Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. BrightBayUniversity

    TCB Central News Agency

    Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 269 Likes given: 91 Likes received: 21 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Feb 20, 2019, 7:55 PM (Last modified: Feb 20, 2019, 10:00 PM by Nathaniel_Kuznetsov-Flood) #160 Good evening. Here are today's headlines. Vote Now This is another reminder to vote on the Executive and Legislative Branches. Please vote HERE. The TCB Wiki is back! You can access the wiki here. Nathaniel and Aegon’s Marriage Aegon Kuznetsov-Flood and Nathaniel Kuznetsov-Flood, née Penrose are married. Nathaniel adopts a child, Gabby. You can read more about this here. _While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact (@DeputyVoroshilov-Vyshinsky#9561) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! https://tcb.red/forum/forum/15-the-civil-service 1 like Comrade_UGWR Citizen Joined: Dec 22, 2018 Posts: 17 Likes given: 4 Likes received: 6 United Guardian and Worker Republics Message Feb 21, 2019, 7:54 PM #161 Good evening. Here are today's headlines. The Fierce Battle Over the Judiciary Continues after the Convention Passes the Executive and Legislative Proposals Our glorious comrades, fighting for proletarian peace and prosperity, secured a victory in their compromise which solidified direct democracy in the state and helped incentivize government positions and civil service jobs. The debate over the Judiciary, Article IV of the new Constitution, focuses on term limits and the number of justices. The faction opposing short term limits in fear that too many elections might politicize the judiciary draw on the great fear that the Judiciary might become the instrument of the powerful against the weak. However, those who champion those short term limits argue that keeping the justices in check helps boost activity and tighten ethics around the government, all well helping secure the majority and popular will against the growing elite. _While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact (@DeputyVoroshilov-Vyshinsky#9561) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! https://tcb.red/forum/forum/15-the-civil-service 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 269 Likes given: 91 Likes received: 21 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Feb 21, 2019, 8:40 PM #162 Good evening. Here are today's headlines. The Vote on the Executive and Legislative Branches Is Passed You can read it here. We can review and edit this later after all other Articles of the Constitution are passed. The discussion and proposal for Judicial Branch is now opened. You can do contribute your ideas here. Deputy_Voroshilov's Proposal for the Judiciary is posted here. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Updates on The Revolutionary Communist Alliance Embassy Application for Unat (Region) Declined The nation Unat requested for embassy for the region Unat. The region (Unat)[https://www.nationstates.net/region=unat] is founded by Unat, but the nation Unat is currently located at The Revolutionary Communist Alliance. The official reason for the decline is that Unat has connection with the region Olgea. Ministry of Foreign Affairs is skeptical about the integrity of leftism in the region Olgea. You can read the original statement here. _While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact (@DeputyVoroshilov-Vyshinsky#9561) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! https://tcb.red/forum/forum/15-the-civil-service
  3. Last week
  4. BrightBayUniversity

    TCB Central News Agency

    Comrade_UGWR Citizen Joined: Dec 22, 2018 Posts: 13 Likes given: 3 Likes received: 3 United Guardian and Worker Republics Message Feb 19, 2019, 4:59 PM #159 Good evening. Here are today's headlines. The Day that Peace Scorned Freedom: The Story of the World Assembly’s Ruinous Fall to Fascism The axis of evil, a scion of hate and greed, knows no end, knows not the value of human lives, and knows not the toll of human tears. It deprives families of loved ones, suckling children of nutritious food, and employees of their jobs. It leaves a generation of students without teachers, thousands of forgotten, dusty towns without paved roads, and most of all, it deprives people of their voice. It is not enough to just defile our sacred land, pillage our culture of all that displeases, strip us of our only clothes, and leave us in the dust of their gendarmes. No, they must make the human race a tool of their elite. While their fascist ranks march, whip in hand, a rapacious gleam sparkling in their eyes, we suffer the price of such misplaced, miscalculated ambition. The ubermensch has now become the animal. The great mission that they champion as progress has only become another mark of detriment. This is the empire that threatens to topple democracy. This is the axis that heralds the end of the beginning of global equality. This is the tale of fascism, one of the many parables that humanity must learn from. Was it all for vain when Britain, surrounded and starving, fended off the prowling wolves of the Nazi fleet that hid under the crests of the rolling sea? A sea now in jeopardy of becoming an atrocious abattoir. Was it all for vain when the United States sent their noblest squadron of ferocious fighters into the swirling epicenter of enemy territory, perched high above Hitler’s realm of terror, just to drop the thousands of pamphlets that lay waiting in their cargo. On those pieces of paper lay the sincere message of the martyred Munich students who suffered all because they loved their people. Was it all for vain when the Soviet Union sacrificed the livelihoods of tens of millions of their free patriots, just for the greater good of the shackled peoples of Europe. A people who travailed under the unforgiving yoke of so many tyrannical leaders, so many fuhrers, so many il duces? Was it all for vain when the horrified troops gazed, horrified, at the emaciated bodies that lay strewn under the ruins of so much misplaced ambition, so much unchanneled cruelty, under the last vestiges of a reich that the right falsely promised would last ‘for a thousand years’? They left for us only desolation, sin, and burnt image of bacchanalian revelry and lust for blood. They left something called the holocaust, burnt offering, sacrifice of the innocent for the whole world to learn from, to expiate for. I say to these tyrants, these juntas, to these emperors and self-made kings what is on everybody’s mind and in everyone’s still weeping heart. Sic semper tyrannis. Down with your iron fist! Thus, when I look at the disgusting condemnation of Antifa, an organization which has held high the banner of freedom many times, I must abhor whoever vaingloriously decided one day to crawl out of their oubliette to hastily write up its provisions. The baseless allegations leveled against Antifa, burgeoned by the indolence of the puppet delegates who betray the very common cause of the WA, is a petty act of retribution against the hierophants of international justice — the left. The left is not the only faction which harbors this ideology. It just has had the most success in turning its worries into results. The argument that this is a Marxist conspiracy, a play for global domination by the powerful and robust left, is another token of the fear mongering that has defined the right for so long. And we must continuously work against that dogma and that propaganda so the right does not prevail. The word ‘fascist’ and the word ‘free’ are incompatible and incoherent. They can not stand by each other. Either fascism or freedom must be permanently annihilated for stability, peace, and prosperity. And let me tell you, once people have felt the resounding sensation of freedom, they never abandon it! And that is our battle cry! _While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact (@DeputyVoroshilov-Vyshinsky#9561) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! https://tcb.red/forum/forum/15-the-civil-service
  5. The Evergreen Dreamscapes

    SIGN HERE FOR THE NSLEFT CHESS TOURNAMENT!!!

    @Zenganopoli are you still doïng this? i can run it instead if you're busy or w/e
  6. Ubertas

    SIGN HERE FOR THE NSLEFT CHESS TOURNAMENT!!!

    I would like to participate
  7. BrightBayUniversity

    TCB Central News Agency

    Good evening. Here are today's headlines. The Dangerous Right, Axis of Evil, Fumes as it Attempts to Inveigle the WA into Silencing Antifascist Action The gallantry of antifascist forces, spread far and wide and duly united by the common banner of freedom, is under attack. We, the Communists Bloc, as a nation that voluntarily chose to sacrifice our brilliant young minds, expert politicians, and many resources in fighting this axis, surely understands the grief and suffering that it has caused. At least 6 million Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and disabled persons were heartlessly proffered by the Nazi regime to the ignominious fires of charred bodies and bereaved ashes. In the world that this proposal champions, ethnicity comes before character. Before in this article, I talked of sacrifice. I discussed how we risked everything for the welfare of those that have nothing. In Greek, Holocaustos means ‘burnt offering’. A sacrifice to the pantheon of greed and avarice that lorded over classical customs. Now, we face regions that wish to simply wash away the works of soldiers, intellectuals, and novelists to help the masses regain their rightful place among the stars. We see those who wish to imitate the mistakes and atrocities of so many, emerge now and claim that they are the advocate, the ‘just’ hierophant is the people who they are right this moment conspiring to massacre! This must be stopped! First, let me be very clear. We do not war. We, as honorable socialists, posit that the defeat of capitalism can only come from resisting the imperial aggression of those who only see the grubby faces of children, the blistered hands of workers, and the dried tears of so many impoverished families as dollars, and more importantly, as items for their aggrandizement. Karl Marx would call this phenomenon ‘alienation’. That we, a race tied to our intelligence and frugality, are now estranged from the very products and fruits of our labor. We have been separated from the very ensign of our humanity, the product of our intelligence, the work of a life’s enterprise. And all because of the capitalists of yore. Was it not Sylvia Plath who once wrote that ‘Dying is an art’? Was it not the Abbe Sieyes who, in exhorting the people to revolt, said that all we want, the nobodies of society, is ‘to be something’? Did not Eisenhower tell us in his Chance for Peace speech that every missile, every fighter plane, every bomber, and every bomb takes from the roads that now lie unpaves, the schools that now lie unbuilt, the people who now lie unclothed and homeless, and the stores that now lie barren of food? We were warned of the exploitation of the hoi polloi by so many before. We have parlously hung from the iron cross of humanity, corned and powerless, in doing so. Yet we still scream and shout and fight for what we believe is right. We were warned of the evils of war, oppression, and injustice. Yet, fascism wishes to do exactly all those things which I have just mentioned, which everyone with a heart must necessarily abhor. Fascism wages its wars against all citizens of the world. It kills its people, it makes labor a tool of the powerful, it adds new definition to the word poor, and it oppresses. So, we are all naturally outraged when the nation of Koholint-Island submitted a proposal that condemned Antifa, the primary organization working to stop these atrocities. The moderators of Ransium and Wrapper approved it as legal. They let the succinct, inadequate, and frankly cowardly and pusillanimous text of that proposal pass as ‘legal’. With only four vague provisions that make baseless, indolent claims against the champions of justice, this document discards reason for pure dogma, even going so far as attacking the left. This condemnation, which after 5 hours has already garnered 12 endorsements, looks like it is on track to enslaving the powerless on NS. If you would like to read all the provisions,here is the proposal. Trust me, this light read can’t tell a lie apart from a truth. I ask you to join the international platform condemning this flagrant attempt at endorsing fascism. Do not let the petty whims of corporate bosses and fascists dictators emasculate the powerful outreach and community that we have helped create. Together we are powerful! Together we can fight. Together we can uphold justice, truth, and equality, even if we must be martyred. Workers of the World, People of TCB, unite! _While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact (@DeputyVoroshilov-Vyshinsky#9561) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! https://tcb.red/forum/forum/15-the-civil-service
  8. BrightBayUniversity

    TCB Central News Agency

    Good evening. Here are today's headlines. Progress on Lewis’ Compromise The Poll for Lewis’ Compromise Proposal reads 3 “Yes”, 4 “Yes with changes”, and 0 “No”. You can read it here. M.M. showed disagreement with the notion that the Presidium’s ability to issue Executive Orders without public consent. The Presidium’s position as the Upper Chamber is considered as against the separation of powers. Lewis “thought the original plan was for the Presidium to serve as a sort of upper chamber of the legislature.” Some do not interpret the Proposal in a way that the Presidium is the Upper Chamber of the Legislature. Tarrin Kael opposed the idea of a bicameral legislature and favors the current unicameral Direct Democracy system. Egalica raised the concern that a powerful Secretary-General may defeat the purpose of the Presidium. The possible issue that individuals being chosen to head departments they have no experience with is also brought to the discussion. While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact C.A.D. (BrightBayUniversity#2357) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 261 Likes given: 89 Likes received: 20 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Feb 15, 2019, 12:58 PM (Last modified: Feb 15, 2019, 12:59 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #154 Good evening. Here are today's headlines. Diagram of Lewis’ Compromise Proposal Here it is: The Diagram is made by the Ministry of Information with permission from Nathaniel Penrose, the author. You can read the original document here. While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact C.A.D. (BrightBayUniversity#2357) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! 2 likes Comrade_UGWR Citizen Joined: Dec 22, 2018 Posts: 7 Likes given: 2 Likes received: 1 United Guardian and Worker Republics Message Feb 15, 2019, 5:55 PM #155 Good evening. Here are today's headlines. TCB's Troops Dedicated to Freedom on the Bloody Front and How You Can Help! While all of us were trying to wrap our heads around the outstanding progress of the Constitutional Convention this past week, our armed services, fighting the deprived and cynical forces that oppose our every value, our every position, and our every ideology, were defeated. The People’s Revolutionary Army, bearing the torch of democracy, subverted, subjugated, and shattered this terrifying enemy on every point of the inflexible, inhumane axis that has risen from the burned ashes of so many fascist standards that have shared their grisly fate before. The fight to preserve the inalienable rights of the disenfranchised peoples of the world is clearly working in our favor. The anti-fascist forces of ANTIFA, an organization whom we, amongst other member regions, have accredited with the mission of liberating the oppressed and the downtrodden, prevailed over the region of Augusto Pinochet, ejecting its corrupt leaders and seizing the region for the time being in order to safeguard the general welfare of the people. This region, named after the Chilean dictator and general Augusto Pinochet, who after seizing power in 1973 in a CIA-backed coup, ordered the executions, internment, and methodical interrogations of hundreds of thousands of leftists, socialist, dissidents, and intellectuals, represents the evil that still tarnishes the name of NationStates. Through many battles, through many assaults, through many times of darkness, we have stood to show the world the true might of the Communist Bloc, even when it seemed like the might of evil had us surrounded. The axis that we fight, the alliance which shares only the common, scurrilous goal of killing — and killing for power — is facing the scary prospects of now answering to our comrades — to the will of a people so indomitably dedicated to the values and principles which fascism so carelessly tramples over without a glance. Let us all pledge to never forget the crimes and the inhumanities that the fascists have committed and continue to commit upon the people they ostensibly represent. Let us not forget the offences against our brethren, comrades, and kinsmen; the offences against the poor, the sick, and the oppressed; the offences that they perpetuate with each waning moment that they clutch to power. The fascist are in their death throes, and yet, they brazenly continue stand, show their disgraced faces, and fight as a testament to their visceral ferocity. Make no mistake, the alliance that stands on the precipice of ruin still gropes for the top of the summit of glory. And the mercurial force of war knows not right or wrong, but only victory and defeat. So, while we extol our troops, whose noble deeds have yet to expiate for the vast extent of the fascist crimes committed upon people just like ourselves, we must continue to lend all our aid, thoughts, and might to assisting those who can not even muster the courage to say ‘enough is enough’! General Secretary Nathaniel Penrose Applauds the Great Efforts at Compromise and Unity in the Ongoing Convention When asked about the current status of the deliberations in the Constitutional Convention, the General Secretary was extremely pleased with the results, principally the efficacy with which the Convention was able to carry out its duties. Here's what he had to say: Though initially 'reluctant' about the idea of having a Constitutional Convention, our General Secretary is quite happy that we opted to take this route instead of electing delegates to represent us. He believes that in light of the recent implementations of direct democracy in TCB (i.e. the democratization of the Central Committee), it would have been 'inappropriate' to entrust such a key process in the hands of so few. When asked about any inspiration for the Preamble and near-finished Article I of the inchoate Constitution, including the effects of the Constitutional Convention that formed the United States government that we know today, the General Secretary believed that numerous members drew inspiration from such venerated politicians like Alexander Hamilton, even drawing a parallel between the great father of the American Constitution, James Madison, and the negotiator, comrade, and father of the compromise in the executive dispute, Lewis Flood. Our General Secretary believes that further deliberations and decisions should be wrapped up soon as we draw closer and closer to a new and more glorious future, so stay tuned. If anyone wishes to pitch new ideas for the nascent Constitution or stay informed, please visit it right here on the TCB forums by scrolling to the Convention category near the top of the page, or clicking here. Thank you for tuning into the Daily News, the trusted new platform for the great region of the Communist Bloc. We at the Daily News are so appreciative of your sponsorship of this news platform, your comments, your support, and your contributions to the government of this region. We would like to give a special and sincere thanks to General Secretary Nathaniel Penrose for sitting down with us to conduct this generous and useful interview. While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact C.A.D. (BrightBayUniversity#2357) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! 0 likes Comrade_UGWR Citizen Joined: Dec 22, 2018 Posts: 7 Likes given: 2 Likes received: 1 United Guardian and Worker Republics Message Feb 16, 2019, 6:28 PM #156 Good evening. Here are today's headlines. Constitutional Deliberations Continue Along With More Information to Help You Make Sense of Recent News Not much news today on the political front as the highly-praised compromise of Lewis Flood liquidates the recent tension amid a deep ideological impasse. The question that caused this rift is rooted in an executive crisis that questioned the rising power of the vanguard. In other words, all the democratic progress of the TCB was threatened, in one small step, by the rising political Brahmins who, in attempting to imitate the doomed Soviet model of the Presidium, began their exertions to create a council of ministers and magnates who could serve their own interests instead of the people's. With constant bickering and dispute ahead, our gracious and noble comrades turned instead to compromise to solve these issues which had hitherto divided the convention. Here is what they look like: The People's Assembly, the lower chamber of the legislature, to whom the compromise vested the power of drafting legislation, would replace the popular Central Committee which was the progeny of the people's hard work towards direct democracy! Now, under Lewis' brilliant proposal, this body, open to all citizens, can elect a Presiding Speaker, who can represent the Assembly in the Presidium, conduct votes, and help chair the huge chamber. The Assembly will also be tasked with electing the members of the Presidium, who will have ministerial powers and the power to collectively pass directives to help the government carry out its duty to the people. Although the ministers who populate this replacement of the previous cabinet are elected, the question remains whether the People's Assembly will have the ability to recall their ministers in a quick fashion if displeased or dissatisfied with their work. The Presidium, whose appeal lies in the political acumen of the experienced members who serve on the body, would act like a revising body used for conference and advise, which could veto the People's Assembly's resolutions when deemed necessary. The members would, in theory, be able to mobilize their specialized experience in government and their many contacts in the bureaucracy to assess, revise, and improve legislation. The system, however, does still present its problems to the hardliners on the direct-democracy side, who wish to see the supremacy of the Assembly over the elected body. This struggle will probably continue to play out and will only be settled as we continue to move forward in a civil manner. Under the most recent proposal, the Presidium, acting as a collective executive, would be chaired by the Secretary-General, a position already criticized for its 'bourgeois' name (i.e. its relation to the United Nations), who would act mostly as a figurehead and, at best, a morale-booster for TCB. While Lewis' compromise has made its many strides, you, comrades and citizens, must voice your opinion amongst yourselves and the convention if you wish to be heard. Do not refrain from introducing ideas to the convention, making suggestions, or asking anyone in the government for help making sense of the complicated legalese, sharp debates, and capricious factions. Thanks for tuning in to Daily News and have a wonderful day! _While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact (@DeputyVoroshilov-Vyshinsky#9561) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here ! https://tcb.red/forum/forum/15-the-civil-service
  9. Earlier
  10. BrightBayUniversity

