(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
https://twitter.com/DialecticRhythm/status/1578818113696845824?cxt=HHwWgMDS_bOti-krAAAA
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
This is a small thing, but I've been reading about a history of bicycles, and it keeps coming up that the first companies to mass produce bicycles were often companies that were originally producing sewing machines. from a certain perspective, this makes sense, since manufacturing the metal parts for a bike would require retooling from the metal parts of a sewing machine, but it also ties back to industrial capitalism having had its origins in England and the use of steam engines to drive machinery because sewing machines are directly in the path of progression from mechanized looms the other thing though is that these companies are ones like Opel, and Peugeot, and Renault. John Boyd Dunlop developed the spoked wheel and the inflated inner tube for bicycle tires, while Karl Benz developed a patent for an internal combustion engine so that his tricycles could have more power than what the human foot could provide, and then he'd be joined by Gottlieb Daimler to expound on the idea and then you fast-forward a century and these names are now oligarchical
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 10:58
|
|
|
So you're saying guys like Opel, and Peugeot, Renault, Dunlop, and Benz are like The Eternals?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is a small thing, but I've been reading about a history of bicycles, and it keeps coming up that the first companies to mass produce bicycles were often companies that were originally producing sewing machines. Detroit was a bicycle hub (pun intended) for the Midwest. Don't forget that the Wright Brothers' worked out of a bike shop as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
hucking a brick through a bike shop's window for getting all this poo poo started
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
In the comments I discover that Miyazaki really was a Marxist in the past. I had no idea. https://twitter.com/Nudistfrog/status/1578952193298010112
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
Was his studio a co op? I didn't think it was, so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
droll posted:Was his studio a co op? I didn't think it was, so... For someone who makes himself out to be such a workerist his studio practices have always struck me as incredibly exploitative. Industry standard, sure, but he clearly knows that industry standards are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
droll posted:Was his studio a co op? I didn't think it was, so... quote:Known as “Paku-san,” allegedly because of sounds he’d made while eating, Takahata was an imposing figure. He’d joined Toei in 1959, rising to the role of assistant director on The Little Prince and the Eight-Headed Dragon (1963). Miyazaki described him as a “scary person” with plenty of enemies in management, but “very smart” and cool. Takahata remembered Miyazaki as “very young and naive.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Stopping organizing and dropping out of the active struggle I understand, but calling yourself a Marxist then abandoning your principles by deliberately becoming the exploiter is just lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:48
|
|
|
happens a lot. the ideas undergirding marxist philosophy form a fairly powerful analytical toolset. but most marxist organizations suck poo poo full stop which can be very disappointing and disillusioning. it doesnt take long for someone to realize they can just take the skills they developed and go into business for themselves since capitalism usually wins anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
It also speaks to the primacy of class position in determining ideology. See also: the cossetted children of academic Marxists, like Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:49
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:happens a lot. the ideas undergirding marxist philosophy form a fairly powerful analytical toolset. but most marxist organizations suck poo poo full stop which can be very disappointing and disillusioning. it doesnt take long for someone to realize they can just take the skills they developed and go into business for themselves since capitalism usually wins anyway yeah, even from what I've seen with my minimal experience, it's not all that uncommon to get disenchanted, become bitter, decide it's too late and nothing's ever going to change, and from there decide "if it's going to be the exploiters and the exploited for the rest of my life/forever, i better not be the exploited"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 12:06
|
|
|
disaster pastor posted:yeah, even from what I've seen with my minimal experience, it's not all that uncommon to get disenchanted, become bitter, decide it's too late and nothing's ever going to change, and from there decide "if it's going to be the exploiters and the exploited for the rest of my life/forever, i better not be the exploited" id be lying if i said i hadnt considered it myself from time to time
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
This is exactly why I’d argue we need a Marxist morality. Revolutionary science isn’t just a set of tools for analysis but also for guiding action. Mao describes the feedback loop in On Contradiction, but you really need that “proletarian morality” (as Lenin calls it) in between knowledge and practice. Otherwise yeah it’s like “why be on the losing side?” Or yeah uncritically submerged in the ideology of your class position like Pete The Rat and Copmala.
