0 0 votes
Article Rating
28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
harry

Sorry to be off topic, but can I get your opinion Stewie on something.

Last night was the trooping of the colours.

I noticed in the crowds there was near zero vibrancy, and also only a token Guyanese soldier and his mum covered. Rest were indigenous poms of varying levels of poshness.

Now, I imagine the BBC would be creaming themselves to get some vibrancy in, so it’s either; self selection by them or exclusion by authorities which I can’t imagine would be the case.

Or just the death of the monarchy (which I wouldn’t mind to be honest – parasites that failed in their single job, to defend the country)?ie no interest from the yoof.

Anyway, many characters on rooftops watching proceedings closely…….

Aussie Soy Boy

A distinctive lack of wogs, Pakis and women in the royal guard, in the parade. Rules for thee.

Hoody

“We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.”

Are we there yet?

LSWCHP

Yes. We have people being hounded by crowds of frothing lunatics and losing the jobs for daring to point out that a man in a dress is not a woman.

I wasn’t able to say that the pale skinned, blue eyed blonde woman at my old workplace clearly wasn’t aboriginal. Had I done so I would have been in a world of shit.

Sooo…yes. we are there now.

Counterfiat

Anyone else notice US Javelans initially delivered to Ukraine turning up on gumtree?

there’s sim ting about Marx that keeps returning every now and then.
perhaps it is not a quality of his vision but rather the absence of it elsewhere.

I read today an interesting observation that Ruskies are defeating thy enemy based on their economy having some foundation in Marx-ism.

tamixek134

Of course not.

1st reason is the name James Lindsay on that video
2nd reason is the thinly veiled McCarthyism / jews destroying the world conspiracy theories hes using
3rd reason is the whole dumb idea hinges on ‘neo-Marxists’ running the world

Heres someone giving the topic more time than it deserves: https://amontin.medium.com/how-not-to-read-marcuses-repressive-tolerance-57b04d82d014

Peachy

Thanks for sharing this essay.

I hadn’t really come across Marcuse before, but went and listened to some interviews and discussions about his major works. My general thoughts were that

  • Marcuse, like Marx, points to quite a number of problems with society. These problems are real and I have sympathy with them.
  • marcuse (again, like Marx) correctly observes that the structure of the system (power structure, wealth distribution) is such that the problems that he identifies are unlikely to be solved by working within the confines of the system.
  • all the things he seems to complain about, such as disempowerment of plebs, excessive consumerism and diversion of masses’ attention to a kind of endless treadmill where people work to buy things that will never fulfil them, because they are vacuous pap.

I think that, to this point, many here would nod in agreement. (there is certainly enough people here banging on about destruction of culture, of family, etc)

what seems more problematic is Marcuse’s prescription – he wants some kind of socialist revolution and suggests ways of navigating there. And we all hate socialism it seems.(?)

But this is just matter of personal taste in politics: while Marcuse favours socialism, similar means may be adopted in order to move from the status quo to something other than socialism. What’s more important is the techniques that might be used to oppose entrenched power structures.

we all know that history is written by the victors. The difference between “terrorists” and “freedom fighters” is which side you’re on, and whether they get crushed or if they manage to win and form government….

the essay you linked to I think expresses similar sentiments. But much more eloquently and based on an actual reading of his writings, rather than my skimming

Last edited 1 month ago by Peachy
tamixek134

The ’socialist revolutionaries’ are attacking entrenched power structures to try and distribute power. Their objective is being able to enact orderly and non-violent changes to the status quo through democracy.

The local fashies ‘banging on about destruction of culture and family’ ARE the entrenched power structures. Their objective is maintaining the status quo through violence.

These arent different ‘flavors’. Theyre opposing core beliefs.

tamixek134

This is just vapid tucker carlson ish word soup.

For example: you could go and find out what Marx (‘and those others’ – you might try Engels) actually said about the family and the context around it rather than waving your hands.

A rigid, ignorant, fearful society is right-wing utopia. That is why they pay lip service to individuality but viscerally and instinctively oppose change, worship institutions of conformity and obedience, and revel in punitively stamping out deviance.

They assume because that is what they want, it is also what the left wants, simply with a different ‘flavor’. Your paranoia means you assume they want to do to you what you want to do to them. What is it you think the socialist boogeymen are going to make you do after the purge ? Get gay married ? Take a bus to work ? Visit a library ?

The things that define modern civilization – individual rights, universal franchize, equality, secularism, public institutions, weekends, FFFFFFRRRRRREEEEEDOMMMMMMM, etc – are all products of left ‘revolutionaries’ pushing back conservatism and it’s innate authoritarianism. The left has had declining influence for generations, hence all those things are steadily being picked apart.

Trying to move society leftwards again ? You better fucking hope so. The alternative is oblivion from war and climate change (thanks again right wing) or maybe living under some form of Feudalism.

