Whenever I try to talk politics (or ESPECIALLY world events) with Liberals, as soon as they determine that I am a leftist, they just get so fucking smug and have this sense of self-superiority about them. Exactly zero interest in having a good faith discussion. They are so incredibly dismissive and condescending.

Of course, no matter how much evidence that you provide, or how well you frame your arguments, you just get eye rolls and dismissed out of hand.

I am reminded of the Bernie campaigns when the liberal media pundits would behave with nothing more than sneering contempt at young people who just wanted fucking health care.

We know that they're like this BUT WHY? Why are they all such smug shit stains? I stg it's like their defining trait.

The guys is ~~almost 80~~ 73, he's an old man.
He's been very successful in his tenure, carried out great anti-corruption campaigns, overseen a pivot to green energy, helmed China as it has retaken its place in the sun.
At the same time there's a lot of foreign policy stuff that leaves some wanting. There's still cliques of liberals (as far as I understand, which is very little, which is why I ask) that are working towards something very different (I hear Shanghai is really bad?) not to mention some impending economic doom, according to some China posters here.

Whatever the case is, Xi has been monumental and at the forefront of a great wave of change. One must Imagine he has planned for his retirement, moved things around to ensure some of His Guys are in good positions to take over.
Or maybe not?

So what happens when he goes away? Who is likely to take his spot? What will happen on the world stage?

#sponsoredpost #thisprobablydeservestobeinMovies&TVbutIthinkAskChapoNeedsIt

I'm leaning towards the 11pm showing of Obsession (spooky) but I do love stupid comedies so...Scary Movie....

I'm probably not gonna see Backrooms anytime soon because I think the liminal spaces trend is so fucking stupid & I have no faith that I will even enjoy a movie about someone trying to escape from some liminal space

Is there anything else I can do? I get why we should archive reactionary news sites and people as to not give them engagement, but god damn if it isn't a massive pain in the rear when the tools barely work!

I've been thinking about my own struggles with revolutionary optimism a bit lately and thought it would be interesting to get other's takes on the matter. I wish i could say im optimistic through thick and thin but, like most of us i assume, i bounce between "its so fucking over" and "we're so fucking back" all the time. Since internalizing that "its so fucking over" is just useless defeatism ive been found it easier to continue on but it still effects me ofc.

Curious to see what others think.

I'm especially sure the Utah police department won't get involved in any way and create a ton of content for YouTube Lawyers.

Hi everyone,

I am realizing that the number of Persian language materials out there for Marxism is terrible.

There's million translations of a million different comprador works - but not much worth it for my curriculum.

I am planning on using LLMs to do translation to include in my package.

Can people help me out with:

• AI that don't charge me anything
• AI that don't require personal information
• Preferably Chinese

For instance, I managed to almost the entirety of Albert Einstein's essay into one prompt.

::: spoiler Albert Einstein - Why Socialism? Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

آیا برای کسی که در امور اقتصادی و اجتماعی متخصص نیست مناسب است که در موضوع سوسیالیسم نظریه بدهد؟ من به دلایل متعددی معتقدم که بله.

ابتدا مسئله را از دیدگاه دانش علمی بررسی کنیم. ممکن است به نظر برسد که از نظر روش‌شناختی بین ستاره‌شناسی و اقتصاد تفاوت بنیادینی وجود ندارد: دانشمندان هر دو رشته تلاش می‌کنند قوانین کلی قابل‌قبولی برای یک گروه معین از پدیده‌ها کشف کنند تا ارتباط میان آن پدیده‌ها تا حد امکان روشن شود. اما در واقع چنین تفاوت‌های روش‌شناختی وجود دارند. کشف قوانین کلی در حوزه اقتصاد به این دلیل دشوار است که پدیده‌های اقتصادی مشاهده‌شده غالباً تحت‌تأثیر عوامل بسیاری قرار دارند که جدا کردن و ارزیابی هر یک از آن‌ها بسیار مشکل است. علاوه بر این، تجربه‌ای که از آغاز آنچه دوره متمدن تاریخ بشر نامیده می‌شود انباشته شده است، چنانکه روشن است، تا حد زیادی تحت‌تأثیر و محدود به عللی بوده که لزوماً صرفاً اقتصادی نبوده‌اند. برای مثال، بیشتر دولت‌های بزرگ تاریخ وجودشان را مدیون فتوحات بودند. مردمان فاتح از نظر قانونی و اقتصادی خود را به‌عنوان طبقه ممتاز در کشور مغلوب مستقر ساختند. آن‌ها انحصار مالکیت زمین را برای خود گرفتند و از بین خود روحانیونی برگزیدند. روحانیون که کنترل آموزش را در دست داشتند، تقسیم طبقاتی جامعه را به نهادی دائمی تبدیل کردند و نظامی از ارزش‌ها پدید آوردند که مردم از آن پس تا حد زیادی، به‌صورت نیمه‌آگاه، در رفتار اجتماعی خود پیروی کردند.

