-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
OP
OP
No argument there.
Also no argument there. That's what I'm worried about - there are certainly plenty of non white socialists providing their input and analyses, but the Berniecrats - while helping destigmatize the word socialism - are also tying it up with white-interested economic reformism, and outside of that there is still a refusal among many Marxists to engage with superstructure problems on their own terms.
We discussed superstructure much earlier in the thread. Part of the ultimate problem with how "Marxists" and "Leftists" address superstructure problems is that, in the end, it is still reformative and, ultimately, the struggle to combat bigotry exists outside of Socialism. It can be fought along side it, but racism/sexism/homophobia/etc can "potentially" be solved within Capitalism itself. I say "potentially" because Capital always requires an alibi and scapegoat to satisfy its requirements of unequal development.
There are plenty of "progressive" movements in the world that posited that simply replacing one ruler for another of a national bourgeoisie or national character was sufficient enough to liberate their people. Marxism-Leninism devolved from international proletarian to a national bourgeois character post WW2 and all of those movements that addressed the racial superstructure and colonialist problem became part and parcel and willing participant in global Capital and their people are no better off.
Anyway, point being...
What's the takeaway here? What new ways are people addressing superstructure that hasn't been done, and failed, before?
There are plenty of "progressive" movements in the world that posited that simply replacing one ruler for another of a national bourgeoisie or national character was sufficient enough to liberate their people. Marxism-Leninism devolved from international proletarian to a national bourgeois character post WW2 and all of those movements that addressed the racial superstructure and colonialist problem became part and parcel and willing participant in global Capital and their people are no better off.
Anyway, point being...
What's the takeaway here? What new ways are people addressing superstructure that hasn't been done, and failed, before?
I spent a lot of time thinking about the superstructure model and I I think what I ultimately landed on as a personal stance is: material relations create strong constraints around other immaterial relations, but the relationship is not deterministic. And, just as importantly, they are also not the only source of constraints, that people's social relations have just as real an impact on their motivations and activity as their material relations. As long as we continue to miss that, we'll continue to get blindsided by how shit suddenly goes wrong
Like, I'm a bit of a broken record sometimes, but one of my eternal recurring questions is going to always be: why does this happen:
Like, I'm a bit of a broken record sometimes, but one of my eternal recurring questions is going to always be: why does this happen:
Sphagnum Said it better than i could.
Condescending and dismissive, as always.
Exactly.
The problem is, it's not just Berniebros. It's more systemic then that.
Even more to consider given the route Marxism Leninism took: An "overt" Gramscian take on the superstructure, where the "Socialist" "Vanguard" takers a top down and authoritarian and "correct" attitude to mold the superstructure itself to then influence the base. However, in the Marxist sense, life reproduces itself and can not be orchestrated.
You're not wrong about material and immaterial relations, constraints, etc. And what you're considering as a personal stance is the Marxist one: that as long as we keep "missing" that social relations never actually change, we can't expect the relationships between people to change.
You're not wrong about material and immaterial relations, constraints, etc. And what you're considering as a personal stance is the Marxist one: that as long as we keep "missing" that social relations never actually change, we can't expect the relationships between people to change.
What you guys would do, when you need to relax your mind of political debate, but the fascism and anticommunism is rising and could Win your country in the elections this year and you feel preoccupied with that?
OP
OP
Right, that's why I brought up Marxists. But socialism - if it ever breaks out - had to be international to succeed and that requires overcoming ethnic and national chauvinism. Although "socialism" in the purest sense is an economic revolution, I don't see how it can practically succeed if during The Revolution the workers aren't willing to confront the different struggles of different people of different backgrounds rather than just the one thing that unites them, the class struggle. Class struggle is the basis but it will devolve into something else unless an intersectional understanding is also adopted.
And I don't think that can simply be called "idealism", because it's not just about making people think nice about oppressed and exploited people whose problems are not purely tied to capitalism. The problems that face black people or women or gay people or whoever are partially bade and partially superstructure, but you can't organize them all together into one movement to change the base without addressing those superstructural concerns as well! This at its simplest is an issue of solidarity for the sake of making the whole stronger.
