Was he right?

About what?

This is a textbook case of someone who's a genius at one thing thinking it means he's automatically right about everything and ending up with retarded views. See also: newton believing in alchemy and nontrinitarian christian mysticism, Chomsky being a retarded pro-commie, or Dawkins thinking philosophy is bullshit.

always give me a little kek

Dafuq...

Chomsky, on the same scale as Newton ?

Newton was a deep and proud christian, like every scientist who made great things in maths and physics.

>or Dawkins thinking philosophy is bullshit.
And that's wrong???

bump

Like so many before him, he is good at identifying problems in society but not so great at prescribing a viable and realistic solution.

At least he tried, unlike Marx.

You mean the opposite. Marx has provided the only viable and realistic alternative to capitalism available until today. It might be too early for communism, but still, you better hope he's right.

>Communism
>Viable
>Realistic

Wow, excellent argument user. Philosophy majors on sciucide watch.

With enough technological power and the right people in charge, a stable and functioning communism isn't that impossible.

>the right people in charge
Never happen. Read Hayek.

A class-less society won't work because of the mechanism in human psychology that the more you are pressed down in the mud, the more you throw away your ethics and morals for every little piece of social influence you could possibly get. So there will always be those at the bottom who are pressured to police the ones in the middle in the interest of those at the top.

You would need to rewire biology and give each individual some kind of a brain damage that removes every sense of social status to be able to make a class-less society stable. There exist a few of those today, but you would need a much larger percentage of the population to be like that for it to work.

Like so many before him, he has heard of Marx on the internet but not read a word.

You are a retard

>Never happen.
Anyone in 18th century could say the same about current technology, science and life quality. There's no objective reason it can't be done, and every single idea is not so impossible, and has been done with some luck / locally even without all the technology of today.

>right people in charge
>communism

>the more you are pressed down in the mud
There has to be SOMEONE to press you down, user.

Seriously, though. Read Hayek. The most ruthless elements of society always end up at the top of the heap in government. Only sane course of action is to try and limit the amount of damage they can do.

>removes every sense of social status
But class != status. Soviet union had lots of status things, academics had great influence (perhaps it's a bad thing, tbqh), and people was very motivated to get a high status in terms of their education, position and honours. In fact, they valued it TOO much.

*were

>In fact, they valued it TOO much.
They didn't overvalue it, the politburo did. The people themselves had very little choice about what was valued in their society.

Well, it was a clear equivalent of todays' classes, since prestige job gave you lots of opportunities, often a good apartment, an influence (if you're chosen onto high position you could move your own projects and ideas to change the society), fame and less insufferable people around you.

It also resulted in massive economic imbalances. At the same time, the US was relatively free of central planning and the average plumber in the US was considerably better off than even influential physicists in the USSR.

>They didn't overvalue it, the politburo did. The people themselves had very little choice about what was valued in their society.
Oops, I guess I misunderstood your point. Yes, most of them had very little choice of what was valued in their society.

Yes, the enemy is cultural Marxism which is really the other side of the coin of cultural capitalism.

I never claimed the Soviet Union succeeded in creating a class less society. I made claims for what I thought would be necessary to create a class-less society, which was Marx's utopia.

If class != status, then would class be measured? By material wealth? The means of production would be equally accessible to everyone so there would be no reason to believe there would be a difference there.

This is the most reasonable post in this thread.

Still blows my mind that this guy was basically broken by a CIA mind control testing program at a university.

Looks like he's hiding a cracker in his mouth senpai.

In other words: DELETE THIS

Here's why it doesn't work. Someone needs to enforce it. Same with anarchism and libertarianism.

Such a fundamental error too, because when you neglect to account for the fact that a ruling body is needed to regulate the system in order for it to even come close to being realized, tyranny ensues as a direct result; and from there on you are at war against human nature, making atrocities inevitable.

He looked kinda cute actually

...

Said someone who has not read the books.
What is emergent properties of groups which act as "rules".

>still falling for the right people in charge meme
when will you people learn the problem is leadership itself?

>What is desired emergent properties of groups which acts as "rules" from contrived ideals
Fantasy.

I do cog sci research, and this topic is literally all I work on, please tell me more about how my field is a fantasy you fucking brainlet.

What a coincidence, for that is also my field of research. Tell me how you came to misapply your knowledge with such confidence.

>he doesn't understand alchemy
what are you doing on this board?

Attractive fellow, isn't he?

He had the looks and the brains.
Could have had the pussy and become a famous mathematician.
Shame.

Is this definitely some psychological aspect of humans, or is it simply there because society conditions us to hold that view? Or perhaps a bit of both. Regardless, I think if society can change its obsession with competition and disparity, we will be closer to being able to responsibly handle a more harmonious society.

Humans are certainly not all ready for a communist society (I prefer things closer to anarchist communism, unless we have some kind of strong and stable AI at the helm), but I think it is an ideal for us to work toward socially, economically, and politically.