اما سنت تاریخی، به‌قولی، مربوط به دیروز است؛ در هیچ‌جا واقعاً از آنچه ثورستین وبلن «مرحله شکارگری» توسعه بشری نامید، عبور نکرده‌ایم. حقایق اقتصادی قابل‌مشاهده متعلق به آن مرحله‌اند و حتی قوانینِ قابل استنتاج از آن‌ها قابل‌تطبیق با مراحل دیگر نیستند. از آنجا که هدف واقعی سوسیالیسم دقیقاً غلبه و پیشروی فراتر از مرحله شکارگری توسعه بشر است، علم اقتصاد در وضعیت کنونی خود نمی‌تواند روشنایی چندانی درباره جامعه سوسیالیستی آینده افکند.

دوم، سوسیالیسم به غایتی اجتماعی-اخلاقی معطوف است. اما علم نمی‌تواند غایت بیافریند و چه رسد به اینکه آن را در انسان‌ها نهادینه کند؛ علم در بهترین حالت می‌تواند وسایلی را که برای رسیدن به غایات معین لازم است فراهم سازد. اما خود غایات توسط شخصیت‌هایی با آرمان‌های اخلاقی والا تصور می‌شوند و—اگر این غایات نه مرده‌زاد بلکه زنده و پرتوان باشند—توسط آن جمع وسیعی از انسان‌ها که نیمه‌آگاهانه تحول کند جامعه را به جلو می‌برند پذیرفته و دنبال می‌شوند.

به همین دلایل باید مراقب باشیم که دانش و روش‌های علمی را در مسائل انسانی بیش از حد بزرگ نشماریم؛ و نباید فرض کنیم که تنها متخصصان حق اظهار نظر در مسائل مربوط به سازماندهی جامعه را دارند.

مدت‌هاست که صداهای بی‌شماری ادعا می‌کنند جامعه انسانی در بحران به‌سر می‌برد و ثبات آن به‌شدت مخدوش شده است. مشخصه چنین وضعیتی آن است که افراد نسبت به گروه، چه کوچک و چه بزرگ، که عضو آن‌اند، بی‌اعتنا یا حتی خصمانه احساس می‌کنند. برای روشن شدن منظورم، اجازه دهید تجربه‌ای شخصی نقل کنم. اخیراً با مردی باهوش و خوش‌نیت درباره تهدید جنگی دیگر که به‌نظر من وجود بشریت را به‌شدت به مخاطره می‌اندازد گفتگو کردم و اشاره کردم که تنها یک سازمان فراملی می‌تواند از آن خطر محافظت کند. سپس مراجع من بسیار آرام و خونسرد به من گفت: «چرا تو این‌قدر با نابودی نسل بشر مخالفی؟»

مطمئنم که همین صد سال پیش هیچ‌کس این‌گونه آسان چنین سخنی بر زبان نمی‌آورد. این گفته متعلق به کسی است که در تلاش بی‌ثمر برای دستیابی به تعادل درونی بوده و تاحدی امید به موفقیت را از دست داده است. این بیانِ تنهایی و انزوایی دردناک است که بسیاری از مردم این روزها از آن رنج می‌برند. علت چیست؟ راهی برای خروج وجود دارد؟

طرح چنین پرسش‌هایی آسان است، اما پاسخ دادن با اطمینان دشوار. با این حال باید تا حد توان کوشش کنم، اگرچه آگاه هستم که احساسات و تلاش‌های ما اغلب متضاد و مبهم‌اند و نمی‌توان آن‌ها را در فرمول‌های ساده و آسان بیان کرد.

