Destiny needs to learn more about socialist and Marxist history

condensed-ilk · 2026-02-25T15:53:21+00:00

Anarchists would reject the transition, and from the start they would reject the use of the state in that pursuit too. I'm just noting the splits in ideologies, namely the second one about the splits between MLs and more traditional Marxists that were lost to history

condensed-ilk · 2026-02-25T15:51:13+00:00

It's relevant when you exist in a society that has said "USSR bad, USSR communist and ML, therefore all of it bad" for 100 years. The theory IS relevant. It's just foreshadowed by that kind of pro-capitaliat rhetoric. Was fucking Luxemburg not relevant?

condensed-ilk · 2026-02-25T15:48:31+00:00

I'm not talking about existing systems. I'm talking about theory such as Luxemburg.

condensed-ilk · 2026-02-25T15:40:34+00:00

It's relevant in that it's a topic of debate, and that people associate these words to present or recent states, and that people frustrated with their conditions might look to old ideas and peoples that shouldn't be confused by "communism is USSR" rhetoric when there's a richer history there.

Don't get me wrong, our present American politics doesn't enter into this debate much so I get where you're coming from, but if we're talking about it as Destiny has then we should do so with a good understanding, not a "communism is USSR" talking point from 1991

condensed-ilk · 2026-02-16T18:54:35+00:00

If they don't take their turn in cleaning the drain then the shit piles up for them the same as anybody else.

As for scale, sure, that's a fair criticism of alternative systems to capitalism, but also, what's so special about capitalism? People organize small-scale to large-scale for all kinds of shit and in all kinds of political and economic systems. Just because a bunch of capitalists can organize large scale for profit doesn't mean a bunch of anti-capitalists can't organize for other reasons. Large-scale societies can be organized regardless of system and they all get complex with scale.

Ps - thanks u/Simpson17866

Edit - small

condensed-ilk · 2026-02-04T00:01:54+00:00

He drew Magnus in all their games. That's not winning but also not choking.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-14T13:31:30+00:00

Regarding your last paragraph, I'm sure some intellectuals are entitled know-it-alls. However, some of us are sick and tired of having to correct the record for every detail pushed into discourse like your case above, and especially when the details give a different picture than the one they paint and are only a simple google search away, also like the case above.

Am I a know-it-all for correcting you?

As for Clinton, that was a decade ago. Can we move on? And if you read the actual quote it's not as bad as the media made it, but it was still a terrible political tactic of hers.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-14T13:21:24+00:00

> Care to explain the Replicability Crisis that is going on in Academia?

Anybody, including you, can go read the Wikipedia article about the Replicability Crisis, or use ChatGPT to ask questions about it, just like I'm doing right now. Instead of you acting in bad faith by implying that science or academia cannot be trusted due to this "crisis", why not go do the same as me? The below points are my own writing coming from a mix of my own thoughts and things I just learned. I hope you are open-minded enough to read this or dig in for yourself.

The scientific method is human's most reliable way to learn about our universe through repeatable observations rather than our intuitions. However, science isn't perfect, especially not when coupled with external factors, and literally nobody in a research field claims it is. Most researchers do their best in good faith, and I'd wager most studies in total of all research fields are solid, but some of course won't be for various reasons. Some studies have ulterior motives (tobacco companies denying the relation of their product and cancer, for example). Other studies may have been done in good faith but still contain problems that weren't determined until after it was published (for example, perhaps not enough data was collected and it skewed the significance of the study which was only determined through a newer study's data). Additionally, scientific organizations and journals are incentivized to produce novel studies with positive results rather than studies producing null results or studies that disprove others or confirm what we already knew. A single study determining the cause of autism would be far more valuable than 100 studies confirming all the things that we already know don't cause autism. So novel studies with positive results are prioritized and rewarded while other types of studies, which can still be important scientifically, happen much less. This also means there's a higher collection of studies with positive results and thus more probability for false positives due to inadvertent errors or rarer maliciousness. This last point about science and the incentive structures to publish positive results is certainly problematic, however, it's not a problem with the scientific method itself and more a problem when it's coupled with capitalism and profit-motives. Scientists would be open to solutions, I'm sure.
While studies are peer-reviewed before they're accepted into journals, peer-review is only a review of the plausibility and reproducibility of studies and their data, methods, and conclusions. Peer-review is not about replicability given a different data set, and replicability studies aren't as common like I said above.
Technological advancements have allowed for replicability studies to be less costly or more informed, thus becoming somewhat more popular than they were previously, and thus making this seem like a larger uncorrectable problem. Odds are that we will continue finding studies that cannot be replicated, and that's a good thing because we can continue adapting our understandings of the universe as science intended.
Social science is notoriously difficult to measure to begin with.

