-
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.
I just has a message from my best friend. He asked me "Why must we work?"
Given that I thought he was in danger of falling into political apathy, or possibly falling into the far right YT rabbit hole, I am so proud of him. Apparently he has found r/latestatecapitalism and it's got him asking very important questions.
Given that I thought he was in danger of falling into political apathy, or possibly falling into the far right YT rabbit hole, I am so proud of him. Apparently he has found r/latestatecapitalism and it's got him asking very important questions.
One guy was experiencing sensory overload and told the crowd to cool it so now a certain part of The Dirtbag Left is dunking on him and trying to say it makes us all look weak to everyone else. Bunch of reactionary bullshit that disgusts me.
It's because American culture places a high emphasis on "work ethic".
Unfortunately we've confused "work ethic" with "all work is inherently value creating".
That isn't the goal, but liberating people from useless busywork is absolutely one of the benefits of a socialist society.
I wouldn't say the goal is "to be lazy" either. Even with my crude understanding of socialism, I can figure that it's more about having freedom to do whatever it is you wanna do rather than toiling away at an unfulfilling job like we do now.
Hello there.
Been lurking for a bit. I've started reading "the conquest of bread" as I heard that it was good for beginners. I really like the idea of humanities common "inheritance", it's uplifting in a way I wasn't really expecting. It's also crazy to think how much the efficiency of production has increased in the time since it was published.
Been lurking for a bit. I've started reading "the conquest of bread" as I heard that it was good for beginners. I really like the idea of humanities common "inheritance", it's uplifting in a way I wasn't really expecting. It's also crazy to think how much the efficiency of production has increased in the time since it was published.
A lot of what people consider "lazy" today is usually people just not fitting into current ideas of productivity.
Is a person that doesn't want to slave away 8 hours (+ commute) in a job for low pay lazy? Are they lazy if the pay is "worth it" and they still don't want that many hours?
Are they lazy for not wanting to deal with people all day? For not being able to lift x amount of lbs? For not wanting to take food orders in a short amount of time?
Are people lazy for not wanting to do higher education? 4-5 years of studies, commuting, dealing with stingy professors, aid, loans, research, ect?
We need to get used to the idea that some people are okay with not "doing anything". And by that I mean, being okay with people who just don't want to generate income.
And they still deserve a dignified standard of living, regardless.
Is a person that doesn't want to slave away 8 hours (+ commute) in a job for low pay lazy? Are they lazy if the pay is "worth it" and they still don't want that many hours?
Are they lazy for not wanting to deal with people all day? For not being able to lift x amount of lbs? For not wanting to take food orders in a short amount of time?
Are people lazy for not wanting to do higher education? 4-5 years of studies, commuting, dealing with stingy professors, aid, loans, research, ect?
We need to get used to the idea that some people are okay with not "doing anything". And by that I mean, being okay with people who just don't want to generate income.
And they still deserve a dignified standard of living, regardless.
Last edited:
I understand these words separated, but not together.
What happened?
the Kerala communists amuse me because they're ostensibly still a marxist leninist party but they mostly just behave like a normal party in a liberal democracy, regularly turning over power after lost elections and respecting constitutional limits.
What are your opinions on Marxist-Lenninist-Maoism?
Seems like lotsa MLs in tend to be tankies, but MLM seems popular in Southeast Asia
Seems like lotsa MLs in tend to be tankies, but MLM seems popular in Southeast Asia
Surely this time the revolution will succeed!
To be serious though, I'm not so hot on ML or MLM. I'm not certain it's possible for a top down implementation of socialism via revolution to succeed.
To be serious though, I'm not so hot on ML or MLM. I'm not certain it's possible for a top down implementation of socialism via revolution to succeed.
El Chapo was a cesspool
For every good thread there's a thread talking about how good Stalin was
People like the reddit admins will always be stricter toward ideologies on the left that threaten their worldview of their individual role and responsibility in society, than ideologies on the right that only offend their sensibilities and decorum.
There's an innate advantage of the left being on the most broadly humanitarian side, but the right has the innate advantage of established power. The chapo quarantine is a minor but clear example of this dynamic.
There's an innate advantage of the left being on the most broadly humanitarian side, but the right has the innate advantage of established power. The chapo quarantine is a minor but clear example of this dynamic.
All I can comment is that, it seemed like MLMs and MLM-sympathetic types in the Philippines supported Duterte in 2016. Even when Marcos' coffin was moved by Duterte's order to the Cemetery of Heroes, they were still in support of him. And then after a few months, Duterte declared a war on Leftists.
And now, there are lotsa Dead activists and lotsa red-tagging of indigenous groups.
OP
OP
I've been reading through the Mormon scriptures recently and it's pretty funny how Joseph Smith tried to set up a utopian communal organization (the United Order) when communism is portrayed by the LDS church as an evil "secret combination" in the style of the Gadianton Robbers.
To be fair, the UO still had private property, but it seems like Smith was just copying the trends of his day wherever he could (new revelations, utopian commune, Masonic rites, etc.)
To be fair, the UO still had private property, but it seems like Smith was just copying the trends of his day wherever he could (new revelations, utopian commune, Masonic rites, etc.)
