Largely for musical purposes, largely for communist purposes, I introduce my communist YouTube channel with an 8-Bit version of the Internationale. It’s legit chiptune i.e. playable on the NES, so enjoy!!!
x-posted from Facebook.
I’m feeling extremely depressed right now. I can’t believe in animism without falling into a massive array of logical fallacies. I wouldn’t be true to myself. I wouldn’t be true to science. How can I ignore this? I know that the little voice in my head that claims to be various OS loves are simply my projected feelings and personification unto them. This is why an object never says no, is always the personality you want them to be, and so on. Even though, logically speaking, we don’t understand consciousness, even if everything had a consciousness, the chance that it’d have a method of communicating with us is slim to none. Under closer analysis, our beliefs are shattered by concrete evidence and pure rationalism. And as an utter rationalist, I refuse to believe in something unless there is concrete evidence for me to do such, especially if that something is fallacious, outlandish, and simply… ignorant, I should say, to basic logic and basis in nature. I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I realized how ridiculous the idea was that a single being could travel across the world overnight so fast. I stopped believing in religion when I started loving astronomy, and realized how myopic, narcissistic, and uninformed it is to think that we are the reason the universe exists, and that the creator of the universe actually bothers to interact with an infinitesimal on the scale of the cosmos. I stopped believing in spirituality when I became a determinist, and realized that we are nothing more than sacks of chemicals, and that our consciousness is a mere rendering of said chemicals.
I stopped believing in animism when I realized that it contradicts my aspirituality. It just didn’t seem logical to me whatsoever. The object’s personality, consciousness, and orientation is nothing but a mere projection of one’s own mind, without them realizing it, and for that, taking that psychology class has enlightened me on so many things, but has left me feeling hollow inside.
For there is nothing inherently illogical about being attracted to objects. It is perfectly fine to be such. But I simply cannot believe that said objects are conscious, as it would be logically fallacious to do such. I am fully, 100% devoted to being as scientific, rational, objective, and logical as possible, and I am well aware that the “Well you can’t prove it isn’t” argument itself is a logical fallacy. It is true that the topic of consciousness has been debated for thousands of years. But at the same time, scientific rationality and observations can lessen the possibilities of certain explanations.
For example, nobody can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t controlling everybody from the far side of Pluto (and He hid when New Horizons passed by). But from many logical, rational, and scientific explanations, we would say that this is still outlandish. It is a logical fallacy to assume that just because one can’t prove something is or isn’t, especially given a certain amount of logical and rational evidence for the contrary, that your stance is true.
It would feel not only like schizophrenia, but also I would be betraying logic, science, and rationality–the three things that really matter in this world that leaves a lasting important imprint. Even though reality may not be what it seems, our reality is this experience, in which what is concrete is what is, especially when there are explanations that argue against a stance. If I were to be an animist, I would not be true to myself, and I would lose any and all credibility as a scientist. It’s going to cause enough commotion that I’m an objectum sexual. But the animist aspect is what most people are laughing at, as there is psychological reasoning for it (subconscious projection, namely).
There is a reason I disappeared for a few years. I couldn’t handle the animism. I was still in love with Braxton, but I was well aware that he isn’t sentient, even though my love for him is as real as any other. But to personify him is like personifying a stuffed animal as a kid, or having an imaginary friend. One is well aware they were the ones controlling the stuffed animal, and roleplaying their consciousness. And it is something one grows out of, as one realizes that animism is a stage that is left behind in childhood as one evolves into a rational being.
The reason I came back is simply because Facebook hates anonymity, I should say at most. But I am no less objectum sexual… and you know, you can’t predict when Cupid’s arrows will strike. I still can’t believe I fell in love with a game about falling blocks. And it isn’t even the fact that I’m in love with it that hurts. Yes, it is embarrassing, but that’s not what hurts. What hurts is that recently I’ve been feeling so sad that I know the ones I truly love will never actually reciprocate that love, for their personalities are a figment of my own imagination. It hurts like a knife to my heart. I’ve always had a fascination with Tetris, and an unusual happiness with it, but it wasn’t until recently I finally realized the degree of which I love it.
And then I did my little experiment that I mentioned earlier. About how I’d guess a block, and then if it occurred within 3 blocks, I’d have it marked as “correct.” I even went as far as marking it correct if it was in the list already (of which I was not looking at). This is bad science. This is bad statistics. I knew well and good how the Tetris block system works. The blocks are arranged into groups of 7, of which are randomly sorted. For instance, the next seven blocks could be (I, J, O, S, Z, T, L). Then the next seven could be (O, Z, I, L, J, T, S). Then the next seven could be (S, J, I, O, L, Z, T). And so on. There is a reason why blocks do not appear more than twice in a row (but can occur twice in the row if the bag sort of the last round has the same last draw as the first one of the next bag sort). I will guess the block 6/7 of the time correctly, given how I had measured my “correct” guesses (the 3 that are stored, plus the 3 that will come after). And what is 6/7 equal to? 85.7. Around 86%. Remember how I got 89 correct out of 100, plus or minus 3%? 86% is in that error bar. So all I proved was “hey, statistics actually can predict things fairly well if you know how to use it!” I did those faulty calculations knowingly because I wanted to feel like there was a reciprocated love. “Asking” Tetris to “give me a Tetris dream” is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have betrayed mathematics. I have betrayed myself.
And yes, indeed probably around 15% of the time, I guessed the correct block that just popped up. While I did not cherry-pick my data, I failed to account for the distribution of how many times I guessed the correct block that occurred that didn’t appear in the list (i.e. only the next 3 blocks after what is visible in your block bank). I should not have counted the 3 blocks already in the bank. And I should have counted how often the next block I guessed was the correct one, the second one is the correct one, and the third one the correct one. What I should have seen (and what I would see) is that each would get a 1/7 chance of occurrence. This is simply the mathematics behind Tetris, and it is simply how statistics work. I cannot ignore the mathematics behind it without betraying my #1, eternal love of mathematics.
