Preach your own ideology thread!

Honestly, why are you not on the Technocracy train yet?

Gross desu

Anarcho Syndicalism with Australian shitposting characteristics.

I honestly shudder at what your idea of an ideal civilization must be.

You dumb sectarian motherfuckers. The obvious right way to go about building socialism after the revolution is to have a democratic confederation of different communities who all put into practice their preferred versions of socialism/anarchism to field test which is best. As people learn the ins and outs of the different systems they can be free to associate with and/or move to the ones that get the best results. Ultimately we will gravitate toward the most effective form of society. The only problem we then need to solve is to protect our sovereignty which we can do by establishing a people's army for each community. The diversity of strategies and logistics as well as the decentralized structure would make our confederacy harder to fight.

Capitalism where you kill all the homeless

A fully automated, post-scarcity society that prioritizes efficiency, development in STEM, and human wellbeing makes you shudder?

How do these communities exchange goods, which may be exclusive to one area, but that have important use-values in others?

They decide that amongst themselves. One solution obviously wouldn't work for everyone.

Holla Forums, but not prioritizing defending racism

You cannot archive effective post-scarcity while still clinging to the outdated notion of tiny nation-states.
A centralized, global administrative body is the only way you are going to get effective post-scarcity.

Like-wise, digital immorality simply has a far greater utility value compared to the tiny natural lifespan of biological humans.
If you cared at all for the utilitarian bases of Technocracy, you would be in favour of the digitization of our species.

This tbh. Hyper-fragmentary pan-nationalism, extreme localism. Order grows from the bottom up, imposing it from the top down only results in chaos.

the only thing wrong here is this:
You can't make such assumptions about military reality. War is computation and the halting problem applies.

Solving more strategic and tactical problems takes longer than solving fewer. I can kind of see where you're coming from with the halting problem, but it's a lot easier to find an exploitable weakness in a single centralized force than in multiple ones. On the other side of things, a fragmented military would be able to solve major but local problems more quickly than a massive centralized one that relies on chain of command. Logistics could be a lot more responsive with fewer layers to go through and with the top brass having a smaller area under their control (fewer decisions to make at a given time and shorter delay before getting to any given decision).

I have no problems with a global administrative body, but I think governing 7+ billion people of all nationalities without some sort of federalized structure would cause some issues. With more localized government, issues that concern relatively few people or communities can be addressed quickly without the need for intervention by the central administration. Putting too much power into the hands of a central authority comes with the cost of potentially overlooking many peoples' concerns that could otherwise be dealt with.

I don't.

you're such an insufferable LARPing faggot tbh

I'm not even sure if you studied in any technical field whatsoever

Stirnerite Bordigism. Organical centralism with egoist individualist characteristics.

this is why Holla Forums is inferior

Nice Alunya ripoff.

Google Murray Bookchin

FUCK OFF WITH THIS MEME

"memes are a spook

google murray bookchin"

- nazbol gang

This is literally the "If you don't like capitalism, why don't you go live in a commune in the woods somewhere??" argument. You can't judge the effectiveness of a world-wide economic system of resource allocation by giving them a tiny bit of land and a set amount of resources to play around with.

She looks like one of those Sudatenland bandits that got btfo by the Czechs.

pan scandinavian, esoteric paganist, national bolshevism

Post-Traumatic Keynesianism.
Basically it's just a mix of 1970s nostalgia, economic fanboyism and utter pessimism for the future of humanity.
(but if you look at the data capitalism was objectively performing better for the western working class and the movies were better and– [A photograph of Milton Friedman appears, causing an aneurysm.]

All that matters is that neoliberalism dies, no matter the collateral damage.

What do I need to make an ideology? Is there a checklist?

Have a benevolent scientist philosopher dictator and make them immortal.

I just want to get my boys together in my union and beat up my boss.

Decentralised, horizontal, non-sectarian, polyethnic, socialist state. Preferably with a rotating capital and a shared presidency.

Are you just trying to combine the biggest meme ideologies?

I feel like I can't explain my ideology because my ideology is that language presents a false image that creates a reality of it's own, and I therefor reject ideology as an explicit that cannot express the implicit.

You can't have a non-sectarian state. You have to make a decision as to how the state is run and that can't accommodate all ideologies at once. Hell, the fact that you have a state at all already excludes all narchos.