Sunny Side Up has issued a correction as of 14:59 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
There's also a slippery slope you see sometimes (especially in older people who had better economic prospects) that goes along the lines of being a young poor marginalized person whose material interests push them towards Marxism, but then finding some kind of success in life that moves them more towards the middle classes. They buy a house, they find themself with enough savings to start some kind of investment portfolio or retirement plan that benefits from the performance of the stock market, they move into more managerial roles at work, and all of a sudden they find that their material interests no longer push them towards actually enacting any kind of socialism, even if they still intellectually believe in Marxism as an analytical tool or a theoretical ideal. There isn't necessarily a conscious choice at any moment to become exploiter instead of exploited, there are a series of practical choices like "well if I have some money sitting in the bank it might as well be in an investment that earns me a few percentage points" that build up over time to moving the person from one position to another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
the proletariat IS the winning side on a long enough timespan. if you're actually in position to be like "why be on the losing side?" and become an anticommunist academic or w/e that's completely understandable but also immaterial because it means you're in an ever-shrinking minority of violinists on the deck of the titanic
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:This is exactly why I’d argue we need a Marxist morality. Revolutionary science isn’t just a set of tools for analysis but also for guiding action. Mao describes the feedback loop in On Contradiction, but you really need that “proletarian morality” (as Lenin calls it) in between knowledge and practice. Otherwise yeah it’s like “why be on the losing side?” Or yeah uncritically submerged in the ideology of your class position like Pete The Rat and Copmala. This is idealism. Material conditions shape people's ideology, all the moralizing in the world would not have set those two on a better path.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:the proletariat IS the winning side on a long enough timespan. if you're actually in position to be like "why be on the losing side?" and become an anticommunist academic or w/e that's completely understandable but also immaterial because it means you're in an ever-shrinking minority of violinists on the deck of the titanic Before I understood the immediacy of climate catastrophe I would have argued it’s a matter of timescales. Remember barbarism is still in the cards, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:Before I understood the immediacy of climate catastrophe I would have argued it’s a matter of timescales. Remember barbarism is still in the cards, too. More like, the most likely scenario against which we who organize are a forlorn hope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:you really need that “proletarian morality” (as Lenin calls it) in between knowledge and practice vyelkin posted:There's also a slippery slope you see sometimes (especially in older people who had better economic prospects) that goes along the lines of being a young poor marginalized person whose material interests push them towards Marxism, but then finding some kind of success in life that moves them more towards the middle classes. They buy a house, they find themself with enough savings to start some kind of investment portfolio or retirement plan that benefits from the performance of the stock market, they move into more managerial roles at work, and all of a sudden they find that their material interests no longer push them towards actually enacting any kind of socialism, even if they still intellectually believe in Marxism as an analytical tool or a theoretical ideal. There isn't necessarily a conscious choice at any moment to become exploiter instead of exploited, there are a series of practical choices like "well if I have some money sitting in the bank it might as well be in an investment that earns me a few percentage points" that build up over time to moving the person from one position to another. This is something I struggle with too, admittedly. I'm a latecomer to genuine Marxism and it's coincided with the most "professional success"/middle-classness of my life, and often there is tension between "this is what I honestly believe would be best for everyone" and "this would, quickly and directly, benefit me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:This is idealism. Material conditions shape people's ideology, all the moralizing in the world would not have set those two on a better path. There’s a much much longer argument to be made from a materialist perspective, but ultimately I agree with your point: you can be armed with the right tools but nothing compels you to use them. You’re also battling an endless river of propaganda. I’ve been reading a lot of anyone who talks about Marxist morality lately but contemporary stuff is all revisionist drivel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:Before I understood the immediacy of climate catastrophe I would have argued it’s a matter of timescales. Remember barbarism is still in the cards, too. i mean even in mad max hellworld the people who nominally "own" the bunkers or arcologies are going to be outnumbered by the people who actually maintain them. any minoritarian ruling class unavoidably has the tiger by the tail
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i mean even in mad max hellworld the people who nominally "own" the bunkers or arcologies are going to be outnumbered by the people who actually maintain them. any minoritarian ruling class unavoidably has the tiger by the tail Suddenly reminded of what a great movie Snowpiercer was lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