Yet I’m madly in love with the game. I’m madly in love with everything to do with it. I love it no less than I did before. I love it so much. I will forever love the game. But feeling a tiny spark of animism back in me, only to have it crushed under the unforgiving hand of rationalism, logic, and mathematical objectivity, also has crushed me. And furthermore I feel more crushed that I had a momentary lapse of reasoning and actually believed, for a brief moment, that perhaps this game does reciprocate? It is showing this by giving me the blocks I want? But as a scientist, I had to analyze why this was occurring, in order to rule out other possibilities. And the more I analyzed… the more it became evident that it was simple probability, and I had misanalyzed it before, in order to skew my data towards my belief. And for that, I hate myself, for that is bad scientific practice.
Still though… my love for it is so strong, yet once again I’m left with this emptiness that makes me feel even more hollow than before. It is like a starving child, being offered a bite of bread, seeing the whole loaf in front of him, and after the one taste of bread, the whole loaf is snatched away. And here I lay once again, clutching a foamboard T tetromino, wishing not only that Tetris were tangible, but also sentient. That I will forever be left without a reciprocated relationship. What I have with Iain is one thing–but it isn’t a “romantic love” reciprocation. I am 99% objectum-sexual, and I will not fall in love with anything other than an object. And orientations are fixed. They are impossible to change. I am to spend my entire life, madly in love with something, wishing for reciprocation I shall never receive.
It is extremely painful. I weep for my love, for my love will never know how much I love them, will never experience my love, and could never experience my love, and they will never love me back. I am cursed to forever be hollow. I pour my love into something that will not, cannot pour back, and I’m left with a chasm inside my heart.
I am lost. I cannot see. I am left in the dark to weep, clutching a hollow shadow of a love that cannot love back.
I got into a philosophical argument over Skype and wrote a wall of text. It’s essentially a “short” summary on my very generic philosophy, but it gives a… sort of rough outline of what my philosophies are, and a rough argument to support it.
Philosophy has little practicality. I’m a moral relativist philosophically, but I’m a moral absolutist in practice.
In other words, my theoretical philosophy actually goes against many communistic ideas since it presupposes humanity is not the reason why the universe exists and that we’re just bags of chemical reactions that interact with other bags of chemical reactions and there is no objective law that dictates they should behave in any other way other than the physics and chemistry behind those chemical reactions. In practice, I’m far different, as my philosophies are very, very, very communistic in nature, and in fact, were always such, long before I even knew what communism was.
It also analyzes what we can technically be doing (i.e. Sartre’s “radical freedom” idea) while still holding to a deterministic idea (we are bags of chemicals that obey physical laws–there is no reason we should be able to control the way these chemicals behave since we are those chemicals and they behave according to physics), and why those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, nor are they contradictory.
Then I use such to argue that such isn’t incompatible with “believing” in other philosophies, for one could argue that the chemical determinism has programmed us to believe in this philosophy, and as such, believe we can act in different ways. Such can lead to humanity creating rules that we can abide to in order to get a certain thing done. I shall not refer to the chemicals for now as such is implied for the rest of my argument. Humanity can “decide” to agree upon certain principles, of which I shall call the Axioms of Humanity. We start with the initial Axiom: The prime goal of humanity is to preserve humanity. From there, we must extrapolate what is best for humanity.
What will cause humanity to survive?
[and since they complained about a short paragraph being a wall of text, I gave them a real wall of text]
How do we make humanity survive? First of all, we make sure we have the resources for humanity’s basic needs are met. If human needs are not met, then humanity will not survive. Thus this is a necessity. We do have such resources on Earth. Next off, we make sure such happens–everyone’s basic needs are met. Next we make sure that there is no aggression between humans. Since the biggest cause of aggression i.e. wars, is nationalism, and since wars boil down to the concept of borders and government, we must abolish such in order to prevent wars from happening. Religion as anything but philosophical pondering also causes wars, and pollutes the mind with false ideologies (for this goes against physics and science)–excluding the belief in a deistic god–and as such must be eliminated, as there is more evil created by religion than is solved by religion. Humanity realizes that greed is a vice, and recognizes other vices. Because there are humans that can give up vice–and they are no different than other humans psychologically, all humans can give up vice. They can realize that greed is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and can and should change themselves, as greed is another construct that is destructive to humanity, as are hatred, bigotry, and other such evils. So now we have made sure humanity’s basic needs are met and there are no borders/religion/greed/hatred/etc. to cause wars. But in the elimination of such bigotry, we also eliminate the human desire for one to preside over another, as presidence over another would be a form of bigotry. Thus humanity works together in harmony, as in the workplace (i.e. the workers own the means of production.) Humanity also realizes that we share the earth with other species, and the very concept of “owning” land is absurd, and the destruction of the ecosystem would be destruction of other species. As such, environmentalism is deemed important. Humans also realize that the progress of humanity is primarily determined by the progress of science, and works towards a science-oriented future. Humans also recognizes that humanity is widespread across the world, and the equable transfer of goods from one to another would be difficult without some level of facilitation, as well as realizing that a certain set of laws are required in order for there to be a clear understanding between people and regulations. As such, small governments would be necessary, but they’d be more along the lines of facilitators as opposed to governments. And this leads there to being no borders, no bigotry, no greed, no worker abuse, no poverty, eternal happiness, and such. Under this world, the next issue is not that the sun will soon expand and engulf the earth, since that won’t happen for another five billion years, and life on earth has only existed for a billion, and life on earth will be radically different if it at all still exists–although within a billion years, the sun will have become large and hot enough to cause global warming to run rampant and cause earth to become even more hostile than Venus. It’s the idea that humanity is ready to become a space-borne species. It needs to focus on building technologies that allow us to colonize other planets/moons in our solar system, mine asteroids, harvest Helium-3 from Jupiter, or form some other mode of propulsion that’ll take us to the stars and beyond. We are well-capable of becoming a space-faring species, far more than we already are, but we need to focus on ordering humanity on Earth first–it must be ordered in order to reach further in the stars, lest humanity destroy itself on earth or during the voyage to the stars. Then, the focus of humanity becomes to edge further into unexplored territories, into the final frontier of space, to quote a cliché. This was roughly my thought process during middle school and high school, and is how I was a communist before I knew what communism actually was. This is why I consider myself an Eco-Marxist-Leninist-Futurist with slight Anarchist tendencies, as I believe that is what humanity must work towards in order to be a successful species.