انسان هم‌زمان موجودی تنها و موجودی اجتماعی است. به‌عنوان موجودی تنها، او کوششی برای حفاظت از وجود خود و نزدیکانش می‌کند، خواسته‌های شخصی‌اش را ارضا می‌سازد و استعدادهای بالقوه‌اش را پرورش می‌دهد. به‌عنوان موجودی اجتماعی، او می‌کوشد به رسمیت شناخته شدن و مهرورزی هم‌نوعان را به‌دست آورد، در لذات آن‌ها شریک شود، در مصائبشان تسلی دهد و شرایط زندگی‌شان را بهبود بخشد. تنها وجود این کوشش‌های متنوع و غالباً متعارض است که خصلت خاص انسان را تبیین می‌کند و ترکیب ویژه آن‌ها میزان دست‌یابی فرد به تعادل درونی و سهم او در بهروزی جامعه را تعیین می‌کند. ممکن است نسبتِ قوت این دو انگیزه، عمدتاً به ارث واگذار شده باشد. اما شخصیت نهایی که پدیدار می‌شود تا حد زیادی توسط محیطی شکل می‌گیرد که انسان در دوران رشد خود در آن قرار می‌گیرد، توسط ساختار جامعه‌ای که در آن بزرگ می‌شود، توسط سنت آن جامعه و توسط ارزیابی آن جامعه از انواع خاص رفتار. مفهوم انتزاعی «جامعه» برای فرد به مجموع روابط مستقیم و غیرمستقیم او با هم‌عصران و با تمامی نسل‌های گذشته معنی می‌دهد. فرد قادر است به‌تنهایی بیندیشد، احساس کند، بکوشد و کار کند؛ اما او تا این حد به جامعه وابسته است—در وجود جسمانی، عقلانی و عاطفی‌اش—که غیرممکن است او را خارج از چارچوب جامعه تصور یا فهم کرد. این «جامعه» است که به انسان خوراک، پوشاک، مسکن، ابزار کار، زبان، شکل‌های اندیشه و بیشتر محتوای اندیشه را فراهم می‌آورد؛ زندگی او از طریق کار و دستاوردهای میلیون‌ها مرد و زن گذشته و حال میسر شده است که همه پشت واژه کوچک «جامعه» پنهان‌اند.

بنابراین روشن است که وابستگی فرد به جامعه واقعیتی طبیعی است که قابل حذف نیست—همان‌گونه که در مورد مورچه‌ها و زنبورها نیز صادق است. با این حال، در حالی که کل روند زندگی مورچه‌ها و زنبورها تا ریزترین جزئیات توسط غرایز وراثتی انجماد یافته است، الگوها و روابط اجتماعی انسان‌ها بسیار متغیر و قابل‌تغییرند. حافظه، توانایی ایجاد ترکیب‌های جدید، و نعمت ارتباط شفاهی امکان توسعه‌هایی را میان انسان‌ها فراهم ساخته که توسط ضرورت‌های زیستی تحمیل نمی‌شوند. این توسعه‌ها در سنت‌ها، نهادها و سازمان‌ها؛ در ادبیات؛ در دستاوردهای علمی و مهندسی؛ و در آثار هنری متجلی می‌شوند. همین امر توضیح می‌دهد که چگونه در درجه‌ای انسان می‌تواند زندگی خود را از طریق رفتار خویش تحت تأثیر قرار دهد و در این فرآیند تفکر و خواستن آگاهانه نقشی ایفا کنند.

