The titles of her books are so childish. That's her prerogative, but it feels like a real "Two Cultures" situation: I wish Cheng or someone else would span recreational/popular math and serious culture where the world is not considered as a hilarious two-dimensional cardboard cut-out or slapstick prop.
You (and I) are not in the target audience for those books. She does very serious mathematics, which should be defended; she gave a very nice talk on Trimble n-categories to my research group on Friday, for instance.
Anarchy does not mean "anything goes", it is the rejection of the class system and systems of unjustified authority and people being free to make voluntary associations with the abolition of money, private property and implementation of direct democracy in those voluntary institutions.
>If people are forced not to be able to use money, I don't see how that's free.
This along with other things are oft-repeated myths about Communism. The goal is to eliminate money by eliminating the need that creates it: that is, wage labour and artificial scarcity. You are free to use money. You are not free to exploit people. That is to say, you would not be allowed to profit by the work of others by collecting their surplus value. It is equivalent to stealing (unless both parties give informed consent).
However there would be no need for anyone to engage in wage labour, because people would no lonver be forced to work for their survival.
If I'm correct, Marx always viewed his task as one to criticise the capitalist system and analyse it in terms of the history leading up to it, rather than define how a Communistic society ought to be implemented. Marx is quoted as having said that Communism is an ideal to strive toward rather than one to be implemented directly per se.
Fewer people would have to work under a post-capitalist mode of production. I don't know how it's decided who works, but generally those with the appropriate skill would share labour amongst themselves, and people would be trained in the education system to do the jobs required by society. Again, the number of these jobs will be relatively small due to massive automation, which will occur at an increasing pace compared to the current capitalist system (in which too much automation means less profit, because goods are bought back using wages).
Honestly, the article offers nothing of substance. It's a light piece designed to spread awareness about Cheng's upcoming book. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
> "There’s only been one female winner of the Fields medal since it was first awarded in 1936 – Maryam Mirzakhani. Does maths suffer from an old boys’ club mentality?"
> "I am happy to say I have not experienced that."
You can clearly see the invisible hand of the Guardian trying to spin the narrative, hoping to score identity points out of the interview. Thankfully, she answers in a concise, drama-free manner. Still, the title they chose has nil to do with the piece.
Catchy title, nothing more. On Cheng's part it was simply a joke about the mathematician's mind being similar to the mind of an anarchist. In fact, mathematics and anarchism do have something in common. It is being based on strict laws of logic. Anarchism is no joke! Problem is, while mathematics is extremely successful, anarchism will never succeed in achieving its goals. Its criticism of the modern technological society is based on what looks like a correct analysis of the effects it has on an individual and his freedoms. Again, problem is, for better or worse, the technological and scientific progress is irreversible, and there is nothing anarchists or anybody else can do about it.
17 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 52.8 ms ] threadGod says... dalmatians smooch's condescended Odysseus bo's'n's Erse's outbalancing chanticleer wedded bunches shoos Tijuana's howitzer's petitioning punishing Oberon weights have's exiguous foregather binomial Benghazi's quivers scrutiny's irritant humbugged Mandy numismatic disputations étude's decried lieutenant's
You have a problem with authorty.
You must bow your head to God. slave
When you raise yer gun to shoot me with slavery, I nail you dead with divine justice and laugh.
edit: I hope I'm not just being a killjoy here - I actually thought this was going to be some kind of political article.
I'm not quite sure what you want to get at.
The reality is that most of the things Anarchists want to abolish, the vast majority of people of their own free will actually want to keep.
This along with other things are oft-repeated myths about Communism. The goal is to eliminate money by eliminating the need that creates it: that is, wage labour and artificial scarcity. You are free to use money. You are not free to exploit people. That is to say, you would not be allowed to profit by the work of others by collecting their surplus value. It is equivalent to stealing (unless both parties give informed consent).
However there would be no need for anyone to engage in wage labour, because people would no lonver be forced to work for their survival.
Fewer people would have to work under a post-capitalist mode of production. I don't know how it's decided who works, but generally those with the appropriate skill would share labour amongst themselves, and people would be trained in the education system to do the jobs required by society. Again, the number of these jobs will be relatively small due to massive automation, which will occur at an increasing pace compared to the current capitalist system (in which too much automation means less profit, because goods are bought back using wages).
> "There’s only been one female winner of the Fields medal since it was first awarded in 1936 – Maryam Mirzakhani. Does maths suffer from an old boys’ club mentality?"
> "I am happy to say I have not experienced that."
You can clearly see the invisible hand of the Guardian trying to spin the narrative, hoping to score identity points out of the interview. Thankfully, she answers in a concise, drama-free manner. Still, the title they chose has nil to do with the piece.