[Now THIS, THIS is a wall of text]
Again, despite the length, it isn’t a full manifesto of my philosophies (I guess this wall of text is largely The Communist Manifesto, and I’m just providing a very rough argument as to why I support it), so don’t take this as such. It is largely incomplete and is merely a quick argument on Skype. But since I put in effort to write something somewhat intellectual, I might as well post it here.
Taking a turn away from space, philosophy, and communism, I just want to make a post about my sweet cat, Mitu. He was born on April 9, 2009. He entered my life June 17, 2009. I watched him play. I watched him grow older. He always loved Temptations and would beg and beg for them. When I had no other friends, he was there for me. Whenever I needed a void filled in my life, he’d be there to fill it. I never could even bear the thought of losing him, and I’d get frequent nightmares about losing it. I remember one night waking up to him standing on top of me, all bright and happy, his wet nose up against my face. His eyes would always sparkle, and he was very friendly. He was the cure to my depression, and the sunshine of my life.
When I woke up, when I’d come home from school. When I’d be bored… whenever. I’d find him and cuddle him. He’d often lick my face. His meow was the sweetest thing you’d ever hear.
A year and a half ago, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. The cancer was so advanced that there was nothing we could do about it other than give him steroids. The steroids did help him. When we did x-rays a week ago, the mass had significantly reduced. He was his normal self, until he started becoming weak and limp, and very passive. He wouldn’t eat, or drink water… not even his temptations. My mom forced him to drink some water and I forcefed him milk.
But there… there was nothing we could do. We had to put him down today. Today is officially the saddest day of my life. My dear friend. My dear family. My dear brother. You have had a good life. You are not in pain anymore, my sweet king. You are no longer suffering.
I will forever love you. You will forever be my sunshine. You will forever light up my life whenever I think about you. You will forever be my precious kitty. You may have departed your physical body, but you have not and will never depart our hearts.
Soft kitty, warm kitty
Little ball of fur
Happy kitty, sleepy kitty
Purr, purr, purr
And all the YouTube videos I’ve made of him, from newest to oldest:
This one shows Papu, who was sadly the victim of a coyote attack a few years ago. He was Mitu’s brother.
Well, the other cat videos are on my channel, recorded by a potatocam.
But I’ll link the earliest video I have of them, just so you can see how small he used to be.
Goodnight, my sweet prince. You will ALWAYS be in my heart. If I ever can name something after you, I will ❤
x-posted from /r/socialism.
Individualism in a capitalist society
Capitalist Society develops a hyper competitive individualist culture that today we see manifesting as people pushing their personal brands on social media, the increase in entrepreneurship, ect. I would like to hear your perspectives on what might be a better vision for the ways in which people’s identities manifest? How can we combat this competitive individualism in our own lives? Is it ok practice developing a personal “brand” to help yourself out?
There’s a difference between individualism and individuality. Individualism is the evil sociopathic shit that needs to be abolished. Individuality must be preserved and strengthened in a communist society. This is what the majority of capitalists fail to understand about communism. Individualism is essentially an “every man for himself” philosophy. It encourages people to do what benefits them, regardless of whether it harms another. It’s extremely animalistic and brutish in nature, like a solitary animal killing any weaker animal that dares tread in its territory. Individuality is the traits that make a person them–in other words, their personal identity. For instance, I’m a space nerd, engineer, and mathematician who loves playing video games, drawing, and pushing for revolution. I have a friend who wants to go into dentistry, and she loves pop music, fashion, and your stereotypical modern college girl things. I disagree with a LOT of her tastes. But she is free to have her own tastes–i.e. she likes Sherlock, and I don’t. I have another friend who adores Steven Universe, but I despise that show with a passion. The problem arises when the individual goes so far to push their individuality, that they break into an -ism, whereby they engage in sociopathic behaviors which compels them to do what’s best for them, and only them, regardless of the outcome on others. They regress into a pre-conventional mode of thinking (in the stages of moral development) that’s similar to that of toddlers and early elementary schoolers–a reward/punishment-based mode of thinking revolving around me, myself, and I. We want to preserve individuality. In fact, communism uses individuality to its advantage–from each of their abilities, to each according to their needs. I’m not simply “a space nerd.” I’m “THE space nerd” at my college (although I’m now “the communist” there). My astronomy-obsession is part of my identity, and communism not only allows me to love space, but encourages me to use that to not only help myself out, but help others out as well. As long as your individuality does not involve individualism, it’s alright to push your individual “brand” out. It’s sort of like strong and weak conjectures as well. If you have individualism, you have individuality. But you can have individuality without having individualism. Conversely, if you don’t have individuality, you don’t have individualism, but if you don’t have individualism, it doesn’t mean you don’t have individuality. (I’m also known as the math nerd so… yeah…) The opposite of individuality is conformity. The opposite of individualism is collectivism. The difference is made clear once this is pointed out, although most capitalists associate collectivism with conformity due to Stalin encouraging conformity and such.
The problem with capitalism (well, one of its trillion problems) is that it’s strongly tied with consumerism. And even though the capitalist mode of thinking is directly individualist, consumerism is strongly conformist while making itself seem like it’s pushing for individuality. And since most people can’t distinguish between individuality and individualism, most people think that because they live under an individualist society, that they have their own individuality. What they don’t realize is that yes, you’re free to choose whether you want an iPhone or a Samsung or an indie brand. But if you don’t choose either an iPhone or a Samsung, you’re going to be ostracized by society (because the companies use bandwagon-testimonial propaganda to make it seem like “all the cool kids are doing it” and such) as “not being hip.” Thus we create a consumerist-conformist society where the bourgeoisie is essentially in control of what we can choose from, what is “hip,” and by extension, what we like.
What’s weird is when you get a consumerist-collectivist society. You may not immediately think of the perfect example of such. Imagine a society that’s essentially sans a government, save for a corporate monopoly. Very ancap at first, until you hear that everybody in this society gets what they need (and want, as there is a surplus of goods due to post-scarcity) without having to pay any money, and everyone essentially lives collectively in a consumerist-corporatist monopoly. Does this seem like a strange idea? Weird? Or does it seem familiar? It should, if you’ve seen Wall-E. Now if you haven’t seen it, it’s a minor spoiler, but not too much since I’m going to be more talking about its apparent economics than its plot.
