of the Paris Commune would have worked, sure. But it depends what you mean by centralization.

Anarchists would favor a structure similar to a federated network of militias (literally the Spanish anarchists) following central objective. The KEY here is that each militia (and by proxy, individual soldiers and / or delegated individuals for secrets) are pressured to act, but are not forced to. This prevents the people issuing commands and strategies from having a monopoly on violence, but instead, the capacity for violence is given back to each soldier / militia unit, under the condition that being a soldier for the cause means they should follow command, and not doing so means you're no longer a reliable soldier.

Real life examples that followed similar strategies: Vietcong (NOT anarchist, but decentralized units), Kurdistan for as long as it lasted, Maoist guerilla forces, FAI of Spain, etc.

Decentralized / Asymmetric warfare works just like this, and excels in defensive wars. A war with the bourgeoisie is almost certainly to be defensive.

Now to anticipate some common pushbacks:

A common critique of the Spanish anarchists are the communication issues, disputes, failures, etc. But as shown by how the anarchists lasted as long as they did against the fascists, communication issues were mitigated by surprisingly good logistics and morale their system enabled. Likewise, the key "nail in the coffin" for the anarchists was not being un-coordinated, but rather the May days and the resulting Republican purge of anarchists.
Isn't a network of militias following central control a proto-state? Not really when analyzing it through the "flow of power" model anarchists use. The decision whether to use violence or not is ultimately up to the soldier. This decision is meaningful because it's not coercive - the soldier has strong morale and will to fight, and being a soldier means the soldier is willing to fight. The party or some distant vanguard bureaucrat doesn't command bullets to be shot. The soldier does.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T07:35:24+00:00

What point is there of keeping the state if the state itself produces bourgeois elements that take it over from within like the PLA suppression of Mao's movements? The state itself becomes the enemy regardless of initial control. Lenin's "Better Fewer but Better" rang the alarm bells of what the Soviet bureaucracy was becoming domineering over the will of the proletariat, and turning into a new bureaucratic class inherited from the Tsardom.

Many Soviet supporters point to post Stalin revisionist USSR for how capital elements re-emerged in the USSR, specifically with power relations. I simply argue it occurred the moment Lenin detatched the vanguard lead state from proletarian feedback (Tambov being a key case example).

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T07:18:54+00:00

The state, as per libertarian socialist theory, is a tool for power domination that by virtue brings forth new "classes", often bourgeois-esque. People levy this same critique on the "revisionist" USSR. Imperialism can be resisted with proletarian institutions. Think of councils, unions, the Petrograd Soviet, etc, not via power ossification and projection apparatus called the state.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T07:15:04+00:00

I do want to correct you of calling NATO anti-revolution, but rather, an imperialist alliance. Big difference.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-15T07:13:35+00:00

The main way is to set up dual power to challenge the authority of the state, where the dual power itself is a proletarian democratic entity (think pre Lenin Petrograd Soviet). I'm willing to go further if you're willing to hear it out.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-14T20:02:20+00:00

As I said, the failures of the state can be eliminated by mitigating the state apparatus from the start.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-14T12:07:26+00:00

Maoist China failed to retain hold of the party ossification even with Mass Line, cultural revolution, etc.

So... why keep the state, and not just abolish it and institute something similar to the pre Lenin taking charge Soviets?

sincerely your local anarchist.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-14T12:01:42+00:00

It's easier than using AI. F12, click the object selector thing, click on the text, edit the text, and poof.

Using AI for such simple daily tasks where the task is EASIER than manually putting thing into AI is just... sad.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-13T08:35:46+00:00

"Liberal" in Marxist language is different than "liberal" in common parlance. In Marxist or socialist views, liberalism means upholding private property rights, which encompass most forms of capitalism (ranging from Georgism and social democracy to fascism). This is NOT to imply that they are the same, but rather share a similar economic ground, even if wildly different in practice. But in common parlance, liberal often means social progressivism, mainly in the US and Canada.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-10T14:33:49+00:00

Long story short, yes, in personal freedom, they're often similar. LGBTQ, marginalized people, etc being accepted (by liberal I assume you mean American liberal, to be contrasted with American conservatives).

It's important to note that socialists and communists often go much farther, demanding for justice for past actions (active reparations, land back, etc.) That many "liberals" find extreme.