انسان هنگام تولد، از طریق وراثت، سازوکار زیستی‌ای کسب می‌کند که باید آن را ثابت و غیرقابل‌تغییر دانست، از جمله تکانه‌های طبیعی که ویژگی گونه انسانی‌اند. علاوه بر این، در طول زندگی‌اش، او یک سازوکار فرهنگی کسب می‌کند که از طریق ارتباط و انواع دیگر تأثیرات آن را از جامعه می‌پذیرد. این سازوکار فرهنگی است که با گذشت زمان تابع تغییر است و تا حد زیادی رابطه بین فرد و جامعه را تعیین می‌کند. مردم‌شناسی نوین از طریق تحقیقات تطبیقی فرهنگ‌های موسوم به «بدوی» به ما آموخته که رفتار اجتماعی انسان‌ها می‌تواند بسته به الگوهای فرهنگی حاکم و نوع سازمان‌هایی که در جامعه غالب‌اند بسیار متفاوت باشد. این نقطه‌ای است که کسانی که در پی بهبود وضع انسان‌اند می‌توانند امیدهای خود را بر آن استوار سازند: انسان‌ها به‌خاطر سازوکار زیستی‌شان محکوم نیستند که یکدیگر را نابود کنند یا در معرض سرنوشتی بی‌رحمانه و خودتحمیل‌شده باشند.

اگر از خود بپرسیم ساختار جامعه و گرایش فرهنگی انسان چگونه باید تغییر کند تا زندگی انسانی تا حد امکان رضایت‌بخش شود، باید همیشه آگاه باشیم که شرایطی وجود دارد که نمی‌توانیم آن‌ها را تغییر دهیم. همان‌طور که پیش‌تر ذکر شد، طبیعت زیستی انسان در عمل در برابر تغییر قرار دارد. افزون بر این، تحولات فناورانه و جمعیتی چند قرن اخیر شرایطی به‌وجود آورده‌اند که برای ماندن ساخته شده‌اند. در جمعیت‌هایی نسبتاً متراکم و با کالاهایی که برای ادامه حیات آن‌ها ضروری‌اند، تقسیم‌کار شدید و دستگاه تولید متمرکز کاملاً ضروری است. آن زمان—که از عقب نگاه کردن به آن، به‌نظر چنین سرسبز می‌آید—برای همیشه گذشته است که افراد یا گروه‌های نسبتاً کوچک می‌توانستند کاملاً خودکفا باشند. کمی اغراق است اگر بگوییم که انسان اکنون حتی در عمل یک جامعه سیاره‌ای تولید و مصرف را تشکیل می‌دهد.

اکنون به نقطه‌ای رسیده‌ام که می‌توانم به‌اختصار اشاره کنم جوهره بحران زمان ما از نظر من چیست. مسئله رابطه فرد با جامعه است. فرد بیش از هر زمان دیگری به وابستگی‌اش به جامعه آگاه شده است. اما این وابستگی را به‌عنوان دارایی مثبت، به‌عنوان پیوندی ارگانیک یا نیروی حفاظتی تجربه نمی‌کند، بلکه آن را تهدیدی برای حقوق طبیعی‌اش یا حتی برای وجود اقتصادی‌اش می‌پندارد. افزون بر این، موقعیت او در جامعه به‌گونه‌ای است که رانش‌های خودخواهانه ساختارش دائماً تشدید می‌شوند، در حالی‌که رانش‌های اجتماعی او که از طبیعت ضعیف‌ترند، به‌تدریج تضعیف می‌شوند. همه انسان‌ها، فارغ از موقعیتشان در جامعه، از این فرایند تضعیف رنج می‌برند. آن‌ها که ناآگاهانه اسیر خودخواهی خویش‌اند، احساس ناامنی، تنهایی و محرومیت از لذت ساده و ناب زندگی را دارند. انسان فقط با وقف خود به جامعه می‌تواند در زندگی، هرچند کوتاه و پرخطر باشد، معنا بیابد.