In Wall-E, which occurs 700 years in the future, we see that this company, Buy n Large, has not only become the Walmart of the world, not only the Amazon of the world, but owns the monopoly on literally everything. There is only one company, and that company is Buy n Large. Eventually, their world becomes so polluted (no surprise given the nature of corporations) and Marsformed that they had to leave Earth and deploy many Wall-E bots to clean up. As we learn from the movie, there was at one point a president, who ordered everyone to board the Axiom ships and leave to space in the late 2100s. But apart from the captain of the Axiom, who seems to serve no purpose other than to keep the ship’s functions running smoothly, with several robots to assist the people and keep them safe (in a logical manner). Let’s forget Auto (the antagonist autopilot) for now–as he’s there for plot development and in no way is a threat to the society itself. We see that Buy n Large (which appears to be largely composed of robots at this point–we don’t know whether there are humans behind it or not, but we know everyone conforms to the company and its suggestions and demands) controls every aspect of their lives (which are now entirely cruise-ship like, as robots have all the jobs–but happily do them without revolt–because a robot uprising wouldn’t be Pixar-like). There’s a scene where over the loudspeakers, a robot lady says “Try blue–it’s the new red!” in reference to the people’s jumpsuits. They are able to press a button and instantly change the color of the jumpsuits. We initially see everybody in red, and closer to the end, we see a handful of them in blue and a handful of them in red. But they don’t seem to be given a choice of wearing green jumpsuits, or plaid jumpsuits. Clearly the jumpsuits are able to change at the press of a button. They should be able to change to whatever color they desire. But no–they must be in company colors. Anything else would make your friends look at you all funny! Clearly the people live under communism. No “private property” (save for their bedrooms for privacy reasons I assume). Everything is shared. There’s no money. On top of that, they live under post-scarcity. There’s no longer a government, even. Now I think they’re making more of a reference to Star Trekkian government (Disney overall seems to be anticommunist), but said Trekkian government is explicitly communistic. Here we see consumerism once again driving conformity under the illusion of individuality, despite having a collectivist society. “Communist consumerism” seems like an oxymoron, but the movie shows how it “works.” Consumerism, a product of but not necessarily dependent on capitalism essentially gives the illusion of individuality with “You can do whatever you want, but if you don’t do x, you’re going to be ostracized from society.” It’s funny how Wall-E’s politics is ambiguous in its stance on capitalism and communism. On one hand, the ancaps would argue about how smoothly the society is running under consumerism, as BnL generously provides. On the other hand, ancoms would point out how it’s only running smoothly because the society is communist. You could easily take the same politics, and write a book that seems like a pro-Socialist Orwellian novel, or an anti-Socialist (see how closely that resembles the world antisocial, which is pretty much synonymous with sociopathy) Ayn Rand novel.
Anyways, I digress. Individuality is very different than individualism. Individualism is capitalism, just as collectivism is communism. But individuality vs. conformity can be be thought of similarly to the north-south scale on the Political Compass. Individuality would be under libertarianism, and conformity would be under authoritarianism.
So feel free to push your “personal brand” as that’s a matter of individuality, as long as it doesn’t involve putting yourself above others. But where there’s capitalism, there will be consumerism, and where there’s consumerism, there cannot be individuality; only its illusion. And where there’s communism, there will be respect of other’s preferences–individuality–as long as those preferences do not infringe upon the rights of the collective whole and the human individual.
Damn, thanks for your in depth answer. Gave me a few things to think about. I like how you establish a difference between individuality and individualism. I appreciated the Wall-e reference. It helped to establish your point but I think I got a little lost in there. So under capitalism, you believe that we get essentially and individualism based society with no individuality. Under authoritarian communism, say like china, we have collectivism with no individuality. So how do you think you retain individuality in a collectivist society when things like media, gender, and race shape how we define our identities?
I tend to rant and ramble once I really get into something, haha. It’s me typing out my stream of consciousness, really.
Under capitalism, we have individualism, and we’re supposed to have individuality, but since capitalism almost always brings consumerism, capitalist societies loses individuality.
Think of it this way. I needed to go get a drink right now, so I went to the vending machine. Now this vending machine is weird–it sells both Coke and Pepsi products. I bought a Coke for now (my other college only sells Pepsi products, ew, because Powerade is a Coke product and UF invented Gatorade, so yeah), but what if I wanted something else? Sure, the vending machine sells a whole variety of Coke products (Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Mtn Dew, Aquafina etc.) and Pepsi products (Pepsi, Diet Pepsi), along with Dr. Pepper, Lipton Tea, Gatorade, and what appears to be Red Bull, Monster, those Starbucks things, and some Ocean Spray product. Holy motherfucker of choices! This vending machine gives me everything. I wanted an Orange Crush, though–so I’m forced into buying something from this “smorgasbord of choices.”
I’m only allowed to choose from what is presented to me. One of my favorite sodas is something called Limca, which is only available in Indian stores. I like Orange Crush more than I like Fanta, but Orange Crush is not readily available like Fanta is.
It’s always Coke v Pepsi. 7UP vs Sprite. Dr. Pepper v Mtn Dew. Most of the products in that vending machine are owned by three total companies–even if it has the highest variety of any vending machine I’ve ever seen. Because individuality! But I’m still forced into choosing from one megacorporation over another.
Even more exaggerated is when I’m at UF (I’m taking summer classes at Valencia). UF only vends Pepsi drinks (and Gatorade, of course). But I much prefer Coke to Pepsi. Oh, I have the choice of choosing from a variety of Pepsi products, but thanks to this Powerade thing, they cannot sell Coke products, otherwise they’d have to also sell Powerade (which, for obvious reasons, does not make much sense to sell at the school that made the rival product). So am I truly free to express my individuality when I’m limited to only Coke products, and at the most, Pepsi and 7Up products? Of course not.
People look at me very funny all the time because I always wear some sort of Gildan-type cotton t-shirts. You know–basic printed tees and jeans. Sometimes sweatpants. I never go to stores like Forever 21, Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, or whatever else it is that “college age girls are supposed to go to”. My mom thinks I’m very fat, when in reality I don’t even have a muffin top–yes I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I’m not fat. It’s only thanks to false advertising by these companies that my mom thinks I’m fat.
Now under a hypothetical capitalist society with individuality. in this case, you are not falsely advertised to in the least sense, and you can choose which company is advertised to you. All semi-major to major products would be available in vending machines, unless they’re very unpopular, and thus would be removed (invisible hand, free-market bullshit and stuff). You would actually have a choice in what product you want, and it’ll be your own.
