“Once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the… automatic system of machinery… set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.”
This is the conclusion I came to long before I discovered Marxist theory, and after exposure to Marxist thought, one of the futures I fear is when capitalists own all productive machines (henceforth the only sufficiently effective form of labor to be of any worth in the market). In such a pessimistic scenario, there's three further branches where:Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself… As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure.Capitalism thus works towards its own dissolution as the form dominating production.
Tankies are fine with capitalist relations, cops, colonialism and the State as long as you dress the cops in red instead of blue and you print the hammer & sickle on the bills instead of dollar signs.
Do you value human life? Do you have at least two political scruples? Do you have self worth? If so, you'll probably not become a tankie.It is really disheartening to hear the one thing I would absolutely die for (UBI) and would've killed for in the past is the thing that numbs any chances for real class conscious
I guess the one thing that really scares me off being a real socialist is like tankies and that line of thinking. I was thinking about tankies and the way they fall inline for their authoritarian heroes is exactly like the same way capitalist fall inline for their inhumane overlords. That kinda scares me that would happen to people that would otherwise believe in something that would probably help others out. I've always wanted to study leaders of the soviet union ww2 and post ww2 and see what they're intrepretation of socialism was and see where they went wrong. Just very scared I'll turn to tankie if I do that. Also really curious to learn about Cuba.
The nuclear stuff is frustrating but it seems to come from misplaced fear about nuclear was/meltdowns and woo woo new agey garbage marketed by green capitalists and cranks.Why the hell is it so hard for left-wing parties to be pro-nuclear power and pro-NATO/EU army/something like that?
Sorry, need to vent. Not sure if this is a right place but whatever, can't figure anything else.
We got parliamentary elections here in Finland on Sunday, and i'm trying to figure who to vote. The Greens and Left Alliance both share my values for most part... except both are anti-NATO and anti-nuclear power. I guess i should be thankful they're at least pro-EU, unlike local Communist parties (not likely to gain any seats).
I suppose i will vote either one (more likely the Left Alliance), since i sure as hell ain't gonna vote for center or right-wing parties.
But still, frustrating. Is being rather strongly left but pro-NATO/nuclear rare?
Because i figure my positions will raise questions:
I'm not so much pro-NATO as i'm pro-EU-internal-military/defense alliance, since i see the US as an unreliably ally (reasons for that start with R) and NATO likely being dragged into some mess they cause. But i think that anyone pro-NATO is probably also for EU military, which i feel is necessary for further unity within EU, cutting reliance from the US, and because we got Russia next to us.
And pro-nuclear stance is because it is necessary. Renewables are good, but they can't really fulfill all demand here anytime soon (probably never, given our climate), and once we get rid of fossil fuels, we're gonna need nuclear to replace that.
Protestant guiltThis is what happens when you treat an economic system like an ideology. This poor mother fucker can't even have something nice for themselves without beating themselves up over it.
Even axioms of truth are still relative, but I agree in the sense that my moral compass is similar. Having said that, such a position isn't necessarily the 'objectively correct' position to take, but it's certainly intuitive.I didn't really start with socialism. I started with "shit's broken why isn't it being fixed?", then I stumbled onto socialism because Marx tries to explain "why shit's broke" and "why it isn't being fixed" and I agree with some of his conclusions and insight.
It probably helps to make sure your position is grounded in something more axiomatic (means fundamental, like 1 + 1 = 2) rather than looking to socialism to inform your morals. For me it was universal empathy and the undesirability of suffering. Those were the most basic things I could figure out for myself and say "this is true and nothing I ever learn will stop it from being true", the rest is just building off of that.
Well, that's true. I used to believe in objectivity as a kid but not anymore. I do think if there's no way I can break a moral down any further, it might as well be axiomatic for all practical purposes of having an internally consistent moral code. The pitfall of infinite granularity/infinite self-reflection is just that, a pitfall. It's fun to think about occasionally but I decided I wouldn't get anywhere like that.
You're right to call it an axiom, there's nothing wrong with labeling it as such; everything that follows it is based on it. It just so happens to be a basis that was established abstractly.Well, that's true. I used to believe in objectivity as a kid but not anymore. I do think if there's no way I can break a moral down any further, it might as well be axiomatic for all practical purposes of having an internally consistent moral code. The pitfall of infinite granularity/infinite self-reflection is just that, a pitfall. It's fun to think about occasionally but I decided I wouldn't get anywhere like that.
Yeah probably. Zizek isn't really a debater, and JP isn't well-studied enough to really be able to access any of Zizek's arguments. I predict a lot of "and so on and so on" and Sam Harris-style "we're out into the weeds now" bullshit.
people here are going to refer to it in the least generous terms but in the US context since the early 20th century it just means someone with normal progressive politics.