هرج‌ومرج اقتصادی جامعه سرمایه‌داری همان‌طور که امروز هست، به‌نظر من منبع واقعی این زشتی‌هاست. ما در برابر جامعه‌ای عظیم از تولیدکنندگان ایستاده‌ایم که اعضای آن پیوسته در تلاش‌اند تا یکدیگر را از ثمره کار جمعی‌شان محروم سازند—نه به‌وسیله زور، بلکه در مجموع مطابق با قواعد قانونی پذیرفته‌شده. در این ارتباط مهم است فهمیدن اینکه وسایل تولید—یعنی کل ظرفیت تولیدی لازم برای تولید کالاهای مصرفی و همچنین کالاهای سرمایه‌ای اضافی—قانوناً ممکن است و در اغلب موارد نیز هست، ملک خصوصی افراد باشد.

برای سادگی، در بحث پیش رو همه کسانی را که در مالکیت وسایل تولید سهیم نیستند «کارگران» خواهم نامید—اگرچه این کاملاً مطابق با کاربرد رایج واژه نیست. مالک وسایل تولید در موقعیتی است که توان خرید نیروی کار کارگر را دارد. با استفاده از وسایل تولید، کارگر کالاهای جدیدی تولید می‌کند که به مالک سرمایه تعلق می‌یابند. نکته اساسی در این فرایند رابطه بین آنچه کارگر تولید می‌کند و آنچه به‌عنوان پرداخت دریافت می‌دارد است، هر دو اندازه‌گیری‌شده به‌صورت ارزش واقعی. تا حدی که قرارداد کار «آزاد» است، آنچه کارگر دریافت می‌کند نه توسط ارزش واقعی کالایی که تولید می‌کند، بلکه توسط حداقل نیازهای او و نیازهای سرمایه‌داران به نیروی کار نسبت به شمار کارگرانی که برای اشتغال رقابت می‌کنند تعیین می‌شود. مهم است درک کنیم که حتی از نظر نظری پرداخت کارگر توسط ارزش محصول او تعیین نمی‌شود.

سرمایه خصوصی تمایل دارد در دست اندکی متمرکز شود، تا حدی به‌خاطر رقابت میان سرمایه‌داران و تا حدی به‌خاطر اینکه پیشرفت‌های فناورانه و تقسیم کار روزافزون، تشکیل واحدهای تولیدی بزرگ‌تر را به‌قیمت واحدهای کوچک‌تر تشویق می‌کنند. نتیجه این تحولات الیگارشی از سرمایه خصوصی است که قدرت عظیم آن حتی توسط جامعه سیاسیِ دموکراتیک نیز نمی‌تواند به‌طور مؤثر کنترل شود. این امر درست است چون اعضای نهادهای قانون‌گذاری توسط احزاب سیاسی انتخاب می‌شوند که عمدتاً توسط سرمایه‌داران خصوصی تامین مالی یا به‌گونه‌ای دیگر تحت‌تأثیر قرار می‌گیرند، و در عمل بین انتخاب‌کنندگان و قانون‌گذاران جدایی ایجاد می‌کنند. نتیجه آن است که نمایندگان مردم در واقع به‌طور کافی از منافع بخش‌های محروم جمعیت حمایت نمی‌کنند. افزون بر این، تحت شرایط موجود، سرمایه‌داران خصوصی اجمالاً منابع اصلی اطلاعات (مطبوعات، رادیو، آموزش) را به‌طور مستقیم یا غیرمستقیم کنترل می‌کنند. بنابراین برای شهروند فردی بسیار دشوار و در اغلب موارد عملاً ناممکن است که به نتایجی عینی برسد و از حقوق سیاسی خود به‌طور آگاهانه و هوشمند استفاده کند.

بنابراین وضعیت حاکم در اقتصادی مبتنی بر مالکیت خصوصی سرمایه با دو اصل اصلی مشخص می‌شود: اول، وسایل تولید (سرمایه) به‌صورت خصوصی مالکیت دارند و صاحبان آن‌ها هرطور که بخواهند از آن‌ها استفاده می‌کنند؛ دوم، قرارداد کار آزاد است. البته این‌گونه جامعه سرمایه‌داری محض به‌صورت خالص وجود ندارد. به‌ویژه باید توجه داشت که کارگران از طریق مبارزات سیاسی طولانی و تلخ موفق شده‌اند برای برخی دسته‌های کارگران شکلی تا حدودی بهتر از «قرارداد کار آزاد» را به‌دست آورند. اما در کل، اقتصاد امروز تفاوت چندانی با سرمایه‌داری «محض» ندارد.