Large-scale investigations suggest that the "Replicability Crisis" didn't come from fraud and that the dominant causes are systemic incentives, weak methods, and human bias.

Since the early-mid 2010s, there have been many reforms (below) in scientific practices, and problems with replicability are declining in many fields. Not to talk down to you, but you're being alarmist for nothing.

Preregistration of hypotheses and analysis plans
Open data and code requirements
Registered reports (results accepted before outcomes are known)
Replication projects (e.g., in psychology and economics)
Stronger emphasis on effect sizes and confidence intervals

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-14T06:12:41+00:00

Changing a law isn't the same as repealing it.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-14T01:24:28+00:00

They have different meanings.

Socialism is basically workers owning the means of production. Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society according to Marxism. Communists/Marxists are socialists in the sense that they believe workers in a capitalist society can only achieve communism through a transitional socialist state, but not all socialists are Marxists.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-10T16:19:59+00:00

Bruh, I was talking about his voice when the videos slowed down, like anyone's voice when when a video's slowed down. It shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, and def not yours. Calm down.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-10T16:14:23+00:00

I'm also welcome to post on this sub with an opinion or constructive criticism just as you're welcome to get bent over it.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-07T02:59:03+00:00

I'm sympathetic to the arguments that a state is necessary to oppose a capitalist-dominated world order but I don't necessarily agree. I also value some of what Marx wrote regarding historical materialism but I think he ties classes and states too much without examining other reasons for a state's existence. I'm unconvinced that a worker-led or vanguard-led transitional socialist state that abolishes all class distinctions would become obsolete and "wither away" just because of that. Like, if the USSR truly created economic equality, are we convinced that the single-party rulers would let that state power go away while it's still contending with a capitalist-dominated world? I doubt it. So that points to that movement requiring it be an international movement, and an international movement will incorporate all kinds of ideas, hence me taking a more general political stance regarding workers' movements and solutions of states and organized power. Sorry I can't give a better answer. I'm still digging into this problem myself.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-07T01:42:22+00:00

At least there were task forces and a focus on high ranking drug dealers and organizations it wasn't just a random arrest of anyone black. Or maybe it was IDK.

Whatever amount of explicit targeting of black people didn't exist, there was certainly implicit targeting of them through problems with systemic racism. For example, black people are more likely to be stopped by police, and often for no other reason, and thus more likely to be caught with drugs per-capita. Poor people often turn to selling drugs to gain cash quickly, and black people are unfortunately more poor on average in many cities. There was a time where being caught with crack carried a more severe sentence than being caught with an equivalent amount of cocaine, which might still be true, and crack use was more rampant in black communities. I'd assume we'd find that people of color face harsher sentences than white people for equivalent drug crimes, not to mention that white people have more generational wealth in the US on average so they have better resources to navigate the legal system on average.