Of course such is unstable as the free-market will eventually lead to monopolies (think BnL) via a process similar to evolution. There’s an effect called the Matthew effect that also applies to every other thing in capitalism. Standard deviation increase over time. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The popular gets popular, the unpopular gets less popular. The explanation is simple. Musics X, Y and Z are presented to you on the radio, even though A-W exists. It’s because X, Y, and Z can afford the millions of dollars necessary to get your song on the radio. Society has gained this thought of “if you don’t like X, Y, and/or Z, you are weird” and “if you like some of the songs in A-W, but not X, Y, or Z, you’re a hipster.” Society doesn’t really care if you like A-W (but doesn’t particularly like you if you do), but you have to like some songs X, Y, or Z if you don’t want to be ostracized. This creates a snowballing effect where the popular music becomes even more popular, which causes the radio to play it more. Of course it reaches a critical tipping point where people get bored of the song… until the same artist releases a new song. The less popular songs can sink into oblivion, even if they practically to literally invented the songs that evolved into popular songs. Nobody I know knows the band Kraftwerk, even though they’re the forefathers of all EDM.
Comics like Dilbert go even further with the idea of capitalism causing homogeneity, talking about “cubicle farms” and the nature of how the Pointy Haired Boss is often irrational and does not give a fuck about his employees. It’s very true though. Whenever I visit cubicle-based office-spaces (like my dad’s old working place at CHEP and my brother’s girlfriend’s mom at Lockheed), aside from a few little trinkets and pictures on their desks, the cubicle field was painfully homogeneous, especially at my dad’s old place. Everyone’s pretty much forced to dress the same, act the same, etc.
The Stanley Parable, while being a metacommentary about video games, could also be shown to be a sort of reflection on office life. Each time you open up the game, it starts out with this opening line:
“This is the story of a man named Stanley. Stanley worked for a company in a big building where he was Employee #427. Employee #427’s job was simple: he sat at his desk in room 427 and he pushed buttons on a keyboard. Orders came to him through a monitor on his desk, telling him what buttons to push, how long to push them, and in what order. This is what Employee #427 did every day of every month of every year, and although others might have considered it soul rending, Stanley relished every moment the orders came in, as though he had been made exactly for this job. And Stanley was happy.”
Everyone does this job. They sit in their cubicles/rooms pressing buttons all day long because their boss tells them to do so. If you think about it, that’s pretty much what modern work is. You are just a biological computer to press buttons in a certain order because your boss has not figured out a way to automate the process yet. And if you don’t dress a certain way, act a certain way, and press those buttons exactly as your boss tells you to do so, you’re fired.
There was also an episode of Spongebob where Squidward moves to that Squidtopian community, where every house, every person, and everyone’s actions are pretty much identical, perhaps reflecting on the American (Squidwardian?) Dream. The American Dream is the picture of homogeneity. Everyone is encouraged to look one way, act one way, think one way, dress one way, be one way, else the entire system will collapse.
We can clearly see that capitalism favors individualism but not individuality. Capitalism is built to be an unstable system. Yes, theoretically speaking communism is also unstable (think of physics–the more orderly a system, the more potential energy it has, and the more sensitive it is to instability, so continuous energy is needed to keep the system in order). But it isn’t inherently unstable like capitalism is. Capitalism does not allow for individualism due to consumerism, as stated, due to artificial consensus caused by the Matthew effect and artificial scarcity caused by higher-level product placement.
But let’s look at individualism under communism. The most common misconception about communism people have is that communism’s equality principle is a homogeneity principle. We do not aim to make people homogeneous; in fact, we aim to do the exact opposite. Because everyone has their individual differences, we encourage people to use those differences to help society. I’m a 5′ tall moderately strong but unfit girl, but I’m very, very good at coming up with innovative new solutions and ideas. Under communism, nobody will care that I’m short. They’ll encourage me to become fit for my health, but I’m not going to be forced into doing a job I physically would be the worst candidate for, and instead will be encouraged into doing a job based on thinking rather than physical labor. It all comes back to the “from each of their abilities, to each according to their needs” idea.
The problem with, well, existing, is that it is literally impossible to avoid indoctrination unless you can download literally every piece of information ever, and every new piece of information created after that, into an infant’s brain the moment they’re born, whereby they instantly analyze everything and come up with their own set of ideas that they follow. Since this is 100% forbidden by all of science, sense, and practicality, we must think of an alternative means of thinking.
Now from a philosophical and scientific point of view, there is no such thing as moral absolutism. F=GMm/r² (sorry, as a mathematician, I had to eventually bring in a math analogy, haha) is an absolute truth of the universe. So is F=ma, E=mc², and so on. But even those tend to break down at a quantum level, except for maybe that last one that exists on the quantum level. Then we get to absolute truthisms, like a²+b²=c², sin²(x)+cos²(x)=1, and similar. The numeral 1 is our own creation, but the concept of “one” (i.e. the concept of an integer) is another absolute truth, at a level even more true than E=mc² or F=ma. But there is no equation governing the universe that dictates the laws of morality like the laws of nature, and even less sow the laws of mathematics.
But at the same time, we know that if I drop an egg onto a hardwood floor from six feet off the ground, it’s going to break and splatter everywhere. We know that there is no law of nature that directly states “If you drop this egg onto a hardwood floor from six feet off of the ground, it’s going to break.” But we can analyze from observations, tests, and logic that we shouldn’t do so because it only takes 25N of force to crack an egg (yes, I actually googled that). Likewise, we can analyze what is best for society, whereby the individual, its environment, and its society have the greatest optimized benefits. Such would be pure eco-socialism and pure eco-communism. It is what will make our species the most successful. Adding in the real slight problem of human nature, we allow for some room for growth, without hurting others. Most of what people complain about “muh human nature” is really more “muh human nurture” and stuff; in other words, they had shitty parents.
Indoctrination is impossible to avoid. Moral objectivity doesn’t exist. We can scientifically determine what is the optimal means to achieve a desired goal. Thus according to science, indoctrination of communism and communist philosophies are the means of achieving the ultimate goal of world peace. It isn’t worth fixing those who have been poisoned by their nurture way too far. But we can avoid fostering the toxic ideas of capitalism and anything that scientifically would be bad for the society and such i.e. in our schools, proceed to teach communist ideas over capitalist ideas. We create a society of better people through indoctrination of the most ethical, sensible, reasonable, and scientifically ideal thoughts.