تولید برای سود انجام می‌شود، نه برای مصرف. هیچ تضمینی نیست که همه کسانی که قادر و مایل به کارند همیشه بتوانند شغلی پیدا کنند؛ «ارتشی از بیکاران» تقریباً همیشه وجود دارد. کارگر دائماً ترس از دست دادن شغلش را دارد. از آنجا که کارگران بیکار و بدپرداخت بازار سودآور فراهم نمی‌کنند، تولید کالاهای مصرفی محدود می‌شود و نتیجه آن سختی بزرگ است. پیشرفت فناورانه اغلب به بیکاری بیشتر منجر می‌شود تا به آسان‌تر شدن بار کار برای همگان. انگیزه سود، همراه با رقابت میان سرمایه‌داران، مسئول ناپایداری در انباشت و به‌کارگیری سرمایه است که به رکودهای فزاینده شدیدتر منجر می‌شود. رقابت نامحدود باعث هدررفت عظیم کار و آن ناتوان‌سازی وجدان اجتماعی افراد می‌شود که پیش‌تر اشاره کردم.

این ناتوان‌سازی افراد را بدترین زشتی سرمایه‌داری می‌دانم. کل نظام آموزشی ما از این زشتی رنج می‌برد. طرز تفکر رقابتی اغراق‌شده‌ای در دانش‌آموز نهادینه می‌شود که او را برای پرستش موفقیت مادی به‌عنوان آمادگی برای حرفه آینده‌اش می‌پروراند.

مطمئنم تنها راه حذف این بدی‌های بزرگ از طریق استقرار اقتصاد سوسیالیستی است، همراه با نظام آموزشی که به اهداف اجتماعی معطوف باشد. در چنین اقتصادی، وسایل تولید متعلق به خود جامعه‌اند و به‌صورت برنامه‌ریزی‌شده مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرند. اقتصادی برنامه‌ریزی‌شده که تولید را با نیازهای جامعه تنظیم کند، کار را میان همه کسانی که قادر به کار هستند توزیع خواهد کرد و معاش هر مرد، زن و کودک را تضمین خواهد نمود. آموزش فرد علاوه بر پرورش توانایی‌های درونی او، کوشش خواهد کرد در او حس مسئولیت نسبت به همنوعانش را پرورش دهد به‌جای ستایش قدرت و موفقیت در جامعه کنونی ما.

با این همه، لازم است به خاطر داشت که اقتصاد برنامه‌ریزی‌شده هنوز لزوماً سوسیالیسم نیست. اقتصاد برنامه‌ریزی‌شده به خودی خود ممکن است با بردگی کامل فردی همراه باشد. تحقق سوسیالیسم مستلزم حل برخی از مسائل اجتماعی-سیاسی فوق‌العاده دشوار است: چگونه می‌توان در پرتو تمرکز گسترده قدرت سیاسی و اقتصادی از تبدیل بوروکراسی به نیرویی مطلق و متکبر جلوگیری کرد؟ چگونه می‌توان از حقوق فرد حفاظت کرد و بدین‌سان توازن دموکراتیکی در مقابل قدرت بوروکراسی برقرار ساخت؟

روشنی در هدف‌ها و مسائل سوسیالیسم در عصر گذار ما از اهمیت بالایی برخوردار است. از آنجا که تحت شرایط کنونی بحث آزاد و بی‌ممانعت درباره این مسائل به‌طور قوی تابو شده است، تأسیس این مجله را خدمت عمومی مهمی می‌دانم.

It's been a week and there's a third worm in there. I think my w***ish worm wife cheated on me. Was going to kill them but I don't know who's to blame and I can't tell them apart.

Tell me about feminism. Assume I know basically nothing but reactionary memes about it (which I assume are all mean spirited depictions of it) Where do I start reading if I wanna read about it. What are good authors. Im not good with deep theory or philosophy. So I would prefer simpler texts if there are any. Also ofc Im talking about the goodshit here like the radical kind that has ties to leftism.

