|
communism isn't utopian precisely because it isn't an incentive-less urging of people to do things for an abstract "greater good" but rather a theory of the development of class socities. uncop put this better than i could a while back so i'm just going to dig up the quote:uncop posted:It feels like y'all are just finding ways to make socialism sound like it's supposed to be this exciting high-stakes millenarian turnaround in order to assign artificial meaningfulness to the debate. But socialism is simple and boring. It's downright anti-excitement, mainly alleviating stressful uncertainties and providing people that bit more control over their lives. Things are going to stay the same much more so than they are going to change, people themselves would still be greedy and shortsighted assholes and so on.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:The (albeit translated) texts I've read from Marx, Lenin and Mao all seemed pretty utopian to me in goals, if not implementation measures. Saying you are offering the way to eventual true communism, like many communist party leaders claimed throughout the 20th century, is one of the most utopian visions I can think of. True economic and legal equality of people working in a rational, planned way. I don't think it's unfair at all to hold history's communists to a high standard because they were the ones supposedly pushing for that high standard in the first place (unless you believe it was all a complete scam). none of them were utopian and the "human nature" poo poo is like a fifth grade level dogshit take. the USSR went through several different types of systems based on the practical needs of the moment (war communism, the NEP, the five year plans, the kosygin system). they experimented with equal wages, but eventually went with wage differentials based on skill levels (scientists and engineers tended to be the most well off people in the country). what is it about adam curtis that attracts people with the shallowest loving knowledge of history spouting garbage quote:And you have no shortage people who will try to fancy themselves as the "revolutionary vanguard" while enriching and empowering themselves at the expense of others. Plus, you even get the best-intentioned central planning breaking down as rules and policies either turn out to be flawed or get gamed by bad actors or both. quote:The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party "state capitalism" or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries "socialist" is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world-as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize. First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West, as were their personal incomes and life styles. Soviet leaders like Yu ri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess. The "lavish life" enjoyed by East Germany's party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety) . Nor was the "lavish" consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy. Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the · means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth fro m their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1. mila kunis has issued a correction as of 03:34 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
Gotta say, Episode 5 and 6 really brought the whole thing together. I liked it although the first two eps were a slog to get through. e: I think the youtube episodes are hosed up to get around copyright. it seemed to jump around a lot in the last episode seemingly like it was cut and taped together. Laserface has issued a correction as of 00:05 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
his chapo interview was good – made it pretty clear that he doesn't think the left can win through culture, unlike what some people were saying earlier
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 08:16
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:none of them were utopian and the "human nature" poo poo is like a fifth grade level dogshit take. the USSR went through several different types of systems based on the practical needs of the moment (war communism, the NEP, the five year plans, the kosygin system). they experimented with equal wages, but eventually went with wage differentials based on skill levels (scientists and engineers tended to be the most well off people in the country). what is it about adam curtis that attracts people with the shallowest loving knowledge of history spouting garbage it's because adam curtis is for liberals who feel bad about being supportive of the brutality inherent in our society, and not leftists op
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:it's because adam curtis is for liberals who feel bad about being supportive of the brutality inherent in our society, and not leftists op i guess it's why it's being aired by the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
can Adam Curtis do something recursive where he speaks about the profession of the archivist while playing back a shitload of old footage of people reading and studying in libraries
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:how many covid deaths in China and Vietnam? have their economies grown or shrunk this year? since when is China communist
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
outside of hobbyists and historians, most people dont know dick about history, much less how to go about finding the definitive, least biased sources. be happy anyone's learning SOME history from an entertainer like curtis also the idea that leftists have deep understanding of history outside of academics and some organizers is laughable
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
being on the BBC means its british propaganda otherwise it would be cut thats why its all "we're all miserable and helpless, but other countries are so drat crazy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
have i seen it to comment on it? heavens no
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 15:02
|
|
|
Just worked my way through most of it, and it has this incredible feeling of despair throughout. This theme of hopelessness and failure. That nothing can truly be achieved or changed, and it doesn’t really pan for me. He uses the example of the Chinese revolution as resulting in a hierarchy not a truly equal society and it’s like, OK? Yes? But people’s lives were improved significantly. The individualism vs collectivism themes feel a bit hollow, but maybe that’s the point. That argument for either side is pointless because the world can’t truly change anyway. I gotta finish the last episode. Maybe it comes to a different conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