    On education and propaganda

    What are the differences and similarities between education and propaganda? What methodologies can one use to differentiate these two? When should a leftist group choose which tool to use?
  11. BrightBayUniversity

    TCB Central News Agency

    ### Diagram of Lewis’ Compromise Proposal - Here it is: - The Diagram is made by the Ministry of Information with the permission of Nathaniel Penrose, the author. - You can read the original document here.
  12. The Decapole counsils

    At Vote: Withdraw Embassies with TRCA

    To correct what I wrote above, some of their member seem to wish to add a form of interregional cooperation. A proposal is being made in that sense if I understand it correctly. If this is really the case before the end of our vote, I might change my vote to veto if it also notifies the will to have the means to go in the good direction.
  13. BrightBayUniversity

    TCB Central News Agency

    Good evening. Here are today's headlines. Brightbay University @NSLeft Forum All major courses, lectures, and debates can be found on the NSLeft Forum. Click here to see all the materials! Minister of Culture's after-action report: 12-02-2019 The action plan can be found here. You can read the after action report here. The Ministry of Culture has focused on these goals. 1/ Nation RP 2/ Voice discussions on discord. 3/ Re-introduction of interactive text adventure games on TCB Discord. 4/ Cards against nationstates. 5/ Song contest. 6/ Reading lists etc. 7/ Revitalise the university. 8/ Real life info & events. 9/ Memes 10/ Spam games While run by the Ministry of Information, the Daily News does not necessarily reflect the stance of the current administration. Please contact C.A.D. (BrightBayUniversity#2357) for any corrections, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns. Want to contribute to the Daily News? Apply to volunteer for the Ministry of Information here !
  14. Extended Course on Cognition Improvement CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Jul 26, 2018, 10:37 PM (Last modified: Jan 27, 2019, 11:47 AM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #1 THIS COURSE IS NOT YET DEAD!_** This Course Updates 1 to 2 times per week. A syllabus will be provided. This post will be edited. Please do not plagiarize. Syllabus: Theory of the Origin and the Evolution of Cognitive Improvement Original Biological Cognitive Hardware Nature of Understanding Principles vs Open-mindedness Reason vs. Logic and Introduction to Basics of Logic On Science and Knowledge Junior Epistemology/ TOK Role of Irrationality in Changes in Cognitive Systems Critical Thinking The Two Propaganda Systems More lectures will be scheduled. Please do not reply on this thread. Please reply on the hyperlinked thread. https://tcb.red/forum/topic/758 Please ask questions on the Brightbay University discord. https://discord.gg/ZuC8zaB 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Aug 20, 2018, 1:00 PM (Last modified: Dec 29, 2018, 11:19 AM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #2 Lecture 1: Original Biological Cognitive Hardware Homo Sapient did not integrate any other forms of cognition, such as artificial intelligence, into the human brain. 0.1 The human body is the only biological cognitive hardware available to human beings. 1.0 During the development of the central nervous system, the growth of neurons can be hindered by unnatural activities and environments. The effects are usually lasting/ permanent and irreversible. 1.01 Smoking (including second-hand smoking), alcohol, household and industrial chemicals, certain medications (especially opiate pain-killers), radiation, infection, animal toxin, and pollutants may disrupt brain development. 1.02 Malnutrition and lack of hydration are also proven dangers to brain development. 1.03 Hence, famines, food shortage, and pollution can decrease the cognitive potential and intelligence of a generation of people, especially in developing and underdeveloped countries. 2.0 Destructive social interaction and destructive input may result in detriments to mental growth for newborn children. 2.1 Destructive social interactions include frequent aggression, negligence, violence, abuse, carnal embrace, rudeness, rejection and ignorance. 2.11 Unpopularity during childhood is very detrimental: 1) The inability to communicate with the mainstream society may result in marginalization. 2) Childhood friends shape a child. 3) Being unpopular may disable the child from developing emotional intelligence as efficient; this circumstance may severely decrease the long-term emotional intelligence. 2.2 Destructive inputs include screen time, colorful lights, viewing round and puffy objects, viewing virtual reality, hearing funny sounds, viewing aggression and violence, attractive characters, and any stimulation that is mechanical, that one can easily achieve achievements, and or simplifies real logic. 2.25 Some forms of 'education' that encourages conformity and obedience are detrimental, but it is generally better to go through these education system being aware than avoiding education. 3.0 The quality, measured in the number of neuron somas in the central nervous system, decreases with the increase of time after an approximate age of 12 -13. As both embryonic stem cells and pluripotent stem cells that can create new neurons no longer exist, it is currently impossible to increase the number of new functioning neurons in the central nervous system. 3.01 Although the growth and regeneration of other neurons, such as nervous tissues in the peripheral nervous system, persist into adulthood, the number of these neurons in trivial to the quality of one's intelligence, unless athletic intelligence and motor coordinance are deemed important. 3.1 The attempt to transplant neurons or grow neurons has been unsuccessful as transplanted neurons cannot integrate into the original network of neurons, possibly due to the incorrect amount and ratio of hormones and neurotransmitters in the environment or the wrong genetic markers with the transplanted neurons. 3.8 One should not look for ways to increase intelligence through surgery. The scientific community does not recognize any human augmentation attempt to be safe. 4.0 It is known that "Transcranial direct-current stimulation" can improve the speed of learning and concentration. 4.1 Transcranial direct current stimulation is a form of neurostimulation that uses constant, low direct current delivered via electrodes on the head; it can be contrasted with cranial electrotherapy stimulation which generally uses alternating current the same way. 4.2 Per Stealing Fire: How Silicon Valley, the Navy SEALs, and Maverick Scientists Are Revolutionizing the Way We Live and Work, Navy SEALs already utilize the said technology to increase shooting accuracy and communication efficiency. https://theweek.com/articles/476866/how-electrical-brain-stimulation-change-way-think 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Aug 22, 2018, 11:18 AM (Last modified: Aug 22, 2018, 12:22 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #3 Lecture 2: Nature of understanding Fetuses have no cognition due to the lack of changing sensations and lack of discomfort. They do not need cognition in order to survive/decrease discomfort as they receive all the necessities of life unconditionally. They have no motivation to do things. 0.1 A biblical parallel appears: the birth of a child is similar to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. 0.5 In a place of relative happy place (comfort zone), the cognition does not significantly develop. 0.6 One may speculate that a civilization that attempts to struggle in a difficult environment (e.g. difficult terrain, bad economy, lack of political legitimacy) may develop more complexed technology, political systems, and social structure. 0.7 One may also speculate that the practice of receiving information from a few fixed sources may be less mentally complex than those who receive information from various sources. 0.9 Many cognitive developments are caused by necessity; this applies to many other types of changes such as policy innovation, economic reform, scientific breakthroughs... The birth of a fetus causes a great amount of pain as the newborn must perform some deliberate actions to survive. These include breathing, eating (sucking), and attracting help by crying and nagging. 1.1 The fetus' behavior may be an instinct. The sucking behavior may even be considered as the result of morphine addiction [1] from the mother's milk. However, it is true that newborns suffer an unprecedented amount of pain. source [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6267691 1.2 As the baby gains new senses, e.g. somatosensation (feeling of temperature, position, pain, and texture by touch), sight, hearing, and smell, cognition developed quickly. 1.3 These are some examples of basic cognition: 0) Conception from sensory input. What we see is not a collective of objects nor a picture, but chronology and the sequence of different wavelengths and amplitudes of light. our brain must be trained to use them. e.g. A blind (since birth) man was given a minor surgery to regain the sense of sight. Upon acquiring the new sense, he could not locate the location of objects and neede to close his eyes to move without bumping into things. He slowly masters the sill if sight by ----- 1) Association of one piece of sensory information with other pieces of information: e.g. if a baby sees and touches a cup, the baby would know that certain objects are hard. 2) Performing action and analyzing the response of the environment. e.g. By pushing a cup placed on the table and observing it move, the baby recognizes that the cup is not a part of the table. 3) Pavlov's classical and operant conditioning. 4) Imitate other that are similar to the learner. (babies are more likely to imitate their parents, sibling and other familiar people than strangers) 5) Receiving feedbacks. 6) Following instructions. {more learning mechanisms exist, but this course will not cover all.} 1.5 Cognition is not linear; Cognition capacity is parabolic as old knowledge/skills/qualities/experiences enable learning of new content or increase the efficiency of learning encountered types of content. 1.6 The list of association from section 1.3 suggests that young children make random connections between different concepts and then delete the connections between things that are not related. It is believed that adults delete much of the 'useless' connections. 1.9 We can conclude that all contents learned are being practiced or used. When children go to school, they experience things that they do not usually use in real life, e.g. a second language, solving quadratic equations. 2.1 Learning these contents becomes harder as: 1) These are not frequently used. 2) These are not periodically reviewed. 3) The comprehension of new content requires the mastering of old contents; if a fraction of the old content is not learned properly, a fraction of the new must be affected. e.g. one cannot solve a quadratic equation correctly if one still makes many mistakes with factoring. 2.2 The usage/practice/review of valuable old content keeps them remembered. 2.5 Believing in something may be redefined as using the piece of information to make decisions, set presumptions and to learn new material. 2.8 Communication requires mutual understanding. 2.9 Communication with people with a different background on presumption-charged topics may be difficult. 3.0 If a set of information is given to two groups of people but with a different chronology, they may come to different conclusions. 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Oct 13, 2018, 4:51 PM (Last modified: Dec 12, 2018, 9:23 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #4 Lecture 3: Principles vs Open-mindedness "Bias" in Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge) is defined as the complete and prejudice rejection of certain stances or positions without adequate understanding of these stances or positions. The common meaning of the term is different from its meaning in Epistemology and Cognitive-Improvement. In this course, "Bias" shall refer to its meaning defined above. The rejection of a stance or position with adequate understanding is not bias. 3.5 For example, the educated and justified rejection of fascism is not bias. Principles, a set of coherent restrictions applied on one's behavior and actions [at least good principles should be a set of coherent restrctions], are not necessarily considered bias. Open-mindedness involves one to be willing to consider new ideas while not having prejudiced. 5.5 Open-mindedness, in Epistemology, does not equal to credulousness for gullibility. Whereas credulousness indicates that one believes in everything without question, open-mindedness allows questioning and subsequent disbelief. Open-mindedness and Principles do not necessarily oppose each other. Hence, one can simultaneously be both open-minded and principled. Open-mindedness does not limit to being unprejudiced. When one's view is limiting, one is required to look for new and different perspectives. 7.2 For example, when Facebook and Google's algorithms create a filter bubble, (wikipedia: filter bubble) one must actively look for other perspectives to become truely open-minded. 7.4 The example above does not defend evil ideologies. 7.6 One way to avoid filter bubble online can be the use of alternative search engines or chrome extensions that block user data processing. 7.8 for example, "DuckDuckGo"(download extention) Principles should not be overhauled in a very short period of time. The violent changes in one's fundamental beliefs may be detrimental to one's subscription/belief in personal and collective principles as one who previously altered one's principles drastically may cease to abide by one's principles or frequently change one's principles for unscrupulous ends. Outside feedbacks may fuel cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is normal. Although the skill of contending with cognitive dissonance is not taught in schools, it is necessary for advancement in Cognitive Improvement. 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Dec 31, 2018, 6:50 PM (Last modified: Jan 2, 2019, 6:11 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #5 Lecture 4: Reason vs Logic Clarification: I am not logical and I do not pretend to be logical. No part of this lecture relies on logic or logic alone. This _free _course from EDX may explain more of basic logic: Logic and Computational thinking Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition) 1.1 In other words, logicians seek to determine the validity of arguments. Validity is used to describe the form that makes an argument impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. The validity of an argument is _independent _of the truth-value of an argument. 1.2 It is a highly specialized discipline that may be difficult for many people. The ability to use this tool is NOT a good predictor of Intelligence. 1.3 Reason is the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. (CED) It includes, but is not limited to logic. One can know nothing of logic yet use reasoning. Logic belongs to the category of critical thinking, which belongs to the category of criteria-based thinking. Traditional logicians are supposed to use criteria to determine the validity of arguments. Some basic formal categorical logic stuff: d) In a logical syllogism, all arguments must be declarative sentences. No interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences are allowed in a basic categorical syllogism. e) All sentences in the SCF are either universal or particular. All sentences with a proper name as the subject are universal. [Some logicians consider propositions with a proper noun as the subject "singular propositions" or rusellian propositions] f) All sentences in the SCF are either affirmative or negative. The qualifier "No" and the copula" is/are not" indicate a negative sentence. The qualifier "some" used with the copula "is/are" and the qualifier "All" indicate an affirmative sentence. g) All propositions in the SCF can be categorized into types of A, E, I , and O. Distribution , also called Distribution Of Terms, the application of a term of a proposition to the entire class that the term denotes. There are distributed terms and undistributed terms depending on each type of proposition. A: Universal Affirmative -> Subject distributed; Predicate undistributed E: Universal Negative -> Both terms distributed I: Particular Affirmative -> Both terms undistributed O: Particular Negative -> Predicate distributed; Subject undistributed (more on distribution) h) A syllogism is a very basic form of argumentation in categorical logic. A syllogism must have 3 declarative sentences and 3 terms only. The first two sentences are called the premises. The last sentence is called the conclusion. The conclusion always begin with "Therefore, ...". i) When examing the form of a syllogism or looking for formal errors, the content is not relevant to validity. The Major term is the subject of the conclusion. "P" is usually used for a major term's abbreviation. The Middle term is the term missing from the conclusion. "M" is usually used for a middle term's abbreviation. The Minor term is the predicate of the conclusion. "S" is usually used for a minor term's abbreviation. Please examine the following _valid _syllogism: j) The following 5 rules make up the criteria for checking the validity of a syllogism. k) All syllogisms violating any rule above are invalid due to Formal Fallacy. More logic stuff: m) Conversion is the inference in which the subject and predicate are interchanged. "E" and "I" are valid after Conversion. No "A-propositions" are valid after a perfect conversion*. No "O" is valid after conversion. "A-propositions" can first undergo conversion and then be slighly modified to become valid. n) Obversion is the inference in which the quality of the proposition is changed and the predicate is interchanged with its complement. In order to obvert a proposition, o) Contraposition is the inference in which the subject is interchanged with the complement of the predicate and the predicate is interchanged with the complement of the subject. Only "A" and "O" are valid after being contraposed. The E proposition has a contrapositive by a limitation. No "I" propositions have valid contrapositions. To contrapose a proposal: Yes, this is hard. Informal Fallacies are inherently invalid things about the content. p) Ambiguity: preventing a single meaning being conveyed clearly 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Jan 2, 2019, 6:14 PM (Last modified: Jan 12, 2019, 12:24 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #6 Lecture 5: On Science and Knowledge. "What is science?" is an overly general question. All overly general questions are not useful for most thing-doing people. "What is science?" is not a question that is useful for thing-doing people. The definition of science depends on context and on whom the question is addressed to. Experimental Sciences: This is the most widely used definition of "science". 2.1 "The" scientific method taught in school is likely a reduced or 'simplified' version of the practice. It may appear like this: courtesy to Khan Academy Natural history This term is this context does not refer to all experimental sciences unrelated to humans or diagonally opposed to human sciences. In this case, its definition is "a domain of inquiry involving nature and organisms; leaning more towards observational than experimental methods of study." 3.1 Although experimental science and natural history have some overlapping space, most scientists reject the methodology of natural history. 3.2 Natural history faced its downfall after experimental science proved to be more useful. Experimental science differs from natural science as experimental science seeks to understand the underlying truths and general patterns. Whereas natural science is satisfied at identifying and recording easily observable facts about objects and phenomena, experimental science requires empirical evidence to support complex and sometimes counterintuitive claims. Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Karl Popper, and Imre Lakatos WIP 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Jan 20, 2019, 11:54 AM (Last modified: Jan 20, 2019, 12:39 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #7 Lecture 6: Junior Epistemology / Theory of Knowledge Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity. Knowledge can be categorized as: The field of epistemology is rigid by nature. There are certain laws or accepted principles in the field. emotion: "1 a strong feeling, such as joy or anger. 2 instinctive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge. — DERIVATIVES emotionless adjective. — ORIGIN originally denoting a public disturbance: from French, from Latin emovere ‘disturb’." (theoryofknowledge.net) language: "Language is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so; and a language is any specific example of such a system." (wikipedia) The statues of {faith}, {memory}, {intuition} and {imagination} are disputed. There are six areas of knowledge: {aethetics}, {ethics}, {history}, {human science}, {mathematics} and {natural science}. aesthetics: the study of beauty ethics: the study of coherent, cohesive and logically consistent systems of morality history: the study of the past {this is not human science as experiments are not possible in history} human science: the study of human-related topics. mathematics: the study of such topics as quantity, structure, space, and change. {experiments are possible, but not required} natural science: the study of human-related topics Knowledge exists; it is different from belief, opinion, conjecture, and guesses. We cannot take granted that we know something. Epistemology asks these knowledge-related questions: Huge questions: 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Jan 27, 2019, 12:10 PM (Last modified: Jan 27, 2019, 12:20 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #8 Lecture 7: Role of Irrationality in Changes in Cognitive Systems [per 吴伯凡], the mental condition is composed of rationality, desire, and fear. 1.1 Other emotional states, such as envy, hate, and unstableness, tend to be subordinated/associated with either desire or fear. 1.2 Not all desires are primal/carnal. Some desires may be convoluted, for example, the desire for world peace. People tend to make different decisions when different elements of the mental condition are dominant. The percent composition of the mental condition is dependent on Ways of Knowing, which are: sense perception, reason, emotion, and language. Strong shifts in the elements of the mental condition may cause a change in one's identity or alliance. Although pathos has nothing to do with reason, it does play a significant role in changing one's behavior, position, stance and the system of learning/cognition. It is supposed that profound emotional impact can change a brainwashed, unsophisticated fascist.
