How does the World view America these days?

[cloud capture]

y them make Trump look like a grown up bam-bam from the flinstones?  Not cool.

[cichlisuite]

59 minutes ago, auxien said:

nice... yeah the 'can't recognize the legitimacy of others' narratives + so can't have a productive conversation' is very key to interacting with some people on this forum. 

That's not only a problem on this forum but everywhere capitalism vs. socialism debates happen. And I dare to say that failing to recognize the legitimacy of others' narrative can more often be attributed to people advocating (free, liberal) capitalism than it is to the people advocating socialism. Or maybe instead of socialists I should say people who want to bring some sort of natural balance. Capitalism has this inertia that doesn't like to take anything else into their accounts but checks and balances. Hence there must be some sort of regulation. Unfortunately, because the capitalists own the initiative and wield more immediate power, more often than not, their will is imposed onto labor, with the latter coming up with regulations with a distinct time lag, and with an obvious struggle to be heard and taken seriously.

Now the capitalist wants to separate himself from this struggle by investing into robotics and AI.

[zlemflolia]

12 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

That's not only a problem on this forum but everywhere capitalism vs. socialism debates happen. And I dare to say that failing to recognize the legitimacy of others' narrative can more often be attributed to people advocating (free, liberal) capitalism than it is to the people advocating socialism. Or maybe instead of socialists I should say people who want to bring some sort of natural balance. Capitalism has this inertia that doesn't like to take anything else into their accounts but checks and balances. Hence there must be some sort of regulation. Unfortunately, because the capitalists own the initiative and wield more immediate power, more often than not, their will is imposed onto labor, with the latter coming up with regulations with a distinct time lag, and with an obvious struggle to be heard and taken seriously.

Now the capitalist wants to separate himself from this struggle by investing into robotics and AI.

capitalism is a cancer, a biomechanical process into which humanity is sucked, a process which produces for itself the organs of reproduction the same as biological life - consumption of resources, processing of resources, outputting of processed resources for its own use, the convincing of its constituent biological parts to take part in its body, similar to single celled organisms being assimilated into multi-celled organisms, except unwillingly, and more similar to the imprisonment of mitochondria, due to what is currently seemingly a symbiotic relationship, but in reality an exploitative relationship as the surplus value of everyone's labor is utilized for ends not suiting the needs of the individual - it's a dead end, a plateau and a local optimization, not the ideal end state, which we can all see and put our thoughts on but for which the road to achieving it is... extremely fucking arduous.  the brainwashing of people into this system is literally heartbreaking to see

the lack of capacity to envision a different future and an alternative to present systems is not just caused by the cultural hegemony of capitalism, or by a lack of systems level thinking capabilities, but a lack of self respect. these people have settled for being wage slaves, a form of labor the early american slavery abolitionists wished to abolish alongside chattel slavery.  due to the lack of thinking of the system in the proper way even this terminology seems absurd to them.  their cage has good food and freedom to walk around, but they are not free, and what freedom they have relies upon the destitution of third world laborers.  no, it is rather the case that their lack of capacity to envision that brighter communist future is a lack of will and an acceptance not just of their own deplorable situation, but an acceptance as being a willing accomplice in western imperialism and exploitation of the third world.  at some point responsibility must be taken rather than moralizing upon the poor brainwashed western capitalists and imperial consumerist upholders of the narrative of that capitalism. 

time after time I am disappointed as seemingly intelligent people claim that the system invented hundreds of years ago for the benefit of one class, is not only the best we can do now, but the best we will ever do - a perfect system which requires no upheavals and no fundamental redesigns.  this is no ideology but rather a religion

Edited April 14, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[cichlisuite]

I want to say that instead of seeing classes as levels which are above or below each other, we should see classes as parallels. The only reason the capitalist has this power buffer is because not all people with comparable intellectual prowess have the same interest in owning and running companies. Some want to be artists, other scientists/researchers... But because the capitalist dictates the "trend" (this is not a natural way) those fall below them. Which allows the capitalist to trojan-horse himself towards more and more power, now also dictating the value of people and their professions, also dictating the discourse. It's like having a moderator that only allows people to talk about oranges, and how growing oranges is above everything. But there are people with the same level of competence that like pears, grapes, apples, etc. Are those people worth less? They are not. But because the capitalist moderates the discussion, he only allows oranges to be seen as the only way to go. And everybody else is seen as sub-par.