disaster pastor posted:This is something I struggle with too, admittedly. I'm a latecomer to genuine Marxism and it's coincided with the most "professional success"/middle-classness of my life, and often there is tension between "this is what I honestly believe would be best for everyone" and "this would, quickly and directly, benefit me." It's perfectly natural. Thing is, there's indeed a moral and practical choice involved, which is what colleagues of Engels and others like him often said: "I stand to gain under socialism", namely that the improvement of general material conditions means the improvement of social welfare: the collective gain is a much greater one in social benefit than the individual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:It's perfectly natural. Thing is, there's indeed a moral and practical choice involved, which is what colleagues of Engels and others like him often said: "I stand to gain under socialism", namely that the improvement of general material conditions means the improvement of social welfare: the collective gain is a much greater one in social benefit than the individual. Yeah. The gain for me may not be as evident or easy to define, but it's always there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
disaster pastor posted:This is something I struggle with too, admittedly. I'm a latecomer to genuine Marxism and it's coincided with the most "professional success"/middle-classness of my life, and often there is tension between "this is what I honestly believe would be best for everyone" and "this would, quickly and directly, benefit me." In the same boat but the more I read on this topic the more I’m led to the idea that it comes down to an analysis of the contradictions at present rather than any absolute standard. It’s not relativism, either—-in the same way capitalist relations are reproduced down to our most mundane interaction, action has gotta be rooted in ultimately resolving the primary contradiction of the system (or of the immediate circumstances). And choosing not to take a job in an evil corp will not change anything except your available resources. Sorry if that’s jargony, I’m still working out my thoughts, been chewing on this for a few months. Instead of an argument (like Selsam in Ethics & Progress) I was actually thinking to create a workbook for analyzing contradictions starting from action. “Should I take that job?” “Should I go vegan?” “Should I do Malm-style pipeline ‘maintenance?’” I think if you don’t come at this angle it’s much easier to fall into economism and reformism. Sunny Side Up has issued a correction as of 15:35 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i mean even in mad max hellworld the people who nominally "own" the bunkers or arcologies are going to be outnumbered by the people who actually maintain them. any minoritarian ruling class unavoidably has the tiger by the tail This is a point I've honestly never understood. Like yeah I get that it is true on a long enough timeline but say that when faced with the choice between socialism or barbarism, the ruling class decides that barbarism is what they want, and they've got the material resources to hold down the proletariat until they have literally destroyed the environment beyond the point of repair. Socialism will inevitably win is a dumbass point when the people in charge can literally destroy the world and rule over the smouldering crater as bandit kings effectively indefinitely. That isn't an argument, as far as I'm concerned, to not actually try to make the world better or to not be Marxist, just that it's cold comfort to insist that you're gonna win while the forces of capital are literally on top of you pummelling you in the face just because at some point they're gonna get tired from all the punching.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is a point I've honestly never understood. Like yeah I get that it is true on a long enough timeline but say that when faced with the choice between socialism or barbarism, the ruling class decides that barbarism is what they want, and they've got the material resources to hold down the proletariat until they have literally destroyed the environment beyond the point of repair. Socialism will inevitably win is a dumbass point when the people in charge can literally destroy the world and rule over the smouldering crater as bandit kings effectively indefinitely. It's pretty telling imo that the one question rich people building bunkers are interested in asking "futurists" when they corral them into a room together is "how do we ensure the loyalty of our armed guards after The Event? Are bomb collars good, or should we just lock up all the food with biometric scanners that only we can open?" and they scoff when the "futurists" tell them "uh, first of all maybe try not destroying the world, second of all the way to ensure the loyalty of your armed guards is to treat them like human beings."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:This is idealism. Material conditions shape people's ideology, all the moralizing in the world would not have set those two on a better path.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is a point I've honestly never understood. Like yeah I get that it is true on a long enough timeline but say that when faced with the choice between socialism or barbarism, the ruling class decides that barbarism is what they want, and they've got the material resources to hold down the proletariat until they have literally destroyed the environment beyond the point of repair. Socialism will inevitably win is a dumbass point when the people in charge can literally destroy the world and rule over the smouldering crater as bandit kings effectively indefinitely. This is the cool thing about taking it as a science. You find what works, what action you can take, and iterate. “Be like water” and all that. Eventually figure out how not to get punched in the face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is a point I've honestly never understood. Like yeah I get that it is true on a long enough timeline but say that when faced with the choice between socialism or barbarism, the ruling class decides that barbarism is what they want, and they've got the material resources to hold down the proletariat until they have literally destroyed the environment beyond the point of repair. Socialism will inevitably win is a dumbass point when the people in charge can literally destroy the world and rule over the smouldering crater as bandit kings effectively indefinitely. well even if you accept it as true, there’s certainly no guarantee it’s happening on the timescale of your career, or even your lifetime anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:well even if you accept it as true, there’s certainly no guarantee it’s happening on the timescale of your career, or even your lifetime anyway I would have expected hundreds of years and many variations of the AES states we’ve already seen, but climate catastrophe really throws a wrench in all that unless you just accept the coming devestation
