gas stove on the other hand is only about 30-40% efficient.

Maybe on a really old stove top? High efficiency burners with the right pan can be 85-95% efficient.

Yeah, unfortunately in my area gas range is actually more efficient than induction because the electricity is mainly by natural gas anyways.

How does it work with the wok? Wouldn’t it just be the bottom getting the heat?

Right… But one could say the same about the proletariat pre-revolution.

we don’t like corn syrup right?

Yeah, we need corn syrup…please do not be insensitive to our addiction.

There is no stopping the impulsive need to add corn into everything. Corn for the fuel, corn for sugar, corn for the livestock, corn for the hole. If you can cram corn in it, we’ve done it.

However, without confirming in reality, some took it to mean that the peasantry would oppose socialism if they weren’t already proletarianized. It isn’t quite as stupid as it sounds.

I can see how someone unfamiliar with the countryside could make the assumption. However, as a person who’s lived and worked on a farm it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Farming communities are extremely interdependent on the local community to get just about anything done. No one person or family can work the land by themselves, it really does take a community if you’re not a wealthy land holder.

Trots take it to mean that all socialist countries are generally highly flawed to outright bad

Yeah… He was a messy bitch about a lot of things. Really a mixed bag of conflicting ideas in that little dude.

but prevalent idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary, as they would have more of a petite-bourgeois ideology based on their largely self-driven living conditions.

I guess hindsight 20/20, but I had always figured they were referring to the landed peasants like kulaks or sub-kulaks. Seems incongruous that peasants in poverty would be counterrevolutionary.

Trotsky also rejected that a country itself could be socialist, as he believed internationally the system being capitalist would cause a reversion to capitalism eventually.

Kinda agree with this to an extent.

When the Russian revolution failed to inspire successful revolution in the west, they reached a dillema. Trotsky feared the Russian peasantry would attack, and so wanted to go on the offensive first

What time frame are we referring too here, and what peasantry? Im guessing well before the implementation of the five year plan? Also, in his references to the peasantry I always kinda figured he was speaking about the kulaks.

Chinese Trotskyists were wrong, wanting to attack both the KMT and Japan before kicking out Japan. Mao and the CPC formed a temporary alliance against Japan, then kicked out the KMT, which ended up being correct.

I mean… Like most things in this time period, it kinda depends on when you are talking about. In the beginning most communist did not like the decision to form a united front with the kmt, but acknowledged it as necessary. There wasn’t really much of a delineation between trotskyists and stalinist until when it came to the kmt until the Shanghai massacre. And tbf it’s kinda understandable that people like chen duxiu would want to break/attack with the kmt afterwards.

Trotsky’s plan of Permanent Revolution rested on the idea that the peasantry would erode socialism, because he thought they could not be truly aligned with the proletariat.

Isn’t that just in the case of later developing capitalist countries? My understanding was that he believed later developed capitalist countries would be unable to build the industrialized economy that creates a large proletariat class. So in these countries the existing proletariat would have to seize control and then later form an alliance with the peasantry down the road.

However, I don’t think that means he only wanted to develop socialism with western nations. I mean Stalin and him had a major rift develop over Trotsky wanting to support the Chinese communist and Stalin siding with the kmt. One of the things I kinda agree with when it comes to Trotsky was his opposition to the socialism in one country policy.

This is kinda dependent on what year it is of course, Trotsky was kinda all over the place once he fell from grace.

Yeah, there was a website that had all the unedited transcripts and some recordings from crashes. I don’t think I remember reading any real prayers, that’s unless you count something like “oh God, oh god” as a prayer. Mainly just a lot of swearing and a mix of panicked or resigned statements. Most are just a couple sentences long, seems like most crashes go from fine to catastrophic very quickly.

I would argue that it’s important to protect any criminal’s treatment while imprisoned… however, this is especially hypocritical for them considering how they normally regard 99% of the people in prison.

I mean, it’s kinda been the standard since Regan legalized stock buybacks.

This is kind of the elephant in the room that every large scale political/economic model like to ignore.