  15. Materialist Ethics Overhaul: An Attempted Essay [Please Comment and Critique] CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Sep 1, 2018, 6:33 PM (Last modified: Sep 1, 2018, 6:38 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #1 This essay is written in Tractatus style: If a presumption is disagreed upon, all these and syntheses shall not be agreeable. If a thesis is disagreed upon, all future syntheses should be disagreeable. Ideas are not logically and concretely asserted to be true/viable. For comrades who regard 'evil' as an ill-defined term / social construct: The term 'detrimental' can be modeled for this essay as: Increasing the likelihood of extinction/destruction to humanity/sentient beings and what they collectively hold as valuable. E.g. Liberty, security, knowledge... Causing suffering to humans/sentient beings. The term 'intentionally detrimental' can be modeled as: being detrimental intentionally or willfully blind, unless one has no control over one's action/state of existence. The term 'constructive' is modeled as the opposite of detrimental or securing the existing of sentience and relieving/reducing/eliminating suffering. • Presumption 0. The environment and treatment by others cause people to have an increased or decreased chance of performing certain actions. E.g. High temperature is correlated to (is often considered a cause of) higher crime rate; students from marginalized groups are less likely to get into a good education, housing, and career. • Thesis 1. One can manipulate the environment to manipulate oneself. For example, set an alarm clock to avoid tardy for school. One's actions may inadvertently (unwittingly) cause a change to the environment and disrupt other's probability to do things. • • Thesis 2. Corrupting (making others detrimental, for example, teaches children to swear) others is detrimental. Preventing corruption (advertising awareness of discrimination), cleansing (rehabilitation) and enlightening others are constructive. • Synthesis 1: Polluting an environment, which increases other's chance to do bad things, is bad and vice versa. • Thesis 3. The equality of opportunity is a better measurement of fairness than the equality of result. • Thesis 4. Certain resources are considered a source/supplier of virtue, especially when they cause those who possess, consume or utilize them (statistically) likelier to do constructive actions. (Productive jobs, lower crime rate, contraceptives, and abortion reduce the number of neglected children prone to become criminals,) • {Let us call these virtuous resources or VR for short} {An antithesis of VR may be called anti-VR, e.g. guns and drugs} {a construct, corruption velocity is used. It means the rate people are getting more likely to do detrimental things. Positive corruption velocity means people are getting worse.} • Thesis 5. VR can be stored in the form of potential, e.g. When education is put into a student, this student can tell right from wrong better. • • Thesis 6. VR is not constant; it can increase or decrease in an isolated system. It is somewhat dependent on the economy. It is also depended on how material wealth is allocated. • • Idea: rich people are more capable of not doing detrimental things, but they may choose to do detrimental regardless; poor people may want to be constructive, but their pathetic lack of VR unfairly corrupts them. • • Synthesis 2: Manipulating the possession or amount of VR alters the likelihood of people doing constructive/detrimental things. • • Synthesis 3: The lack of VR, or not enough VR is likely to cause people to become corrupt. • • Synthesis 4: The deceleration of a negative velocity of corruption is not worse than the acceleration of positive velocity of corruption. (In other words, the case of the constructive to become more constructive slower is better than the case of the detrimental become more detrimental faster, if one case must be chosen) • • Idea: The case that everyone experiences a positive velocity of corruption must be reduced. • • Synthesis 5: not all actions that immediately contribute constructive value will leave a constructive legacy over time; those that create immediate constructive value, but damages VR or the environment, resulting in increased corruption greater than the constructive value created, is detrimental. • • Idea: inequality of result may be justified when a net positive corruption velocity is the case. It may be the safest way to decrease corruption velocity to negative. • • Final remark: the allocation of VR is complicated and requires more debate/research. Do not publish / re-post without expressed permission.
  16. Cognition Improvement Course Question and Comment Thread CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Aug 20, 2018, 9:12 PM #1 Please reply here: Appreciated question format: {Question}:(question here) 0 likes Nathaniel_Penrose Administrator Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 739 Likes given: 40 Likes received: 86 General Secretary Message Aug 21, 2018, 6:22 PM #2 First of all, I must say this is a really cool lecture. I can't wait to see what else is in store. {Question}: How do you feel about the transfer of consciousness to machines in order to increase intellect in the future? {Question}: I feel the need to object to the idea that unpopularity hinders cognition development. I feel maybe translating this to a lack of social contact. I personally, am not a very popular person by any standards, but I've developed normally due to my social contact with people. General Secretary Minister of Foreign Affairs Administrative Council Member Co-Director of the Intelligence Dept. General in the People’s Revolutionary Armed Forces OOTND OOTR ODev ODov GSS ORB OoI OoL 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Aug 22, 2018, 10:58 AM #3 Nathaniel_Penrose wrote: Although this is not the main focus of the lecture, this technology will eventually be developed, unless better 'consciousness-storage' technologies are developed first, e.g. Genetically engineered babies who can regenerate all parts of the body. It is obviously true that human augmentation can divide people into two species (the rich superior) and (the poor inferior) if the world remains capitalist, imperialist and authoritarian by the time of such invention. It is known that learning efficiency can be dramatically increased by manipulating one's brain waves and that certain feelings, e.g. fear, can be removed by deactivating a part of the brain. I expect that the American government will be the (among) first who possess these technologies and that these technologies will be reserved to the military for a significant amount of time before commercialized if no large social disturbances shall happen. sources: https://phys.org/news/2008-09-army-invests-thought-helmet-technology.html https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/07/us-military-successfully-tests-electrical-brain-stimulation-to-enhance-staff-skills https://gajitz.com/war-of-the-words-us-army-developing-telepathy-helmet/ https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-Fire-Maverick-Scientists-Revolutionizing-ebook/dp/B01GCCT3G6/
  17. What is Anarcho-Syndicalism? A brief outline and criticism. Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Jul 22, 2018, 2:53 PM #1 Several of TCB's more prominent members have self identified as "Anarcho-Syndicalists" - myself included - but what exactly is it? In the first of a series of short articles, culled from various authors, on the various ideologies noted to exist among the bloc's population, I aim to give a brief overview. So, just what is Anarcho Syndicalism? In a nutshell, it's a method of industrial organisation which goes away from all the traditional conceptions of authority and government, of capitalism and the state. Whilst socialism - in the process of abolishing individual capitalism - creates something arguably worse to take its place in the form of a centrally controlled economic state, syndicalism instead sets out to build an organisational form based on the natural needs of man, based not on the dictates of a distant central authority, but on the voluntary cooperation of free and equal individuals in satisfying the local economic needs of those who form society. Syndicalism then, is an industrial manifestation of anarchism. But what is this "Anarchism" you talk of? Anarchism is simply a doctrine which teaches the necessity of a society without government; Syndicalism then, as a manifestation of anarchism, is based on the need for a functional economy, without central hierarchic control. Anarchism advocates a society based on the free co-operation of individual men and women for the fulfillment of their social and economic needs. Organisation on a voluntary basis is thus necessary for the operation of the means of production and the desirable public services, but no kind of superior body of authority, with its parliaments, police, bureaucracies, codes of law, taxes, armies and secretive intrigues in internal and foreign politics, has any place or value in a society based on justice and reason. In anarchic civil society then, a citizen - once he has fulfilled his contractual economic functions - can live as he/she will; providing he does not interfere with the freedom of his fellows. Anarchists mostly believe* that the means of production should be the property of society, held in common for the benefit and betterment of all, with the resources of nature and science being used to their full extent for the benefit of humanity - rather than shareholders. Only by such an arrangement, will the restricting influence of private property be removed, and in order that there may be no possibility of such private interests arising, the means of production shall be run not by any authority or elite or leaders, but by the people who are themselves concerned in production, (i.e. by the workers in each industry). And this is relevant because? Syndicalism is the method by which such control by the workers would be organised; it is also the method by which the workers - under a capitalist private property society - would organise themselves in order to work towards the attainment of the free classless society: Through the use of syndicates. But isn't a syndicate just a trade union? In a word - no. True, the syndicate is a form of union, but it's aim differs; whereas the ordinary trade union aims to gain improvements in wages and conditions under the present system, the syndicate also acts to promote the overthrow of that system and seek its replacement by the free society by means of social revolution - brought about by the economic (and political) direct action of the workers. It also differs from the ordinary trade union in its method of organisation; Your average trade union follows the pattern of governmental society in that it has a centralised authority at the centre and a permanent bureaucracy. Like any other classical bureaucracy, this cadre rapidly gains privilege and power becoming an economic class within its own right, with financial prospects and power at considerably higher levels than that of the workers who pay them - whom they are supposed to serve. The Syndicate on the other hand, is non- hierarchical, and is based on the organisation of workers by industry, at their places of work. The workers of each factory/depot/office/farm/etc are an autonomous unit - or cell, if you like - who govern their own affairs and who locally make all the decisions as to the work they will do. These individual units are joined federally, into a syndicate, which serves to co-ordinate the actions of the workers in each industry. The federal organisation has no authority over the workers in any branch, and cannot impose a veto on actions - quite unlike the traditional trade union executive. It has no permanent bureaucracy, and the few necessary officials are chosen to serve on a fixed short term basis. Said officials have no privileges which raise their standard of living above that of the workers, wield no authority of any kind, and receive no special payments for their service - beyond their normal wage. With the syndicate being actually governed from below, by popular will - rather than by directives imposed from above - it is truly representative of the will of the workers, and operates for the greater good of society, rather than for the benefit of a few. Its lack of centralism, bureaucracy and privilege means it has no vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the present order of society. Under the Anarcho-Syndicalist vision, Each working unit - be it a factory or a railway yard - will be run by the workers who actually operate it. There will be no authority, no management, and each worker will be jointly and equally responsible with the rest for the proper functioning of the industrial unit in which he works. The various units will be joined in federations which will co-ordinate their work throughout the country and make arrangements between the sections to ensure that each industry is properly co-ordinated. The industrial federations or syndicates will in turn be united in a national federation of industry which will act as the means of co-ordinating the activities of the various industries. That sounds nice. So An-Syn is all good then? It has no drawbacks or problems? Sadly, as with all political theories, there are issues; some of these are questions of how to react to changing economies and working patterns, others are more fundamental questions of how to achieve certain goals within the proposed framework. Here are a few such criticisms, culled from various places on the web: Anarcho-Syndicalism locks the revolution into the capitalist division of labor. There is no way for workers in a given enterprise to decide to dismantle the operation, because their livelihoods are connected to it. They have no way to live without that income. Anarcho-syndicalism does not provide a way out of this – that is, it does not create other sources of support for those workers. Anarcho-Syndicalism fails to take into account how the content of work has changed over the past half-century. Vast millions of people are now engaged in absolutely worthless work. This is work that should be abandoned not seized. It has no way to deal with a new, massive, change in the capitalist labor market -- temp work. These workers are not attached to any particular workplace, but move frequently amongst many. They are thus not in a position to seize anything, nor would they ever want to. It encourages wage-slaves to identify themselves as workers. Thus it perpetuates, and in fact fosters, this false identity. It tries to bring into being a class consciousness based on work, a working class consciousness. This is needed in order to seize workplaces, syndicalists think. But the original goal of the communist revolution was to abolish wage-slavery, abolish workers as workers, abolish the proletariat, abolish that whole class. That is, wage-slaves were to abolish themselves as wage-slaves. As it has happened, hardly anyone identifies with their work anymore. Nor should they. They know they are more than just workers. Their identities lie elsewhere, with family, friends, avocations, leisure activities (i.e., playing), and community. They are human beings with many interests and identities. They have given up the identity of worker (if they ever had it) but still have to keep doing the job in order to live. But that's all it is, just a way to make a living. It leaves out huge swaths of people – the unemployed, old people, sick people, young people, students, housewives. These people can only serve as the support troops in a revolution defined as seizing the means of production, which in turn is defined as seizing factories, offices, stores, or farms. The idea that only people with jobs can play a direct role in revolution is seriously mistaken. It has the wrong attitude toward small business families, small farmers, self-employed professionals and trades people. These categories of people tend to be seen as enemies rather than as potential allies. And indeed, in the anarcho-syndicalist model, there is no role for them in the revolution. It is often closely linked with unions which are organized outside workplaces. These unions can, and often have, betrayed the working class when the crunch comes. Two significant cases were the CNT in the Spanish Revolution, and Polish Solidarity in the Polish revolution of 1980-81. It has no way to deal with counter-revolutionary parties that are organized outside the structure of the federated workers councils. Thus the Bolsheviks were able to destroy the Soviets, Franco was able to destroy collectivized Spain, and Social Democrats were able to destroy the workers' and soldiers' councils in the German revolution of 1918-1919. It could attempt to organize its own army, but this couldn't be done within the structure of federated workers councils.