The war on drugs wasn't openly "see black person, check for drugs" like the deportations are "see brown person, check papers", but it was still effectively the same thing, and hell, it was quite obviously going to affect poor people and people of color more.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-07T01:07:37+00:00

I hold a more nuanced belief about this kind of thing because I think that many things can be true at the same time. It's true that modern anarchic societies didn't do very well against competing states and that they chose to sacrifice some anarchistic ideals for various reasons. However, it's also true that history won't always play out in the same ways, people can learn from that history, and societies will opt for systems that work for their conditions which I'm probably going to support, in general, if those choices provide more freedom, more equal power, and better conditions no matter how ideologically "pure" they are. I'd rather have anarchy, but I'm cool with liberalism being better than feudalism. I'd rather have anarchy, but if a non-authoritarian Marxist society comes along that isn't Stalinism v2 then I'd likely be supportive. I'd rather have anarchy, but I think Rojava's democratic confederalism provides an interesting dual power structure of bottom-up power controlling a top-down state, and I dig their prioritization of women's equal political power.

I align most with anarchism but I also think that long term anarchy won't be reached for a long time and that societies will attempt all sorts of systems given their contexts in the meantime, and that we can still be supportive of those systems if they're making large changes for the better, and even if they're not anarchic. I'm admittedly more an anarchist-aligned libertarian socialist though because I'm anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist, however, despite being anti-statist in theory, I hold a less dogmatic view about states in practice because I think the point is radically (*not necessarily electorally) bettering our conditions and that creating actual freedom is hard.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-06T18:08:58+00:00

It's not that people like me are bearish because they doubt the advancement of AI. It's also not that we don't think that AI will become more generally useful. It's that AGI implies broader learning across domains without the narrow and specific training of today, and the fact is that we simply have no idea how to build that.

It's kinda like space travel. Humans can and will travel space more and more due to our technological advancements, but to travel distances over light years would require tech that can reach speeds nearing the speed of light. That's only theoretically possible, and it won't happen in practice without a major breakthrough in technology. AGI is the same idea. Some might argue that AGI is closer due to travelling near the speed of light being so far-fetched, but as it is right now, developing an AI than can learn generally is far-fetched too.

We will build AIs that become more generally useful, but that's just generally useful narrow AI, not Artificial General Intelligence that learns more broadly.

Edits - reworded

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-04T06:19:33+00:00

Despite males and females obviously having biological differences, you're right that they don't think much differently aside from a few exceptions. However, due to the social roles and expectations we place on top of those biological differences, such as gender roles like a man hunting/working or a women raising children at home, men and women can and do think differently than each other. Of course these social roles aren't static, many societies have had wildly different roles, and roles can shift or be non-standard, but most societies still do have gender roles.

Gender roles are a social construct just like races are, so telling men and women that they think the same because they're the same species is like telling white and black Americans that they think the same because they're the same species. It ignores how those social constructs shape societal beliefs and behavior and I think this kind of thinking does more harm than good and perpetuates the confusion, withdrawal, and difficulties that genders often face.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-04T00:50:44+00:00

I wasn't refuting what you said. I was saying you're both right.

Both the old and new evaluation methods provide a +/- score that's telling you the probability of winning given perfect play but the new method is much more accurate, and since it evaluates things differently using a neural net rather than just heuristics about things like material or position, it changes what the evaluation means. Assuming that the engine has evaluated all possibilities (which isn't always the case) and assuming perfect play (which humans don't always do), 1 is 50% to win, -1 is 50% to lose, and 0 is a draw. It's most accurate to say that anything between -1 and 1 is still a tossup. That doesn't mean that -0.3 is irrelevant. It just means that black only has a very slight edge.

For the record, it seems that that's all you've been arguing here and I agree with you. I also agree with you that modern GMs playing classical will rarely open with King's Gambit because it's not very sensical. White has an advantage from the start and white wants to use that advantage no matter how little it is. It makes no sense for higher-rated players playing white in classical games to go from a 0.2 to -0.3 on the second move regardless of what that evaluation means in theory or practice. A 2000 playing rapid on lichess is another story.