There was a day where I decided I dont wanna be a bad person and I assume some basic knowledge about feminism especially as one of the fellas (still?) Im an egg get it. ...could help with that.

And whats the deal with TERFS. I know what it stands for but are there any authors I should avoid ?

Hope you can help out lil ol me . Even 1-2 simple book recommendations can help

I feel like every fella like me has to run through a couple of hoops to get some info on it. Cause ofc as a teen you think its a joke and then everyone makes fun of it but as grow up you realize how thats legit real equality which is cool adn good . So I wanna know more ....plus I think Im one of them gals. If you catch my drift.

Sorry if this is rambly its late . Im hungry and I have a date on Sunday.

not the firm level logistical planning that walmart etc do necessarily but state planning in a strategic direction, like military, critical resources etc

woke up today n read a headline about the EU militarizing was curious if they can

drop me some readings fellas if you got any

Hi everyone,

Please skim the below curriculum and look at the materials. If you are familiar with them. Please provide discussion questions, and quiz questions/answers if you are comfortable.

Let me know if you have any feedback.

Significantly Censored Curriculum:

• Baby Steps
  • Lesson 1 - Why Socialism?
  • Lesson 2 - Autobiography of a Slave (Ch. 1-6)
  • Lesson 3 - Autobiography of a Slave (Ch. 9-10)
  • Lesson 4 - Autobiography of a Slave (Ch. 11-A)
• Core Lessons
  • Essential Theory
    • Lesson 1 - Communist Manifesto Part 1
    • Lesson 2 - Communist Manifesto Part 2
    • Lesson 3 - Communist Manifesto Part 3
  • Organizing Basics
    • Lesson 4 - The Study Group
    • Lesson 5 - Scrum
    • Lesson 6 - I'm leaving this part out for now
  • Communication Basics
    • Lesson 7 - Handling Conflict
  • Essential History
    • Lesson 8 - Imperialism
    • Lesson 9 - Suppressing Communism
  • Core Skills
    • Lesson 10 - Field Medicine
    • Lesson 11 - First Aid
    • Lesson 12 - Bushcraft
  • Imperial Manipulation
    • Lesson 13 - Sun Tzu - Art of War
    • Lesson 14 - Information Warfare
    • Lesson 15 - Counter-Psychological Warfare
• Intermediate Lessons
  • Critical Theory
    • Lesson 16 - Re-reading Frederick Douglass
  • The Counter Revolution
  • Critical Thinking
  • Communication

... completely censored here on out.

Materials for the above curriculum:

• Albert Einstein - Why Socialism
• Karl Marx & Frederick Engels - Communist Manifesto
• Frederick Douglass - Autobiography of a Slave
• J. Katsfoter - The Study Group
• Scrum Guide
• Sarah Schulman - Conflict Is Not Abuse
• Michael Hudson - Super Imperialism
• Vincent Bevins - The Jakarta Method
• Survival Medicine for when help is not on the way
• USMC First Aid 🇺🇸
• Bushcraft
• Sun Tzu - Art of War
• Alexander Kott - Information Warfare 🇺🇸
• V.L. Artemov - Psychological Warfare

Meta:

• Subtle Radicalization Resources: https://hexbear.net/post/30560
• Cowbee Basic Course: https://hexbear.net/post/7689647
• Cowbee Advanced Course: https://lemmy.ml/post/22417306
• Marxist Education #0 - https://hexbear.net/post/8674824
• Marxist Education #1 - https://hexbear.net/post/8684737

Extra:

I discovered @Cowbee@lemmy.ml's course when trying to look back and find the reading group discussions on Hexbear. I wasn't able to find it. Maybe I can restart the study group on Hexbear in order to test out the curriculum?

I am going to steal a significant amount of Cowbee's work as I go forward. I'll especially take their checkpoint questions as a basis for discussion questions.

For Cowbee, my work here is intended to be an offline accessible curriculum. Downloaded pdfs, etc.

Cowbee also had restrictions on being concise for the sake of readers. My goal is to provide a survivable comprehensive resource in a single package. From my perspective, it's okay if people don't make it through all of the material. They just need the core skills, and to know where to look if they need to have more specialized skills. The curriculum has to also be ordered in a logical way to support development.

