The state should be purely passed through function inputs and outputs
The state should be purely passed through function inputs and outputs
Nothing wrong with classes in functional programming though. Just return a new instance of the class from your method, rather than mutating an existing instance.
Right, I think the two aren't as different as they appear. You can think of a closure as an object with just one method.
If OO programming is fundamentally about objects sending messages to each other, then there are many ways to approach that. Some of those ways are totally compatible with functional programming.
The legacy of C++ has dominated what OOP is "supposed" to be, but it doesn't have to work like that.
Javascript:
I heard you like mutating class data so I'm mutating the data you can put in your class data, dawg.
JavaScript: a language for mutants.
To be fair to JavaScript (I feel gross just saying that), it does have the ability to do some more functional-like programming as well. For example, many of its more recent array methods like filter, map, and reduce are pure functions.
Classes are just another way to define an object. Heck even Lisp has objects!
Do anarchists think anarchy will result in a system with no classes?
Yes, because anarchism is against all hierarchies and the class system is a form of hierarchy. Instead, decisions should me made collectively, for example in councils open for everyone
@lugal @danc4498 Anarchism is against specifically unjust hierarchies, it can permit certain ones to exist within individual communities should the community find it justified, but still strongly favours not having any where possible.
There are a group of anarchists who would still believe in the idea of an adult > child hierarchy as they struggle to imagine an alternative world without it.
There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.
In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/
How would you reach consensus between hundreds of millions of people?
Look, I am sympathetic to the cause behind anarchism but it doesn’t work because it insists on ignoring biological realities. We need to look no further than our ape cousins to see how some hierarchical structure is inherent to our society. Only through the existence of a state can we reduce hierarchy and increase equality.
A stateless society wouldn’t last 10 minutes before establishing a state.
Depends on the anarchist. Many would focus on seeking the absence of involuntary power hierarchies. A manager who distributes work and does performance evaluations isn't intrinsically a problem, it's when people doing the work can't say "no, they're a terrible manager and they're gone", or you can't walk away from the job without risking your well-being.
Anarchists and communists/socialists have a lot of overlap. There's also overlap with libertarians, except libertarians often focus on coercion from the government and don't give much regard to economic coercion. An anarchist will often not see much difference between "do this or I hit you" and "do this or starve": they both are coercive power hierarchies.
Some anarchists are more focused on removing sources of coercion. Others are more focused on creating relief from it. The "tear it down" crowd are more visible, but you see anarchists in the mutual aid and community organization crowds as well.They define anarchy differently from the common definition. Anarchists believe in creating community organizations to serve the needs of society, but they refrain from calling it a state because they believe a state requires a monopoly on the acceptable use of violence.
They don't think that we should just dissolve society and let everyone fend for themselves to eliminate class, unless they're an edgy teenager.
This is very well put. Thank you! I feel this way as well.
Everyone wants to immediately dogpile and go "OkAy SmArT gUy/GaL HoW wOuLd ThAt SoLvE eVeRyThiNg iMmEDiAtELy ToMmOrRoW huuuh?"
(As if what we've got now was just hatched up by some folks in its current form and implemented overnight lol)
I find myself an anarchist, but I'm also rational in seeing it more as an ideal to strive toward, rather than a concrete policy to implement overnight.
If we're heading towards a mutually cooperative society without unjust "I wear the hat so I make the rules" hierarchies, whether or not we reach it in a utopian sense, I think we're still moving in the right direction.
Anarchists recognize class as a social construct rather than a biological imperative or a free market condition. As a result, they will often make a point of transgressing or undermining the pageantry that class-centric organizations cling to.
Its not that they think "no classes" will be a result so much as they think "explicitly defying class" is a political act.
Anarchy means "without hierarchy". Classes are a hierarchy, so by definition it wouldn't be anarchy if you don't dissolve class.
Classes, as per Marx, are foremost identified by the economical position of people, and not necessary a hierarchy as such, that's a secondary effect of how classes happen to work towards their own self-interest. If, in an anarchist utopia, one population freely chooses to live in a high-tech skyscraper doing engineering work, and another neighbouring one grows coffee in the rain forest, then their economical position is vastly different and they have different interests, thus they are different classes, but that doesn't mean that they need to be nasty to another.
Most importantly though this is all just arguing semantics and Marx didn't get anarchism anyway, mixing the theoretical bodies is usually more headache than it's worth.
Anarchism is not the thing you're told about in the media. It isn't a total lack of all government. It's a removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation. There still needs to be systems to protect people from these. They'd just be done through concensus.
This page has more information if you want to learn. https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1
It's actually right in the name. Anarchy from an-arkhos means "without ruler". They think hierarchies are illegitimate per se.
Oh boy…
That's functionally the difference between Anarchism, a fundamentally Individualist and Idealist ideology, and Marxism, which is fundamentally Collectivist and Scientific.