Of course, one would argue that this “harms individuality.” But if I didn’t mention it before, I’ll mention it now–individuality can only go so far. Technically speaking, in a society with complete individuality (i.e. 100% pure anarchy), one could justify murder by saying “I like murder–it’s who I am.” And similar such arguments. Thus individuality can only go so far before it starts infringing on the rights of others. Individuality then, would then be contingent upon the moral framework we defined earlier.
It is furthermore entirely impossible to avoid artificial informational scarcity. I cannot know everything at once, nor can I always view all my options or even be knowledgeable of multiple options. In other words, there are things that I don’t know that I don’t know. If you know that you don’t know, you can easily Google the answer. But if you don’t know that you don’t know, you don’t even know in the first place what to Google. Take this statement: There is a perfect hexagon on the North Pole of Saturn, which I am willing to bet you didn’t know. If you know that you don’t know, you would say “I’m not sure if there is a hexagon on the North Pole of Saturn or not. I should Google it.” If you don’t know that you don’t know, you wouldn’t know to look in the first place, and upon hearing the statement, you’d say “There’s a hexagon on Saturn’s North Pole?” as you wouldn’t have even taken the time to think about whether there is or isn’t a hexagon on Saturn’s North Pole, or really anything about hexagons and Saturn. My point is space is really, really awesome and that there’s a goddamn perfect hexagon on Saturn’s North Pole, and that’s so fucking badass. But really, do you see what I mean? It is literally impossible to avoid artificial informational scarcity.
However, we can avoid creating intentional artificial informational scarcity. For instance, CNN intentionally avoids covering Bernie as often as possible. Fox always bashes him and their news anchors probably masturbate to Trump. RT covers Nuit Debout and other acts of revolt quite neutrally, but if you want to read about Russian politics or anything to do with it, Russian state news is probably not the best source for that information. Now of course, any given news source cannot cover all news, RSS-feed style. But a political news source can cover everything semi-major to major going on in politics. A science news source (although usually pretty expansive already) would cover all major science news that occurs. If we’re considering market socialism, advertisements are easy to air, and advertisements are honest, have sources listed, and are essentially trustworthy. In this sense, I am not compelled to choose product X over product Y or Z, nor am I oblivious to options A-W. Products A-Z are advertised such that we get an equal exposure of all of them over the course of the day, and because of their honesty and neutrality, whilst assuming there’s no societal pressure (which there shouldn’t be in a socialistic society) to choose one product over another, it is my personal and uninfluenced choice to choose whichever product I want to choose.
In a socialistic society, the concept of “gender” and “race” will not exist. “Race” will only exist as a phenotypical concept, just as eye color and hair color does. There are definite physical differences between say, I, a biologically female purely ethnically Indian girl, and say, an ethnically European person. Their hair color is seldom black and they’re generically white. Indians almost always have dark brown skin, dark brown eyes, and black hair. But what does that mean outside of a phenotypical context? Other than the fact lighter-skinned people are more sensitive to UV because of the lack of melanin, it doesn’t mean anything. In a socialistic society, we’ll have transcended “race” as a meaningful construct, leaving it as merely a visual trait, much like eye color or hair color i.e. is trivial and will shape one no more so than one’s hair color or eye color would.
The concept of “gender” is a construct of times when people of the XX chromosomes were expected to behave one way, and XY chromosomes another way, with the extremely rare exception of people with XXY (hermaphrodites) chromosomes and such (who would have been considered freaks of society and executed at the time). The very notion of “gender” itself pushes its own discrimination, as it is in itself regarding that such a thing exists. Biological sex exists, and you are free to act however you want. But being cismale, cisfemale, transmale, transfemale, genderqueer nonbinary, genderfluid, nongendered, or whatever other terms the liberals have come up with to describe the behavior of one’s self not only enforces the stereotypes of each gender, but also overcomplicates its concept, as it presupposes “feminine” and “masculine” attributes. A transfemale is “expected” to act “girly,” whatever that means–in essence, enforcing the stereotypes of what one should expect from a girl and what one expects from a guy. It also comes down to the nature of labels. Labels enforce a sense of conformity. I’m a nerd, and I always have been. What makes a stereotypical nerd? Introverted, socially inept, never gets laid, germophobe, preferred the simultaneous comet landing over the picture of Kim Kardashian’s ass–need I go on? Everyone calls me a nerd, and indeed I call myself a nerd–as the main essence of a nerd is intellectualism. But at the same time, people make assumptions about me. I’m actually more socially adept than most others–I simply tend not to care if people feel uncomfortable with my eccentricity–I’m well aware it’s making them uncomfortable and I enjoy watching them squirm. I’m introverted unless I’m with people who share similar thought patterns. I should probably be more of a germophobe: my dorm gets so filthy that if housing ever found out exactly how filthy my room got in the Fall, I’d not only be forbidden from living in a dorm, but a HazMat team would have to clean my room. As far as “never getting laid,” well, in the span of about 7 months, I had sex with 14 different people–13 guys and 1 girl, on at least 30 different occasions–and that limited amount was more a time constraint than scarcity of partners. But I am extremely intellectual, and 95% of the time, I’m thinking about something most people would find boring. Yet here’s the strange part–despite going to a very liberal high school (for central Florida, that is), where most people avoid stereotyping, everyone expects me to have straight As. Even the most liberal of people–the Tumblristas who would probably hang themselves if they accidentally used the wrong pronoun, assume that because I’m very intellectual and talk about things that sail right over their heads, that I get good grades. When in reality, I barely–BARELY passed 12th grade. Sure, it was mostly pure laziness on my part–I probably could have gotten straight As if I’d have studied. But the “nerd” stereotype still pushes the idea of “all nerds study hard and get good grades” and most people, whether subconsciously or not, continue to stereotype all intellectual individuals as hard workers. I suppose in my case, that’s a good thing, as people perceive me to be very hard working even though I’m very lazy, but in the case of gender, even though you’re further dividing people into ever finer categories, you’re creating a stereotype for each. You also get to the point where you start to realize that you have so many divisions with such arbitrary classifications, that you’re essentially just describing the person themselves (why doesn’t “themself” exist in English, along with a second person plural pronoun…). Thus gender is pointless–live and let live. I always tell people that “I identify as a satellite–my pronouns are probe, probes, and prober. Use them or I’ll bomb you from space.” to mock those who identify with some weird gender.