[Satans Little Helper]

2 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

That's not only a problem on this forum but everywhere capitalism vs. socialism debates happen. And I dare to say that failing to recognize the legitimacy of others' narrative can more often be attributed to people advocating (free, liberal) capitalism than it is to the people advocating socialism. Or maybe instead of socialists I should say people who want to bring some sort of natural balance. Capitalism has this inertia that doesn't like to take anything else into their accounts but checks and balances. Hence there must be some sort of regulation. Unfortunately, because the capitalists own the initiative and wield more immediate power, more often than not, their will is imposed onto labor, with the latter coming up with regulations with a distinct time lag, and with an obvious struggle to be heard and taken seriously.

Now the capitalist wants to separate himself from this struggle by investing into robotics and AI.

Fair. Although I do like to add there is no "the capitalist". Or "the socialist", for that matter. Western Europe tends to have different ideas about capitalism than, say, the US. Or Britain even. So I think these generalisations distort discussions like these. Or in other words, the different narratives become unmovable stereotypes and discussions become pointless. Because without any movement, what's the point of having a discussion? In my experience, I get the impression these discussions mostly reflect the frustrations about US politics and the apparent inability to act on its social issues. And while those problems are real, the capitalism vs. socialism actually seem to obfuscate the actual issues and its solutions. It becomes some sort of half philosophical, half religious discussion on moral values with no end. Or worse, with an end where the other side of the argument is deemed immoral. 

sigh... rant out.. 

Also, that crash course vid was pretty dense. Even if it's supposed to be made for kids.

[cichlisuite]

3 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Fair. Although I do like to add there is no "the capitalist". Or "the socialist", for that matter. Western Europe tends to have different ideas about capitalism than, say, the US. Or Britain even. So I think these generalisations distort discussions like these. Or in other words, the different narratives become unmovable stereotypes and discussions become pointless. Because without any movement, what's the point of having a discussion? In my experience, I get the impression these discussions mostly reflect the frustrations about US politics and the apparent inability to act on its social issues. And while those problems are real, the capitalism vs. socialism actually seem to obfuscate the actual issues and its solutions. It becomes some sort of half philosophical, half religious discussion on moral values with no end. Or worse, with an end where the other side of the argument is deemed immoral. 

sigh... rant out.. 

Also, that crash course vid was pretty dense. Even if it's supposed to be made for kids.

I agree: I used "the capitalist" and "the socialist" in order to hitch on the narrative of that video (and auxien's response) and get my point across using these analogies, because I believe those simplifications are adequate to recognize two distinct societal vectors, but because of the broadness of the subject (problem), I agree, it is an oversimplification. Hence I said "Or maybe instead of socialists I should say people who want to bring some sort of natural balance". This is where I fall in.

 

[auxien]

42 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

That's not only a problem on this forum but everywhere capitalism vs. socialism debates happen. And I dare to say that failing to recognize the legitimacy of others' narrative can more often be attributed to people advocating (free, liberal) capitalism than it is to the people advocating socialism. Or maybe instead of socialists I should say people who want to bring some sort of natural balance.

well i was really implying that particular sentiment to extend far beyond just the political discussions, but it's obv very relevant there and re: entirely different systems of society (capitalism vs communism vs socialism vs etc). uneducated people of any system are likely going to be very much in that 'failing to recognize others' narrative' camp....the US is full of a lot of uneducated people right now, so there's plenty of idiot Americans pointing guns in the air yelling CAPITALISM RULEZ! (metaphorically and literally, i'm sure). 

that's the thing...all comers here think they're bringing a 'natural balance' to things....they just see the 'natural' in differing ways....because nature and natural ways are very complex and often contradictory. ultimately there is no 'one right way' and anyone espousing that is an idiot.

42 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

Capitalism has this inertia that doesn't like to take anything else into their accounts but checks and balances. Hence there must be some sort of regulation. Unfortunately, because the capitalists own the initiative and wield more immediate power, more often than not, their will is imposed onto labor, with the latter coming up with regulations with a distinct time lag, and with an obvious struggle to be heard and taken seriously.