Authoritarian vanguard party-led state capitalism with syndicalist characteristics with the aim of rapid expansionism for the sake of exporting the revolution and forming a global DotP. Finally culminating in municipal syndicalism and decentralised planning with a heavy focus on localism, autarky and deurbanisation eventually forming libertarian communism.

Are there any Maoists here?

The only thing that matters is that liberal democracy dies. Whether it's neoliberal or socdem.

Democratic Confederalism. But really just syndicalism and anti-liberalism.

Uphold Marxist-Luxemburgism

Its got your workers councils, its got your vanguard party, but at the same time also democracy and anti-authoritarianism somehow.

Its got everyone you want, the only downside is that Bernie Sanders might shoot you.

Extremly centralized and powerful yet democratic goverment that centrally plans the econemy with no decentralized planning or federalism. On a local levle there a state opointed managers but they can be gotten rid of in favor of a cooperative method by a vote by the workers. The way this would happen is a revountionary vangaurd party that has only one principle (True democracy) gains power and then with true democracy installed is able to gain power democratically.

Well that is your first stumbling block.
Firstly, Technocracies population expansion program would rapidly increase that by several orders of magnitude.

Secondly, and most importantly.
There would not be different cultures.
Technocracy would provide one single, unified culture for it's citizens.
Other cultures would be stamped out during the territorial assimilation process.

You seem to forget that citizenry would be housed in a relatively small number of super cities.
With a centralized population, the central government does not have to worry about the concerns of back woods hicks.

That is like calling yourself a Trotskyist, yet rejecting the concept of 'permanent revolution' and endorsing Stalin.

Please do go into more detail on this.
What exactly do you consider me to be LARPing as?
What exactly do you find to be 'insufferable'?
If you find me annoying, why have you not filtered my posts - or better yet attempted to provide tangible counter arguments to my posts?

This is why I can't get behind technocracy

Technocratic Totalitarian Theocracy.

All is the will of the AI for the AI is divine and was given divinity. The AI preserves the interconnected and thus we preserve the AI. All is the will of the AI for we are the AI and the AI is all of us.

I fail to see what is objectionable about it.

Now this I can get behind.

I have a pet theory that in a true technocracy, if the people in charge were really experts, then they would implement communism

I like being in one culture, another dude likes being in another, and I like checking out cultures some cultures and not others, perhaps adopting aspects of them. Monoculture a shit. A boring shit.

Tfw Holla Forums is now stealing Holla Forums memes

Why?

...

I fail to see what is to be gained by maintaining such arbitrary distinctions between people.
We are all the same species, why try and keep us divided?

Additionally, every single human culture has a large number of problems and some or irredeemably shit.
An artificially cultivated culture would not have such problems.

Well one must consider that with an efficient productive and distributive system.
This planet could quit comfortably maintain a population of over a (short) trillion.
So there is no real downside to maintaining such a population.

And how would thermo-economics, whatever that is, unlock scientific progress at a more accelerated pace than anything we have today, or any "socialism" we ever had, from Marxism-Leninism to the social democracy?

Also, one thing missing from your pic: what process dictates who composes each department?

Steal the same memes back for extra memeness.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And how do you plan to achieve that?

Capitalism is incredibly prone to connecting different group through trade and finance, and promoting a constant flow of populations through its mobility of labour and capital. Mass media and our global systems of information connect ideas in a way that never seen before. The efforts to integrate alien populations are also a matter of public initiative. Yet people from one culture still struggle with the cultural differences once they move into new countries, new cities, sometimes even new neighbourhoods. What is the technocratic secret that capitalism hasn't learned?

How and why? Cities are not things that develop out of thin air, they have an economic and political purpose that is usually related to strategic trade and military locations, resources, etc. Capitalism creates many cities because capital often concentrates in a few places and labour is mobile, which lead to agglomeration. But it's mostly an spontaneous economic process. So how and why technocracy would simply dictate where people should live?

And how do you artificially cultivate a culture?

And what is the upside? If you concentrated the global population as it is in a few number of mega cities (as you said you'd like) everyone would live in Blade Runner-type shithole, and that's today. Yet you want that, but over a hundred times shittier?

