
Mathematician Eugenia Cheng: ‘Yes, I am an anarchist’ - btat1
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/26/eugenia-cheng-interview-observer-nicola-davis
======
Red_Tarsius
Honestly, the article offers nothing of substance. It's a light piece designed
to spread awareness about Cheng's upcoming book.
[http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

> _" There’s only been one female winner of the Fields medal since it was
> first awarded in 1936 – Maryam Mirzakhani. Does maths suffer from an old
> boys’ club mentality?"_

> _" I am happy to say I have not experienced that."_

You can clearly see the invisible hand of _the Guardian_ trying to spin the
narrative, hoping to score identity points out of the interview. Thankfully,
she answers in a concise, drama-free manner. Still, the title they chose has
nil to do with the piece.

------
Koshkin
Catchy title, nothing more. On Cheng's part it was simply a joke about the
mathematician's mind being similar to the mind of an anarchist. In fact,
mathematics and anarchism do have something in common. It is being based on
strict laws of logic. Anarchism is no joke! Problem is, while mathematics is
extremely successful, anarchism will never succeed in achieving its goals. Its
criticism of the modern technological society is based on what looks like a
correct analysis of the effects it has on an individual and his freedoms.
Again, problem is, for better or worse, the technological and scientific
progress is irreversible, and there is nothing anarchists or anybody else can
do about it.

------
ue_
As an anarchist myself, how I wish the article lived up to its title.
Interesting nevertheless.

~~~
mordant
Advocates of anarchy are invariably those least-equipped to survive it.

~~~
ue_
Anarchy does not mean "anything goes", it is the rejection of the class system
and systems of _unjustified_ authority and people being free to make voluntary
associations with the abolition of money, private property and implementation
of direct democracy in those voluntary institutions.

I'm not quite sure what you want to get at.

~~~
simonh
If people are forced not to be able to use money, I don't see how that's free.

The reality is that most of the things Anarchists want to abolish, the vast
majority of people of their own free will actually want to keep.

~~~
ue_
>If people are forced not to be able to use money, I don't see how that's
free.

This along with other things are oft-repeated myths about Communism. The goal
is to eliminate money by eliminating the need that creates it: that is, wage
labour and artificial scarcity. You are free to use money. You are not free to
exploit people. That is to say, you would not be allowed to profit by the work
of others by collecting their surplus value. It is equivalent to stealing
(unless both parties give informed consent).

However there would be no _need_ for anyone to engage in wage labour, because
people would no lonver be forced to work for their survival.

~~~
simonh
It's a shame Marx never explained how those needs would actually be met.

~~~
ue_
If I'm correct, Marx always viewed his task as one to criticise the capitalist
system and analyse it in terms of the history leading up to it, rather than
define how a Communistic society ought to be implemented. Marx is quoted as
having said that Communism is an ideal to strive toward rather than one to be
implemented directly per se.

Fewer people would have to work under a post-capitalist mode of production. I
don't know how it's decided who works, but generally those with the
appropriate skill would share labour amongst themselves, and people would be
trained in the education system to do the jobs required by society. Again, the
number of these jobs will be relatively small due to massive automation, which
will occur at an increasing pace compared to the current capitalist system (in
which too much automation means less profit, because goods are bought back
using wages).

------
cechner
what is the point of this headline, other than to decieve? it is not the
headline of the article and is not a quote from the text in the article

edit: I hope I'm not just being a killjoy here - I actually thought this was
going to be some kind of political article.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
You're not the only one. I was half hoping for some discussion of how
mathematical theory illuminates, say, the writings of Bakunin or Goldman.

------
lochland
Cheng's definition of anarchism is "not having rules imposed on you". I'm
afraid this article leftist-triggered me.

------
theoh
The titles of her books are so childish. That's her prerogative, but it feels
like a real "Two Cultures" situation: I wish Cheng or someone else would span
recreational/popular math and serious culture where the world is not
considered as a _hilarious_ two-dimensional cardboard cut-out or slapstick
prop.

~~~
jonsterling
You (and I) are not in the target audience for those books. She does very
serious mathematics, which should be defended; she gave a very nice talk on
Trimble n-categories to my research group on Friday, for instance.

