@freemo @messaroundmarx There are 2 quotes here.
I assume it's the 2nd quote mostly about authoritarianism that is mostly the focus...

...which, if so, would you consider authority or authoritarianism as an uncaring (or almost financially-only caring) Bank and State Authority as the kind of dictator(s) or de-facto equivalent (i.e. without you totally using Bank or State then you are a mere nothing deliberately made increasingly conditional, whether they declare themselves as this or that political label.

Those two (or just for the purposes of this reply) are sole rulers and sources of life (or monopoly of it) and soon imprisoning people for non-conforming reasons (more examples of kangeroo #courts / #juries asked to #ignore evidence / terrorism chargers used on Twitter / Mastodon style social people silences and in jail / mothers arrested fpr speaking etc)...

So theoretically or de-facto would you agree Modern #Capitalism (or just today's type of actions and non-action of Banks and State (whatever we call their actions as) is requiring these two authorities and not just the softer or neutral types of Capitalism.

The increasing #ultimatum and #conditional demanding #conforming to (or take it or leave life if you want) makes increasingly everything #illegal or incompatible by default and today's kind of Capitalism is more #punishment orientated...

Capitalism here as a constantly changing or added #restriction / #redefinition which is why we can not just focus on #labels like Authoritarianism but the #behaviour and track #record / #history, as well as what they #finance (#war), how they have things failed constantly in echange for profit / power etc etc, that contribute to similar things...

As part of constant systematic pattern (whatever we call that) and even considering people being #ignorant also (yes), but definitely no change to that model of #business as usual. Namely #tax, #territorial #aggression etc.

And on the other side more positive to humans, today it's hardly about #communication between #state and people, giving power to people, talking about well-being of humans, which I'd include as part of what makes it "Authoritarian style" behaviour also when it's without those components and considerations... would you agree?

Happy New Year by the way :)

I should have been more precise. The two formal expressions

(2|x ^ 3|x) -> 6|x
(2|x -> 6|x) v (3|x -> 6|x)

are equivalent. However, it is less clear cut with their ordinary language translations:

"If x is divisible by 2 and x is divisible by 3, then x is divisible by 6."
"If x is divisible by 2, then x is divisible by 6, or if x is divisible by 3, then x is divisible by 6."
#logic #implication #conditional

Example 2: write a|x for "x is divisible by a" or "a divides x". Then
(2|x ^ 3|x) -> 6|x
(2|x -> 6|x) v (3|x -> 6|x)

In both cases, the first form is natural and obvious and the second is something you'd normally never write. But, if pressed, maybe you'd bite the bullet and agree it's an equivalent form. I'm still undecided but I enjoyed the paper.
#logic #implication #conditional (3/3)