I don't get it, do people think this stuff is "hopeless" just because it says that their near-term political goals aren't the end-all solution to humanity's problems? What I get from it is that human beings cannot be defined as merely individual, or collective, or any other simplistic systematization. Essentially misanthropic conceptions of humanity are wrong, I think that's pretty good reason to be hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Just worked my way through most of it, and it has this incredible feeling of despair throughout. This theme of hopelessness and failure. That nothing can truly be achieved or changed, and it doesn’t really pan for me. He uses the example of the Chinese revolution as resulting in a hierarchy not a truly equal society and it’s like, OK? Yes? But people’s lives were improved significantly. The individualism vs collectivism themes feel a bit hollow, but maybe that’s the point. That argument for either side is pointless because the world can’t truly change anyway. I'm not sure if I agree. Despair, pessimism and disillusion are clearly the kinds of emotion Curtis is going for, throughout his entire body of work really, but I think it's both a very instrumental and face-value kind of despair and almost a necessary part of any in-depth exploration of the phenomenology of late-capitalist life and culture. The forces behind global capitalism are maybe the strongest that have ever existed in history, but they're also the most obscured and mystified. Taking a look under the hood will surely and immediately cause a certain paralysis. You thought you understood yourself and the world around you, but your power is even more non-existent than you held possible. Whether you read Fisher, Adorno or some other depressed Frankfurter or watch a Curtis documentary, the immediate response is this deep and fundamental despair. But I think there is, or we should believe there is, huge value to this moment of realisation and despair. It's a very powerful moment because we suddenly realise something about ourselves and reality as a whole, a realisation that also gives us the tools and the knowledge to resist the capitalist reality outside. It's similar to Adorno's metaphysical moment, a moment of intense disappointment and despair that reveals something about the world. That's why the Graeber quote that opens first (and I think last) episode is so powerful. Yes everything sucks and individualism and global capitalism has ruined and is ruining everything, but that doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to despair and depression. Our society and our way-of-being is contingent and arbitrary and we can just as easily change things. We must imagine the world a different place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:it's because adam curtis is for liberals who feel bad about being supportive of the brutality inherent in our society, and not leftists op (i know you're unjustly probed & banned but hey i want to put my stupid thoughts into the world) maybe, but it feels like mark fisher, he's explicitly inspired by graeber it evokes the same feelings in me as disco elysium or iron council, and i think it's the same idea as daddy marx in the 18th of bruimaire, that we're haunted by history. he's been explicit in saying we have to make something new and i don't think it's wrong, i don't think if you summoned up the ghost of lenin he'd be happy about how things turned out i don't want to libbishly forget all the things that have been learned since then but i also don't think you can point to a place where the work is done, where you can say capital is defeated decisively
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
whats the deal with mark fisher, hes the capitalist realism guy right? i read that and it was like "heres the problems... solutions? i dunno" then he killed himself?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:whats the deal with mark fisher, hes the capitalist realism guy right? capitalist realism & exiting the vampire's castle & hauntology these are all explicitly lefty and importantly short so i'm not going to give a summary i'd do badly, but they touch on the end of history, wokeness, and for last the failure of communism to win. how we feel like we're in the bad timeline, how we're now the one's haunted by the spectre
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
DE is basically hautology: the game. you'd think estonian's wouldn't have much in common with the british, but i don't think it's a surprise that the music for DE is from a band called british sea power: it's an island that remembers a false dream of empire and lives in a rotting present
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
speak for yourself mate we've finally taken back control
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:speak for yourself mate we've finally taken back control okay these sure are words
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
itt "liberals" "reductive unfunny twitter post from guy with 100 followers" "whats the point of making this when he doesn't offer a solution" forever
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
"But Communism!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
eleven extra elephants posted:itt solution? the man barely offers a problem
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
I don't get why people say Curtis or Fisher don't propose any solutions. If it was as easy as coming up with a recipe for revolution and following it we'd be set. And if Curtis ended the documentary by going "so in conclusion here's what you dear viewer need to do: [instruction manual for changing the world here]" would you do it anyway? Grevling has issued a correction as of 10:26 on Mar 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 10:24
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i would say a huge amount of the USSR's structural issues were directly affected by outside pressures but yeah, obviously it had issues. but prior to gorbachev wrecking the country's economy, those issues primarily arose from worker liberation from the whip of workforce discipline. gonna copy paste my quotes from upthread These quotes were fascinating, but where were they from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
