To be fair [note: not a doctor, so don’t take my word for this] triage does have a scale of “too costly/not able to save.” I.e, if there’s a mass casualty incident, there’s some people who are too close to dying [someone who has lost too much blood] to try to save, rather than trying to save someone who still has time [someone who is actively bleeding but a treatment can still save them.] This isn’t disagreeing with you, I just want to make that clear since I think some people would classify that as a “Trolley problem.” [That being that saving one person who is already too far gone takes up too many resources, both material and in terms of manpower, that could save multiple people if that one person dies].

And also to be fair, the shipwrecked one actually did happen irl. And on reflection you could probably posit that it is immoral, since any of the other crew could have sacrificed themselves to save everyone else, rather than murdering one of the crew. But like it say, it’s hard to extrapolate this beyond the basic theory of “more people alive is good.”

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

He designed what?

“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.

2. 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]

I think the ACP targets people who want to… feel better about themselves, for lack of a better description. This isn’t some denunciation, but just an observation.

There’s a psychological thing I’ve started to notice, that humans wish to abdicate themselves of responsibility wherever possible. I’m unsure if this is a result of capitalism or just a general psychological quirk, but it is where a lot of failures to act and failures to think come from.

When I converted, I was a very Patriotic social democrat. Like full on Harry Truman doctrine and “speak softly and carry a big stick” level. I even made a post on r/asksocialists asking how to reconcile my patriotism with my [newfound] socialism. I did get a lot of good answers [and a few bad ones], but the thing I discovered about myself is that I was trying to get away from critically examining things. I definitely still do this in certain areas [even when I try not to] so I’m not judging anyone. My point is that I was acting out of discomfort.

I think people following the ACP most likely have some combination of beliefs or emotional reasons that make them suseptible.

1.A wish to keep the heros they used to have.

This was mine, and while I still have heros and people I idolize [although not to the same degree and definitely try to not let it influence my actual decision making], they aren’t the Washingtons and Bismarks and such that I used to have.

2. A wish to have the socially conservative values they have

3.A wish to be different

4.Communist autophobia

[This one I haven’t confirmed personally, but I think part of it might be that they have always been told “communists are soy woke people who hate people for being white and just want to write yaoi in their commune all day” by the internet and such. But since they can’t deny that the economic aspect of Marxism is right, they inherit this phobia into their own worldview in order to feel better about going against themselves.]

5.“Reactionary” philosophy

[What I mean by this is not reactionary in the political sense. Not that they aren’t also often reactionary, but that pat-socs look at the soviet union and such similar to how Maoists look at pre 76 China. They simply wish for a 1-1 return to the past, and that every policy Stalin and the CPSU had at the time is the exact same policy we should have now. It’s a reaction to the present, rather than an analysis of it].

So I think when looking at ways to stem the ACP’s influence, we should start here. There are the issues with petite bourgeois membership and such, but specifically the people we should be trying to reach probably already have the material conditions necessary to want to be a communist [besides those who are just edgy and wanna be nazbols cause they saw it in a hoi4 mod or something]

I think, materially speaking, the key things would be

1.Dont let the ACP lead or present their qualifications unchallenged. The ACP does like presenting their mutual aid stuff, so counter by actually investigating their mutual aid [not in person, that’s not necessary i dont think.] and seeing if what they say is true, or helpful. If they’re lying, spread the word. If they’re not lying, then we should lead where applicable. Obviously parties shouldn’t do this uncritically [probably better to stay at home and actually work on things rather than have your leaders gallivanting around the world], but communists don’t tail, and leading has, historically, had the best results for hopes of victory.

2.This is cliche, but getting organized. The ACP does mostly operate through the internet, and that’s a problem, but they shouldn’t be able to do real, lasting damage through it. So organizing those most likely to join the ACP will help nip off their bud. Additionally, actually showing material action puts your ideology on the same playing feild in terms of concrete actions, which then leaves ideology.

3.Educate. I know this is also cliche, but being accommodating, helpful and educating people will help nip the ideological buds. Additionally, helping people think critically will [hopefully] help them not follow a guy who says gamers should be sent to prison and homeless people are the ruling class of America.

Online, the best way is to curate the space and have disipline, as with any revisionism.

Right now I am more worried about social democrats like Mamdani than I am the ACP. But the playbook is, IMO, the same. Educate, organize, criticize, and offer an alternative.

Please feel free to ask for more clarification, I would write more in depth but I am short on time right now. I hope this was at least somewhat helpful for your question, I know its not a perfect one.

Mmm, I don’t know.

The general definition of the word I’m attempting to use is just “thing everyone accepts as true despite it not being proved in the setting” or “thing accepted as true without analysis.”

For example, a left-com channel I had the unfortunate experience watching [redrose media] did this too. He took a very long time essentially drowning you in quotes from Lenin and Marx and such, but then at the end denounced AES states and “stalinism.” But in a very handwavy fashion. “Vietnam has Mcdonalds,” “China is focussed on getting rich,” or whatever. The video never stopped to explain anything, just that its, apparently, so obviously true that it didn’t need explaining, despite the fact that there verily is an explanation needed.

We can agree on the Venezuala issue while still vehemently arguing against him and the ACP. The issue is not Americans as a whole [currently], but those who are class conscious. The ACP represents similar threats that Mamdami and the social democrats to, just in a different form. That being that they will take class consciousness and drain it, and leave those who need leaders either leaderless and dissolutioned or mindless, unconcious thralls who regurgite the “logic” of the revisionists

It’s completely anti-historical materialist. It ignores the material and historical reasoning behind policy and engages in idealism, saying that x or y ideology is “authoritarian.” It also inherently implies that there is a moral/ideological problem with authority. If I can repeat a sentiment from my namesake, there must be a tyranny of the revolution to preserve it.

Unfortunately I think the vast majority of people don’t have a good understanding of what fascism is, or even what fascism ought to be defined as.

I’d argue that bubbles are specific events causing a bust cycle [panic of 1819, crash of 1929, etc] of large proportions. Bust cycles are natural, but bubbles and depression/great recessions usually only happen once in a while

Gee I wonder if the post in the community titled “memes” is possibly a joke

I wasn’t saying it had to be, just that it’s not as strong as major powers like China and [to my knowledge] not as all encompassing or experienced as the KPA or Russian armed forces

The thing is that Venezuala has a functional and modern military. It’s not the best fighting force in the world, but it’s not Iraq or Syria. Plus the recent activation of people’s militias and it’s certainly not going to go well. Along with the ammunition shortage from supplying Israel and Ukraine

I guess they’ll just try to occupy the coast and go from there? Or maybe they thought they’d just intimidate Maduro into doing something and now they’re essentially playing a game of chicken against a wall. Idk

Honestly i live for the day an American aircraft carrier gets sunk. I’ve been dreaming of it ever since the millennium challenge wargames of 2002 indicated it as a possibility.

I regret clicking that. Also had a complete crash out in the comments lol. Mightve had some pent up rage around Nortel and such.

I am a little thankful someone has pointed this out. I know this isn’t exactly a serious forum, and jokes are fine, but I really dont get why the first instinct of people is to go “what if we did what the Americans did last time? But now it’s fine cause China is doing it. [hypothetically]” Maybe it’s my own biases from reading the accounts of the bombings, but I dont find them especially funny.