To be honest, I'm not sure. That's something we need to work on. In the meantime I don't think there's anything wrong with supporting minority and other repressed groups in their various reformist struggles simply because it's the right thing to do within the current reality.
But while I agree that racism/sexism/homophobia and so forth are problems that can be solved "potentially" within capitalism, I think they neee to be addressed within the framework of socialism itself rather than excised as something separate simply because socialism - should it successfully emerge - will be incomplete without victory on those fronts as well. Let's say, for example, that there was another depression and the workers rose up and seized the MoP. They begin establishing councils. When it comes time to vote on this or that, the black workers say "hey, we need help in this area because of x and y historical problem" but the white workers say "Divisive! We need to focus on the pure socialist revolution, and when we change the base the superstructure will change with it!" The female workers say the same thing and get the same response from the male workers. And so on. We have a democracy now but without an intersectional commitment it's just a new way for old societal power relations to be maintained.
So sure, we can have the vanguard sitting around debating pure Marxism before The Revolution, but if they're not seeking to instill an intersectional fervor along with the economic theory it's empty.
I'm 3/4 deep into that stated pitcher of Hemingways, so I hope I make sense.
I think these two statements go hand in hand.
Socialism is more than an "economic revolution", as the concerns of economy (planning, allocation, consumption, collectivization, accumulation, etc) are the concerns of scarcity, growth, and surplus.
But the second statement... Does "Group X" having access to "Item X" and having the political authority to withhold it not satisfy the concept of privatization?
The first hit on Google:
In your illustration the MOP have been seized but the end result is that the once proletariat has now become the Capitalist, and Capitalism has always promised accessibility to Capital by the proletariat. The American Dream has come true as the various proletariat has changed their productive relations and can now use it to their own benefit of surplus and expropriation. But now each group has to protect their own Capital and assess its trade value against their needs to further their own economic goals.
This is Capitalism, and no one is liberated.
A simple "economic revolution" isn't the solution. And, coincidentally enough, what you've described happened within the Black Panthers. Some sections rejected opening the Party and their support and welfare structures up to whites. Others rejected the concept of liberating women. Etc etc. This caused divisions and, ultimately, aided in its own destruction.
Well, as I've said a few times before. These are needed struggles, and struggles within Capitalism are their own but they are independent of Socialism. And these struggles within capitalism influence and teach the generations of potential Socialist revolutionaries.
How is Socialism, the recognition of the one thing that the majority of humans have in common, not intersectional? The one quality between me and a man or woman who I otherwise have nothing else in common with.
The Vanguard does not sit around and debate, the Vanguard is the true progressive and Revolutionary force that acts. The Vanguard are the proletariat of all races, sexes, etc that recognize what binds them their ultimate oppressor and abolishes it. Any section of the proletariat that devolves into reactionary politics should be destroyed along with Capital. What if the Vanguard cannot or will not successfully confront the reactionary politics of their Proletarian allies?
An "economic revolution" has happened, but the Social and Cultural Revolution did not. The Socialist Revolution has failed and the movement must start anew.
This is a depressing notion, but it is not an unknown one. This is the course of history. Remember Marx, Engels, and Lenin:
I think these two statements go hand in hand.
Socialism is more than an "economic revolution", as the concerns of economy (planning, allocation, consumption, collectivization, accumulation, etc) are the concerns of scarcity, growth, and surplus.
But the second statement... Does "Group X" having access to "Item X" and having the political authority to withhold it not satisfy the concept of privatization?
The first hit on Google:
In your illustration the MOP have been seized but the end result is that the once proletariat has now become the Capitalist, and Capitalism has always promised accessibility to Capital by the proletariat. The American Dream has come true as the various proletariat has changed their productive relations and can now use it to their own benefit of surplus and expropriation. But now each group has to protect their own Capital and assess its trade value against their needs to further their own economic goals.