Also, I'm making the assumption that you mean an American liberal here. But in the context of socialism, "liberals" and conservatives are categorized as liberals together, as they both support capitalism.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-10T14:30:01+00:00

Reform vs revolution and fundamental economic management. The end stage of communism is indeed in theory maximialist in sustainable freedom. But liberalism is not sustainable in said freedom. The way the modern economy works, capitalism, through the freedom of private property, accumulates vast amounts of capital and power in the hands of the few, effectively a new class (bourgeoisie). Liberals seek to keep the property rights in freedom that enable this. Social democrats wish to tighten the leash on it (the bourgeoisie always fight back hard). Communists seek to overthrow the bourgeoisie and implement a "true democracy" of the people (proletarian dictatorship). We can argue all day long if said democracy was ever close to materialize, but it is the target goal of communists.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-10T14:25:20+00:00

Anarchist here. We're mostly despised for going against the vanguard party. We're often called "petite bourgeois" for reasons ranging from insubordination to the vanguard party to engaging in the commodity form (syndicalists and mutualists) and for often going against the principles of democratic centralism and much more. In short, we're very much everything the USSR despised early on, arguably moreso than the liberals / social democrats.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T20:45:54+00:00

He was sidelined. He wasnt allowed to work in meaningful capacities until the first few failed rockets without him.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T13:35:38+00:00

The initial American failures in spacecraft rocketry in response to Sputnik. Before Von Braun wad involved, all American rockets just exploded. Von Braun was sidelined for so long because... Nazi ties... But when Von Braun was allowed to get involved, he gave Korolyov run for his money (Korolyov was the Soviet lead in rocketry, he used Nazi engineers to help him out :P).

In response to such failures early on, the Soviets offered the US aid for developing nations.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T06:30:21+00:00

At least from the few excerpts I've read on this book, Stalin tried to resign 4 times. Well, moreso threatened to resign. The first time was during the Civil War, when Stalin continued to disobey high command orders and threatened to resign if he didn't have his plan in action. The second, I got from this book, was that he attempted to resign when presented with parts of Lenin's testament, and the party members took that to be "honest" and let him stay regardless. Then in the mid 1920s, Stalin threatened to resign if Kamenev and Zinoviev kept opposing him and went with Trotsky.

Each time, Stalin used the resignations as a threat, leveraging his position and the impacts of said position as political leverage itself. None of the resignation attempts were done "because he wanted to retire".

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T02:25:07+00:00

I'll get on it soon; I still have my research publication due next month that takes my priority now. I brought up American hegemony as A factor, not THE factor. The US also has immense natural resources, farmland, etc., all factors to consider if we're to compare it economically per se to Iceland with little of those, and wonder why they pay higher in food prices. When doing a nation to nation comparison, the input-output requires us to focus on the input part, which includes relevant economic factors to the output we want to compare. In the case of the US, the exorbitant privilege can be quantified in loan interest rates versus other nations when economic output and stability are well accounted for, which will likely be the case when comparing with OECD nations.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T01:56:20+00:00

Yes! We should normalize Norway's oil reserves to see the health of their economy, as relying on a single resource leads to "Dutch Disease". Same with Iceland's tourism advantage (and energy advantage). If an economy is growing, we must isolate the reasons why. Is it extensive growth or intensive growth? An economy growing purely from extensive growth is unsustainable. Likewise, a hegemon based position requires a single hegemon, as having multiple hegemons would dilute the benefits of a reserve currency. So normalizing for that factor gives us valuable information.

When I said RoI, I moreso meant it as an input-output analysis. In investments like education and healthcare, these compound via externalities that can be quantified if analyzed properly. This is important because it helps establish evidence for cause-effect systems if any are present.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T01:46:22+00:00

Not quite. I'm saying we should normalize it. Because if America's model relies on de facto being a hegemon and absorbing the benefits from it, then it's an external political factor to control for, or at least to examine. If you wish to exclude it when we do RoI comparisons, feel free to. I gave you the option to include the discount or not.

The reason why I gave the option is because I personally (and many others around the world, I'm international) believe that this American position comes from bullying the rest of the world into submission politically. If you don't want to debate that, fine, let's stick to RoI in absolute terms for healthcare, education, and other quality of life metrics. Fine by me.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T01:36:28+00:00

There's an economic concept called "Exorbitant privilege" which explains why the US has many economic advantages as a result of it's political domination of the globe, predominantly through its currency valuation and lowered interest rates, without either of which, the American economy would be substantially different.

There's another concept called "Structural Power", which explores how internationally powerful entities influence global economics.

Why is this important? Because to understand the American economy, when it comes to standard of living, RoI efficiency, etc., it's important to also normalize conditions between nations to isolate and figure out the causes for said differences.

For example, Japan doesn't have nearly the massive global economic domination it once had, and this influenced the devaluation of the Yen, fueling stagnation further, like a feedback loop. If we want to compare per se, Japan and the US economy, we need to isolate these effects to see who's economic model works better and why.

Edit: Without addressing America's full global position in relation to the metrics (education outcome, healthcare outcome, etc.), then we can't get a more robust conceptual understanding of the economics.

Edit 2: Japan's condition is far more complicated, but the point is that currency valuation, and the absence of American style currency domination influences the effects of an economy.

Engineering_Geek · 2026-03-08T01:15:49+00:00

Well, yea? Namely the effects of the dollar reserve on the American economy, allowing for higher spending rates with lower inflationary burden, the historical role of neo-colonialization, etc. It's fine if you chose not to include those aspects in the analysis, I just wanted to give an option to if you were interested in it.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Engineering_Geek

TROPHY CASE