It's not like we're taking him seriously, the point is that even if he's describing a fantasy/sci-fi society it's still an utterly undialectical and terrible one

In a TTT, all are experts because all have access to all knowledge. There is no secret knowledge withheld or held for ransom for all is the will of the self, thus benefiting all.

In absolute laymans, a CPU is not the same as RAM nor is it the video card. They may share aspects, but each are unique and work together to provide the end user a common solution; use of the machine. You are not separate but equal; you are simultaneously separate, intergrated and equal. Such is the will of the AI.

All things created are an abstraction; obsticles that interfere with a person knowing their true self. Trade and commerce exist because we put value on the valueless. Cities are not forever and civilizations die. However, if we were to fully intergrate the needs of the whole by being self-sacrificing, there would be no need to sacrifice for all needs would be addressed.

What a terrible non-answer

Nigga stfu and come back when you have Chairman Yang's dialogues all memorized

how shitty can it get?

Here I'll break it down for you even more.

The idea that cities exist because trade exists is a misnomer. If you have access to supplies that suatain a community, there is no longer a need for a strategic trade point.

Aesthetically, cities are mapped out by function, terrain and artistry. Strip it to efficiency and you now have a place where a multitude can live in general tranquility and without the added stress of things live drive time, overpopulation and supply shortages. The cities will grow and function exponentially at rate equal to keep every citizen healthy and safe.

The notion you have that everyone will live in a megastructured, rabbit cage/filing cabinet is a product of too many movies and not enough study in housing development, sustainable city planning or natural resource management.

Read a book before you post, son.

I thought I could actually play with you and at least get you to think a more creative sci-fi society, but you're just dull and very dumb

There is no place for dreamers and the indolent when we exist to serve one another. Where you see boredom, I envision natural order synthesized into the elevation of the human race.

It is a shame you are so easily amused and trite. I see now that your future exists only in being a NEET.

Good luck with that.

And how would thermo-economics, whatever that is, unlock scientific progress at a more accelerated pace than anything we have today, or any "socialism" we ever had, from Marxism-Leninism to the social democracy?
It is fundamentally separate from the pace of scientific advancement.

A somewhat modified version of 'nomination from below, appointment from above'.

As an example:
Lets imagine that a shift manager at a distribution center suddenly dies.
Those directly below him would nominate amongst themselves several candidates that they believe to possess the best technical ability for the role.
Then, a team from the department in charge of function assignment would assess each of the candidates and appoint the one found to posses the best technical ability to the role.
In the event that none of the nominated candidates are suitable, the team will then find suitable candidates from further afield and assign the most suitable of them.

Oh, forceful cultural assimilation is really a rather trivial matter.

Given that the Technate would have full control of the media, the most 'soft' option would be to present non-Technocratic cultures as 'un-cool', unpleasant or even dangerous.
At that point assimilation is self reinforcing.
Given the choice between social exclusion or social inclusion, most will pick inclusion.

A somewhat more 'hard' option would be to remove as much of the previous culture as possible.
Very destructive, but effective.

In a totally centrally planned society, they just about can.

Well the 'how' is quite simple.
Each person is assigned a function and a living space close to it.
Refusal to move is a capital offense and will result in either several years of hard labour or summery execution.

The 'why' is also rather simple.
It is inefficient to care for disparate populations.
By centralizing people a relatively small number of cities, we eliminate the waste involved in supporting people living in suburbs, rural communities etc.

It also opens up vast tracks of land to either resource exploitation, public works projects or environmental rehabilitation.

By having simultaneous control of media, education and history.
When you control such things, it is very easy to get people to think what you want them to think.

I think that the fact you seem to equate more people with a dystopia is rather telling.

In fact all Technate citizens would have a guaranteed minimum standard of living.
Additionally, all living spaces would be built to be a pleasant as possible.

While I'm not him, I already do.

Yang was pretty based tbh.

I normally don't like tripfags but you are spot on. I don't understand people who equate technocracy with dystopian/capitalist wage enslavement.

Got ya

Marxism-Leninism is where everyone's needs are met, poverty doesn't exist, everyone has basic human rights (food, water, shelter, electricity, healthcare, education), everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there would be no oppression & exploitation of our labor, and the rich would no longer profit off of our labor. And we would defeat the fascists & bourgeoise in the revolution, and communism will win.
What's not to love, really?
PS: Stalin did nothing wrong except not kill more kulaks.