Now the capitalist wants to separate himself from this struggle by investing into robotics and AI.

all very true. as is the following, nothing to add but just saying, yeah. good summary:

32 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

I want to say that instead of seeing classes as levels which are above or below each other, we should see classes as parallels. The only reason the capitalist has this power buffer is because not all people with comparable intellectual prowess have the same interest in owning and running companies. Some want to be artists, other scientists/researchers... But because the capitalist dictates the "trend" (this is not a natural way) those fall below them. Which allows the capitalist to trojan-horse himself towards more and more power, now also dictating the value of people and their professions, also dictating the discourse. It's like having a moderator that only allows people to talk about oranges, and how growing oranges is above everything. But there are people with the same level of competence that like pears, grapes, apples, etc. Are those people worth less? They are not. But because the capitalist moderates the discussion, he only allows oranges to be seen as the only way to go. And everybody else is seen as sub-par.

 

34 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

the brainwashing of people is literally heartbreaking to see

this is very true, whatever they're being brainwashed into.

[milkface]

there's a reason it's called capitalism... cause it's all cap

[zlemflolia]

2 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

I want to say that instead of seeing classes as levels which are above or below each other, we should see classes as parallels. The only reason the capitalist has this power buffer is because not all people with comparable intellectual prowess have the same interest in owning and running companies. Some want to be artists, other scientists/researchers... But because the capitalist dictates the "trend" (this is not a natural way) those fall below them. Which allows the capitalist to trojan-horse himself towards more and more power, now also dictating the value of people and their professions, also dictating the discourse. It's like having a moderator that only allows people to talk about oranges, and how growing oranges is above everything. But there are people with the same level of competence that like pears, grapes, apples, etc. Are those people worth less? They are not. But because the capitalist moderates the discussion, he only allows oranges to be seen as the only way to go. And everybody else is seen as sub-par.

well said. the gentle proletarian workers want to do good work, help their community, and improve the world for themselves and others. among them resides both lumpenproletariat and bourgeoisie, the former of which are tragic victims of the social systems, and the latter of which are the tragic victors, seizing their sociopathic tendencies and those of their fellow class in the case of those without them, and creating for themselves self reproducing exploitative scenarios.  this viewpoint you have called out is the difference between crude materialist conceptions of socialism and ones aware of both class conflict and the materialist implementation of the means of production and the relations of production.  it is not merely enough to remove the current bourgeoisie, a new one would form under the present capitalist system.  it is instead necessary to make them obsolete and remove their position entirely, and if needed oppress them if they try to recreate the old system through reaction

51 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Fair. Although I do like to add there is no "the capitalist". Or "the socialist", for that matter. Western Europe tends to have different ideas about capitalism than, say, the US. Or Britain even. So I think these generalisations distort discussions like these. Or in other words, the different narratives become unmovable stereotypes and discussions become pointless. Because without any movement, what's the point of having a discussion? In my experience, I get the impression these discussions mostly reflect the frustrations about US politics and the apparent inability to act on its social issues. And while those problems are real, the capitalism vs. socialism actually seem to obfuscate the actual issues and its solutions. It becomes some sort of half philosophical, half religious discussion on moral values with no end. Or worse, with an end where the other side of the argument is deemed immoral. 

sigh... rant out.. 

Also, that crash course vid was pretty dense. Even if it's supposed to be made for kids.

no, it is the exact opposite.  the focus on individual social issues misses the systemic root causes founded in capitalism and the exploitative nature of capitalism and the class hierarchy which it creates.

[milkface]

5 minutes ago, eassae said:

Computer brought to you by capitalism. Internet(formerly the ARPAnet) brought to you by ARPA, now DARPA(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).

All joking aside. I can see some truth to this. I even wrote about it in a somewhat similar way once. Not that I think socialism or communism is any sort of answer, or different in this regard. Humans are messy! They'll be messy under any system. Change humans and maybe I'd share some of your optimism for a different future. I'll meet you in Utopia after traveling across the graves of millions…unless I'm not around anymore;)

you don't need to change humans, you need to remove the incentive+reward to being a cunt. imperialism and neo-colonialism happens because it makes money. exploitation of all kinds (prostitution, modern slavery, war etc.) happens because it makes money.

