It’s also mad that this is also the case for adults. When you turn 18, you shouldn’t suddenly lose basic rights (like access to food and shelter), but that’s exactly what most capitalists want to happen (and so that’s how it works).

Goods with inelastic demand shouldn’t be driven by the profit motive. Food, healthcare, housing, etc. We can let luxury goods stay within the private sector for now since people don’t need them to survive, and come back to that conversation at a later date.

Note: Lemmy code blocks don’t play nice with some symbols, specifically < and & in the following code examples

This isn’t a language level issue really though, Haskell can be equally ergonomic.

The weird thing about ?. is that it’s actually overloaded, it can mean:

• call a function on A? that returns B?
• call a function on A? that returns B

you’d end up with B? in either case

Say you have these functions

toInt :: String -> Maybe Int

double :: Int -> Int

isValid :: Int -> Maybe Int

and you want to construct the following using these 3 functions

fn :: Maybe String -> Maybe Int

in a Rust-type syntax, you’d call

str?.toInt()?.double()?.isValid()

in Haskell you’d have two different operators here

str >>= toInt <&> double >>= isValid

however you can define this type class

class Chainable f a b fb where
    (?.) :: f a -> (a -> fb) -> f b

instance Functor f => Chainable f a b b where
    (?.) = (<&>)

instance Monad m => Chainable m a b (m b) where
    (?.) = (>>=)

and then get roughly the same syntax as rust without introducing a new language feature

str ?. toInt ?. double ?. isValid

though this is more general than just Maybes (it works with any functor/monad), and maybe you wouldn’t want it to be. In that case you’d do this

class Chainable a b fb where
    (?.) :: Maybe a -> (a -> fb) -> Maybe b

instance Chainable a b b where
    (?.) = (<&>)

instance Chainable a b (Maybe b) where
    (?.) = (>>=)

restricting it to only maybes could also theoretically help type inference.

Here’s an example (first in Haskell then in Go), lets say you have some types/functions:

• type Possible a = Either String a
• data User = User { name :: String, age :: Int }
• validateName :: String -> Possible String
• validateAge :: Int -> Possible Int

then you can make

mkValidUser :: String -> Int -> Possible User
mkValidUser name age = do
  validatedName ← validateName name
  validatedAge  ← validateAge age
  pure $ User validatedName validatedAge

for some reason <- in lemmy shows up as <- inside code blocks, so I used the left arrow unicode in the above instead

in Go you’d have these

• (no Possible type alias, Go can’t do generic type aliases yet, there’s an open issue for it)
• type User struct { Name string; Age int }
• func validateName(name string) (string, error)
• func validateAge(age int) (int, error)

and with them you’d make:

func mkValidUser(name string, age int) (*User, error) {
  validatedName, err = validateName(name)
  if err != nil {
    return nil, err
  }

  validatedAge, err = validateAge(age)
  if err != nil {
    return nil, err
  }

  return User(Name: validatedName, Age: validatedAge), nil
}

In the Haskell, the fact that Either is a monad is saving you from a lot of boilerplate. You don’t have to explicitly handle the Left/error case, if any of the Eithers end up being a Left value then it’ll correctly “short-circuit” and the function will evaluate to that Left value.

Without using the fact that it’s a functor/monad (e.g you have no access to fmap/>>=/do syntax), you’d end up with code that has a similar amount of boilerplate to the Go code (notice we have to handle each Left case now):

mkValidUser :: String -> Int -> Possible User
mkValidUser name age =
  case (validatedName name, validateAge age) of
    (Left nameErr, _) => Left nameErr
    (_, Left ageErr)  => Left ageErr
    (Right validatedName, Right validatedAge) => 
      Right $ User validatedName validatedAge

Do you actually hold this position in all situations? It was illegal to harbor Jewish fugitives in Nazi Germany, should those laws be respected?

When you say “no, of course not”, maybe actually consider what your position is before posting. Because nobody’s position is to just “respect laws” in all circumstances.

Authoritarian state capitalism is different than liberal capitalism, I wasn’t trying to say they’re the same as the U.S, and you correctly outlined some differences that I agree with.

As for beliefs, I also recognize many Chinese people believe they have socialism, just like many Americans believe that we live in a free democratic first world country. The similarity here is that both these takes are just state propaganda that have been successfully fed to the masses.

China has successfully reverted anything remotely socialist about the country over the last 40 years. Like I’ve said previously, I recognize one day they might flip the switch, eliminate all the landlords & business owners, seize the means of production, and dissolve the State. I don’t believe this will happen though, and they’ve made no indication of even moving vaguely in this direction.

If/when the day arrives that the workers own the means of production and are no longer wage slaves to a bourgeoise class, they will have successfully installed socialism. Before that day comes you can’t just execute a few billionaires and claim you have socialism, if you’re at all concerned with the true state of things.

I didn’t tell anyone how to run anything, I pointed out how they’re an entirely capitalist nation that pretends to be socialist. Maybe the current authoritarian regime will suddenly revert all the market reforms they’ve implemented over the last 3-4 decades, seize the means of production, and then dissolve the state when it’s no longer needed.

I don’t believe this will happen, and I don’t think many people do. Most of the “socialists” that support China are more than happy with the bourgeoise class existing and exploiting working class people “for the betterment of the State”. This kind of thinking falls much more in line with Mussolini than Marx.

“core values of socialism”? Like reintroducing landleeches after they were outlawed? Like allowing the bourgeoise to own the means of production and exploit the over a billion working class Chinese people in horrible conditions? Using the profit motive to “incentivize entrepreneurship”?

China is the epitome of SINO, they’re an authoritarian capitalist regime.