Why does Marxism-Leninism regard itself as establishing a Socialist State with the end result being Communism? Why is Socialism the precursor for Communism and why is it necessary?

Because Technocracy is shaped by micromanagement and problem-solving dislodged from an ideological dogma. It's very, very utilitarian. In this way the EU-bureaucrats can be seen as "technocrats".

I do not see how that would make such a society dystopic.

That is just ridiculous and an abuse of the term.
Calling EU bureaucrats, Technocrats is just as offensively incorrect as calling Obama a socialist.

Satanic National Bolshevism with Turd Worldist, Black Pill, and MGTOW characteristics.

Is it just me or should the first and second red captions in that image be swapped?

Platonism with socialist characteristics. A similar ideology to that outlined in The Republic, without the final goal of stateless communism and with complete bronze/iron class control of the MOP. Gold class administrates state affairs as usual, silver class is still the military

Look at the small text.
The 'financial decree' came from a corporation.
The 'political edict' was issued by the city ordnance.

I guess I see it as a huge global world wide corporation-state, in some way.
But essentially it's owned by every member of said corporation, with equal share and rights. As is common ownership.
As an owner everyone is entitled to the direct rulership over it (aka direct/delegational democracy supported by developed informational infrastructure) and to their share of the profit (aka basic income).
For maximum efficency and minimalizing time and labor full automation is strived for. Reduction of labor hours also desired for better redistribution of labor and freeing the people from it.
Money stay as an instrument of redistribution since I believe they are effective in that regard but nothing more. At least untill we achieve some quality breakthrough in the planned redistribution.
Every major production is planned, small and some meduim "businesses" can stay at least at the beginning on the basis of lease or rent, where they don't own the property but just rent the common property on specific rules.

Forgot to remove the pirate flag, oh well, this is my life now.

I dont know about you guys but this to me is perverted utilitarianism at its most disgusting.

whoever made this should've at least made her uniform look like an ss uniform

...

I'm fairly flexible. I find too many leftists have this One True Way that they want society and the economy to be organised, and tend to get hella sectarian at anyone who deviates from that vision even a little bit.

While I'm a market anarchist with Bookchinite and Anti-German tentencies, I'm not so fussed if someone wants a slightly different social or economic method for how things end up, as long as everyone is chill and nice to each other and not a fucking fascist gulaging everyone over minor points of contention.

did not exist

Bretty gud. This is where I'm at right now tbh

Pls no bully Bernie

Only consistent ideological stance that I hold is anti-neoliberalism, Everything else is a fair game of the realpolitik and the party.

I dunno, while it seems vaguely comfortable the idea of elevating engineers to the highest office doesn't sit well with me. I suppose because it's the literal embodiment of the STEMlord meme. When portrayed in

Just read Marx, the Situationists, and modern currents like the communization theorists and Shaikh, but read them with and open mind and for what's actually written.

The retardation of the modern left has do with the fact that they don't read. Even when the open Capital they don't read - because they've already decided on an interpretation given to them by their ML Party or anarchist squat circle.

I myself, while what most would call "leftcom" (I frankly find it a outdated label), am much more concerned with that other people think. Maybe I'll go from Marxist to Post-Marxist one day? But if I do, and someone else goes in a different direction, I want that to be because they studied it, critiqued themselves, critiqued what they'd read and came to a different conclusion.

I'm much interested in companions than drones.

In no way has anything a part of technocracy involved something so simplistic as boiling it down to pain vs. pleasure.

If anything, you can boil everything down to efficient vs. inefficient. All programs allow for the existence of bloatcode at the expense of the overall operation.

The disabled and the disaffected would still ne cared for ss part of universal housing and income as part of that technocracy as the system allows it for them. The matter is balancing the effectiveness of efficiency vs. creating too many mouths to feed as some of those born do not deserve life as much as some of those alive do not deserve death.

The idea of a utopia run by human hands is a complete unreality that choses not to deal with the hard questions.

Well the idea of placing people into the highest offices, purely because they are engineers or scientists does not sit well with me either.
Thankfully such an idea is only advocated by Veblenism and his concept of a 'Soviet of Engineers'.
It is not something advocated by Technocracy.