A Marxist political society will also tend towards Classlessness and Statelessness, though in the case of Marxism both of these are not goals but an inevitable result of a society dominated by the Proletariat according to Marxist theory.
an inevitable result of a society dominated by the Proletariat according to Marxist theory.
Ah yes. That's why after the Bolshevik revolution, Stalin stepped in and dissolved the state.
Revolution is a monad
Protest anonymously, function anonymously.
wow, there are some really steaming takes on anarchism in the comments here.
Real State of Exception Hours
Dunno how accurate this is but if you like doing those quizzes see where you fall on leftist values. https://leftvalues.github.io/index.html
Marxism-Leninism: 0%
Phew. Demsoc followed by market anarchist I'll take it. It's not like I'd actually know what proper anarchism will look like so how am I supposed to get it as a result.
@Instantnudel@feddit.org 🚩🏴🚩🏴🚩🏴
Ich freue mich über ihre Frage. Ich fühle mich geehrt hier zu sein. Ich möchte ihnen jetzt garkein vorwurf machen aber sie haben diese Frage doch auswendig gelernt. Sie haben unser Programm nichtmal gelesen. Würden sie Habeck auch so eine Frage stellen? Jetzt unterbrechen sie mich nicht!
Declare your intentions!
Depends on how pure you want it to be, without any side effects
All libertarian ideologies (including left and right wing anarchism) are anti-social and primitivist.
It is anti-social because it arises from a hatred of working in a large groups. It's impossible to have any sort of large-scale institution without having rules that people want to follow, and libertarian ideology arises out of people hating to have to follow rules, i.e. to be a respectable member of society, i.e. they hate society and don't want to be social. They thus desire very small institutions with limited rules and restrictions. Right-wing libertarians envision a society dominated by small private businesses while left-wing libertarians imagine a society dominated by either small worker-cooperative, communes, or some sort of community council.
Of course, everyone of all ideologies opposes submitting to hierarchies they find unjust, but hatred of submitting to hierarchies at all is just anti-social, as any society will have rules, people who write the rules, people who enforce the rules. It is necessary for any social institution to function. It is part of being an adult and learning to live in a society to learn to obey the rules, such as traffic rules. Sometimes it is annoying or inconvenient, but you do it because you are a respectable member of society and not a rebellious edgelord who makes things harder on everyone else because they don't obey basic rules.
It is primitivist because some institutions simply only work if they are very large. You cannot have something like NASA that builds rocket ships operated by five people. You are going to always need an enormous institution which will have a ton of people, a lot of different levels of command ("hierarchy"), strict rules for everyone to follow, etc. If you tried to "bust up" something like NASA or SpaceX to be small businesses they simply would lose their ability to build rocket ships at all.
Of course, anarchists don't mind, they will say, "who cares about rockets? They're not important." It reminds me of the old meme that spread around where someone asked anarchists how their tiny communes would be able to organize current massive supply chains in our modern societies and they responded by saying that the supply chain would be reduced to just people growing beans in their backyard and eating it, like a feudal peasant. They won't even defend that their system could function as well as our modern economy but just says modern marvels of human engineering don't even matter, because they are ultimately primitivists at heart.
I never understood the popularity of libertarian and anarchist beliefs in programming circles. We would never have entered the Information Age if we had an anarchism or libertarian system. No matter how much they might pretend these are the ideal systems, they don't even believe it themselves. If a libertarian has a serious medical illness, they are either going to seek medical help at a public hospital or a corporate hospital. Nobody is going to seek medical help at a "hospital small business" ran out of someone's garage. We all intuitively and implicitly understand that large swathes of economy that we all take advantage of simply cannot feasibly be ran by small organizations, but libertarians are just in denial.
i like both sides here! i bought a website for such people, but I'm not sure if there are any (others). stateless mutation dotcom. pretty clever i thought
You might want to cache things, like handles to resources or other dependencies?
I use states, but no classes. G'MIC is my main language. I do appreciate the functional way of thinking after writing in it for so long. States are just variables that defines the mode of something, right?
That's just a communist thing, not an anarchist-specific thing...
Just like functional programing is about making state explicit, not making it go away.
Overall, both arms are wrong... so they cancel out or something like that.
Hm, i dont think AES amanaged to come close to this.
Anarchists like Baba Makhno came close, but given the circumstance, leader- or classless societies are kinda doomed to fail.
I'm not talking about "AES", I'm talking about communism. By the definition of "communism = AES" then communism doesn't abolish class, private property, the value-form, nations, etc.
Anarchism distinguishes itself from communism principally by an inherent opposition to hierarchy, and an opposition to many of the organisational forms that communists may advocate for or participate in, eg communist parties, councils, and any kind of structure that could constitute a hierarchy. And anarchists are inherently opposed to centralisation, and so on.
Settle down, elon