This is Capitalism, and no one is liberated.
A simple "economic revolution" isn't the solution. And, coincidentally enough, what you've described happened within the Black Panthers. Some sections rejected opening the Party and their support and welfare structures up to whites. Others rejected the concept of liberating women. Etc etc. This caused divisions and, ultimately, aided in its own destruction.
Well, as I've said a few times before. These are needed struggles, and struggles within Capitalism are their own but they are independent of Socialism. And these struggles within capitalism influence and teach the generations of potential Socialist revolutionaries.
How is Socialism, the recognition of the one thing that the majority of humans have in common, not intersectional? The one quality between me and a man or woman who I otherwise have nothing else in common with.
The Vanguard does not sit around and debate, the Vanguard is the true progressive and Revolutionary force that acts. The Vanguard are the proletariat of all races, sexes, etc that recognize what binds them their ultimate oppressor and abolishes it. Any section of the proletariat that devolves into reactionary politics should be destroyed along with Capital. What if the Vanguard cannot or will not successfully confront the reactionary politics of their Proletarian allies?
An "economic revolution" has happened, but the Social and Cultural Revolution did not. The Socialist Revolution has failed and the movement must start anew.
This is a depressing notion, but it is not an unknown one. This is the course of history. Remember Marx, Engels, and Lenin:
Last edited:
OP
OP
Couple things. I actually put socialism in quotes to denote that I was referring to it in a specifically incomplete way - not as socialism in its totality, in all its outcomes and effects on the world. Saying "purest" was probably a bad choice (or I probably should've put the quotes around that) since that makes it sound like that's my opinion about it.
Regarding the example, that was basically my point! Divisions between groups within the proletariat will cause it to fail to carry out the revolution. But that does not mean that one group seeking to look out for its particular interests is bad if it's because those interests are necessary to rectify a previous inequality. Black proletarians or proletarian women seeking to create a world where they are equals is qualitatively different than white male (just as the American example - it would be different in China or wherever for example) proletarians seeking to uphold their privileges under the banner of a new order. The division only happens when these groups refuse to work together, not simply by recognizing the differences themselves and seeking to overcome them, but when they fall into a pattern of treating difference as divisive itself; and this is particularly a threat with groups who historically have had a privilege that they may refuse to acknowledge or overturn.
The BPP is an example of that in the other direction, or at least some elements of it.
Mostly agreed, but like I said, I just don't see the value in separating these struggles from socialism itself rather than treating them as integral parts of the socialist struggle to ensure minimization of friendly fire, to put it one way. In a dictionary sense, yeah, they're separate. But socialism/communism is "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things" so it has to grapple with all the messiness.
It is! But tell that to the guys who won't shut up about how intersectionality is a bad liberal idpol word, because they obfuscate things for the curious liberals.
But to be honest, someone might fall in love with the idea of worker councils but only want to apply it to one particular people, and then you end up with weird nazbol or Strasserist shit. So while 'actual socialism' is intersectional by nature, we have to actively strive to uphold that understanding so people don't go off into the nonsense theory zone.
If they cannot, I don't blame them. If they will not, that's on them.
Agreed. Fight, fail, fight again, fail again, fight again until victory.
Last edited:
Oooh, can we talk about tech and socialism? I was kind of afraid of bringing the futurism here, given how much we all seem to disagree on stuff.
One interesting thing about this machine intelligence thing is that, like... well, we're already at the paperclip machine phase, with what are effectively slow AGIs we call "corporations." The capitalist system is already doing this stuff.
Consequently, I don't necessary disagree with House of Lightning in the idea that we need shifts and fundamentally new ways of thinking about superstructures and all sorts of concepts to create a truly socialist future. I do disagree in the stuff we should be doing between here and there, because, as that video I linked establishes, we're, like... basically outnumbered and outgunned in that the capitalist system is supported not just by human-scale intelligences, but by superhuman-scale intelligences we overlook very often in the form of corporations. Corporations are made of people, it's true, but the outcomes they produce are, roughly speaking, not actually aligned with the interests of any single human. They're essentially multicellular organisms where we're the cells. And they very much want to keep capitalism going and very much act to that effect. Capitalism isn't just dehumanizing because of its oppressive nature, it's dehumanizing because it's already changing to serve interests that are fundamentally nonhuman through the gestalts we create in the form of corporations.