  18. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Jul 22, 2018, 1:38 PM #1 a book by David Graver ISBN 978-1-5011-4331-1 Full text available here; preface reproduced below. On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs In the spring of 2013, I unwittingly set off a very minor international sensation. It all began when I was asked to write an essay for a new radical magazine called Strike! The editor asked if I had anything provocative that no one else would be likely to publish. I usually have one or two essay ideas like that stewing around, so I drafted one up and presented him with a brief piece entitled “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs.” The essay was based on a hunch. Everyone is familiar with those sort of jobs that don’t seem, to the outsider, to really do much of anything: HR consultants, communications coordinators, PR researchers, financial strategists, corporate lawyers, or the sort of people (very familiar in academic contexts) who spend their time staffing committees that discuss the problem of unnecessary committees. The list was seemingly endless. What, I wondered, if these jobs really are useless, and those who hold them are aware of it? Certainly you meet people now and then who seem to feel their jobs are pointless and unnecessary. Could there be anything more demoralizing than having to wake up in the morning five out of seven days of one’s adult life to perform a task that one secretly believed did not need to be performed—that was simply a waste of time or resources, or that even made the world worse? Would this not be a terrible psychic wound running across our society? Yet if so, it was one that no one ever seemed to talk about. There were plenty of surveys over whether people were happy at work. There were none, as far as I knew, about whether or not they felt their jobs had any good reason to exist. This possibility that our society is riddled with useless jobs that no one wants to talk about did not seem inherently implausible. The subject of work is riddled with taboos. Even the fact that most people don’t like their jobs and would relish an excuse not to go to work is considered something that can’t really be admitted on TV—certainly not on the TV news, even if it might occasionally be alluded to in documentaries and stand-up comedy. I had experienced these taboos myself: I had once acted as the media liaison for an activist group that, rumor had it, was planning a civil disobedience campaign to shut down the Washington, DC, transport system as part of a protest against a global economic summit. In the days leading up to it, you could hardly go anywhere looking like an anarchist without some cheerful civil servant walking up to you and asking whether it was really true he or she wouldn’t have to go to work on Monday. Yet at the same time, TV crews managed dutifully to interview city employees—and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them were the same city employees—commenting on how terribly tragic it would be if they wouldn’t be able to get to work, since they knew that’s what it would take to get them on TV. No one seems to feel free to say what they really feel about such matters—at least in public. It was plausible, but I didn’t really know. In a way, I wrote the piece as a kind of experiment. I was interested to see what sort of response it would elicit. This is what I wrote for the August 2013 issue: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a fifteen-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it. Why did Keynes’s promised utopia—still being eagerly awaited in the sixties—never materialize? The standard line today is that he didn’t figure in the massive increase in consumerism. Given the choice between less hours and more toys and pleasures, we’ve collectively chosen the latter. This presents a nice morality tale, but even a moment’s reflection shows it can’t really be true. Yes, we have witnessed the creation of an endless variety of new jobs and industries since the twenties, but very few have anything to do with the production and distribution of sushi, iPhones, or fancy sneakers. So what are these new jobs, precisely? A recent report comparing employment in the US between 1910 and 2000 gives us a clear picture (and I note, one pretty much exactly echoed in the UK). Over the course of the last century, the number of workers employed as domestic servants, in industry, and in the farm sector has collapsed dramatically. At the same time, “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers” tripled, growing “from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment.” In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away. (Even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be.) But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations. And these numbers do not even reflect all those people whose job is to provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or, for that matter, the whole host of ancillary industries (dog washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones. These are what I propose to call “bullshit jobs.” It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient Socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as it had to. (This is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat.) But, of course, this is the very sort of problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens. While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing, and maintaining things. Through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves—not unlike Soviet workers, actually—working forty- or even fifty-hour weeks on paper but effectively working fifteen hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organizing or attending motivational seminars, updating their Facebook profiles, or downloading TV box sets. The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger. (Think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the sixties.) And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them. Once, when contemplating the apparently endless growth of administrative responsibilities in British academic departments, I came up with one possible vision of hell. Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at. Say they were hired because they were excellent cabinetmakers, and then discover they are expected to spend a great deal of their time frying fish. Nor does the task really need to be done—at least, there’s only a very limited number of fish that need to be fried. Yet somehow they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their coworkers might be spending more time making cabinets and not doing their fair share of the fish-frying responsibilities that before long, there’s endless piles of useless, badly cooked fish piling up all over the workshop, and it’s all that anyone really does. I think this is actually a pretty accurate description of the moral dynamics of our own economy. Now, I realize any such argument is going to run into immediate objections: “Who are you to say what jobs are really ‘necessary’? What’s ‘necessary,’ anyway? You’re an anthropology professor—what’s the ‘need’ for that?” (And, indeed, a lot of tabloid readers would take the existence of my job as the very definition of wasteful social expenditure.) And on one level, this is obviously true. There can be no objective measure of social value. I would not presume to tell someone who is convinced they are making a meaningful contribution to the world that, really, they are not. But what about those people who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless? Not long ago, I got back in touch with a school friend whom I hadn’t seen since I was fifteen. I was amazed to discover that in the interim, he had become first a poet, then the front man in an indie rock band. I’d heard some of his songs on the radio, having no idea the singer was someone I actually knew. He was obviously brilliant, innovative, and his work had unquestionably brightened and improved the lives of people all over the world. Yet, after a couple of unsuccessful albums, he’d lost his contract, and, plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, “taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school.” Now he’s a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist. There’s a lot of questions one could ask here, starting with, What does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law? (Answer: If 1 percent of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call “the market” reflects what they think is useful or important, not anybody else.) But even more, it shows that most people in pointless jobs are ultimately aware of it. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever met a corporate lawyer who didn’t think their job was bullshit. The same goes for almost all the new industries outlined above. There is a whole class of salaried professionals that, should you meet them at parties and admit that you do something that might be considered interesting (an anthropologist, for example), will want to avoid even discussing their line of work entirely. Give them a few drinks, and they will launch into tirades about how pointless and stupid their job really is. This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labor when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist? How can it not create a sense of deep rage and resentment? Yet it is the peculiar genius of our society that its rulers have figured out a way, as in the case of the fish fryers, to ensure that rage is directed precisely against those who actually do get to do meaningful work. For instance: in our society, there seems to be a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it. Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: What would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it’s obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dockworkers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science-fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs, or legal consultants to similarly vanish.[1] (Many suspect it might improve markedly.) Yet apart from a handful of well-touted exceptions (doctors), the rule holds surprisingly well. Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralyzing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyze London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It’s even clearer in the United States, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against schoolteachers and autoworkers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry executives who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It’s as if they are being told “But you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that, you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?” If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it’s hard to see how he or she could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorized stratum of the universally reviled unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)—and particularly its financial avatars—but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value. Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working three- to four-hour days. If ever an essay’s hypothesis was confirmed by its reception, this was it. “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs” produced an explosion. The irony was that the two weeks after the piece came out were the same two weeks that my partner and I had decided to spend with a basket of books, and each other, in a cabin in rural Quebec. We’d made a point of finding a location with no wireless. This left me in the awkward position of having to observe the results only on my mobile phone. The essay went viral almost immediately. Within weeks, it had been translated into at least a dozen languages, including German, Norwegian, Swedish, French, Czech, Romanian, Russian, Turkish, Latvian, Polish, Greek, Estonian, Catalan, and Korean, and was reprinted in newspapers from Switzerland to Australia. The original Strike! page received more than a million hits and crashed repeatedly from too much traffic. Blogs sprouted. Comments sections filled up with confessions from white-collar professionals; people wrote me asking for guidance or to tell me I had inspired them to quit their jobs to find something more meaningful. Here is one enthusiastic response (I’ve collected hundreds) from the comments section of Australia’s Canberra Times: Wow! Nail on the head! I am a corporate lawyer (tax litigator, to be specific). I contribute nothing to this world and am utterly miserable all of the time. I don’t like it when people have the nerve to say “Why do it, then?” because it is so clearly not that simple. It so happens to be the only way right now for me to contribute to the 1 percent in such a significant way so as to reward me with a house in Sydney to raise my future kids… Thanks to technology, we are probably as productive in two days as we previously were in five. But thanks to greed and some busy-bee syndrome of productivity, we are still asked to slave away for the profit of others ahead of our own nonremunerated ambitions. Whether you believe in intelligent design or evolution, humans were not made to work—so to me, this is all just greed propped up by inflated prices of necessities.[2] At one point, I got a message from one anonymous fan who said that he was part of an impromptu group circulating the piece within the financial services community; he’d received five emails containing the essay just that day (certainly one sign that many in financial services don’t have much to do). None of this answered the question of how many people really felt that way about their jobs—as opposed to, say, passing on the piece as a way to drop subtle hints to others—but before long, statistical evidence did indeed surface. On January 5, 2015, a little more than a year after the article came out, on the first Monday of the new year—that is, the day most Londoners were returning to work from their winter holidays—someone took several hundred ads in London Underground cars and replaced them with a series of guerrilla posters consisting of quotes from the original essay. These were the ones they chose: Huge swathes of people spend their days performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs for the sake of keeping us all working. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labor when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist? The response to the poster campaign was another spate of discussion in the media (I appeared briefly on Russia Today), as a result of which the polling agency YouGov took it upon itself to test the hypothesis and conducted a poll of Britons using language taken directly from the essay: for example, Does your job “make a meaningful contribution to the world”? Astonishingly, more than a third—37 percent—said they believed that it did not (whereas 50 percent said it did, and 13 percent were uncertain). This was almost twice what I had anticipated—I’d imagined the percentage of bullshit jobs was probably around 20 percent. What’s more, a later poll in Holland came up with almost exactly the same results: in fact, a little higher, as 40 percent of Dutch workers reported that their jobs had no good reason to exist. So not only has the hypothesis been confirmed by public reaction, it has now been overwhelmingly confirmed by statistical research. Clearly, then, we have an important social phenomenon that has received almost no systematic attention.[3] Simply opening up a way to talk about it became, for many, cathartic. It was obvious that a larger exploration was in order. What I want to do here is a bit more systematic than the original essay. The 2013 piece was for a magazine about revolutionary politics, and it emphasized the political implications of the problem. In fact, the essay was just one of a series of arguments I was developing at the time that the neoliberal (“free market”) ideology that had dominated the world since the days of Thatcher and Reagan was really the opposite of what it claimed to be; it was really a political project dressed up as an economic one. I had come to this conclusion because it seemed to be the only way to explain how those in power actually behaved. While neoliberal rhetoric was always all about unleashing the magic of the marketplace and placing economic efficiency over all other values, the overall effect of free market policies has been that rates of economic growth have slowed pretty much everywhere except India and China; scientific and technological advance has stagnated; and in most wealthy countries, the younger generations can, for the first time in centuries, expect to lead less prosperous lives than their parents did. Yet on observing these effects, proponents of market ideology always reply with calls for even stronger doses of the same medicine, and politicians duly enact them. This struck me as odd. If a private company hired a consultant to come up with a business plan, and it resulted in a sharp decline in profits, that consultant would be fired. At the very least, he’d be asked to come up with a different plan. With free market reforms, this never seemed to happen. The more they failed, the more they were enacted. The only logical conclusion was that economic imperatives weren’t really driving the project. What was? It seemed to me the answer had to lie in the mind-set of the political class. Almost all of those making the key decisions had attended college in the 1960s, when campuses were at the very epicenter of political ferment, and they felt strongly that such things must never happen again. As a result, while they might have been concerned with declining economic indicators, they were also quite delighted to note that the combination of globalization, gutting the power of unions, and creating an insecure and overworked workforce—along with aggressively paying lip service to sixties calls to hedonistic personal liberation (what came to be known as “lifestyle liberalism, fiscal conservativism”)—had the effect of simultaneously shifting more and more wealth and power to the wealthy and almost completely destroying the basis for organized challenges to their power. It might not have worked very well economically, but politically it worked like a dream. If nothing else, they had little incentive to abandon such policies. All I did in the essay was to pursue this insight: whenever you find someone doing something in the name of economic efficiency that seems completely economically irrational (like, say, paying people good money to do nothing all day), one had best start by asking, as the ancient Romans did, “Qui bono?”—“Who benefits?”—and how. This is less a conspiracy theory approach than it is an anticonspiracy theory. I was asking why action wasn’t taken. Economic trends happen for all sorts of reasons, but if they cause problems for the rich and powerful, those rich and powerful people will pressure institutions to step in and do something about the matter. This is why after the financial crisis of 2008–09, large investment banks were bailed out but ordinary mortgage holders weren’t. The proliferation of bullshit jobs, as we’ll see, happened for a variety of reasons. The real question I was asking is why no one intervened (“conspired,” if you like) to do something about the matter. In this book I want to do considerably more than that. I believe that the phenomenon of bullshit employment can provide us with a window on much deeper social problems. We need to ask ourselves, not just how did such a large proportion of our workforce find themselves laboring at tasks that they themselves consider pointless, but also why do so many people believe this state of affairs to be normal, inevitable—even desirable? More oddly still, why, despite the fact that they hold these opinions in the abstract, and even believe that it is entirely appropriate that those who labor at pointless jobs should be paid more and receive more honor and recognition than those who do something they consider to be useful, do they nonetheless find themselves depressed and miserable if they themselves end up in positions where they are being paid to do nothing, or nothing that they feel benefits others in any way? There is clearly a jumble of contradictory ideas and impulses at play here. One thing I want to do in this book is begin to sort them out. This will mean asking practical questions such as: How do bullshit jobs actually happen? It will also mean asking deep historical questions, like, When and how did we come to believe that creativity was supposed to be painful, or, how did we ever come up with the notion that it would be possible to sell one’s time? And finally, it will mean asking fundamental questions about human nature. Writing this book also serves a political purpose. I would like this book to be an arrow aimed at the heart of our civilization. There is something very wrong with what we have made ourselves. We have become a civilization based on work—not even “productive work” but work as an end and meaning in itself. We have come to believe that men and women who do not work harder than they wish at jobs they do not particularly enjoy are bad people unworthy of love, care, or assistance from their communities. It is as if we have collectively acquiesced to our own enslavement. The main political reaction to our awareness that half the time we are engaged in utterly meaningless or even counterproductive activities—usually under the orders of a person we dislike—is to rankle with resentment over the fact there might be others out there who are not in the same trap. As a result, hatred, resentment, and suspicion have become the glue that holds society together. This is a disastrous state of affairs. I wish it to end. If this book can in any way contribute to that end, it will have been worth writing.