Cowbee's is also directed at self-learning. Mine is intended as a guide for someone to lead a study-group.

I intend to do things slightly differently, the beginner baby-steps section cover topics that can help bring non-radicalized people over. Topics that lay the groundwork of the principles and values that we share, without going too hard on Marxism that people are pushed away.

I think Frederick Douglas' autobiography perfectly captures the social harms of capital, the power of education, the consequences of reactionary ideology, and the struggle for emancipation. It's a really strong shoe in for Marxism - while not mentioning it at all.

I think I will start to pull your content into core lessons. I'm excited to see what you have in the works for the advanced course.

I've been developing educational materials for a long time now, but I don't know where to share them.

I have a selection of textbooks (PDFs) that can assist in various contexts.

• Some US army textbooks
• Some field medical books
• Books on theory

I also have materials I've made myself (i.e. Operational Security, FOSS alternatives, etc).

But where I'm at, I don't think I have the community that would appreciate anything I have to give.

Where should I put my stuff? Ideally someplace where I can continuously contribute to it.

I've even come across good stuff on learning to drone, learning to quadcopter. But there should be some place to develop the materials. Especially someplace others can help contribute to that.

• The Real Island Deal: News reports indicate that Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, are involved in a major real estate project. They have reportedly acquired the rights to the island of Sazan in Albania, a formerly secretive military outpost, with plans to develop it into a luxury resort. This is a factual story about private business, not a government or "elite" announcement.
• The Epstein Connection: For years, there have been unsubstantiated rumors and "false images and statements" online attempting to link Melania Trump to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his private island. Melania Trump has publicly denied these claims, stating she was "never on Epstein’s plane, and never visited his private island".

They have gotten away with so much... I can see why they wouldn't give a shit anymore when there are no consequences.

I created an account, Critical_Drinker, and two channels: analisis_de_clase and class_analysis. Then I created another account and deleted one of the channels, but I can't recreate it on the other account. I also added the other account as an editor for the remaining channel, but I still can't transfer ownership.

Is there any way I can get both channels on the jorvex609 account? In the meantime, I guess I'll add some numbers to the names.

Also, could you tell me the correct way to format tags when uploading a video? I write a list of comma-separated tags like tag1, tag2, but then they don't appear on the video.

Does anyone know how to contact the TankiTube mods, and would they be able to help me with these issues?

All apologizing (Specifically public apologies) seems to do is signal that there's blood in the water and open one up to actual long-term image/career damage, while flat-out ignoring the situation seems way more likely to see you through relatively unscathed.

What are you pretending to be?

Which flesh is your flesh?

Planning on going back to school purely for fun in a few years. I would love to study math/CS/physics/eng but that's out of the question because I hate the people that usually study that

Biology or chemistry seems cool too but the pre-med students are always annoying too, and the grad students too sometimes if they have grandious ideals about curing cancer or becoming a neuroscientist or something

So I'm considering humanities maybe, but maybe one that does not have lots of liberal vibes though like English, sociology, psychology, etc.

I'm a goobery bike commuter for context who's thankfully never needed to have a license and drive a car. I guess having a giant piece of glass in front of your main mode of conveyance might necessitate the need for donning the shades.

I've always thought that sunglasses were worn mainly by douches and dumb to wear in general. Why the fuck would I want to make everything around me intentionally darker?

But as I transition into my mid40s, I start to ponder about my health in my senior citizen years.

I do wear contact lenses and sometimes prescription eyeglasses while biking for nearsightedness.

Should I be wearing sunglasses while biking and out and about? Or are we just buying into the propaganda and marketing of Big Sunglass?

I met some who were very nice, seemed very rational, didn't even come off as "culty" as their particular Trot party is "known" to be. I mean, yeah, ideologically they're not quite right, but like, more people working against capitalism, who at least understand and agree with what Lenin said, is a good thing, right? Sectarianism is silly and left unity between Marxist tendencies is important to get to the point of revolution and then sorting out our differences, right?

ⓘ This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.