>Is this definitely some psychological aspect of humans, or is it simply there because society conditions us to hold that view? Or perhaps a bit of both.
It's never either nature or nurture, it's always both to differing degrees. Besides that, our social cohesion and organization has been conditioned over quite a few hundreds of thousands of years. Factor this out at your own peril.

I'm growing increasingly convinced that he was, although I think sending letterbombs was only desperate and in vain.

>I read his manifesto, wasn't that impressed.
Why not? Despite the media claiming that it's crazy talk, he mirrors the sentiment of a few other respected authors like Zerzan and Moore.

Even among mathematicians, Teddy wasn't the only one to take serious issue with (members of) society having too much power to do us any good. Pic related gradually withdrew from research as he started to appreciate what the military could gain from it.

For all you know, it probably only encouraged him to look into previous malevolent programmes which the CIA carried out.

I'm not sure it's something to be entirely worried about. Society has successfully reconditioned itself, at least partially, on a number of issues, such as discrimination, religion, and raw capitalistic competition that harms the great good. Besides, if we don't change, I'm not sure we will be able to pull together to handle the big issues threatening out species.

Capitalism is one of the greatest tools we have. The thing is you have to put a leash on it.

What did he actually do?

nothing wrong...

engineers detected, lol

Morally and ethically he was not right in killing innocent people.

He has an exceptional mind. One that was unfortunately wasted on his murderous path.

"He was the darling of the math department, finishing his master's degree in 1964.

"Best man I have seen," wrote Math Prof. Allen Shields in a grade evaluation.

"He just seems a little too sure of himself," was Math Prof. Pete Duren's only complaint.

Maybe he had reason to be. Kaczynski had a habit of solving extremely difficult problems and then publishing them in prestigious journals.

Once, as Math Prof. George Piranian told author Alton Chase, Piranian told his students that he had a problem about a lesser-known mathematical subject called boundary functions that no one had solved. Weeks later, Kaczynski placed 100 handwritten pieces of paper on Piranian's desk. He had solved the problem.

Kaczynski's academic prowess peaked with his doctoral dissertation, titled "Boundary Functions." The dissertation was awarded the Sumner Myers prize for the University's best mathematics thesis of the year, netting Kaczynski $100. A plaque listing his accomplishment is still displayed near the East Quad Residence Hall entrance. If you Google "boundary functions" name now, the third result is an excerpt from Kaczynski's thesis.

Every professor on his dissertation committee approved it.

"This thesis is the best I have ever directed," Shields wrote in an evaluation form."

"If you read the selection of Kaczynski's unpublished autobiography he sent me, you'd think that it was the incompetence of his professors at the University.

"The fact that I not only passed my courses (except one physics course) but got quite a few A's, shows how wretchedly low the standards were at Michigan," he wrote.

He later describes how professors often showed up to class unprepared and how they could not complete some of the proofs they assigned.

"The atmosphere to me felt extremely sordid - most instructors and most students did only what they had to do - there was no interest or enthusiasm or even any sense of responsibility about doing a good job," he wrote.

The poor teaching had some psychological effects, his writings suggest.

"Sloppy, careless, poorly organized teaching can destroy the morale of many students," Kaczynski wrote."

I don't remember where I read it, maybe from this article but I read while his classmates were struggling with homework assignments Ted was publishing in top tier journals.

His professors said he didn't inform them he was working on anything. He would show up in their office with the publication.

>What is emergent properties of groups which act as "rules".
What emerges is groupthink, bullying, and eventually fascism. Read Hayek. He watched it happen in real time.

if teddy K didn't lose his mind would he be another perelmen?

>advanced Laplace transforms

Yawn

tfw you don't know which one was the crazy one

Who nose. Who cares. It's the people with money's problem which resources they choose to scrap or not.

I read his manifesto, just that and nothing else hes written.
Hes right about leftism, and his power process idea seem to be a decent enough explanation of things. Some of what he says about surrogate activities are things i myself had thought when looking at workaholics and happy NEETs

I think his conclusions are wrong though. I think we can be happy with surrogate activities and moreover, even if that were not the case, i dont think its useful to just destroy technology and go back to how things used to be. "Being fulfilled" until something wipes us out is not a valid endgame.

Some really skilled people can perform rather well solitarily and perform worse / even become destructive if they are forced into social and hierarchical contexts.

What motivates people can be really difficult. What motivates one person can be pure shit for another turning them into an isolated alcoholic or worse.

>Hes right about leftism
It was fake and used to exclude fair-weather people in his 'movement'. He explains it in this book according to a review.

Kek

How do I become a NEET

browse sci

He is right about what is destroying humanity.

He's wrong about humanity being destroyed being a bad thing.

...

>being against evolution

this

what is a valid endgame?

to be a NEET

He BTFO anarcho-primativists pretty good, though.

where did it all go so wrong? he was a genius