While I don’t agree with a lot of what he writes about, Murray Bookchin makes some pretty persuasive arguments about how hierarchical structures themselves are an issue no matter what system theyre found.

people who actually want to spend $ hunt down that liquidity it will stay locked down on someones imaginary goldpile

Can’t do that… That would ruin everything. Just take out a loan against your imaginary goldpile.

Something tells me you’re not nuanced in the use of sarcasm…

Great rebuttal…really proves you know what you’re trying to talk about!

No it is proof that it is true because a system that does not have the data to create an experience cannot create the experience.

You claimed that dreams were unconstrained by sensory input… A limitation caused by the lack of sensory input is a natural constraint.

am 100% saying the body is a computer with sensory attachments I have no idea where you go the things about peripheral and central nervous system from.

Cognitive science? The brain and peripheral nervous system develop and act together. You cannot have one without the other, and if you damage one you damage the other. There is no natural or logical delineation from sensory input organs and the brain. A lot of the processing, especially from reactive functions don’t even require the brain, and are handled by just the spinal cord.

The idea that the body is a computer with sensory attachments is outdated. Our metal and physical development is a reaction of us engaging with our environment on a physical level.

reality is something we aren’t capable of understanding because it exists outside of our set of sensory input unless we can use tools to collapse information to within our range of sensory input.

I would say that reality consisist of what we can engage with in either a physical or metaphysical way. If it’s simply something that we can’t either mentally or physically interact with, then it is definitionally unimportant.

Tibetan buddhists are suggesting which is the non dual reality of experiencing things through the lens of perception.

While I accept a dualistic version of reality, I propose that perception alone is not what determines reality. I think embodied cognition gives us a much more accurate depiction of reality we engage with.

For example, without a body what is a bicycle? Through just pure observation alone, it is nothing but a chunk of odly shaped metal and plastic. It is our physical interaction with the bicycle that gives it its true meaning.

Reality is not just what we observe, it is what we interact with on a physical level.

It might be in the sense that the algorithm recognizes that it’s a new bubble to dump money into for a quick return. But that’s just what the stock market is nowadays. Corporations have cornered the rest of the markets through conglomeration or monopolistic exploitation, and have cut cost as much as possible. There’s not really a lot of ways to keep line going up other than throwing it into a new bubble and hoping you can get out before it pops.

Investment companies are just running out of places to keep their investments, which is why basically all tech corporations are massively over valued.

People blind at birth dream of perceiving hearing unconstrained by sensory input so yes it is true still even for people blind from birth. I have a friend who is this case actually.

Right, but your original claim was that it was unconstrained by sensory input. The fact that they lack the ability to dream up sensory information they have no previous sensory input for is proof this claim is not true.

My point is that you are making an unfounded delineation between sensory input and the brain. That the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system should be viewed as a whole system reliant on each other, rather than a computer with sensory attachments.

There is nothing narcissistic about it because it only proves that we are individuals with individual experience, something that everyone has been aware of for a long time, we still all operate on the substrate that is outside of our body with its brain and sensory organs.

People having “individual experience” does not preclude people having shared experiences, and shared experiences do not preclude individuality. Your claim is only supported by an underdeveloped preconceived notion of perception and it’s effects on cognition.

What you are arguing is similar to Solipsism, which basically boils down to “I can only prove to myself that I process consciousness, and everyone else’s experiences are just subjective observations”. Which means if all observations are subjective in nature, then a person can only really prove that they themselves posses “real” consciousness.

Now that might not have been your original point, but it is the natural conclusion of the argument. And others have thought it out and argued against it for a long time. It’s known as the The Problem With Other Minds.

Dreaming is perception unconstrained by sensory input

That’s not really true… Dreaming is a cognitive function that is still limited by how we engage with our surroundings normally. Congeniality Blind people do not see in their dreams, and deaf people do not hear.

Reality is dreaming constrained by sensory input

Imo that is a bit of a narcissistic way to view reality. Reality is shared, and not defined by an individual person’s sensory input. There are natural laws that persist even if there is no way for a person to perceive them.