Lol, Im the exact opposite. Showering isn't torture, obviously [and also very necessary, obviously. I take one every day], but I dont really enjoy the process of it. I do enjoy the feeling after I shower though
King_Simp
joined 2 years ago
I genuinely forgot about that quote, but the irony of it is very interesting. A garden is a small curation of usually visually appealing plants that wouldn't survive without external conscious input, and are usually not able to contribute much beyond artisnal sustinance for 1-4 people. Meanwhile the jungle is a place with extreme amounts of biodiversity and exoticism, and many garden plants can originate from said jungles. They are also exploited for their wood and other resources. Idk, someone better at analogies can probably expand on this.
Moralintern/Mercenaries from Disco Elysium
Geez I'm getting stressed just reading this. I mean, that's probably good for the party and all, but somehow I can feel the pressure an ocean away.
That's an issue I have too. Algorithms don't just spawn out of nowhere. It's takes both education and, yknow, labor to actually design and code these Algorithms. That's also not mentioning the IT infrastructure that is maintained, which itself needs resources usually mined by the global south.
And Algorithms also exist outside of computers, at least what we call Algorithms do. Sure there's not computer code, but there's psychological and social Algorithms. For example, how Casinos and box stores are constructed to make people lose track of time. How slot machines and such have this and that odds of paying out to entice people while still making a profit. Sure it's maybe more prominent nowadays but it's not mystical
I will say Varoufakis is at least listenable. I cannot listen to Zizek for more than a minute because he's really self important, and the guy really needs a tissue to blow his nose with.
My personal favorite is Chomsky though. Not politically, just that I like listening to him. I know he's slow foe a lot of people but idk I'm fine with it
"So, just as the Soviet Union generated one kind of feudalism in the name of socialism and human emancipation, today, Silicon Valley is generating another kind of feudalism — technofeudalism, I have called it — in the name of capitalism and free markets."
Alright this logic has clearly gone off the deepend.
I think is issue is a market first analysis of society. And some if this stuff is critique of the Gotha Programme level stuff. I.e, he describes Amazon as a feudal fief because they control the market place through which other Bourgeois producers sell their products. This really bugs me because in his book he has this really long and winding explanation to why he calls technofeudalism feudalism and not capitalism. He goes on and on about "oh well if you would have looked at society in the 1800s then you would've called it "market feudalism" instead if capitalism." But he's literally the one doing that. I mean, from Marx himself, "In England, the capitalist class is usually not even the owner of the land on which his factory stands." I get it's not a 1-1 example but I feel like it's apt. What's even more apt is a quick explanation of how marxist economic analysis actually works by an economist with more than two braincells, Cheng Enfu.
"these ownership forms, under the definite and distinct conditions of Chinese society, are not necessarily the same as their formally identical equivalents in Western society, in exactly the same way that land ownership in 18th-century England, though formally the same as that prevailing in the French ancien régime of the same date, had already assumed capitalist characteristics far removed from those swept away in the revolution of 1789." [Edit: -Cheng Enfu, the creation of value by living labor]
So I really don't understand how Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. Have "technofeudal" characteristics, outside of just focusing on rent. Which was already a big part of society. I mean, why not call banks a "money rent." If I can extend it, banks don't provide a service or good, they simply rent out money for a fee. Considering that basically every big company has needed to get loans and pay a money rent, presumably we have been living in Banker-feudalism forever.
I'm 2/3rds of the way through the book rn. Maybe he answers more questions, and I'll make a post if he becomes more coherent, but I think it's telling that he has talked more about Adam Smith's vision rather than Marx's.
Oops...although now that i look at it again that does explain some of the inconsistencies with certain parts of the image
1.The link I gave you doesn't actually have that work attached to it, sorry. But here's a seperate marxist.org link that gives you the section I'm referring too. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/problems/intellectuals.htm]. I highly encourage you read it yourself.
- As the preface to the above link states, the basic ideas are
A. "Intellectuals" aren't a class unto themselves. They are organizers, leaders, educators, etc. In one word "facilitators." They serve as the "passive" arm of control, compared to the "active" arm of the violent systems like the police and military, and engage in this by promoting hegemony [a Gramscian concept also found in his works].
B. Intellectuals are split into two categories. Organic and traditional. Traditional Intellectuals are Intellectuals who emerge, through one form or another through history. This includes the scientist, philosophers and ecclesiastics [religous functionaries]. They emerge as organic Intellectuals at the time, but although their social group fades, they dont. However they retain their respected position, and thus have superstructural influence [for example, take scholar officials vs christian priests. Both were organic Intellectuals of the feudal societies, and in fact organically bound to them through the land systems in place at the time. The aristocratic social group has faded since the Bourgeois revolutions in europe and the development of the capitalist mode of production, however the ecclesiastics have maintained a very obvious superstructural influence to this day. In comparison, Scholar-officials in china were extremely influential as organic Intellectuals of However, the examination system was ended in 1905 and, with the death of the dynastic system in china in 1912, the scholar official position died as it had no use to anyone.] Organic Intellectuals are Intellectuals that from from social groups themselves and serve to develop and innovative the function and form of their class society. [ I.e, company board members [CEOs, CFOs, etc.], economists, and factory technicians are organic Intellectuals of the Bourgeoisie. Or a communist party Cadre would be an organic Intellectual of the proletariat.] which "are for the most part “specialisations” of partial aspects of the primitive activity of the new social type which the new class has brought into prominence."
C.Classes, with the exception of the peasantry, gain and lose power by assimilating parts of the traditional Intellectuals to their class interests. The peasantry doesn't have organic Intellectuals because...its the peasantry, they can't ever be simple.
D. Political parties are one of the ways, and in some cases the only way, organic Intellectuals are made for certain social groups. Political parties are then also the way through which the dominant group in a society welds themselves to the traditional Intellectuals.
So overall, in response to your question, I think the answer is that intellectuals aren't really a class unto themselves, and are more categorized by their systemic interactions. The organic Intellectuals of capitalist society are definitely reactionary [like how many priests were in relation to the Bourgeois revolutions], but overall the reactionary-ness of Intellectuals is Moreso an indication of the quantity of power. At the very least it's best not to treat them as their own grouping, since that's exactly what the Intellectuals own idealistic conception of themselves are.
Like I said, it's probably also best if you read it yourself.
I can't speak on Lenin, although [if I had to guess, I'm a little frazzled today due to time] he probably talks about it in "what is to be done."
However, Gramsci talks about it a lot. I would reccomend reading his thoughts on the topic [this is the book I used for him https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/reader/index.htm , there's a link at the bottom for all of his works, and I think all of the ones listed are there]
Luckily I haven't actually seen one in a while. Mostly Maoists and Leftcoms nowadays, and they're at least...somewhat coherent sometimes
0
I'll educate myself soon. Been a bit busy but that textbook Luna Oi translated should help
view more: next ›
I guess that's a fair thought.