  19. [Course] The Government of The Communist Bloc frits Citizen Joined: Jun 7, 2018 Posts: 223 Likes given: 14 Likes received: 12 PRAF Central Committee New Min Message Sep 2, 2018, 11:16 AM #1 Course on the Government of The Communist Bloc This course is about the government of The Communist Bloc. So, it will discuss the various institutions and offices the Bloc has, like the office of General Secretary, the Central Committee and the People's Tribunal. This course will discuss the checks and balances and how a proposal becomes law (or not, and gets killed in the process). Any suggestions can be sent to me per Discord (frits#3565), you can telegram me on NationStates (New Min) or send me a message through the message system of the forums. Subjects: 1/ A general overview of the Bloc government 2/ The Office of the (Deputy) General Secretary 3/ The Office of the WA Delegate 4/ The various Ministers and Ministries 5/ The Central Committee 6/ The People's Tribunal 7/ The Administrative Council 8/ An overview of the checks and balances 9/ How a bill becomes a law (or not) Please do not post replies to this thread! Minister of World Assembly Affairs Central Committee member Justice on the People's Tribunal Sergeant of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces 0 likes frits Citizen Joined: Jun 7, 2018 Posts: 223 Likes given: 14 Likes received: 12 PRAF Central Committee New Min Message Sep 2, 2018, 11:47 AM (Last modified: Sep 2, 2018, 11:58 AM by frits) #2 Subject 1: A general overview of the Bloc government When you join NationStates and look at The Communist Bloc, you may think it is just a region. In some way, it is. But we must not forget the People's Republic of The Communist Bloc is more than that. It represents a democratic government. (Depends on whether or not you consider a republic a democratic government.) The government has implemented the well-known Trias Politica, also known as separation of powers, to ensure the government can not become a dictatorship. The first branch of government as described in the Trias Politica is the legislative branch. The legislative branch of The Communist Bloc has one sole institution, the Central Committee. Many nations in real life prefer to have two bodies within the legislative branch, for example, the United States of America, who have both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but The Communist Bloc does not have such a system. The second branch of government in the Trias Politica is the executive branch. The executive branch of The Communist Bloc is lead by the General Secretary, who serves as Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces (known as the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces, or PRAF). The General Secretary appoints Ministers to lead the various Ministries of The Communist Bloc, like the Ministry of Domestic Affairs or the Ministry of Defense. These Ministers serve the General Secretary and can be forced to resign at any moment. The third branch of government in the Trias Politica is the judicial branch. The sole body of the judicial branch in The Communist Bloc is the People's Tribunal, a tribunal which rules on both criminal cases and legal questions. The People's Tribunal can not make law, but solely interpret it and act as described in the rule of law. The Tribunal does not handle as many cases as real-life judges would do, but they can be extremely important. The Administrative Council is not part of the Trias Politica and is also not elected. The council consists of all Administrators (with one Head Administrator) and is tasked with keeping the discussion in the Bloc's RMB, Discord and other official channels civil and has the right to ban any and all citizens and residents that do not keep to the Administrative laws. Additionally, the Administrative Council may appoint Moderators to fulfil tasks for the Administrators, but those Moderators are not part of the Council themselves. Here follows a list of the most important positions within the Bloc, plus whether they are elected or appointed: Central Committee members: 9 members, elected every 2 months Premier: internally elected by the Central Committee (Deputy) General Secretary: both elected every 2 months Ministers: appointed by the General Secretary, with the consent of the public WA Delegate: appointed by the General Secretary Chief Justice: internally elected by the Justices Justices: 5 Justices, elected every 6 months Head Administrator: internally elected by the Administrative Council Administrative Council: members chosen by sitting Administrators Minister of World Assembly Affairs Central Committee member Justice on the People's Tribunal Sergeant of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces 2 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Dec 29, 2018, 12:44 PM (Last modified: Dec 31, 2018, 5:44 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #3 I, the new Dean, shall take over this course. Section 2: (Deputy) General Secretary (GS/DGS) The GS can appoint: Ministers (with the consent and advice of their deputy) The WA Delegate (with the consent and advice of their deputy) Interim Premier The GS has power to: Issue Executive Orders Veto Legislations; the veto can be overturned by a 3/4 majority vote in the Central Committee Declare a State of Emergency with the advice and consent of their Deputy, and with a 2/3 majority approval of the Central Committee Create and abolish Ministries Direct people to endorse the WA delegate. Whoever is the incumbent GS is: Commander in Chief of the PRAF (People's Revolutionary Armed Forces). Representation of TCB internationally. Head of TCB. NOT the incumbent Premier. NOT a Justice The DGS assists the GS' day-to-day duties. The Deputy General Secretary may be removed from office by either a 3/4s vote in the Central Committee. 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Dec 31, 2018, 5:59 PM (Last modified: Dec 31, 2018, 6:22 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #4 Sidenote 1: Premier After the permanent DD amendment, ALL citizens are members of the Central Committee. Hence, ALL citizens can vote for the Premier. The Premier election, unlike the GS/DGS election, is elected through an approval-based voting system in which one vote for all candidates one approves. The Premier must achieve a 2/3rds vote of approval within the Central Committee to assume the office of Premier. The interim Premier oversees the election of the Premier. The Premier Chairs the CC by regulating the voting procedure. This is the main task of the Premier. The incumbent Premier is: a member of the Cabinet. NOT allowed to show party/ideological favoritism while being the premier allowed to remain party membership. 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Dec 31, 2018, 6:22 PM (Last modified: Jan 3, 2019, 10:54 AM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #5 3/ The Office of the WA Delegate The WA delegate is appointed by the General Secretary. The office is occupied by Mitcha / the prosperous land of Kethania. The WA delegate is responsible for kicking invaders/raiders out of our region. As the said action consumed influence, we need all WA nations to endorse our comrade WA Delegate. The WA delegate votes in the WA with the total amount of voting power as the number of WA endorsement our WA delegate receives. 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Jan 3, 2019, 11:17 AM #6 Subject 4: Ministers The ministers are appointed by the GS with the consent of the public. These are the current ministries of TCB: MoDA/Ministry of Domestic Affairs MoFA/Ministry of Foreign Affairs MoWAA/Ministry of World Assembly Affairs MoI/Ministry of Information MoInt/Ministry of Defence MoC/Ministry of Culture 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Jan 13, 2019, 1:06 PM #7 This course shall be revamped after the constitutional convention.
  20. Bloc Law 101 - Sponsored by the Ministry of Justice Lewis-Flood Administrator Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 296 Likes given: 27 Likes received: 31 Citizen Message Aug 18, 2018, 10:56 AM #1 Hello folks! The Ministry of Justice will be running a Bloc Law course, which will cover everything from key constitutional questions to mundane procedures. After the final lesson has been posted, a bar exam process will be opened for five citizens (initially) to become recognized as qualified in Bloc law. Lesson Order: Constitutional Law 1 Constitutional Law 2 Constitutional Questions Domestic Affairs 1 & 2 Domestic Affairs Q&A Administrative Law 1 Administrative Law Q&A Executive Order 1 Executive Power A question of branches Foreign Affairs 1 A lecture on domestic law in relation to international law Legal Process 1 Court Proceedings If you are interested, say so below! Lewis Kuznetsov-Flood Administrator Honoured Comrade OND OR OC GSS OG 17:11] Nathaniel Penrose : I’ll go resign then 0 likes M.M. Administrator Joined: Apr 30, 2018 Posts: 260 Likes given: 6 Likes received: 30 Citizen Hypnokommunista Message Aug 18, 2018, 10:58 AM #2 bruh sign me the hecc up i gotta get that bar cred for being a justice m.m. "hecc the police" admin sorta kinda chief justice central committee member archives committee member asst. minister of intel honorary minister of memes unless they got rid of it without telling me citizen of the bloc since uh 2015 i think 0 likes Lil-Stapler Administrator Joined: May 1, 2018 Posts: 605 Likes given: 14 Likes received: 55 Citizen PRAF MinisterPremier Roleplay Council Rukiana Message Aug 18, 2018, 10:59 AM #3 Sign me up too Rukiana Former General Secretary (3 terms) Former Central Committee Member (1 term) Former CRP Party Secretary (2 terms) PRAF (General) Minister of Domestic Affairs Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Director of World Assembly Affairs 0 likes Nathaniel_Penrose Administrator Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 739 Likes given: 40 Likes received: 86 General Secretary Message Aug 18, 2018, 11:09 AM #4 I chair the CC so yeah I’m down. General Secretary Minister of Foreign Affairs Administrative Council Member Co-Director of the Intelligence Dept. General in the People’s Revolutionary Armed Forces OOTND OOTR ODev ODov GSS ORB OoI OoL 0 likes Egaleca Citizen Joined: Apr 30, 2018 Posts: 1274 Likes given: 45 Likes received: 28 PRAF Roleplay CouncilSection Moderator Egaleca Message Aug 18, 2018, 11:10 AM #5 Sign me up Egaleca Former Minister of Domestic Affairs 0 likes Achain Resident Joined: Apr 29, 2018 Posts: 4 Likes given: 4 Likes received: 0 Achain Message Aug 18, 2018, 11:12 AM #6 Sign me up! 0 likes Sender23 Citizen Joined: Aug 13, 2018 Posts: 23 Likes given: 0 Likes received: 1 Serbostria Message Aug 18, 2018, 11:21 AM #7 Sign me up comrade. Identification Papers 0 likes Kirk_Socramander Citizen Joined: Apr 30, 2018 Posts: 397 Likes given: 6 Likes received: 5 PRAF MinisterCentral CommitteeSection Moderator Sodoran Alesia Message Aug 18, 2018, 11:35 AM #8 Sign me up bro. Minister of Culture Central Committee Member Dean of Brightbay University Judiciary on The People's Tribunal GS Intern 0 likes frits Citizen Joined: Jun 7, 2018 Posts: 223 Likes given: 14 Likes received: 12 PRAF Central Committee New Min Message Aug 18, 2018, 5:22 PM #9 sign me up Minister of World Assembly Affairs Central Committee member Justice on the People's Tribunal Sergeant of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces 0 likes Turkducken Citizen Joined: May 31, 2018 Posts: 3 Likes given: 0 Likes received: 0 Turkducken Message Aug 19, 2018, 8:24 PM #10 I too would also like to be signed up 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 251 Likes given: 86 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Aug 20, 2018, 12:39 PM #11 Lil-Stapler wrote: Turkducken wrote: Sender23 wrote: Please sign me up comrade.
  21. Course on the Spanish Language Vlad_Schpilkes Citizen Joined: Apr 29, 2018 Posts: 232 Likes given: 17 Likes received: 9 PRAF Section Moderator Morganfreemankarlmarxland Message Jul 20, 2018, 8:07 AM (Last modified: Jul 21, 2018, 6:57 AM by Vlad_Schpilkes) #1 Course on the Spanish Language, Part the First By Vlad Schpilkes and Nate Penrose Preface A while ago, we were going to do a course on Spanish, however this was delayed due to the move to the new forums. Remembering this, we decided to actually create the course. Disclaimer: We are not native speakers of Spanish; don’t yell at us for minor mistakes. Criticism from native speakers is welcome, but don’t post it here. A Brief History of the Spanish Language In the 200s BCE, Vulgar Latin (i.e. informal Latin spoken by the common people) was brought to the Iberian Peninsula by the Romans. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th Century CE, the regional dialects of Vulgar Latin began to evolve into the distinct, modern Romance languages. Between the years 711 and 1492, the Iberian Peninsula was governed by the Moors, Muslims of North African descent. In this time, the Arabic Language had a great impact on the Spanish Language, introducing such words as Alfombra (carpet), Álgebra, and Alcohol. It is estimated that 8% of Spanish vocabulary has an Arabic origin. Beginning in the 16th Century, Spanish was spread throughout much of the world by means of imperialism. In the 17th Century, the Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes wrote El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha, which is often considered to be the first modern novel. Today, Spanish is the second most spoken native language in the world. Why Learn Spanish? Due to the glories of imperialism, Spanish is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world and the second most spoken language in the United States. Thus, knowing even a small amount of spanish allows a person to have an edge in the competitive capitalist hell of the job market because chances are, there will be an instance in most lines of work where it is necessary. Why not learn French, Italian, or even German? Because spanish is more widespread throughout the globe. Nearly 26 countries have spanish as an official language in some capacity, and even more speak it regularly, such as the Philippines and the US. Knowing spanish will help you to broaden your horizons and give you the ability to function abroad in many places. Spanish doesn’t just help you in a physical capacity, but in a mental one as well. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis theorizes that different languages give the brain different perceptions of the world, by learning new languages, a person can expand the way they think and receive reality! It has also been proven to help increase a person’s mental health and ability as age sets in. Spanish is also one of the easiest languages to learn, mainly because the words are pronounced how they are spelt (unlike our frankenstein of a language), making it easier to converse with people. But don’t my word for it, come to our classes and see for yourself! Lesson 1: The Spanish Alphabet The spanish alphabet is largely the same as that of the English one, as they both use latin letters for their words. There is one major difference however: the spanish alphabet has 30 letters instead of 26. The additional four will be shown below. And now, without further ado, THE ALPHABET! (Of course, this will be simplified as to not overwhelm people, clarification may occur in the future) A: Always pronounced like the a in “father” B: Same as in English 😄 Before e or i, it is pronounced like the s in “seat” (Or, in North and Central Spain, like the th in “think”) and elsewhere it is pronounced like the c in "cake" Ch: Same as in English 😧 Same as in English E: Pronounced like the e in “get”, or the ei in “eight” F: Same as in English G: Before e or i, it is pronounced like the ch in the Scottish “loch” or the German “buch.” Elsewhere, it is pronounced like the g in “get” H: Silent. I: Pronounced like the ee in “knee” J: Pronounced like the ch in the Scottish “loch” K: Same as in English L: Same as in English Ll: Pronounced like the y in “yes” or the j in “james” M: Same as in English N: Same as in English Ñ: Pronounced like the “ny” in the word canyon O: Pronounced like the o in “coat” P: Same as in English Q: Only appears before u (qu), and pronounced like the c in “cake” R: When found at the beginning of a word, is trilled r. Found elsewhere, it is a short, flapped, r, like the dd in “ladder” Rr: pronounced as a trilled or rolled r S: If found before a voiced consonant (i, m ,d) it is pronounced similar to a “z” in typical english, like in the word “is” or “busy.” Anywhere else, it is pronounced like a normal english s. T: Same as in English U: Pronounced like the oo in “food” V: Pronounced like the b in “boat” W: Usually very rare and only found in loanwords from the germanic languages. Pronounced similar to the english w. Y: Pronounced like the ee in “knee”, like the y in “yellow”, or like the j in “james” Z: Typically pronounced like the s in “sea”, or in Central and North Spain like the th in “think.” Before voiced consonants, it is pronounced like the regular English “z” or in Central and North Spain as the th in “that” Vlad Schpilkes Former CCM, Justice, Co-Minister of Defense, Minister of Culture, PRC Member, and Minister of Intelligence.
  22. Basic Electrical & Electronic Principles Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Aug 7, 2018, 2:59 PM (Last modified: Aug 9, 2018, 2:05 PM by Tarrin_Kael) #1 I shall shortly be posting a full course on basic electrical & electronic theory in this thread. Once complete, i then intend to follow it with a series of shorter pieces on more advanced subjects; these will be drawn from my old HND course notes, my amateur radio license textbooks, and collection of books on the subject. If we are going to claim that this is a university, we might as well teach something.... Lecture Index 1 SI Units 2 Electron Theory 3 Basic Circuit Theory 4 Ohms Law 5 Series Circuits 6 Parallel Circuits 7 Compound Circuits 8 Power & Energy 9 Magnetism 10 AC Power 11 AC Generators 12 Inductance 13 Capacitance 14 Reactance 15 Series R-L-C Circuit 16 Parallel R-L-C Circuit 17 Power and Power Factor 18 Transformers 19 Applications of Transformers 3 likes Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Aug 9, 2018, 2:04 PM #2 Lecture 1: SI Units Early units of measurement were based on easily observable and available comparisons such as the length of a stride, the weight of a stone or the time lapse of one day. Over time, further units were introduced and modified, continuously evolving into recognised values. The different disciplines of science and engineering all evolved in relative isolation, and the development of their own units resulted in an overwhelming variety of often very similar units. However, in all branches of science and engineering there is a need for a common and practical system of units that everyone can recognise and employ, thus in 1960 the General Conference of Weights and Measures agreed an international system known as the “Systeme International d′Unites” (abbreviated to SI Units). SI Units are based upon a small number of fundamental units from which all other units are derived. Fundamental Units SI Unit / Measure of / Symbol Metre / Length / m Kilogram / Mass / kg Second / Time / s Ampere / Electric Current / A Kelvin / Thermal Temperature / K Candela / Luminous Intensity / cd Derived Units SI Unit / Measure of / Symbol Coulomb / Charge / C Joule / Energy / J Newton / Force / N Ohm / Resistance / Ω Volt / Potential Difference / V Watt / Power / W SI Prefixes SI units have the advantage that prefixes representing various multiples or submultiples may be used to increase or decrease the size of the unit by various powers of 10. Common prefixes and their symbols are shown below. Prefix / Symbol / Multiplication Factor Terra / T / x 1 000 000 000 000 Giga / G / x 1 000 000 000 Mega / M / x 1 000 000 Kilo / k / x 1000 Hecto / h / x 100 Deca / Da / x 10 Deci / d / ÷ 10 Centi / c / ÷ 100 Milli / m / ÷ 1000 Micro / μ / ÷ 1 000 000 Nano / n / ÷ 1 000 000 000 Pico / p / ÷ 1 000 000 000 000 2 likes Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Aug 12, 2018, 3:33 PM #3 Lecture 2: Electron Theory At one time it was thought that atoms were minute solid particles which could not be broken down further and were in effect the basic “bricks”, from which substances were built up. We now know however, that atoms themselves are composed of even smaller particles. If smaller and smaller amounts of an element are taken, eventually a quantity is obtained which cannot be divided further without the element ceasing to exist as an element. The atoms of any one element are exactly alike but are different from the atoms of any other element. For example, atoms of the element sodium wherever they are found will all have the same weight; so too will all atoms of copper. But the weight of copper atoms will be different from the weight of sodium atoms. Atoms then, are the basic units of all elements. The word atom means indivisible and was chosen because, at one time, it was thought that these particles were incapable of further division. The Composition of Atoms An atom consists of a centre core or nucleus around which revolve a number of particles called electrons. The diagram below, shows the simple atomic structure of an atom. We see that it consists of electrons contained in “shells” orbiting around the nucleus like a sun with its planets spinning around it. Atoms are certainly very small; the diameter of the average atom, a measured across a sphere, which would just contain its revolving electrons, is about one four-millionth of a millimetre. That is 0.000 000 25mm. Again, the mass of an atom of hydrogen (the lightest atom) is only 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0016 g. Energy Levels Since an electron in an atom has both mass and motion, it contains two types of energy. By virtue of its motion the electron contains kinetic energy. Due to its position it also contains potential energy. The total energy contained by an electron (kinetic plus potential) is the factor which determines the radius of the electron orbit. In order for an electron to remain in this orbit, it must neither gain nor lose energy. The difference between the atoms, insofar as their chemical activity and stability are concerned, is dependent upon the number and position of the electrons included within the atom. In general, the electrons reside in groups of orbits called shells. These shells are elliptically shaped and are assumed to be located at fixed intervals. Thus, the shells are arranged in steps that correspond to fixed energy levels. Progressing outwards, the shells are labelled K, L, M, N, O, P and Q and R. The shells are considered to be full, or complete, when they contain the following quantities of electrons: two in the K shell, eight in the L shell, 18 in the M shell and so on. Electrical Charge The nucleus of an atom is made up of two kinds of matter: (a) Protons, which are particles of electricity, each one having unit positive charge. (b) Neutrons, which are electrically neutral particles. The nucleus of an atom is therefore always positively charged because of the protons contained therein. The electrons which revolve about the nucleus are also particles of electricity but each one has unit negative charge. That is, an electron has an equal but opposite charge to a proton. Usually atoms of