[zlemflolia]

8 minutes ago, eassae said:

Computer brought to you by capitalism. Internet(formerly the ARPAnet) brought to you by ARPA, now DARPA(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).

interesting, I wonder what the common denominator in this research institution and the other private and public institutions that created the internet.  oh yes, of course, labor.  and not just of the engineers, but the miners, farmers, clothesmakers, and construction workers who created their facilities.  indeed all of us together, the proletariat of the world, create everything which the bourgeoisie so selfishly wishes to claim as their own creation through fancy names and bourgeois historical explanations.

Edited April 14, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[cichlisuite]

16 minutes ago, auxien said:

that's the thing...all comers here think they're bringing a 'natural balance' to things....they just see the 'natural' in differing ways....because nature and natural ways are very complex and often contradictory. ultimately there is no 'one right way' and anyone espousing that is an idiot.

Well I came here saying to bring a natural balance to things. Am I an idiot?

Of course natural ways are complex and contradictory, as is a human being and its society. That fact in itself should be enough to realize that there is no one right way, and that balancing things out does not inherently mean there is one right way, if anything, it's the opposite: balancing suggests to put a bit of this there, and a bit of this here, and cut this here, add that there...

[auxien]

2 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

4 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

ultimately there is no 'one right way' and anyone espousing that is an idiot.

Well I came here saying to bring a natural balance to things. Am I an idiot?

Of course natural ways are complex and contradictory, as is a human being and its society. That fact in itself should be enough to realize that there is no one right way, and that balancing things out does not inherently mean there is one right way, if anything, it's the opposite: balancing suggests to put a bit of this there, and a bit of this here, and cut this here, add that there...

not sure if there's some language barrier on your end, but re-read what i said....only idiot would be someone walking in saying 'every country should be socialist/capitalist/feudalist/etc.ist' which you're not saying, you're stating the opposite which i agree with. bit of this and a bit of that as necessary, ultimately hoping to balance everything out as best for everyone and the entirety of Earth as a whole 

[cichlisuite]

2 minutes ago, auxien said:

not sure if there's some language barrier on your end, but re-read what i said....only idiot would be someone walking in saying 'every country should be socialist/capitalist/feudalist/etc.ist' which you're not saying, you're stating the opposite which i agree with. bit of this and a bit of that as necessary, ultimately hoping to balance everything out as best for everyone and the entirety of Earth as a whole 

yea, sorry, language barrier and I read your post too quickly. I now know we are in agreement. lol sheeeeeit

facepalming myself

Edited April 14, 2021 by cichlisuite

[milkface]

i am honoured, not only have i received the infamous cazepalm, but an eassaepalm react too! nice to be reminded that im right

[zlemflolia]

42 minutes ago, eassae said:

If there were only a name for the system under which all this took place, where everyone was able to work together in arrangements that they organized themselves, where even the bourgeoisie participated, a system where Labor is rewarded for the products of their labor. 

Again, it ain't perfect but…

no, the bourgeoisie must be eliminated, and the proletariat must be eliminated too.  the bourgeoisie are not certain people destined to be born and die bourgeois, though it tends to correlate that way. they are a class emergent from the relations of production themselves.  instead of settling and saying we can let the bourgeoisie stay, we must eliminate their class position, which is defined by private property rights, by eliminating private property rights through socialism and communism, because the bourgeoisie is what the proletariat exist in opposition to and what they are defined by, and vice versa. you are just defending the status quo under the guise of centrist peace keeping.  no, we do not want peace, and you do not get to decide how to make peace with the conditions of the third world laborers upon whose backs first world imperial consumerism and capitalism rests.

Edited April 14, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[zlemflolia]

2 minutes ago, eassae said:

You should get into martial arts. You can fight, but not hurt anyone. At least not seriously. Actually everyone you punch in the face, and everyone that punches you in the face inevitably becomes your friend in one way or another. It's super fun too, lowers stress, etc…

did you reply to the wrong post or thread

[zlemflolia]

the most difficult to accept aspect of capitalist class conflict for many first worlders is that their understanding of reality and thus their conception of the nature of this conflict is skewed by their status as the labor aristocracy of the world.  it is not that there is little conflict and it can be isolated into the first world countries in which you live and alleviated through liberal criminal justice and homelessness oriented reforms.  it is rather the case that the first worlders themselves are, often unknowingly and coercively, in a class position in opposition to that of the third world proletariat.  thus the legitimate cries from some first world proletariat to continue the status quo, which to them is advantageous in comparison to that of the third world proletariat.