Whichever ideology can create an HLMI or true AGI first likely wins the game for the forseeable future, in my opinion, because it will by nature tend to perpetuate the contexts in which it exists to continue to perform its goal.
One interesting thing about this machine intelligence thing is that, like... well, we're already at the paperclip machine phase, with what are effectively slow AGIs we call "corporations." The capitalist system is already doing this stuff.
Consequently, I don't necessary disagree with House of Lightning in the idea that we need shifts and fundamentally new ways of thinking about superstructures and all sorts of concepts to create a truly socialist future. I do disagree in the stuff we should be doing between here and there, because, as that video I linked establishes, we're, like... basically outnumbered and outgunned in that the capitalist system is supported not just by human-scale intelligences, but by superhuman-scale intelligences we overlook very often in the form of corporations. Corporations are made of people, it's true, but the outcomes they produce are, roughly speaking, not actually aligned with the interests of any single human. They're essentially multicellular organisms where we're the cells. And they very much want to keep capitalism going and very much act to that effect. Capitalism isn't just dehumanizing because of its oppressive nature, it's dehumanizing because it's already changing to serve interests that are fundamentally nonhuman through the gestalts we create in the form of corporations.
Whichever ideology can create an HLMI or true AGI first likely wins the game for the forseeable future, in my opinion, because it will by nature tend to perpetuate the contexts in which it exists to continue to perform its goal.
A few days late on this, but I haven't been closely following this thread for the past few.
Respectfully: I absolutely do agree that Bernie has real blind spots on these issues and that they should be criticized (as long as it's about something he actually did or said, like the 2015 drugs comment, and not a wholly mendacious smear like the MLK/Jackson/Obama controversy). However, I think handwringing about the degree to which Bernie is doing lasting damage to the socialist "brand," as it were, both overestimates the actual numbers of vocally anti-left liberals, and the extent to which they're willing or able to argue in good faith on this subject.
To put this more succinctly: I think the problem is more that this sort of messaging is failing to reach people who might otherwise be amenable to socialism than that it's actively repelling anyone who might otherwise be amenable, and the specific "socialism is for white bros only" discourse you're talking about is very largely a phenomenon of certain online bubbles and the professional Dem political classes.
OP
OP
I had a good chuckle at AI researchers considering their own job to be the last thing AI will learn to overtake. I'm ready for Roko's Basilisk!
I suppose that's true. In my own life most "normal" people I know don't really even catch on to these arguments and only pay attention once campaign season starts. But he could be doing so much more if he wasn't prone to these gaffes. I guess it's similar to Hillary where she was controversy prone but half the time the controversy was some grinned up nonsense, glossing over her real problems.
I agree that it can be frustrating. A good deal of the criticism is fair and warranted, and also necessary to hear for the sake of building a broader leftist coalition (side note: if you want a good accounting from a black leftist of the Sanders campaign's failings, I'd recommend listening to what Anoa Changa has to say in this podcast).
But I would be very, very wary of assuming that the specific brand of outrage towards Sanders coming from a specific tribe of Extremely Online people is representative of any discourse about socialism taking place on the ground, unless you're actually encountering such sentiments IRL as an impediment to leftist organizing.
Automation is starting, for example the transition of physical law suits for digital was big already, there's a bunch of work in physical, to archive It, to move It, to sign It, copy, you had some Jobs about only that, i Worked on an internship that i worked a lot in that in the court house. Today there's nothing of that anymore. And its starting to appear softwares to do some automatic petitions.
Juridic World Will get a Lot automated in the near future, Job Will get more scarce.