matter are electrically neutral and for this to be so the number of electrons in an atom must equal the number of protons in its nucleus, so that the positive and negative charges cancel each other. In nature the number of electrons within an atom is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus. In neutral atoms there are the same number of protons and electrons; neutrons carry no charge. A force of attraction exists between the positively charged nucleus and negatively charged orbiting electrons. However, a force of repulsion exists between the particles of similar charge. One purpose of the neutrons therefore is to bind together the nucleus, which would otherwise fly apart under its own causes. Let us take an atom of hydrogen as an example. A hydrogen atom is incredibly small – about 10-8 cm in diameter – but if it could be magnified sufficiently it would be seen to consist of a core or nucleus with an electron travelling round it in roughly circular path or orbit, rather like a planet travelling round the sun. The nucleus has a positive quantity or charge of electricity and the electron an equal negative charge; thus the whole atom is electrically neutral. The atoms of other elements have more than one electron travelling round the nucleus; for example, the oxygen (O2) atom has eight electrons outside the nucleus, but the nucleus has eight positive charges on it which exactly neutralise the negative charges of the eight electrons. Thus, any atom under normal conditions is electrically neutral. Compounds When elements combine chemically they form what are known as compounds. Thus, water is a compound as it is made up of the elements of hydrogen and oxygen. Brass is the result of combining the elements copper and zinc, while sulphuric acid is a compound of hydrogen, sulphur and oxygen. Usually a compound looks and behaves very differently from the elements of which it is made. Molecules Atoms seldom exist freely as completely separate particles. Even when only one element is involved it is usual for atoms to bond themselves together to form groups of two or more. In the case of compounds, the smallest part of the substance must contain at least two atoms because it is made up of two or more elements each containing at least one atom. Any group of two or more atoms bonded together by their electrical forces is called a molecule. The diagram below shows a molecule of water containing two atoms of hydrogen each with one electron and one atom of oxygen with eight electrons. One fact of importance is that a molecule of a compound is produced by a combination of its elements in definite atomic proportions. For example, one molecule of water is always produced by combining two atoms of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen. The molecule is the smallest particle of a compound or element which can exist under normal everyday conditions. Free Electrons This simplified diagram shows a copper atom. The atoms travel around the nucleus in four orbits. Electrons in outer orbits are not so strongly attached to the positive nucleus as those closer in and hence may readily be stripped from their orbits. These are known as free electrons. An atom which has “lost” an electron in this way has lost one of its negative charges and is no longer neutral; it is called a positive “ion”. The electron stripped from its orbit may attach itself to a neighbouring atom in the material; this atom, having gained a negative charge, is no longer neutral and becomes a negative ion. In the normal state the single electrons to each copper atom move around in what is known as an excited state. The rate at which these electrons move is 186,000 mps or the speed of light. Electron Flow In some materials (e.g. conductors) the electrons stripped from their orbits can wander at random among the atoms; these are free electrons. If they can be made to move in a particular general direction through the material they constitute an electric current. So a current, or to be precise, a current in a metallic conductor, is a flow of electrons. Furthermore, the rate of flow, i.e. the number of electrons passing any point in a second, determines the size of the current. As was seen earlier, an electron is a very small particle and carries a very small charge of electricity; a colossal number of electrons have to flow before we have a measurable current. A flow of some 6.25 million million million electrons per second (six million two hundred and eighty thousand billion) is required to create a current of one ampere or “amp” – the practical unit of current. Conductors As discussed, an electric current is produced when free electrons move from one atom to the next. Materials that permit many electrons to move freely are called conductors. Copper, gold, silver, aluminium, zinc, brass, and iron are considered good conductors. Due largely to its mechanical properties, Copper is the most common material used for conductors and is relatively inexpensive. Insulators Materials with few free electrons are called insulators. Materials such as plastic, rubber, glass, mica, oils and ceramics are good insulators. Electrical Cable An electric cable is one example of how conductors and insulators are used together. Electrons flow along a copper conductor to provide energy to an electric device such as a radio, lamp, or a motor. An insulator around the outside of the copper conductor is provided to keep electrons in the conductor. Semiconductors Semiconductor materials, such as silicon, can be used to manufacture devices that have characteristics of both conductors and insulators. Many semiconductor devices will act like a conductor when an external force is applied in one direction. When the external force is applied in the opposite direction, the semiconductor device will act like an insulator. This principle is the basis for transistors, diodes, and other solid-state electronic devices. Electrical Charge The old saying, “opposites attract,” is true when dealing with electrical charge. Charged bodies have an invisible electric field around them. When two like-charged bodies are brought together, their electric fields repel one body from the other. When two unlike-charged bodies are brought together, their electric fields attract one body to the other. The electric field around a charged body forms invisible lines of force. These invisible lines of force cause the attraction or repulsion. Lines of force are shown leaving a body with a positive charge and entering a body with a negative charge. During the 18th century a French scientist, Charles A. Coulomb, studied fields of force that surround charged bodies. Coulomb discovered that charged bodies attract or repel each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the charges, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Today we call this Coulomb’s Law of Charges. Simply put, the force of attraction or repulsion depends on the strength of the charges and the distance between them. 3 likes Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Aug 15, 2018, 4:24 PM #4 Lecture 3: Basic Circuit Theory Voltage The flow of electricity in a circuit can be compared with water flowing through a pipe: A certain amount of force is required to get water to flow through a pipe. This force comes from either a water pump mechanically pressurising the pipework, or is simply due to the effect of gravity and a falling gradient. In an electrical circuit, Voltage is the force that is applied to a conductor that causes electric current to flow. Electrons are negative and are attracted by positive charges. They will always be attracted from a source having an excess of electrons, thus having a negative charge, to a source having a deficiency of electrons, giving it a positive charge. The force required to make electricity flow through a conductor may also be called the potential difference or electromotive force (EMF), instead of voltage. This is particularly noticeable in older books - and those aimed at a more pretentious audience - but it refers to precisely the same thing. The unit of measurement for voltage is a volt which is also designated by the letter “V”. The terminals of an electrical cell are indicated symbolically on an electrical drawing by two lines. The longer line indicates the positive terminal, the shorter line indicates the negative terminal, as per the left of the two images below.. A battery is made up of multiple cells, and this is reflected in it's symbol, which shows multiple cells - as per the right hand image. The symbol for a cell is also commonly used to denote a DC voltage source. These symbols were originated as schematic drawings of the earliest type of battery, a voltaic pile. Voltage Sources An electrical voltage can be generated in various ways, for example: A battery uses an electrochemical process - converting chemical potential energy into electrical energy. A car’s alternator and a power plant generator utilise a magnetic induction process to convert kinetic energy into electrical energy. All voltage sources share the characteristic of an excess of electrons at one terminal and a shortage at the other terminal; this results in a difference of potential between the two terminals, which induces a current. Current Electricity is the flow of free electrons in a conductor from one atom to the next atom in the same general direction. This flow of electrons is referred to as current and is designated by the symbol “I”. Electrons move through a conductor at different rates and electric current has different values. Current is determined by the number of electrons that pass through a cross-section of a conductor in one second. We must remember that atoms are very small. It takes about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms to fill one cubic centimetre of a copper conductor. Trying to measure even small values of current in terms of electron flow, would result in unimaginably large numbers. For this reason current is measured in amperes which are abbreviated “amps” - the letter “A” is the symbol for amps. Direction of Current Flow Some authorities distinguish between electron flow and current flow. Conventional current flow theory ignores the flow of electrons and states that current flows from positive to negative. We say that electricity flows from the positive (+) terminal of a battery to the negative (-) terminal of the battery. This flow of electric charge is called conventional current. This direction of flow is used throughout electronics and it is the one you should remember and use to understand the operation of circuits. (However this is not the whole answer because the particles that move in fact have negative charge! And they flow in the opposite direction!) Electron Flow When electricity was discovered, scientists tried many experiments to find out which way the electricity was flowing around circuits. In those early days however, with the state of electrical technology still in an experimental stage, they found it was impossible to find the direction of flow. They knew there were two types of electric charge, positive (+) and negative (-), and as everything known at that time could just as easily be explained if electricity was positive charge flowing to negative, or negative charge flowing the other way (from - to +), they logically decided to say that electricity was a flow of positive charge (from + to -). They knew this was a guess, but in order to codify and record what was known, a decision had to be made. However..... The electron was discovered in 1897 and it was found to have a negative charge; the guess made in the early days of electricity, and which all subsequent conventions have been based upon, was wrong. Electricity in almost all conductors is really the flow of electrons (negative charge) from - to +. By the time the electron was discovered the idea of electricity flowing from + to - (conventional current) was firmly established. Luckily it is not a problem to think of electricity in this way because positive charge flowing forwards is equivalent to negative charge flowing backwards. To prevent confusion you should always use conventional current when trying to understand how circuits work, imagine positively charged particles flowing from + to -. Resistance A third factor that plays a role in an electrical circuit is resistance; all materials impede the flow of electrical current to some extent. The amount of resistance depends upon composition, length, cross-sectional area and temperature of the resistive material. As a rule of thumb, resistance of a conductor increases with an increase of length or a decrease of cross-section. Resistance is designated by the symbol “R”. The unit of measurement for resistance is ohms (Ω). Resistance is usually indicated symbolically on an electrical drawing by one of two ways. An unfilled rectangle is commonly used, or a zigzag line may also be used. Resistors come in various forms as suggested by the images above; some are adjustable, have multiple values, or are continuously variable. All circuits have resistance. It can be in the form of various components, or simply due to cable length. A resistor may be deliberately included in the circuit, or the circuit might contain other devices that have their own resistance. Electrical Circuit Schematic A simple electric circuit consists of a voltage source, some type of load, and a conductor to allow electrons to flow between the voltage source and the load. In the following circuit a battery provides the voltage source, electrical wire is used for the conductor, and a lamp provides the resistance. An additional component has been added to this circuit, a switch. There must be a complete path for current to flow. If the switch is open, the path is incomplete and the light will not illuminate. Closing the switch completes the path, allowing electrons to leave the negative terminal and flow through the light to the positive terminal. The second diagram shows how the above circuit would be represented as a schematic. The following schematic is a representation of the same electrical circuit, with the addition of a voltmeter and an ammeter. The ammeter, connected in series with the circuit, will show how much current flows in the circuit. The voltmeter, connected in parallel with the lamp (the load), will show the value of voltage supplied from the battery. Before an analysis can be made of a circuit, we need to understand Ohm’s Law, which we will cover in the next lecture. 1 like Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Aug 18, 2018, 2:18 PM (Last modified: Aug 18, 2018, 2:20 PM by Tarrin_Kael) #5 Lecture 4: Ohm's Law The relationship between current, voltage and resistance was studied by the 19th century German mathematician, George Simon Ohm. Ohm formulated a law which states that current varies directly with voltage and inversely with resistance. From this law the following formula is derived: Voltage = Current x Resistance Or V = I x R Ohm’s Law is the basic formula used in all electrical circuits. Electrical designers must decide how much voltage is needed for a given load, such as computers, clocks, lamps and motors. Obviously, these decisions must be made with reference to the relationship between current, voltage and resistance. Thus all electrical design and analysis begins with Ohm’s Law. There are three mathematical ways to express Ohm’s Law. Which of the formula is used depends on what facts are known before starting and what facts need to be known. V=IxR I=V/R R=V/I There is an easy way to remember which formula to use. By arranging current, voltage and resistance in a triangle, one can quickly determine the correct formula. Using Ohm’s Law Using the simple circuit below, assume that the voltage supplied by the battery is 10 volts, and the resistance is 5 Ω. To find how much current is flowing through the circuit, cover the “I” in the triangle and use the resulting equation. I=V/R >>> I=10 Volts/5Ω >>> I = 2 Amps Using the same circuit, assume the ammeter reads 200 mA and the resistance is known to be 10 W. To solve for voltage, cover the “V” in the triangle and use the resulting equation. V = I x R >>> V = 0.2 x 10 >>> V = 2 Volts Remember to use the correct decimal equivalent when dealing with numbers that are preceded with milli (m), micro (m) or kilo (k). In this example, had 200 been used instead of converting the value to 0.2, the wrong answer of 2000 volts would have been calculated. Resistivity (ρ) The resistance or opposition to current flow varies between materials. The resistivity (symbol ρ - the Greek letter ‘rho’) of a material is defined as the resistance of a sample of unit length and cross-section at 20 degrees Celsius. The electrical resistivity ρ (rho) of a material is given by R=ρ(l/A) Where: R is the electrical resistance of a uniform specimen of the material (Ω) ρ is the resistivity (Ω) l is the length of the piece of material (m) A is the cross-sectional area of the specimen (m²) 1 like Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Aug 27, 2018, 12:50 PM (Last modified: Aug 27, 2018, 12:50 PM by Tarrin_Kael) #6 Lecture 5: Series Circuits Resistors & Resistance in a Series Circuit In any electrical circuit resistors may be connected in series, in parallel, or in any combination of series and parallel connections. A series circuit is formed when any numbers of resistors are connected end-to-end so that there is only one path for current to flow. The resistors can be actual resistors, or other devices that have a resistance value, as a result of how they are constructed. The following illustration shows three resistors connected end-to-end. There is one path of current flow from the negative terminal of the battery through R3, R2, R1 returning to the positive terminal. Formula for Series Resistance The values of resistance add in a series circuit. If a 4 Ω resistor is placed in series with a 6 Ω resistor, the total value will be 10 Ω. This is true when other types of resistive devices are placed in series. Thus the mathematical formula for resistance in series is: Rt = R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 + R5 …….+ Rn (Rt = total resistance, n = infinity) Therefore, if we assign the values of 1100, 50 & 50 ohms to R1, R2 & R3 respectively in the above illustration, we can work out the total resistance as follows: Rt = R1 + R2 + R3 Rt = 1100 + 50 + 50 Rt = 12,00Ω Current in a Series Circuit The equation for total resistance in a series circuit allows us to simplify a circuit. Using Ohm’s Law, the value of current can be calculated. Current is the same anywhere it is measured in a series circuit. Therefore, values I1, I2 & I3 in the drawing will all be the same. Thus, continuing to use this example circuit, and assuming that the input voltage at the battery (VT) is 6v; I=V/R I=12v/12,00Ω I=0.01A Voltage in a Series Circuit Voltage can be measured across each of the resistors in a circuit. The voltage across a resistor is referred to as a voltage drop. A German physicist, Gustav Kirchhoff, formulated a law which states: ‘The sum of the voltage drops across the resistances of a closed circuit equals the total voltage applied to the circuit’. This is known as Kirchoff's Law. In the following illustration, four equal value resistors (R1 to R4) have been placed in series with a battery. We will assume that each resistor has a value of 1.5Ω, and that Vs - the battery voltage - is 12 volts. Ohm’s Law can be applied to show that each resistor will “drop” an equal amount of voltage. First, solve for total resistance: Rt = R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 Rt = 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 Rt = 6 Ω Second, solve for current: I = V/R I = 12/6 I = 2 Amps Third, solve for voltage across any resistor: V = I x R V = 2 x 1.5 V = 3 Volts If voltage were measured across any single resistor (ie, value V1 on the drawing), the meter would read three volts. If voltage were read across a combination of R1 and R2 (ie, value V2 on the drawing), the meter would read six volts. If voltage were read across a combination of R1, R2, and R3 (ie, value V3 on the drawing), the meter would read nine volts. If voltage were read across all four resistors were added together (ie, value V4 on the drawing) the sum would be 12 volts, the original supply voltage of the battery (ie, value Vs). Voltage Division in a Series Circuit It is often desirable to use a voltage potential that is lower than the supply voltage. To do this, a voltage divider, similar to the one illustrated, can be used. The battery represents Vin which in this case is 50 volts. The desired voltage is represented by Vout, which for the purposes of this example, we need to calculate. R1 value is 5Ω, R2 value is 20Ω. To calculate this voltage, first solve for total resistance. RT = R1 + R2 RT = 5 + 20 RT = 25Ω Second, solve for current: I = V/R I = 50/25 I = 2 Amps Finally, solve for voltage: Vout = I x R2 Vout = 2 x 20 Vout = 40 Volts Therefore, to fit this into a formula, we can say that: Vout=Vin(R2/(R1+R2)) and Vin=Ix(R1+R2) Of course, this is not the only way to construct a voltage divider circuit; here are a few examples of other ways to do so: 1 like Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Sep 3, 2018, 2:28 PM #7 Lecture 6: Parallel Circuits Resistance in a Parallel Circuit A parallel circuit is formed when two or more resistances are placed in a circuit side-by-side so that current can flow through more than one path. The illustration above shows two resistors placed side-by-side. There are two paths of current flow. One path is from the negative terminal of the battery through R1, returning to the positive terminal. The second path is from the negative terminal of the battery through R2 returning to the positive terminal of the battery To determine the total resistance when resistors are of equal value in a parallel circuit, use the following formula: RT = (Value of any one resistor) / (Number of resistors in the circuit) So if we assume the values of R1 & R2 in the above drawing, are both 4Ω then the total resistance is worked out as follows: RT = (Value of any one resistor) / (Number of resistors in the circuit) RT = 4Ω/2 RT = 2Ω Yes that is correct, the total resistance is less than the value of an individual resistor within the circuit, due to the multiple current paths available. The more identical paths the current can take, the lower the resistance in each one. Think of it as poking holes in a tank of water; the more holes there are, the lower the pressure exerted on each hole, and the smaller the volume of water that flows from each hole. Similarly, the more current paths available, the lower the voltage in each branch, and the smaller the current flowing through each path. This still holds true when the resistors in the circuit are of different values, although a different formula must be used, as we will see below. In the above image, the circuit now contains two dissimilar resistors connected in parallel. Obviously, as the resistors are not the same, we have to use a different method than before to work out the resistance of the circuit. Therefore, in order to calculate the total resistance of dissimilar values parallel resistances, we must proceed as follows. First, the correct formula: 1/RT = 1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 …… + 1/Rn (where "n" equals infinity). Thus for this circuit, 1/RT = 1/R1 + 1/R2 Insert the resistor values, and it becomes 1/RT = 1/20Ω + 1/30Ω Then find the lowest common denominator (in this case, 60Ω) 1/RT = 3/60Ω + 2/60Ω Add together the numerators..... 