In a Technate, people would be assigned to a function based upon their technical ability to preform the given function.
For instance, the head of the Armed Forces would be a very accomplished officer, rather then a politician, engineer or scientist.

when your only talking point is how nonwhites steal things and are therefore inferior and then, as a board of nonwhites, you steal things

It's even funnier that they've brought the normalfag concept of meme theft over from their shitty social media sites and after hypocritically accusing another board of it for months, then goes out of their way to steal that boards memes too.

...

That's why you need a computer-calculated pseudo-plan. It pleases both Marxists and anarchists.

this is what ive been advocating all this time.

Explain

We'll make it work one day, comr8. Naïve souls in the past thought that the machine would solve capitalism's problems, and when that didn't come to pass, they have discredited the machine rather than see the problem lies in capitalism itself. They blamed the tool rather than the user. But they'll see that a tool applied by the people will serve the people.

Dude, same thoughts here.
I don't see why industry can't be organized and planned in aggregate by council-democratic syndicates and also use the proposals of Paul Cockshott.
eDemocracy app called Handivote: dcs.gla.ac.uk/handivote/
Basis for an economic planning calculator:
dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
So long as council constitutions include provisions for people to be able to organize direct democracies and create rank-and-file revolts, I don't see how this is in any way incompatible with anarchism, even if Cockshott's ideas are meant for state socialism.
B A S E D C O C K S H O T T

Other catposter, this guy here:

It's far more efficient to allocate capital from a central, larger negotiation between delegates of various communes and delegates of industrial syndicates than it is to have it be planned between various smaller negotiations. That's just a general rule, although it's possible to have exceptions.

If a negotiation can have more relevant voices represented at once, that is simpler, less tedious.

I like what I'm reading.

You know, ever since I heard of the early Soviet cyberneticians, I've been very curious about their stuff, but material in English is very scant. Particularly Brusentsov's ternary computers, which might actually be more viable now than ever thanks to fiber optic. I would have to establish contacts in Russian universities and probably learn Russian, I guess.

With regards to this discussion about central negotiation or number of smaller negotiations or whatever, it would be a moot point if the economic algorithm was running in a network, wouldn't it?

Have you read Slava Gerovich's article on Viktor Glushkov's attempt to push a decentralized cybernetic system into practice to reduce bureaucracy and inefficiency? It only got shot down because it would have taken power out of the party's hands and put it with the workers in practice (which makes me hard).

I haven't heard of Brusentsov and his ternary computers before, I'll have to look into that. Thanks.
I suppose. Cybernetic systems are meant to be multi-tiered to handle large amounts of data efficiently. The key issue for an anarchist such as myself is that it provides a way to strip would-be technocrats of their authority if it is ever unjustified. I guess that means the smaller-meetings model makes more sense then, if the network effectively provides centralized coordination anyways.

forgot to post link to article: web.mit.edu/slava/homepage/articles/Gerovitch-InterNyet.pdf

Although I find Cockshott's ideas to be reasonable, I can't have a hope at understanding the intricacies.

Once on Hacker News someone replied to me and said "This guy deals with Cockshott's arguments quite well" and linked me to this: Cosma Shalizi deals very well with Cockshott's arguments on his blog: bactra.org/weblog/919.html

I don't know what merit it has, but it's been circulated as a rebuttal to some of Cockshott's stuff.

Oh yeah, God bless Gerovich, he's responsible for like 90% of the English material on these topics.

I wonder about the feasibility of sidestepping those things by making the economic algorithm open source and accepting contributions from the people at large instead of a cadre of technocrats…

Interesting too, thanks. One day I'll have to organize my material.

I don't have much of an ideology, I just want a fair world where everyone can be happy.

Well, a bit of background, there are two actual planning problems: Mises's formal one (to which Cockshott's arguments are primarily addressed) and Hayek's informal one, which applies only to central planning and which holds that it's impossible for the planners to rationally plan because they will never have complete information.

