Looks like someone else opened an issue around three weeks ago.

Just FYI, I cannot see your pronouns in the Voyager app that I use on my phone.

There is absolutely a corrolation between being stupid and being a neo-nazi. However, in this regard smart people are even more dangerous since they are not only capable of fooling themselves but others as well.

The only problem with courses like calc 3 and differential equations (in my experience, as a mathematician) is that they are cheating somewhat. By cheating I mean relying on inadequate, flawed or entirely omitted proofs. How can the students truly understand something if they are not presented the whole story (or at least reference)?

The good thing about these courses are that there are usually no shortage of relevant exercises!

Still only because the DM decided to be nice about it.

If anyone wants to grasp the basics: here is some fun reading (leading on to some beautiful math). Changing the idea of parallelity leads to hyperbolic geometry and other fun stuff. :)

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Are you trying to imply that it was staged and that they shot Trump’s ear for plausibility? If you want to make a conspiracy theory, at least make it believable.

Eh, they are Danish. Settler is the wrong term for them if you are trying to make out a continuity from classical colonialism to neo colonialism, as Denmark did not really have colonies in the classical sense (with one minor notable exception and the domination of Norway through its personal union for 450 years).

Denmark’s history as a thriving social democracy in the modern era also makes it less of a perpetrator of the violence spread by modern bourgeoisie democracies than what your comment implies, in my opinion.

Lumping every Western nation together into some imperial core makes it harder to study the material conditions of neo colonialism.

As an example of the point I am trying to make of the importance of studying the material conditions of the global north as well: Denmark-Norway was the first European country to abolish the transatlantic slave trade. The reason for it is obvious, they did not really have colonies to speak of on their own.

Any bloodless revolution is done through an implicit threat of violence. It is just the losing side being smart about how they lose.

I tillegg om du er dansk, vil eg påpeike at Danmark mista eineveldet sitt då dei tapte Napoleonskrigane i 1814, som også var grunnlaget for Noreg sin uavhengigheit og demokratiske grunnlov.

Good, we should take notes.

(yes, we exist, we read Marx AND Adam Smith - imagine that)

I am pretty sure Marx read Adam Smith too, so I do not see why this would be controversial.

The biggest ignorance of most socialists and indeed communists is the idea that capitalism is a political system. It is not.

Well, capitalism is primarily an economic system (more on that later, I guess), but as it influences and is influenced by politics, it cannot be separated from the political system that fosters it (everything is political, what parts of our societies can really be claimed to exist truly outside the sphere of politics anyway?).

what if I’m a libertarian socialist, or even an anarchist

If you claimed to be a libertarian or anarchist without being a socialist, I would not take you seriously since the former necessitates the latter. I also thoroughly agree that

Anyone who believes that a “free market” is an unregulated market is an idiot

and would like to add that anyone saying a classist society is compatible with anarchism is so as well, since the power and authority both inherent to and needed for upholding said social classes is contradictory to the nature of anarchism, and moreso of individual freedom itself.

Now onto your description of capitalism:

Capitalism is a system where we virtualised ownership or property as a form of valuing said property automatically, instead of employing appraisers everywhere

I am not quite sure what you mean by “virtualised ownership”, but I would infer that you mean that capitalism is characterized by property (including capital) being realized as private property, through which independent firms and people may extract surplus value from the product of labour and thus accrue capital.

Now, both labour and value take on specific meanings within marxism, different from that of Ricardian economics (and thus neoclassical economics), which is developed from the works of Adam Smith. I am not quite sure whether you advocate for more of this (neo)classical valuation when you speak of “employing appraisers everywhere”, but this valuation is a feature of capitalism that Marxists ultimately seek to destroy by rendering obsolete (I would also like to add that it is a “bad” valuation, since it places value of commodities in a pseudo arbitrary fashion where a portrait of Hitler might garner more value than a vaccine).

It’s not a political system, it’s not a judicial system, and it never was. That’s the big brain rot, the big conjob, that and the fact that the liberals will always claim there’s only one form of capitalism - which again, China has thuroughly disproved. It’s literally just usury, but applied to property rather than currency. It’s a tool, a double edged sword, which in it’s current, centralised form fosters dialectal matetialism - yeeeey Marx & Engels.