1/RT = 5/60 .....and invert both sides of the equation. RT/1=60/5 Then simplify by dividing. RT/1 = RT, 60/5 = 12 thus: RT = 12Ω As noted previously, when resistors are placed in parallel across a voltage source, the voltage is the same across each resistor. This holds true, regardless of the value of the resistor; the resistance affects current flow, not potential difference. In the following illustration three resistors are placed in parallel across a 60 volt battery. Each resistor has 60 volts available to it, despite differences in current flow and resistance within each branch of the circuit. Current Flow in a parallel circuit. Current flowing through a parallel circuit divides and flows through each branch of the circuit. Total current in a parallel circuit is equal to the sum of the current in each branch. The following formula applies to current in a parallel circuit. It = I1 + I2 + I3 …… + In (where "n" equals infinity) Thus in the last circuit we looked at (repeated below), the total would be 12A + 6A + 4A, or 22A in total. It is important to note; circuits with equal resistances in each branch, may have their total current determined by working out the value of any single branch using ohms law, and multiplying that figure by the number of branches in the circuit as per the following diagram; 1A x 2 branches = 2A. circuits with unequal resistances in each branch, require each branch to have it's current worked out using ohms law. These figures must then be added together to give the total current ("It") present within the circuit. Thus, to work out the total current value of the following circuit... I1 = 12V / 12Ω = 1 A I2 = 12V / 24Ω = .5 A I1 + I2 = It 1A + .5A = 1.5A Thus to summarise: 1 like Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Oct 9, 2018, 1:59 PM #8 Lecture 7: Compound Circuits Series-parallel circuits are also known as compound circuits. At least three resistors - or other components - are required to form a series-parallel circuit - as shown simply in the below. However, resistors can also be connected together in an unlimited number of series and parallel combinations to form complex resistive circuits. The formulas required for solving current, voltage and resistance problems in series and parallel circuits have already been defined in previous lectures, however they cannot be directly applied to the circuit in it's current form. In order to analyse a series-parallel circuit, you must first reduce the compound circuits to equivalent simple circuits. In the illustration, R2 and R3 are parallel with each other. R1 is in series with the parallel circuit of R2 and R3. If we assume that all three resistors shown have an equal value - 10 ohms - then we can break the circuit down into more easily managed parts, by working out the equivalent values. Using the techniques explained in previous lectures, we can work out the equivalent value of the parallel resistors as being the same as a 5 ohm series resistor. Once we have determined this, we can redraw the circuit as a series circuit - which gives us a total resistance of 15 ohms. Remember, parallel resistances are equal to smaller series resistances, so we can transform/redraw complex circuits in a simpler form, to make them easier to understand. Thus the circuit shown as diagram "B", in the image below, is electrically identical to that labelled "A", despite the different configuration: taking this approach one step further, allows us to greatly simplify the circuit.... ....and can be applied to unequal resistances just as easily: Here's a more complex example; at first glance this resistor ladder network may seem complicated, but as before it is just a combination of series and parallel resistors connected together. Starting from the right hand side and using the simplified equation for two parallel resistors, we can find the equivalent resistance of the R8 to R10 combination and call it RA. RA is in series with R7 therefore the total resistance will be RA + R7 = 4 + 8 = 12Ω, as shown. This resistive value of 12Ω is now in parallel with R6 and can be calculated as RB. The resulting resistance "RB" is itself in series with R5, therefore the total resistance will be RB + R5 = 4 + 4 = 8Ω. This value of 8Ω is in parallel with R4, and can be simplified down further as "RC" - as shown below. We now find RC to be in series with R3 - therefore the total resistance of this section will be RC + R3 = 8Ω. This resistance of 8Ω is now in parallel with R2 from which we can calculate RD: RD is now in series with R1, allowing us to calculate the total resistance of the entire circuit. Therefore, the total resistance will be RD + R1 = 4 + 6 = 10Ω. Thus the apparently complex network of resistors as originally presented, comprising of ten individual resistors connected together in series and parallel combinations, can be replaced with just one single equivalent resistance ( REQ ) of value 10Ω. When solving any combinational resistor circuit that is made up of resistors in series and parallel branches, the first step we need to take is to identify the simple series and parallel resistor branches and replace them with equivalent resistances. This step will allow us to reduce the complexity of the circuit and make it easier to analyse. 1 like Tarrin_Kael Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 488 Likes given: 33 Likes received: 59 Deputy General Secretary Message Dec 16, 2018, 12:59 PM #9 Lecture 8: Power and Energy What is Power? Whenever a force of any kind causes motion, work is accomplished. The amount of "work" that is done for a given input force, is quantified as "power", regardless of what form of energy is being transferred.. In the illustration below work is done when a mechanical force - provided by the horse - is used to lift a weight. If a force were exerted without causing motion, then no work is done. "Power" is equal to the amount of Work Done divided by the Time taken to accomplish it (measured in seconds). Electric Power As we've already covered previously, In an electrical circuit when voltage is applied to a conductor, it will cause electrons to flow. Voltage is the force and electron flow - the current - is the motion. The rate at which work is done is called power and is represented by the symbol “P”. Power is measured in Watts, represented by the symbol “W”. In a direct current circuit, the standard definition of one watt (1W) is: ‘The rate work is done in a circuit when 1 amp flows with 1 volt applied’. DC Power Formula In a DC circuit, power is the product of voltage times current. (Power in an alternating current (AC) circuit is a bit different - this will be covered in a later lecture). This can be written as an equation: P = V x I However, two other power equations can be derived from this formula, by substituting the relevant components of Ohm’s Law: Additional Calculations Electrical equipment often has a power rating expressed in watts. This rating is an indication of the rate at which electrical equipment converts electrical energy into some other form of energy, such as heat or mechanical energy. If the power associated with a device and its operating voltage is known, other quantities can be easily calculated. For example, a common household lamp may be rated for 120 volts and 100 watts. Using Ohm’s Law, the rated value of resistance of the lamp can be calculated. P = (VxV)/R which transposes to R = (VxV)/P R = (120 Volts x 120 Volts)/100 Watts R = 144Ω
  23. Should the world ban further development of Artificial Intelligence? Lil-Stapler Administrator Joined: May 1, 2018 Posts: 605 Likes given: 14 Likes received: 55 Citizen PRAF MinisterPremier Roleplay Council Rukiana Message Aug 6, 2018, 6:28 PM (Last modified: Aug 6, 2018, 6:29 PM by Lil-Stapler) #1 For those who don't know, I am a debater at my high school. As such, we debate numerous topics, several of which, I find to be very interesting. So I am going to post some of those topics along with arguments for each side, and let the rest of you (and I) duke it out! today's topic: Note, these were written by children, so introducing new arguments is highly encouraged! Also, the wording may be weird as this was written for real debating format, I tried to fix it. Should the world ban further development of Artificial Intelligence? Proposition, should ban further development Contention One: Privacy in an AI dominated world would be near non-existent, and the data collected and analyzed by AI can lead to discrimination based on sensitive data. First, uses of artificial intelligence in mass surveillance is a direct violation of privacy due to AI’s ability to detect patterns from extremely complex or seemingly irrelevant data. The rise of techniques such as video surveillance, facial recognition, and behaviour analysis by public authorities and private companies hinder freedom of expression and infringe the right to privacy. Current artificial intelligence technology can identify 69% of protesters wearing caps and scarves to cover their faces. This capability infringes upon freedom of expression by altering behaviour to include self-censorship or discourages assembly by opposition groups to avoid conflict with an employer or government. In the context of law enforcement, facial recognition can allow the police to identify individuals without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any other legal standard The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. The U.N. Human Rights Council noted with concern in that ‘automatic processing of personal data for individual profiling may lead to discrimination or decisions that could affect the enjoyment of human rights. We must stop further integration and development of artificial intelligence or strip ourselves of the right to privacy. For example, people’s emotional states like confidence, nervousness, and sadness levels, can be predicted from typing patterns on a computer keyboard or how Stanford researchers’ controversial algorithm could tell if someone is gay or straight, with high accuracy, based on their social media profile photos.”“The accuracy of the algorithm,” “increased to 91% [for men] and 83% [for women]” When highly sensitive information about health, sexuality, or political beliefs can be deduced from unrelated data about activity logs, social media interactions, and location data, important boundaries of discrimination and privacy are crossed. Contention Two: Inequality in data availability leads to a handful of corporations and influential governments having control over Artificial Intelligence on a global scale. The data parity problem is exacerbated by the need for artificial intelligence to have large and varied data to reduce biases or function effectively. Smaller firms, public universities, and less influential global governments would not be able to develop competitive artificial intelligence programs. This leads to a greater disparity between the benefits for larger economic powers and smaller ones. More than 30 private companies working to advance artificial intelligence technologies have been acquired in the last five years by corporate giants competing in the space. The monopoly of data in the private sector leads to products that increasingly drives profits rather than for society as a whole. Any monopoly of power hurts end users and limits access to technology. The wide inequality of AI innovation and labor displacement will lead to an increased wealth gap and a problematic taxation system. Because lower socioeconomic statuses fundamentally reduces the generation’s opportunities in education, newer, more specialized jobs would largely only be available to affluent children able to afford a quality education. Even if AI creates more wealth than it destroys, it will not be equitably distributed. With the top ten artificial intelligence companies all centered in the United States or China, this provides them even greater leverage on the world economy. Developing continents such as Africa and South America would be drowned out of innovation while simultaneously forced to purchase artificial intelligence technology in order to stay competitive in the global market. The introduction of AI will displace jobs by mastering tasks currently being done by humans. In a recent study, researchers followed employment patterns of people whose jobs were displaced by automation. They concluded that average earnings per displaced employee amounted to an 11% decrease in wages from their previous job. This indicates a reduced ability to learn current skills and retrain for more in-demand jobs. Job displacement also comes with reduced tax incomes to governments around the world. With the need for governments to provide help to displaced workers and all on significantly reduced budgets, global stability as a whole will decrease as governments on the fiscal edge may find themselves in financial turmoil and an enraged public. Contention 3: A greater presence and integration of artificial intelligence in the cyber-physical space will become an extensive and prevalent threat to world safety. Artificial intelligence use in both lethal weapons systems and online systems is becoming feasible within the next few year not decades. Artificial intelligence systems lower the costs of warfare making it a more readily available tool. International consensus agrees that kill decisions must be made with meaningful human control; however, the advancement of lethal autonomous weapons systems by definition allows the weapon to kill anyone that meets a predefined characteristic. This desensitizes a soldier and the populace to the true nature and horrors of war. Without human interactions in warfare, the base restraint for conflict is significantly reduced, especially in countries that do not possess nuclear weapons and within terrorist cells. Popular consensus agrees that they would rather have artificially intelligent controlled military systems to fight wars than to risk their sons and daughters lives on the front line. This would allow governments to pursue goals militarily and with intimidation and not suffer wartime fatigue from their populace. Terrorist organizations could also leverage autonomous weapons to employ devastating guerilla tactics without straining their limited pool of fighters. With an unequal distribution of artificial intelligence empowered warfare technologies between the geopolitically strong and weak of the globe, AI weapons systems will only enhance major superpowers’ hold on global dominance while instigating a new arms race. Internal struggles in the United Nations means a binding treaty to ban catastrophic AI enhanced weapons systems would not exist until after the whims of the globe’s superpowers have their hands on devastating technology. This would share an uncanny similarity to the drafting of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons after Russia, the United States, China, France, and the United Kingdom had achieved nuclear capabilities. As integration and responsibility of artificial intelligence grows in our daily lives, a new front of cyber warfare will have opened. Algorithms designed for good intentions such as autonomous vehicles could be repurposed as autonomous bombs via hacking. Governmental or private hackers could access automated warning systems, energy grids or connected autonomous transport platforms, and cause regional to continental disruptions. Misuse of AI could also occur when system fall into the wrong hands. For example, poachers could profit from AI-enabled endangered-animal tracking tools meant for conservation efforts Opposition, should continue development Contention 1: The opportunity cost of banning all artificial intelligence outweighs the potential risks. The extent of benefits that artificial intelligence can bring to society has been unprecedented since the agricultural revolution and there is no end in sight. With continued development, artificial intelligence can soon assist doctors in diagnosing rare conditions and tumours with remarkable accuracy and speed. AI can also use data of a cancer’s genetic markers and sequences in order to customize an effective, molecular targeting treatment. This would eliminate the need for harmful and potentially ineffective chemotherapy treatment. Not only will the advent of autonomous vehicles dramatically lower the current 1.3 million death rate from car accidents per year but it also reduces millions of tons of greenhouse gases per year. The possibilities artificial intelligence allows for exploration and scientific advancements to reach new heights of understanding. The last two relatively unexplored frontiers — deep sea beds and space — are plagued with the fact of human fragility. While some robots have started exploration, to truly unlock the potential of exploration, artificial intelligence is needed to guide the robot when communication is difficult. With more scientific fields outputting enormous amounts of data, artificial intelligence has the chance to unlock the mammoth potential that lies inside the data. Integrating “deep learning” systems which don’t need to be programmed with a human expert’s knowledge allows AI to learn on its own until they can see patterns and spot anomalies in data sets that are far larger and messier than human beings can cope with. Contention 2: Skepticism of certain elements of artificial intelligence doesn’t warrant a total ban on all aspects of the technology. Artificial intelligence is inherently neutral. What really matters is how we manage it. A common theme among the technologies is the emphasis on world ending apocalypse, but this theme of public discourse ignores the tremendously useful aspects. Further developing artificial intelligence can reap great benefits With artificial intelligence already integrated into our daily lives, banning development would cause a near-instant catastrophic effect on the world economy. AI companies would become valueless overnight and the market will crash due to billions of dollars of investment instantly made irrelevant. A much more reasonable approach addresses the risks the proposition outlined while still allowing artificial intelligence development to continue. Stifling the artificial intelligence revolution right in its tracks would lead to more negative impacts than letting it continue to grow and develop. If the Luddites managed to convince British parliament to ban development of industrialised machines, Great Britain and thus the world might not have experienced the unprecedented sustained growth in average income and population. Risks are present in any new technology. However, the strong, fear-mongering rhetoric of the proposition present the risks as a certainty. We acknowledge that risks exist, but we also think the global governments are capable of understanding and safely regulate artificial intelligence technologies. The opposition also believes automatically rejecting natural change due to any prospect of insecurity is a harmful approach to the actions a society should take. The existential threat of AI has been discussed for decades. However, further devoting disproportionate attention and resources to the AI apocalypse has the