 

similar to the early american radical unionism movement which was tempered by the white unionists wanting to maintain the status quo of oppression against black people to avoid enhanced labor competition, the first world proletariat, or labor aristocracy, does not want the third world people to truly compete with them in the world market, let alone abolish their class position as proletariat, because it means their perceived superiority and legitimate material privilege is not only questioned, but threatened.  indeed in the abolition of the global relations of production the first world labor aristocracy and proletariat will suffer in comparison to previous artificially and exploitatively elevated material conditions, though this does not mean absolute destitution or a degradation to the previous position of the third world people

as the saying against the bourgeoisie goes, "you can't make a man understand something that his job requires him to not understand", equally you can't make the first world proletariat accept that capitalism must end, not even for them, but for the third world people against whom they are racist almost universally, in a deep way they justify through capitalism itself.  and in these facts exposes the fascist nature of liberalism, and the fascist underlying psychology of liberals.  very sad

Edited April 14, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[Cryptowen]

2 hours ago, milkface said:

you don't need to change humans, you need to remove the incentive+reward to being a cunt. imperialism and neo-colonialism happens because it makes money. exploitation of all kinds (prostitution, modern slavery, war etc.) happens because it makes money.

i mean i'm pretty anti-capitalist but i also feel like the human will to dickishness runs much deeper than capitalism

Edited April 14, 2021 by Cryptowen

[zlemflolia]

4 hours ago, Cryptowen said:

i mean i'm pretty anti-capitalist but i also feel like the human will to dickishness runs much deeper than capitalism

I don't think so.  I think capitalists like to project this and create ideologies claiming this, as well as create material conditions which not only incentivize it, but in many cases necessitate it.  There are issues, but what matters is making practical improvements.  We've got a big practical improvement here by overthrowing capitalism and achieving socialism then communism.  There are even bigger issues that will manifest after that, but that's a part of growth.

[ignatius]

15 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

I don't think so.  I think capitalists like to project this and create ideologies claiming this, as well as create material conditions which not only incentivize it, but in many cases necessitate it.  There are issues, but what matters is making practical improvements.  We've got a big practical improvement here by overthrowing capitalism and achieving socialism then communism.  There are even bigger issues that will manifest after that, but that's a part of growth.

sweet. let me know when utopia gets here and all the human dickishness is gone. i assume you plan to drown the dickishness in the rising sea levels? ah. whatever.. i don't need details. i'm sure you've got it worked out. congratulations though... on your nobel prize. it sounds like you have one coming. 

[zlemflolia]

9 minutes ago, ignatius said:

sweet. let me know when utopia gets here and all the human dickishness is gone. i assume you plan to drown the dickishness in the rising sea levels? ah. whatever.. i don't need details. i'm sure you've got it worked out. congratulations though... on your nobel prize. it sounds like you have one coming. 

utopian socialism was refuted by marx as idealist centuries ago.  socialism is -not- utopian, it is practical and difficult to achieve.  scientific socialism formulated by marx and engels is an outline to understand the current system, critique it, understand what socialism is, why it's better, and how to critique it to improve it, and how to figure out what needs to be done to modify the current systems to achieve socialism.  who am i? nothing, i merely navel gaze and write marxist shitposts using other peoples' posts as loose springboards for my own writings when im bored, i.e. the dialectic method, but nothing im saying is garbage.  read marx and rid yourself of utopian socialism and liberalism.  the marx-engels reader is good

Edited April 15, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[ignatius]

8 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

read marx

no. time on earth is limited. i'll read your posts instead. 

[zlemflolia]

2 minutes ago, ignatius said:

no. time on earth is limited. i'll read your posts instead. 

youre right what the fuck am i doing here i should be reading marx think its time for a break

[auxien]

40 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

4 hours ago, Cryptowen said:

but i also feel like the human will to dickishness runs much deeper than capitalism

I don't think so.

wow... i really think you need to reevaluate your assumptions about ...*checks notes*... literally the entirety of humanity's existence.