Juridic World Will get a Lot automated in the near future, Job Will get more scarce.
https://www.facebook.com/USdems/pho...10435343749/583278635390260/?type=3&source=57
FB page of US democratic socialists
Yeah.....
https://www.facebook.com/USdems/pho...10435343749/583278635390260/?type=3&source=57
FB page of US democratic socialists
Yeah.....
So at that point, why even have Socialism in the name?
"We don't care for the Socialism part, just the Democracy part" yeah we know and that's why we want you to stop calling yourselves Socialists.
Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats. Same thing, different order.
We are in weird times, the academic/real definition of stuff doesnt matter anymore, as an user Said to me here in other words "doesnt matter What you Say communism is or Marx, but what the popular meaning is and what people say It is today".
Doesnt matter what reality is, but the usual perception of it.
In the past existed this, but people didnt have access to information like today, today people might even know the real meaning, but he choosed to believe in the propaganda.
Im not saying in the controversial stuff, or stuff that you can and should question.
But its creating/changing definition of words to better adapt an Idea, and not through an historical, sociological scientific analysis and discussion.
I know democratic socialist/social democrat is small stuff, but i have seen too much of this stuff of wanting to Change definition of stuff.
Nazism/fascism is left not Far-right
Left = more state
Right = less state
Communism is Stalinism and dictatorship.
Etc
Last edited:
TBH I always get them mixed as well and use the wrong one in conversation and honestly we should probably just find a different label for one of them
This is probably the first thing we've agreed on.
OP
OP
If the Democrats were more into destroying private corporations I'd probably have way less issues with them now
OP
OP
The Roggenwolf ("rye wolf"), Getreidewolf ("grain wolf")[1] or Kornwolf ("corn wolf")[6] is a field spirit shaped as a wolf. The Roggenwolf steals children and feeds on them.[7]
Other names are Gerstenwolf ("barley wolf"), Haferwolf ("oat wolf"), Erbsenwolf ("pea wolf"), Kartoffelwolf ("potato wolf"),[6] Graswolf ("grass wolf") and Pflaumenwolf ("plum wolf").[8]
Sometimes the Roggenwolf is equated with the werewolf.[8]
Other names are Gerstenwolf ("barley wolf"), Haferwolf ("oat wolf"), Erbsenwolf ("pea wolf"), Kartoffelwolf ("potato wolf"),[6] Graswolf ("grass wolf") and Pflaumenwolf ("plum wolf").[8]
Sometimes the Roggenwolf is equated with the werewolf.[8]
In fairness, the only reason I don't like it is because it tastes bad.
OP
OP
Inspirational communists phrases for coaching or companies
No pain no gain
I hadn't heard this one - apparently it's from Herr Vogt, which I haven't read. Will have to look into it.
OP
OP
No need to copy/paste since a thread was already made about it, but yet another news item about Amazon being shitty to its workers.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/am...ng-punished-for-taking-a-comfort-break.36472/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/am...ng-punished-for-taking-a-comfort-break.36472/
"If I voted, I would have voted for Trump" - Kanye 2016
And if you need more reason to not whitewash this assholes's politics, remember: this is where his shitty $150 t shirts are made.
http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/20...iding-notes-for-shoppers-inside-clothing.html
And if you need more reason to not whitewash this assholes's politics, remember: this is where his shitty $150 t shirts are made.
http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/20...iding-notes-for-shoppers-inside-clothing.html
Cool to know that about him, but i was posting this Just for the joke.
I did not doubt you. But... he has lots of moron Stans an there are plenty of dumb Tankies on the internet that would non ironically post that.
I remember the thread about the driver who got fired for relieving themself on the street. It was disappointing to see all the joke responses, but I didn't want to be a Debbie Downer so I didn't reply.
Official announcement Will be tomorrow
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/18/americas/cuba-new-leader-miguel-diaz-canel-profile/index.html
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/18/americas/cuba-new-leader-miguel-diaz-canel-profile/index.html