Peachy

For example: you could go and find out what Marx (‘and those others’ – you might try Engels) actually said about the family and the context around it rather than waving your hands.

inwas thinking about this too – I’ve read Capital and bits of the Grundrisse and I don’t remember any significant anti-family positions being set out.

tamixek134

Basically that the modern nuclear family (and accompanying social pressure to be in one) was mostly a product of capitalism. So when the glorious people’s revolution inevitably destroyed capitalism, what constituted a ‘normal family’ would necessarily change (because the circumstances that had made the nuclear family ‘normal’ would no longer exist).

The right interpret this in their usual extremist fashion as a desire to actively destroy nuclear families and prevent them from forming.

Peachy

Basically that the modern nuclear family (and accompanying social pressure to be in one) was mostly a product of capitalism. So when the glorious people’s revolution inevitably destroyed capitalism, what constituted a ‘normal family’ would necessarily change

where does it say that??

https://giphy.com/gifs/season-4-the-simpsons-4×20-3o6Mbd3o8wOJ45NDIQ

Peachy

.

7AA27305-AC2E-497B-BE06-A5FE132D55ED.jpeg
tamixek134

I’m basing that on someone elses summary that sounded about right to my memory. Its decades since I read Marx an Im not doing it again for an internet argument.

Eg: https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

The core point I feel is that what constitutes family is not universally constant but changes with the societal context. If society changes (ie: the revolution) so to will what a family is. This gets flipped around to the family must be destroyed for socialism to work so they can scare people into believing the commy dogs want to take their kids away and transexualize them in reeducation camps.

Peachy

from that link it seems to be an Engels thought bubble, not Marx.

Seems to be a long stretch to claim that the concept of family has changed much over time or has been significantly altered by capitalism. Certainly ignores praxis of most major religious groups over the last dozen centuries

tamixek134

Yes i think theres a bit of a stretch as well.

My take is its talking about the decline of the larger extended family grouping (village to raise a child stuff).

Peachy

My take is its talking about the decline of the larger extended family grouping (village to raise a child stuff).

yes, that I could agree with.

to the extent that this is right – and the success of capitalism has enabled villages to decay into nuclear families (because single families now had enough resources to raise kids independently)
…then it could also be right that under socialism (at least under the utopian vision) families would tend to decay into individual units – as individuals are freed of the need to work and society provides for their needs, kids will no longer be dependent on parents and will have independent access to enough resources to survive…

tamixek134

I dont think that’s the argument. I think the argument is that capitalism has necessarily broken the older, extended family model into smaller discrete units.

It does not follow that families would necessarily further separate into individuals under socialism, either. If anything its the opposite – a return to extended ‘communal’ families sharing the wealth. Overall I think the argument is that without the need to operate as a nuclear family, people would be more free to find the family arrangements they preferred.

Again, the core point here is that the reactionary position that the commies want to take your children away and do things to them is dishonest bullshit. The commies might want to make it easier for your children to leave you so you DONT do things to them they dont like, but thats a very different idea, albeit one cons struggle to grasp because they basically view the wife and children as property of the husband (and the right in general doesnt do nuance).

Last edited 27 days ago by tamixek134
Peachy

The ’socialist revolutionaries’ are attacking entrenched power structures to try and distribute power. Their objective is being able to enact orderly and non-violent changes to the status quo through democracy.

The “socialists” attacking power structures peacefully are typically bought off and/or assimilated into the power structure. And neutralised.
the power structures are savvy to that.

The local fashies ‘banging on about destruction of culture and family’ ARE the entrenched power structures. Their objective is maintaining the status quo through violence.

the fashies would say that the power structure is largely socialist.

they are both wrong. The power structures are primarily self-serving. Predominantly capitalist. Significantly crony. Typically morally relativist. So they resent the socialists and the fashies equally.

tamixek134

If your just going to both-sides it, probably not much to discuss.

Peachy

If I think that both sides are wrong, I will say that both sides are wrong. this is not a cop out.

the situation seems to me to have some similarities to the Hitchhiker’s Guide set up, where the success of the galactic president was dependent upon his ability to distract everyone and mislead them about where the power actually lay. (Perhaps HG is also not too far wrong about the manner in which actual power is wielded and decisions are made)

tamixek134

There is no substance to whats being said because its James Lindsay, notorious disingenuous troll (reason #1). The whole thing is just scarmongering (reason #2) predicated on power that doesnt exist (reason #3, the most obvious and important one).

The world is so far away from socialist that anyone arguing its a worry can be trivially dismissed because there premise is so fucking stupid.

(Imagine my lack of surprise to see you all onboard with alt-right extremism after trying to pretend this site is about something else.)

Last edited 29 days ago by tamixek134