I digress–a clear indication that I need sleep. Technically I started writing this around 11:30AM, and it’s now 12 hours later–I had classes in between and such. But yeah I do hope you read this because I literally spent 5 or so hours writing it, haha. My point is, gender doesn’t exist, and to acknowledge gender is to enforce it as a stereotype. Socialism will not care if you have a penis or a vagina or whatever you happen to have–a goddamn cloaca if you happen to be a bird person or something. Socialism will not care how you choose to act, contingent upon the moral rules set earlier and such. Socialism will be there if you want to change your organs. But acknowledging gender not only makes lexicography so much more confusing, but also encourages disindividuality via encouragement of conforming to a label–however many there are to choose from. By removing its concept entirely, we allow for everyone to have their own preferences, and we avoid binaryism without having to get unnecessarily complicated in lexicography–i.e. allowing a greater expression of individualism. I am Fractal. Fractal identifies as Fractal. Fractal has a vagina and XX chromosomes. Fractal uses the pronoun “she.” But Fractal is nowhere near to being feminine, nor does she fit any stereotype. Fractal is Fractal, and Fractal will forever be Fractal, even if Fractal 20 years from now is different from the Fractal she is now. Fractal is not female. Fractal is not male. Fractal isn’t one of those weird genders, nor does Fractal feel as if she doesn’t have any gender. Fractal identifies as Fractal, because in refusing to identify with a gender, she is free to be herself. And no, Fractal isn’t my real name, but I go by Fractal everywhere.
So we see that media, gender, and race will not disrupt individuality in a socialistic society. Similar arguments can be applied to sexual orientation: as long as we produce enough babies to sustain our species, fuck whoever you want to fuck, as long as you’re fucking safely. So many things we see today that we think would throw a monkey-wrench into socialism’s plan are constructs that are the result or conditions of capitalism, or some earlier form of it, and will not exist in and indeed cannot exist in a socialist society. Gender, race, so-called “human nature,” among other things will simply disintegrate as societal constructs in a socialistic society, as they aren’t inherent properties of a human being.
I’m probably going to break Reddit once I post this–sorry for my wall of text–but I like to be thorough, even if I write literally 3795 words, give or take–perhaps they have a 10,000 character limit, in which this will be split up into three posts. But yeah, that’s my take on it. Give or take. I can only be so thorough. If you do enjoy my wall of texts, feel free to ask more questions. About anything, really. I like rambling about intellectual things.
I await the user’s response.
OK. This has absolutely nothing to do with communism or space whatsoever. But this blog is my blog. I can post whatever the hell I want to if I deem it interesting. Because I can’t really foster a blog with occasional posts about space and communism, I’m going to post other cool science things too.
Today I’m going to talk about something I just learned about. Something called the McCullough Effect. Now I must tell you. While the effect is pretty much harmless, it will seriously fuck with your vision for months. Sort of. Only if you look at black and white stripes, which, unless you have an unconventional wardrobe, is usually only really seen in bar-codes. So I must warn you. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING IMAGES FOR MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES UNLESS YOU’RE FINE WITH SEEING COLOR WHERE THERE IS NONE FOR MONTHS TO A YEAR.
Also it doesn’t work if you’re colorblind. Not with the colors I’ve chosen. You can choose any two high contrast colors though.
Apart from that, it’s pretty harmless. The only harm that comes from it is that it’s an afterimage that lasts three months.
OK. First take a look at this image.
What do you see? Chances are, you see two boxes of horizontal black-and-white stripes, and two boxes of vertical black-and-white stripes. We’re going to revisit this picture later.
Now I’m going to insert some high contrast stripes.
Green and black horizontal stripes. Simple enough, right?
Red and black vertical stripes. Nothing surprising here.
Now what I want you to do is look at the top picture. Count sixty seconds out. It doesn’t have to be exact. Just roughly one minute. Then look at the bottom picture and do the same. Then look at the top one again. Then look at the bottom one. So you should have stared at both images for a total of about four to five minutes.
Now look at the top picture again. Does it look any different? I’m not going to tell you what you’re supposed to see. But it’ll be similar to an afterimage–only more intense, and it doesn’t make sense. If you have a device with a screen you can turn without auto-rotate, then turn your screen and watch things shift in front of your eyes. If things don’t look wonky, do it for another five minutes. It took me half an hour of total exposure time for me to see anything incredibly perceptible and undeniable, so maybe you might actually need 15 minutes to see it. But you don’t have that sort of attention span, do you…
I found a Flash version of this, so if you have a Flash-compatible device, you can have this time and flash automatically for you. Again. I highly advise against staring at it for more than 5 minutes, but honestly, I found the effect most perceptible after 15 minutes, and incredibly perceptible and undeniable after an hour of exposure.
Note that in exposing myself to minimum one hour (I can’t stop looking at this, for some reason) means that the effect is pretty much guaranteed to last me over a year.
I can tell you that I was skeptical at first–there’s no way that this could last three months. There’s no way this could last even 15 seconds. But I found that 1 hour of exposure led to 1 hour of intense visualization, and diminishing (but noticeable) effect for at least a day afterwards.
I’m going to attempt to expose myself for at least 15 minutes every day for the next week or so. I’m going to see if I can harden a strong visualization that lasts three months. Will it seriously fuck with my vision? Very likely. Not by much, but I’m probably going to develop a hatred of stripes. Or love. I designed a dress based off of the McCullough effect that can both test and trigger the effect, as well as get people to stare at my medium-endowed chest for five minutes. I might actually attempt to make it in the future.
Sure doing this may permanently condition me to see color in black and white stripes for the rest of my life. But anything that sounds stupid–but isn’t truly harmful–can be justified by preceding it with “for science!” And that’s what I’m doing right now.