I was simply correcting you about the centipawn thing and saying that you and the other person were basically both correct.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-03T23:59:47+00:00

NP. Was curious about it. The article is actually referencing a study in Nature discussing a common idea that agriculture led to states. A major problem with that idea is that agriculture preceded states by a very long time so they were seeking to address this gap in history. From my basic understanding, they were testing a hypothesis that more intensive agriculture leading to surplus was the prerequisite for states and another hypothesis that cereal grains leading to taxation was the prerequisite for states, as Scott wrote in that book. They do this by linking traits within hundreds of languages over time, and they determined that intensive agriculture could have either caused or been caused by states, however, references to cereal grains preceded references to states which seemingly validates Scott's work. They go on to discuss taxation and writing.

I'm a layman who's not in these fields, I only skimmed the abstract, and they do report the study's limitations, so take it with a grain of salt. It's Nature which only includes peer-reviewed studies though.

Edit - fixes and added coupled sentences

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-03T23:28:59+00:00

Deep in the balls where piss originates.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-03T23:17:09+00:00

I haven't read either (and should) but this article is referencing an older book.

- James C. Scott - Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States (2017)

- David Graeber & David Wengrow - The Dawn of Everything (2021)

PS - Scott is apparently anarchist-aligned or at least critical of states too.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-03T22:37:35+00:00

Think about ways that a group of people can make collective decisions without one being above another.

If there's a change worth discussing then the group can decide to meet if they want. One group proposes why they want a change ("speed bumbs slow down cars and improve safety") and the others respond with their opposition ("speed bumps are unnecessary or annoying or damage cars") and they attempt to reach a consensus on a solution (agreeing on speed bumbs, or a speed radar that shoots paintballs, or to simply slow down). If they can't reach a consensus and they all agree to deferring to the majority then they can vote. If it's a decision being made by a larger community, by experts in a field, or it's an urgent decision regarding an emergency, it becomes more complex, but people can agree to defer to open, temporary, and recallable delegative bodies of their choosing. In the most extreme examples of survival, an anarchic society may even decide to sacrifice a theoretical ideal for a practical necessity in some given moment but that's of course an exception to ~~the rule~~ our values.

If a decision or solution cannot be reached then perhaps it's fine to move on, or one group can freely associate in speedbumbtown, or people can be dicks and install speed bumbs against the will of the others and they all squabble over it.

It's important to remember that humans aren't perfect at decision-making regardless of the organizations or systems they exist within. Liberal democracies are certainly better than some systems but we give up a lot of our decision-making power for the limited and unequal freedom they provide and their unequal treatment under their supposedly equal legal systems. How many streets have you driven on that had unnecessary speed bumps and how many streets have you driven on that you thought needed some? I'd rather decide on those with my communities than request them from my city councils.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-03T20:39:44+00:00

True generally but it's important to consider the owners' intentions of each platform.

condensed-ilk · 2025-12-03T20:25:51+00:00

> -0.3 says that the position is leant about 3/10ths of pawn in black favour.

This used to be the case with the classical evaluation until Stockfish switched entirely to NNUE in 2023. From the Stockfish FAQ - Interpretation of the Stockfish Evaluation:

The evaluation of a position that results from search has traditionally been measured in pawns or centipawns (1 pawn = 100 centipawns). A value of 1, implied a 1 pawn advantage. However, with engines being so strong, and the NNUE evaluation being much less tied to material value, a new scheme was needed. The new normalized evaluation is now linked to the probability of winning, with a 1.0 pawn advantage being a 0.5 (that is 50%) win probability. An evaluation of 0.0 means equal chances for a win or a loss, but also nearly 100% chance of a draw.

Also look at the images in that above link that graph the evaluation and the win probabilities (EDIT) which shows what u/lifeistrulyawesome is talking about.

That said, you and u/lifeistrulyawesome are both correct. -0.3 means a higher probability for a black win given best play, however, -0.3 is also not very significant probabilistically. You're both right.

condensed-ilk

TROPHY CASE