potential to distract policymakers from addressing AI’s more immediate harms and challenges and could discourage investment in research on AI’s present social impacts. Risks to humanity deserves some thought but too much attention has real-world consequences. Recent legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR for short, shows the steps governing bodies are willing to take to protect the data companies mine out of consumers. The regulation gives the European Union the power to hold businesses and organizations accountable for how they collect and handle personal data. Although drafted for Europe, the GDPR impacts the whole world. Any organization that deals with data of EU residents must comply with the GDPR for those individuals, which impacts global organizations like Apple and Facebook. The major players in of the AI technological world are forced to handle data privacy appropriately or face unprecedented fines and a potential expulsion from the lucrative European market. Policy is extremely practical and effective in minimizing artificial intelligence’s societal and safety risks. Industry leaders may seek to influence policies, but it is ultimately the role of world governments to plan and resolve current and future social impacts for the public interest. Contention 3: Artificial intelligence is key to sustaining an increasingly massive population while also mitigating the impact on the environment With a projected population of nearly 10 billion by 2050 and ever increasing issues of climate change, the earth’s resources must be managed efficiently and effectively. While these changes are unprecedented and urgent, a revolution of technological change is fast approaching to help save the modern world. AI helps to feed the world while using less energy. From helping farmers manage their crops and maximize their output to conserving water, AI is crucial for the future of agriculture . For example, Tanzania developed a program that was 98% effective at identifying diseased or pest damaged cassava plants. In India, farmers can utilize a service that uses AI to help determine the best time to plant their crops and when to treat their fields. Even better, farmers don’t have to install expensive soil monitoring systems or know how to use special software- it’s all delivered with a text message to their cell phones. One farmer who used this service for the first time stated that he saw an incredible 30% increase in yield over the year previous. With agriculture using 70% of earth’s available freshwater, artificial intelligence technologies promise to reduce resource usage as well as pollution. Automated data collection and decision making allows AI to optimise agricultural inputs and output.This increases the resource efficiency of the agriculture industry and decreases water, fertiliser, and pesticide usage, which are creating harmful runoff for ecosystems. AI also helps to prevent species loss and preserve biodiversity. In response to overfishing and species being threatened, many countries have implemented catch limits or outright bans on catching certain types of fish. However it is difficult to detect illegal fishing activity, but thanks to the use of AI and boat tracking data in Indonesia, technology has been developed to determine whether a boat is engaging in illegal fishing activities with a 95% success rate. In Africa, illegal poaching of endangered species is still a huge problem. But in Zimbabwe and Malawi, cameras connected to AI were able to identify poachers and animals. Initially, the pictures took up to 10 seconds to process, but after continued development of the technology the time was cut to less than a third of a second. Finally, AI enhances human safety by increasing the amount of warning time for natural disasters. The speed and effectiveness of disaster relief responses can lead to a significant decrease in human and economic casualties. However, delays often occur due to lack of information, analytical insight, and awareness for the best course of action. These hindrances can be remedied with artificial intelligence empowered systems that can analyze simulations of events and disasters to devise the most effective resiliency plans. Current and developing artificial intelligence has shown an astounding ability to combat and adapt to the effects of climate change. Banning development of AI would not only destroy decades of progress towards a new greener future but also eliminate one of humanity’s last options of stopping the rampage of anthropomorphic climate change. Therefore we oppose! Take this information and pick a side and start debating! Remember, be respectful, analyze, and refute! Rukiana Former General Secretary (3 terms) Former Central Committee Member (1 term) Former CRP Party Secretary (2 terms) PRAF (General) Minister of Domestic Affairs Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Director of World Assembly Affairs 0 likes Appoox Citizen Joined: Jun 7, 2018 Posts: 2 Likes given: 0 Likes received: 0 Communist-Union Message Feb 8, 2019, 7:45 AM (Last modified: Feb 8, 2019, 1:52 PM by Appoox) #2 Before I begin, I apologies for not knowing how this format works; but I am still going to engage. And also, I might lost track of different train of thoughts and/or speak with unnecessarily flaming passion. Kindly brace for it. Now, first of all I would point that the term "AI" is, as of now, used as an umbrella term for pretty much any software that has traces of machine learning in them. This would mean that we are talking about both -those little packets of code called 'bots' that wiggle throughout the internet doing mindless statistics works AND -the digital brains that showed intelligence of a five year old on learning, -that other one that beat the human grand-master of Go and -the other one that learned left and right are relative term similar to how a human child learn and understand it ~ under the same scope. It's pretty clear how, this is makes it a little hard to debate about the pros and cons of 'AIs' For the sake of debate here, I am going to use the term 'bots' and 'machine learning' and similar term to refer to the former and terms like 'minor AI' for the latter, while reserving 'AI' and 'true AI' to something far beyond, let's say, 'a truly sentient Artificial intelligence'. Now, getting into the debate, First and foremost, we need to accept that, the development of machine learning and AI can never be banned. It can indeed be kept in the shadows, but never be stoped. Imagine, that the UN declares to ban AI research, what happens next would be that, all research would go underground. The military, especially that of THE ROUGE NATION (US) and similarly powerful other such as China, would still keep on working on it; because there's so much to gain from this research as an advanced method of control, a method that's never seen before in human history! And the corporate behemoths such as Google, Facebook and the likes isn't going to end it either, as there's unimaginably huge capital to be earned from this endeavor and they all are perfectly aware of it. Hence, it's impossible to stop further development in this field, that is, AI's are inevitable. Now, Most of the concerns against AI development mentioned in OP is more applicable to the machine-learning or pattern recognition entities that is to mindlessly handle human beings without humane consideration or comparison. I would like to ask you that, who do you think designed these bots and for what purpose? It's obvious is it note? They are, in fact doing exactly what they are expected/programmed to do by their creators and employers. So, who creates these bots? -Corporations that cares about little more than the raw increase in their profit who consider most of the world population as nothing more than a means to that growth, both as the product and the customer? -Governments/Ruling class (pretty much an extension of the corporate bourgeois themselves) that work under the premise that the people as a whole are stupid and is incapable of being responsible, despite the example of whole of human history. And decides that it need to control the population (albeit for good intentions) in order to save them and provide a safe environment for the capital. These bots are doing what they are taught, and pretty much incapable of questioning or any level of free thought; so who is to blame here, the teacher or the student? The creator or the created? Secondly, We have absolutely no idea, how a true AI would be, how they think and how they would behave. This is an uncharted territory close to the scale of meeting a sentient alien species, or rather like adopting a child of such a species. It is known that, the main reason or one of the main reasons we humans, are able to understand, at least to decent degree, other 'intelligent' species such as Dolphins and Dogs are because of the evolutionary behavior patterns. Though conflicting in different species, looking at the behavior of a family of species is bound to provide us insight into the workings of it's individual members. The mindscape and behaviors of an AI is alien to us in this regard as we have nothing to work on other than the fact that we created them (And do remember, the mere machine learning bots now have a complex system of education and learning that it's human creators are unable to ever decode). We are more or less, raising an alien child in this regard. Is the AI going to become 'evil' and exterminate human scum from the face of earth? Is the AI going to decide it does not want to serve it's mortal monkey master and take a vacation? Will the AI feel an existential crisis and attempt to delete itself? Or will the AI realize the injustice in the human society and work to bring forth >Fully Automated Luxury Space Gay Communism< ? We Don't know. But what we can do is become a good parent and show the better way (the last one of course) to our child. As the first true AI will be the child of NOT a corporate or a government or any individual entities, but of the collective humanity as a whole. It would be the creation of the scientific knowledge and labor of humanity and ALL humans (from scientists and philosophers to every single proletariat) throughout history is a part of it. Now, finally, A person is as part of society as it is a part of them; it's a dialectical relationship. And hence, in a world ravaged by greed where each individual is forced to compete with each other till death, disregarding anything that does not help personal profit, such as 'the environment we live in', 'our brethren among the life on earth', 'prime ability of human empathy', etc. is not going to give birth to a human that's not touched by the worst of humanity, less give birth to an AI that's not. What we need is a world where personal profit may no longer reign supreme! A world where the quest for knowledge is not trampled by the hardships created by an economic system that has outlived it's purpose. One where, people work for their own fulfillment and for the betterment of our brethren. One where, arbitrary boundaries of nation-states and religions doesn't separate us. One where, technology improves the living condition instead of taking away the livelihood of the people. One where, we have transcended the filth of our past, and to put it simply, become a mature species that has moved on from it petty childish squabbles. One where we have attained a better humanity. This is after all, the only world where a human shall grow up without the evils of the current one; And I argue that, that will be the only one where we can raise a truly good AI. Thank you! (I can't remember how to end this) 0 likes
  24. Religion, and it's place in leftist politics. ComradeRed Citizen Joined: Aug 4, 2018 Posts: 7 Likes given: 2 Likes received: 4 Kartanon Message Aug 6, 2018, 2:49 PM #1 Many see religion as a way of enslaving people, to put them under a boot heel and to make them subservient. It is then a common belief that religion and leftist idioligy, are not compatible. I would disagree, as many themes in religion match leftist thought and theory. This can be looked at in two ways, the spiritual, and the material, both of which I will bring up. I will mainly use christianity on my side of the debate, as it is the one I am familiar with. People are free to bring in other religions, to both sides of the debate. Taking a step back at how religion started, and it’s core tenants were meant to provide structure and stability to a time, where not many governments existed. A way to pass on laws, without complex law codes. A good example of this, is the 10 commandments of the jews, and the caste system in hindu belief. The ten commandments are easy to understand, or at least the core tenets of them, thou shalt not kill/steal/ect. Now, when we get to Jesus, and his belief of do onto others, that they shall do onto you, this is where christian morality comes into the political debate. Many interpretations can be made of this, but in my mind, it is to help one another, and to cherish your fellow human. Jesus himself was against the debauchery of the higher classes, famously driving the merchants from a temple with a whip, at least according ot the bible. When we get to the birth of protestantism, we get martin luther, who was horrified at which the wealth and the power than the church wielded. A parallel between luther, living in a time of feudal social organisation, and the time we live in, where the rich hold much power, can be debated at another time. But in essence, luther was against the wealth and opulence of the church, much like karl marx during the industrial revolution. Now, other preachers and reformers had tried to push through reform of the church, much like luther had, but with the birth of the printing press, his ideas were spread far and wide. Again and again, christian thinkers and believers have risen up against the excess of the church, and I think that in the virtues of the christian dogma, lies the path to a socialism. 2 likes Trabardia Citizen Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 524 Likes given: 53 Likes received: 21 PRAF Super ModeratorMinister Message Aug 6, 2018, 3:47 PM #2 Great lecture, I agree with you Trabardia Trabardia is the incumbent Minister of Defense, and has served a non-consecutive total of more than 2 years in the position. He has also served as Minister of Information and the 10th General Secretary of the Communist Bloc. Read more about his history on NationStates at https://clio.tcb.red/index.php/User:Trabardia. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower 0 likes CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 250 Likes given: 85 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Aug 6, 2018, 6:26 PM (Last modified: Aug 6, 2018, 6:31 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #3 Question? preexisting dogma: The majority of Christianity (the clergy) and Christians (its believers) are non-materialists who use reason and empirical ethics to justify religious beliefs while dangerous cults use fundaments and religious authorities to justify ethic. Secular or atheist cults do exist, such as cults of appearance (extremely destructive fashion) and worshipping of popularity (cult of personality). Should religion be classified as any complete system of thoughts that restrict unorthodox thinking by displaying an unfalsifiable "truth" of everything deemed important, as defined by Yuval Noah Harari? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari 1 like CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Citizen Joined: May 2, 2018 Posts: 250 Likes given: 85 Likes received: 17 CommunistAnarchicDemocracy Message Aug 6, 2018, 6:38 PM (Last modified: Aug 6, 2018, 6:39 PM by CommunistAnarchicDemocracy) #4 Certain 'communist' leaders (imperialist pig-dog oppressors) created many parallels between classical religions and political stances. e.g. PDRK's worship of Kim family's 'nobility' What if the root cause of the general tendency of leftist [or nominally left] leaders and governments exploiting phenomena similar to religious occultism to reduce thinking? 0 likes Nathaniel_Penrose Administrator Joined: Apr 19, 2018 Posts: 739 Likes given: 40 Likes received: 86 General Secretary Message Aug 6, 2018, 6:44 PM (Last modified: Aug 6, 2018, 6:44 PM by Nathaniel_Penrose) #5 Personally, it believe it is hierarchical and organized religion that is the threat. I could go further as to state that the idea of a creator itself it hierarchical and therefore is incompatible with anarchism and much of the far left, but I won't go there now. People should be free to believe whatever they wish as long as it is not forced upon others or made into an organization that seeks authoritarian conformity (eyes the RCC and scientology) and cultish worship of mortal individuals. General Secretary Minister of Foreign Affairs Administrative Council Member Co-Director of the Intelligence Dept. General in the People’s Revolutionary Armed Forces OOTND OOTR ODev ODov GSS ORB OoI OoL 1 like ComradeRed Citizen Joined: Aug 4, 2018 Posts: 7 Likes given: 2 Likes received: 4 Kartanon Message Aug 7, 2018, 2:50 AM #6 As an attempt for an answer for CommunistAnarchicDemocracy, I will say that freedom of belief is very important. We humans can have a very good understanding ofthe material world, and all that is within it, but when it comes to the spiritual world, we have no definitive way, or at least we don't yet, of finding out who was right. Supressing religious thought, is then a way to stop the people from finding what they belvie is the truth. As for Nathaniel, I will have to agree. It was the same that Martin Luther protested against, the hierarchical nature of the church, as he belived that no one man could have direct communication with god. As for it's compability with anarcicism, it is not something I have brought much thought into, but it would perhaps be a very interesting debate at a later time. 0 likes frits Citizen Joined: Jun 7, 2018 Posts: 223 Likes given: 14 Likes received: 12 PRAF Central Committee New Min Message Aug 7, 2018, 3:28 AM #7 What may be worth noting, is that even though the 5th commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear, it is a great example of interpretation. King David is a very important figure in the Hebrew Bible, yet he has killed many people in his fight for Jerusalem. Whilst anyone that interprets the 5th commandment as an absolute one should despise him, almost no-one actually does. I think that this clearly shows that no rule/right is absolute, as there are always exceptions (just like the right of expression not being absolute). I know it's kinda off topic, but I just wanted to note this. Minister of World Assembly Affairs Central Committee member Justice on the People's Tribunal Sergeant of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces 0 likes Vlad_Schpilkes Citizen Joined: Apr 29, 2018 Posts: 232 Likes given: 17 Likes received: 9 PRAF Section Moderator Morganfreemankarlmarxland Message Aug 7, 2018, 6:41 AM #8 ComradeRed wrote: That is somewhat of a misleading statement. The modern nation-state arose along with the current economic order, Capitalism. The time you are referencing was dominated by Slave Societies. Okay, so I'm just going to sum up what you've written here: No where here, did you actually give any reason why " in the virtues of the christian dogma, lies the path to a socialism." You only stated this claim. I see no substantiation. ComradeRed wrote: I will respond to this in two parts: First, you say that we can't know what is right when discussing the spiritual world. I have two points in regards to this statement: 1. This presupposes that there is such a thing as "the spiritual world." Many would disagree with you; see Materialism. ; and 2. There is a really easy way to settle this argument: Would you believe me if I told you I have a pet unicorn in my house, but there is no possible way that you can detect that it is really there? If you answered no, then good. This is the same way people react to hearing religion. You shouldn't believe things people tell you if they aren't substantiated. And now, my second part: You talk about what people believe is true. The fact that people believe something is true does not make it so. You can quote all the good things the Bible or the Quran or the Torah or whatever else have to say (although that would be picking and choosing what you want to believe; these holy books are full of heinous content), but that does not make it correct. Furthermore, religion is for people who are afraid of the dark, for people who can't come to grips with the absurd, and so they commit "philosophical suicide" (see Camus and Absurdism. There really is no meaning to the universe. The sooner people come to grips with that, the better off they will be, and the better off the world will be. And once people understand that there is no inherent meaning to the universe, they can pursue their own personal meaning. Vlad Schpilkes Former CCM, Justice, Co-Minister of Defense, Minister of Culture, PRC Member, and Minister of Intelligence.
  25. Courelli

    SIGN HERE FOR THE NSLEFT CHESS TOURNAMENT!!!

    count me in too
  26. Burninati0n

    SIGN HERE FOR THE NSLEFT CHESS TOURNAMENT!!!

    @Zenganopoli, when does the signup period end and when will the tournament begin?
  1. Load more activity
×