Surely we could categorize different “types” of capitalism, but why bother when all are bad and need to be abolished for the sake of humanity? I understand how you connect private property to usury, since on a surface level it bears similarity. However, private property in the form of capital is much more nefarious as to how it exploits the labour power of the proletariat than a mere contractual transaction (I lend you X amount and you pay me back 1.2 * X amount). It is inseparable from the social conditions that force the proletariat to sell their labor power, not at a freely agreed upon price, but by the price the capitalists are able to enforce om them through their commodification, i.e. valuation, of labour.

I would say that my reading comprehension is okay, but I am unable to discern how the subject of your last sentence, that I referred to above (are you still talking about capitalism?), is somehow “fostering” dialectical materialism, to which you seem confusingly sarcastically enthusiastic about.

I can assure you that I would indeed not like to see the world burn, since I as well value human beings and all the other entities that live within the world. I also am very much sceptical of so called “strong men” with simple solutions, even though that does not dissuade me from advocating appropriation of private property on behalf of the public.

Both are scapegoats. You need the individual, you need the community, you need the collective.

Socialism is anything but. A socialist mode of production is the means by which the individuals may flourish. I tried to arrive at it earlier while talking about how libertarianism necessitates socialism. A social contract is necessary, because true individualism is not possible for multiple beings living in the same space, i.e. with cojoining spheres of influence.

If my actions influences the world of others, and by extension their possible actions or results thereof, we have arrived at the need for a social contract that allows both of us to act “freely”. This is what socialism functionally is, and why you cannot reject it as neither a libertarian, anarchist nor a humanist

Now, I would assume you are feeling that I am being unfair to you since this is not directly what you say you are rejecting:

Don’t come here with that bullshit, because then I’ll reject you like I reject centrists, moderates, conservative, social democrats or any of the other liberal rebrandings, let alone tankies and “rip the system down” imbeciles who have blood on the tooth.

I reject all of that, because for thousands of years, naturalism has reigned. It’s time for humanism to take it’s rightful place, and that rejects all political ideologies and forces you to actually think - which people don’t like to do.

However, by rejecting all political ideologies and in its absence believing that “thinking” will transform our current state of society into a socialist mode of production that allows that which you are welcoming, I think you have misunderstood the role of ideology and are de facto rejecting the future you describe to want. Ideology is the product of thinking really hard about the world that is, the world we want and the means by which we could achieve it. As such, ideology is the tool that we agree upon to make actual change, other than what we already made inside our own minds while thinking really hard.

I would like to see humanism in its rightful place, as a product of a socialist mode of production. I am therefore willing to exert my will upon the world, along with my comrades that want the same.

The speech by leftist leader Mélenchon is an indication of what’s ahead. He says he will not negotiate with Macron, and Macron has refused to negotiate with him.

Source

every other liberal leading party in Europe, whose been controlling narrative and economy for over half a century

I do not think that is how capitalism works. My bad if you are indeed attempting to describe the aesthetics of the tyranny of the bourgeoisie.

Let us hope the poll shows truth. According to the Associated Press:

A final national tally is expected by early Monday (local time).

Anyone thinking bourgeoisie extortion is fundamentally different from that of feudal lords need to reexamine the process of appropriation of surplus value.

How was I racist? Seems to me that your retort targets some untrue idea in your head about who I am rather than what I actually wrote.

I also do not understand why you made this post if you do not actually make an attempt at trying to understand the replies in return.

The first claim is just straight plain old racism, while the second reeks of confused lib. Either way, calling someone a slave in this context is almost certainly meant as an insult to the political organisation of the state and not to its people. This distinction is important with respect to moderation.

I consider the proletariat of capitalist societies to be slaves by definition. Thus if I were convinced that the PRC was capitalist, I could stand behind this sentiment.

Eh, to the extent that Hexbear meme-culture is both prevalent and constitutes as participation in bad faith, that would be true. This was not an example of this, which only serves to prove that the reply was actually in bad faith itself.