Grevling posted:I don't get why people say Curtis or Fisher don't propose any solutions. If it was as easy as coming up with a recipe for revolution and following it we'd be set. if i wanted to read/listen to a bunch of doom posting about capitalism with no solutions i'd be posting in cspam and i AM
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:solution? the man barely offers a problem Does it have to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
rockear posted:yeah i don't think it's impossible but i do think it's very unlikely. maybe that is a failure of my imagination. Genocide has always been the final option of capital regardless of technology. The present age of high tech surveillance is also based on a very narrow base of support, both socially and technology
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:Mr Curtis: That’s why I’m deeply suspicious of both of them. Not because I’m pro-Brexit and not because I don’t believe in climate change. I just think the response has been co-opted by that liberal managerial mindset, which is sort of sad. One of the reasons why you don’t get a response to climate change reports is because they’re dressed up as managerial things. They don’t say that this could be part of an extraordinary new kind of future. Well,
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:none of them were utopian and the "human nature" poo poo is like a fifth grade level dogshit take. the USSR went through several different types of systems based on the practical needs of the moment (war communism, the NEP, the five year plans, the kosygin system). they experimented with equal wages, but eventually went with wage differentials based on skill levels (scientists and engineers tended to be the most well off people in the country). what is it about adam curtis that attracts people with the shallowest loving knowledge of history spouting garbage Actually HUMAN NAUTRE is CAPITALISM checkmate socialuires As before, sources for those great quotes? PoontifexMacksimus has issued a correction as of 00:00 on Mar 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Just worked my way through most of it, and it has this incredible feeling of despair throughout. This theme of hopelessness and failure. That nothing can truly be achieved or changed, and it doesn’t really pan for me. He uses the example of the Chinese revolution as resulting in a hierarchy not a truly equal society and it’s like, OK? Yes? But people’s lives were improved significantly. The individualism vs collectivism themes feel a bit hollow, but maybe that’s the point. That argument for either side is pointless because the world can’t truly change anyway. The Chinese revolution did not help people in the West, so suspicion of its socialist credentials is very valid because we still feel sad and alienated
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
PoontifexMacksimus posted:The Chinese revolution did not help people in the West, so suspicion of its socialist credentials is very valid because we still feel sad and alienated president xi, my country cries out for freedom
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
eleven extra elephants posted:Does it have to? kinda useless if it doesnt
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HarrisonVevo/status/1367726095240327170?s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
I was pretty disappointed in this series although I still enjoyed it. Still far back in the thread but, Curtis keeps insisting that leaders are paralyzed by the enormity of modern systems as though they are simply out of their depth rather than malicious weirdos who are desperate to maintain the status quo, which leads him to talking in circles a lot. Yeah, many of them are privileged dummies and lack vision, but very few pols have intentions of making things better at a cost to capital interests. Seems pretty simple Curtis also evaluates Leftism as oppositional to individualism which is bizarre if a big part of socialism (in my eyes, at least) is about empowering regular people to seize control over their own fates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
i listened to a ~film~ podcast that talked about the new doc and one of the people on it got upset because she thought curtis treated the iraq war protests, occupy, and BLM like they didn't accomplish anything, which............ lol come one what have any of those actually accomplished so far that is enduring beyond sloganeering and "awareness raising"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:i listened to a ~film~ podcast that talked about the new doc and one of the people on it got upset because she thought curtis treated the iraq war protests, occupy, and BLM like they didn't accomplish anything, which............ lol come one what have any of those actually accomplished so far that is enduring beyond sloganeering and "awareness raising"? radicalized a lot of people who are doing different things now than they would have
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Unless posted:radicalized a lot of people who are doing different things now than they would have maybe they radicalized us, but how much is "a lot?" is it really "a lot?" and just how "radicalized?" remember the leaders of BLM are wealthy marketing consultants now
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Fleetwood posted:Curtis keeps insisting that leaders are paralyzed by the enormity of modern systems as though they are simply out of their depth rather than malicious weirdos who are desperate to maintain the status quo, which leads him to talking in circles a lot. Yeah, many of them are privileged dummies and lack vision, but very few pols have intentions of making things better at a cost to capital interests. Seems pretty simple one aspect of modern systems is that elected leaders can't meaningfully change things through traditional means, because reforms in the 80s-90s stripped governments of a lot of their power. it wasn't a matter of getting the state's hands out of the market, but of making the state subservient to it. this means new strategies need to be developed - i think this is partly what curtis is talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 21:00
|
|