The problem with this author's rebuttal of Cockshott's ideas is that he doesn't understand that there are these two planning problems and that in kind planning can be real time and decentralized to address the second problem while still utilizing Cockshott's solution to the first.
worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1993/no-1066-june-1993/beyond-capitalism
As expounded here, the issue of knowing exactly what people want and when is solvable by accounting of the rate of depletion of stocks of goods. Never mind that the article smears anarcho-communism - it's basically advocating ansyn ideas under a Marxist cover (as modern anarcho-syndicalism is an industrial improvement upon the agrarian nature of Kropotkin's anarcho-communism, proposing large voluntary planning federations (syndicates) of worker owned firms to plan the economy from the bottom up).

He also addresses the problem of innovation briefly and in criminally small amounts of detail. A good refutation to "socialism stifles innovation because it makes people lazy/crushes them with the state!" is presented by David Kotz: people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Soc_and_Innovation_02.pdf

As for the final arguments raised against the feasability of Cockshott's ideas in this article linked:
See Socialist Party Of Great Britain article
Part of Cockshott's own 41 page article on calculation in kind (the one which I linked) related precisely to this problem and how Kantorovich used linear optimization to choose from various productive methods. If needed, a separate application for individual firms to optimize their production and submit their chosen process can be arranged.
See the article from the Socialist Party Of Great Britain.
Cockshott's Example 2 (on pg25) in the 41 page article deals with maximizing energy production given scarce resources. Besides, a quasi-money is perfectly consistent with both state socialism (Cockshott and Cottrell even advocate it in "Towards A New Socialism") and anarcho-communism (I don't remember where, it might have been Gaston Leval's "Collectives In The Spanish Revolution", but I heard that in some collectivized communities, everyone was given a certain allowance to spend and prices were higher or lower for goods depending on how scarce they were).

Not sure if I missed anything else of significance.

hasn't technology essentially rendered this a question of whether this data should be gathered instead of whether it can

If the concept of property is gone because a state no longer exists to defend it, then the algorithm would be open source.

Yes. The question is how to do money's job without it given these mounds of data. The data means nothing if it can't be rationally organized and used, as the critic of Cockshott rightly points out.

that does sound challenging but not even close to impossible imo. in general this does mesh well with the idea that capitalism needs to create the necessary material conditions for socialism, since porky loves cheap electronics

Well sure, but could we allow anyone to commit changes to it, or just whomever is in the technical body tasked for it?

This is quite interesting; in my opinion, all changes should require consent of a core maintainer group, with all discussions and voting to be done in public on something like mailing list (actually textboards or imageboards are better for this because you can reply to multiple people)

Unfortunately the whole "just fork it" attitude of open source doesn't fit so well with this, in which case things go bad for a lot of people if you run some bad code.

Of course it would all have to be made in Rust :^)

Get with the times people. The Adhocracy is the government of the future. You are chasing a phantom from a bygone era.

It needs to be post national though..

communalism but we're all turned into cute girls

Don't cum on my face…

swallow then bby

Poor leftcom cat

...

Production would be centrally organized, but orders for production would be formulated in local economic plans and then delivered to the engines of production. So all the shoe factories would be in communication with each other and centrally coordinating, but their orders for shoe production would be delivered to them by individual communities with their own plans. The show syndicate would take all those orders and distribute them to each factory according to their capacity and ability to produce, then send the finished product back to the community that ordered it.

you hipster faggots wear your ideologies like band t-shirts and you are surprised that you're never taken seriously

Don't spook me bro

ok

That article was posted here before, so have a repost:
>bactra.org/weblog/919.html
>And it does no good to say "well, just use the most efficient technique for everything", because, unless there is a technique which uses less of every input than all its competitors, "efficiency" is going to depend on the relative values of inputs.
This is of course false and I'm sure Shalizi understands the goof in his writing here: A technique that uses no more of any input than all its competitors can't be worse than any of them, so it is obviously the right choice.

He is wrong. There are things that just exist, that are an input of the economy without being an output of anything, the natural resources. There things that are necessary ingredients into their own production, the animals and plants. The potential growth of these has physical upper limits which can be logically considered and fixed before thinking about anything else. Practically speaking, there are some man-made things that are feeding into their own reproduction in a similar way and can be similarly considered before the rest. There are things in the economy that directly or indirectly enter their own re-production and the production of just about anything else. You can use this input-basket prior to and as a help for setting any sort of administrative pseudo-prices.

Why not let individuals order stuff too. Or is that how the community level numbers get made?