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:I don't think Marxism eschews morality, just that it has class content, so the reigning morality of bourgeois society is a bourgeois morality as opposed to a proletarian morality. Marx claims to be making cold amoral evaluations of the capitalist system but he gets mad too often for me to believe him. (Which is fine, Marx being catty is great)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Marx claims to be making cold amoral evaluations of the capitalist system but he gets mad too often for me to believe him. Dude gets outright furious even in Capital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:well even if you accept it as true, there’s certainly no guarantee it’s happening on the timescale of your career, or even your lifetime anyway Yeah, I guess my point is that I see it trotted out with various degrees of "victory is certain" confidence, which Ferrinus seemed to definitely have in the post I quoted, and it boggles my mind that anyone can say it with anything other than wistful longing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is a point I've honestly never understood. Like yeah I get that it is true on a long enough timeline but say that when faced with the choice between socialism or barbarism, the ruling class decides that barbarism is what they want, and they've got the material resources to hold down the proletariat until they have literally destroyed the environment beyond the point of repair. Socialism will inevitably win is a dumbass point when the people in charge can literally destroy the world and rule over the smouldering crater as bandit kings effectively indefinitely. power is very fickle. holding authority is predicated on disparate groups of people and interests going along with whatever you're doing. the bourgeoisie don't really have the stranglehold it seems like sometimes. they're on top right now, but they've been weakening their own position for decades. they have lots of money but they can use that money for less and less. you cant print energy or food or steel. every failure of the power structure is an opportunity for an opposing force (us, in this case) to seize something for themselves or simply escape their authority. there is a very big failure happening right now which is getting exponentially worse. the international bourgeoisie will lose a great deal of support, and the primary motive force they deploy (neoliberalism) is already getting unpopular with the WEF crowd. it wouldve been better if we'd already been properly organized to exploit this, but these are the cards we've been dealt. we should use them to the best of our ability right now to grow class consciousness and get as many people as humanly possible organized to take as much as we can. this would put us in a stronger position from which to fight further. market collapses due to current climate change events, combined with bourgeois hoarding and The Tendency, is developing what could be a tremendous windfall for us in the near future croup coughfield has issued a correction as of 17:31 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is a point I've honestly never understood. Like yeah I get that it is true on a long enough timeline but say that when faced with the choice between socialism or barbarism, the ruling class decides that barbarism is what they want, and they've got the material resources to hold down the proletariat until they have literally destroyed the environment beyond the point of repair. Socialism will inevitably win is a dumbass point when the people in charge can literally destroy the world and rule over the smouldering crater as bandit kings effectively indefinitely. The point of "socialism or barbarism" is that either communists win, or humanity is going to go extinct. In any situation where humanity has a future at all, it is a socialist one. In other words, if you could invent a machine which can predict if humans will survive the next thousand years, and it says "yes they survive", communism is confirmed for victory. Like 95% certain we're in our extinction event right now though. HorseLord has issued a correction as of 17:47 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:I don't think Marxism eschews morality, just that it has class content, so the reigning morality of bourgeois society is a bourgeois morality as opposed to a proletarian morality. Depends what part of marxism you're discussing. The marxist political movement has specific goals drawn from morality. But the tools it uses are analytical frameworks, which are used to figure out what are the laws of how economics work, or the laws of how social classes operate etc. These have no more morality built into them than the law of gravity does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is a point I've honestly never understood. Like yeah I get that it is true on a long enough timeline but say that when faced with the choice between socialism or barbarism, the ruling class decides that barbarism is what they want, and they've got the material resources to hold down the proletariat until they have literally destroyed the environment beyond the point of repair. Socialism will inevitably win is a dumbass point when the people in charge can literally destroy the world and rule over the smouldering crater as bandit kings effectively indefinitely. Yeah, socialism isn’t inevitable and anyone who insists otherwise needs to get their head examined—it’s not even historically accurate. Just look at the unprecedented sophistication of and reach surveillance technology in the 21st century alone. To make socialism possible, you’ll need a mass, organized movement to bring it about. In the modern world, the means to break up, undermine, and destroy organized movements is so comically efficient with technological advances by the intel boys and the ruling classes that it almost begs the question “why even bother?” This isn’t even getting into how modern media technology is constantly utilized by the same oligarchy in order to brainwash the worldwide masses into accepting destitute conditions as “inevitable reality” or even desirable. Like this poo poo is from 1975, long before the internet, cell phones, data mining, etc.: quote:In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. (...) Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left: such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 18:04
|
|