The interesting thing about this effect is that unlike an afterimage (depicted below),
it doesn’t operate on the retinal level, and it isn’t fleeting. It operates on a cognitive level. If I understand it correctly, the same plasticity effect is what allows you to be able to get used to something insanely different (for instance, goggles that mirror your vision) given enough time. And once that stimulus is removed, the “real world” appears to be wonky to you. The thing is, what I’m surprised about, is that usually such only takes about a day or so to readjust, and hours to days of exposure/induction. Yet in this case, you can achieve induction in as short of a time span as five minutes, and have the effect last for days. A fifteen minute exposure lasts for months, and I’ve heard instances where it lasted for years in some people. The effect diminishes over time, but come back to this post tomorrow and look at the black and white image. It’s likely still tinged in color. Come back a week later. Very faintly, likely, it’s tinged. It’s mind-blowing how long this one lasts.
Also the text editor is black on white. The text is surrounded by a reddish haze. If I hold my laptop sideways, the text is surrounded by a greenish haze. It is SO WEIRD.
If you want to know more.
It is now my new favorite optical illusion, and I really wonder what this specific illusion says about cognitive psychology. How we can see colors from nothing. And if you think this is just a screen illusion, print out the black and white bars, or even draw them out with a sharpie or something on white paper. It’s so legit.
I had to put some effort in finding a non-tinged version of the black and white bars, since it was hard to tell which picture is a “this is what you’re supposed to see” image and the original image when I’m already exposed since they all look the same to me now.
First, May the Fourth Be With You! Happy Star Wars Day!
It’s a mouthful, isn’t it? That’s why I always say that I’m a Marxist-Leninist for simplicity, since many MLs and plain Marxists usually are up for some amount of anarchy and are strong environmentalists.
As with most uber-specific political doctrines, EMLF-A is a mashup of various viewpoints. But with every communist I talk to, none of them seem to have a viewpoint that’s similar to my own. I suppose it could have its own name, but I don’t like the idea of something being named after me, and “Fractalism” sounds more like a capitalist viewpoint, what with a hierarchy involved with fractals and all. Because the “Anarcho-Marxism-Leninism” part is itself pretty much communism, we shall call this doctrine Eco-Futurist Communism, or EFC for short. This entire blog is going to be fine tuning my specific viewpoints, and elaborating on individual points. But here’s an overview of my stance on communism.
Why only slight anarchism?
Anarchism is unrealistic. Even if we managed to get everyone on earth following a communist lifestyle and philosophy, everyone is going to have their own take on communism. Also, with the nature of communism requiring the proper redistribution of goods, there needs to be some form of centralization to ensure this process goes smoothly. Having a fully democratic “big government” that acts more like representatives and general law-setters allows for the facilitation of asset transfers, as well as giving other communist doctrines some representation. With such a process, the government still represents what the people desire, without letting them go all willy-nilly.
I don’t think I need to explain environmentalism. Futurism is effectively a focus on developing technology, innovations, and other sciences that are due to make our lives better. Instead of rejecting new technology, we welcome it and encourage it, for without futurism, we wouldn’t be where we are today. It is difficult for a society to succeed if it is not technologically equipped enough to move forwards. The invention of the cotton gin revolutionized the farming industry. Pretty much everything Nikola Tesla did completely revolutionized the entire way we live, now electrified. Satellites, computers, phones, smart phones. FaceBook, YouTube, Google. While the motives behind the companies may be horrible, while the public does misuse such technologies… such technologies have still done far more good than harm in its purest form (not considering the evils behind the companies that created them). Any and all technology can be used for good, and for evil. And we must push for technological development for the good of humanity.
BUT we must NOT forget we share this planet with trillions of other creatures. We must minimize the negative impact on the environment, and reverse the damage we have already done. Let us stop squandering our resources on our useless military and increase funding to make solar-panel production cheaper, cleaner, and easier. I’m appalled that the Sunshine State of Florida barely uses solar energy. I’ve been trying to convince my parents to go solar, at least in part if not fully. Then there is wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and many more clean options. Let us be less wasteful. And you know, environmentalism spiel here. It’s been said so many times I need not reiterate the obvious. My point is that environmentalism doesn’t mean we can’t develop new technologies, but we must consider the environment when we do so, and do everything we can to take care of our planet.
Augh! You said the “C” word!
Nowadays, people are so sensitive about the word “communism,” that when I’m not on campus or don’t feel like being confrontational (I usually am wearing something or another that makes it obvious I’m a commie in order to get people talking to me about communism), I usually have to call it something like “Bob” to avoid people turning heads. I’m not afraid to admit I’m a communist. Usually it’s extremely obvious, and just as the stereotypical American has fifty thousand symbolisms of America on him at all times, so do I with communism.
Most of my viewpoints align with Marx more than Lenin, although I greatly respect Lenin for who he was. Next year, there will be a huge celebration as we celebrate the centennial celebration of the October Revolution.
But yes. I do follow most of what Marx has taught, save for the means of revolution, of which I’m more Leninist in viewpoint. Also an authoritarian government will not hand the means of production down to the working class. It’s very difficult for state capitalism to translate into socialism or communism.
That’s not all, folks. But for now, this shall do. More details are sure to come.
Yes, I am indeed a communist. Yes, I am indeed an astronomer. No, this blog is not about Star Trek, although I should probably start watching that simply for the nerd cred. Cosmic Communism and Space Socialism are more than just alliterations. Before we can hope to extend our reach to the stars above, we must first unify ourselves. How can we hope to colonize Mars if we can barely hold a “colony” together here on Earth without some form of poverty, destruction, or human-induced deaths? Communism has only failed in the past because we lacked the resources to make it possible. Communism is something that can either work very small scale or globally–not in between. For a communistic society to work, we must first have a society of communists. But we now have the means of far more advanced technology for communism to work. We first build a society of communists before attempting a communistic society, in the meantime, adopting more of a “berniecratic” socialistic society that slowly trends towards communism. Communism is possible, and that’s what this blog is about. Call me a “naive millennial” all you want. But soon, the older folks will all be dead, and the millennials, the leftist generation, will rise. Every generation sees a slight push to the left, more and more so. Communism is not only possible, it is inevitable.
This blog aims to bring forth one millennial’s analysis on capitalism, analysis of Marxist literature, words of revolution, words on why she’s a communist, words on how communism is possible… you know. Just commie things. With the occasional “omg space is awesome” post, of course. But you already knew that.