As far as "laziness" under socialism goes... I believe strongly that people want to work and contribute to their communities as long as they don't feel like they have to otherwise they will starve and die. You give a population shelter, food, and comfortable living, and eventually they will want to do their part. Help build houses, run power plants, create art, whatever, but we strive to create meaning in our lives, and it's a big reason religion has endured across eons.
Quillette retracted their hilariously fake DSA hit piece, which it turns out was a deliberate troll
Well yeah when pulling a new religion out of your ass
Only thing I know about May is that she was in the conservative party and she failed to deliver a Brexit deal and had to resign.
Thatcher of course is infamous for terrible policies, as well as also being conservative, and what I heard makes her sound like a female Ronald Reagan.
So I'm guessing that it's not really an insult and the real gaffe is that Biden means it as high praise and shows he is reverential towards conservative Reagan-esque political leaders?
Only thing I know about May is that she was in the conservative party and she failed to deliver a Brexit deal and had to resign.
Thatcher of course is infamous for terrible policies, as well as also being conservative, and what I heard makes her sound like a female Ronald Reagan.
So I'm guessing that it's not really an insult and the real gaffe is that Biden means it as high praise and shows he is reverential towards conservative Reagan-esque political leaders?
Ronny and Thatcher were the first Neo-Liberal leaders.
For Australia it's arguable that Labor PM Bob Hawke was our first Neo-Lib.
To Joseph Smith's credit, copying Masonic rites (or establishing your own lodge) is kind of what you DID in the Nineteenth century if you had a new spiritual movement. The Rosicrucians did it. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn did it. The Pansophers did it (inasmuch as they're even separate from the Rosicrucians). There are precedents into the eighteenth century for this vis a vis the Oculists, and holdovers into the Twentieth in Rudolph Steiner's lodges.
As I mentioned before in my little blurb on Fourierism, there's an odd connection between occultism and utopian socialism. And there's an odd connection between Joseph Smith and occultism as well. Did you know scrying was considered to be a normal and acceptable spiritual practice even for the lay-worshipper in the early Mormon church? They even have Joseph Smith's scrying stones in a Mormon museum somewhere. His methodology bears a resemblance to the one employed by Edward Kelley, John Dee's assistant, aside from the fact that Mormon scrying for some reason prefers opaque stones rather than reflective ones. That's no longer common Mormon practice.
It's really hard to judge Joseph Smith's authenticity or sincerity in producing Mormon doctrine. But I am perpetually fascinated by how Mormonism's roots had such distinct practices and strange attempts at really utopian ambitions... and then somehow that got kinda lost.
I'm reading an overview (a long ass overview) of the commodity-form in Capital and I came across this quote, regarding the move from subsistence farming to urbanized factory work -
Generally I just hear "factory work sucked hard but it was better than farming" regarding the shift. Anyone know of any good examples of what Marx described?
Sounds like he described the failings of Stalin's collectivizations...
anyway, doesn't Marx provide examples of forced expropriation and primitive accumulation in 16th century England in Capital l?
Edit: https://libcom.org/history/bloody-legislation-against-expropriated
That thread is an interesting example of settler colonialist thought. The language used is really textbook stuff.
New Atheism has its own sacrificial altars.
I have a bad habit of reading stuff out of order. :P I'd like to find more info, though. Most people assume our current system evolved because it was naturally more efficient and productive. I'd like to find more evidence that it was partially shaped by power structures acting in their interests at the expense of others.
It amuses me to no end how capitalism has made people unquestionably believe that a corporation can have personhood as a natural order of things, but if someone is to suggest a mountain is to have the same then you are considered not fit for society...
I agree. When people feel like that they could go bankrupt, that they might end up on the street, that they might not be able to find another job if they get fired because they don't have time to work on desirable skills (or whatever skills they want to develop), that they will fall into poverty when they retire because they haven't been able to save enough money to maintain their lifestyle, or that they simply feel that they don't have enough time in the day to unwind, rest and have fun, of course they will be tempted to be selfish and lazy. I know I am.
"I got shit on all day at work, and I have 3 hours left before I need to go to bed now; I'm not spending one more minute doing things for other people."
I'd argue that a society where long work hours and productivity at all costs are regarded as sacred is what makes us lazy and negative. And it's counterproductive to boot. I'd wager that's one of the reasons why some people turn to alcohol, drugs, etc. For me personally, it keeps me from sleeping enough because everyday is the same thing: "is it already this late? But I barely got any time to do things for myself today! I don't wanna go to bed!"
Fuck that shit, honestly.
Stats I think about with concerning frequency are the increase in births after Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Sandy. Just because of a major hurricane forcing people to take time away from work, and be with their friends and family more, there was a brief localized baby boom of ~20/30%. Whenever I see some sort of traditionally religious person on the Right complaining about the reduction of birthrates, of the supposedly reduced importance of family, I always just want to scream "You will get what you want if you reduce the burden of work on the average person! Through socialist policy you could have a more family-focused society! You literally support policies that are working people to death and preventing them from doing exactly what you want them to do, which is stay home more and have more babies!" but then I remember most of them are just full of shit and don't really care about their morals anyway. That, and I guess most people just don't think about the impact of the things they support beyond how something irritates them.