cars posted:the new $eKKKretary of Defen$e is a drunky who would have been celebrating that night so probably this man Pig Hogseth caused the plane crash.
cars posted:i mean Pig Hogseth called for an air limo and they flew directly into the 24/7/365 air lane to pick up a Cabinet-level drunky, not that he was flying the helicopter drunk and died which would have been good and cool because then he would be dead.
what a sublime thing to imagine. ahh. shivers.
lo posted:for all my noided friends out here, hegseth said that the helicopter was doing a drill for a continuity of government exercise
so was it a success?
realsubtle posted:
lo posted:for all my noided friends out here, hegseth said that the helicopter was doing a drill for a continuity of government exercise
another normal military-related-public-death event in a country that experiences many similar normal events
cars posted:Confirmed. NTSB just locked down all information it shares on the Trump official-caused crash to a Trump official-owned Web site (Twitter), so that anything reported can be wiped from the record before it gets into an archive. NTSB would usually send emails that can be saved or forwarded.
cars posted:Helicopter just gained 125 feet in altitude in the NTSB data per their public statements. congratulations and rip to it.
putting that to quick use
lo posted:the john birch society's position of 'the cia is too communist' is back, and this time it's being used to reshuffle USAID's functions directly under the control of private entrerprise and the state department
What would be the point of capitalists handing over direct control over state apparatus to individual personifications of capital. USAID was already under the control of the state department, explicitly stated by the same bill/act that news is claiming established it as an independent agency that competently does evil things that also end up helping the starving people "over there" a little bit without committing unforgiveable crimes e.g killing children or dogs, and "we" have to turn them to the good side. The LARPing of moral greyness as seen in prestige dramas celebrated for voyeuristically "criticising" extreme wealth and hedonism.
§6592. Administrator of AID reporting to Secretary of State
The Administrator of the Agency for International Development, appointed pursuant to section 2384(a) of this title, shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter74&edition=prelim
We have managed to regress from Proudhon's position that at least had the basic Christian decency to separate good from evil.
Marx posted:Let us see now to what modifications M. Proudhon subjects Hegel's dialectics when he applies it to political economy.
For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides – one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm.
The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category.
The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad.
Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America.
Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.
Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.
Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World.
What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad.
Hegel has no problems to formulate. He has only dialectics. M. Proudhon has nothing of Hegel's dialectics but the language. For him the dialectic movement is the dogmatic distinction between good and bad.
Let us for a moment consider M. Proudhon himself as a category. Let us examine his good and bad side, his advantages and his drawbacks.
If he has the advantage over Hegel of setting problems which he reserves the right of solving for the greater good of humanity, he has the drawback of being stricken with sterility when it is a question of engendering a new category by dialectical birth-throes. What constitutes dialectical movement is the coexistence of two contradictory sides, their conflict and their fusion into a new category. The very setting of the problem of eliminating the bad side cuts short the dialectic movement. It is not the category which is posed and opposed to itself, by its contradictory nature, it is M. Proudhon who gets excited, perplexed and frets and fumes between the two sides of the category.
Caught thus in a blind alley, from which it is difficult to escape by legal means, M. Proudhon takes a real flying leap which transports him at one bound into a new category. Then it is that, to his astonished gaze, is revealed the serial relation in the understanding.
He takes the first category that comes handy and attributes to it arbitrarily the quality of supplying a remedy for the drawbacks of the category to be purified. Thus, if we are to believe M. Proudhon, taxes remedy the drawbacks of monopoly; the balance of trade, the drawbacks of taxes; landed property, the drawbacks of credit.
By taking the economic categories thus successively, one by one, and making one the antidote to the other, M. Proudhon manages to make with this mixture of contradictions and antidotes to contradictions, two volumes of contradictions, which he rightly entitles: Le Système des contradictions économiques.
*1. This was perfectly correct for the year 1847. At that time the world trade of the United States was limited mainly to import of immigrants and industrial products, and export of cotton and tobacco, i.e., of the products of southern slave labour. The Northern States produced mainly corn and meat for the slave states. It was only when the North produced corn and meat for export and also became an industrial country, and when the American cotton monopoly had to face powerful competition, in India, Egypt, Brazil, etc., that the abolition of slavery became possible. And even then this led to the ruin of the South, which did not succeed in replacing the open Negro slavery by the disguised slavery of Indian and Chinese coolies, F.E.
vimingok posted:lo posted:
the john birch society's position of 'the cia is too communist' is back, and this time it's being used to reshuffle USAID's functions directly under the control of private entrerprise and the state department
What would be the point of capitalists handing over direct control over state apparatus to individual personifications of capital. USAID was already under the control of the state department, explicitly stated by the same bill/act that news is claiming established it as an independent agency that competently does evil things that also end up helping the starving people "over there" a little bit without committing unforgiveable crimes e.g killing children or dogs, and "we" have to turn them to the good side. The LARPing of moral greyness as seen in prestige dramas celebrated for voyeuristically "criticising" extreme wealth and hedonism.
§6592. Administrator of AID reporting to Secretary of State
The Administrator of the Agency for International Development, appointed pursuant to section 2384(a) of this title, shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter74&edition=prelim
We have managed to regress from Proudhon's position that at least had the basic Christian decency to separate good from evil.
Marx posted:
Let us see now to what modifications M. Proudhon subjects Hegel's dialectics when he applies it to political economy.
For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides – one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm.
The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category.
The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad.
Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America.
Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.
Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.
Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World.
What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad.
Hegel has no problems to formulate. He has only dialectics. M. Proudhon has nothing of Hegel's dialectics but the language. For him the dialectic movement is the dogmatic distinction between good and bad.
Let us for a moment consider M. Proudhon himself as a category. Let us examine his good and bad side, his advantages and his drawbacks.
If he has the advantage over Hegel of setting problems which he reserves the right of solving for the greater good of humanity, he has the drawback of being stricken with sterility when it is a question of engendering a new category by dialectical birth-throes. What constitutes dialectical movement is the coexistence of two contradictory sides, their conflict and their fusion into a new category. The very setting of the problem of eliminating the bad side cuts short the dialectic movement. It is not the category which is posed and opposed to itself, by its contradictory nature, it is M. Proudhon who gets excited, perplexed and frets and fumes between the two sides of the category.
Caught thus in a blind alley, from which it is difficult to escape by legal means, M. Proudhon takes a real flying leap which transports him at one bound into a new category. Then it is that, to his astonished gaze, is revealed the serial relation in the understanding.
He takes the first category that comes handy and attributes to it arbitrarily the quality of supplying a remedy for the drawbacks of the category to be purified. Thus, if we are to believe M. Proudhon, taxes remedy the drawbacks of monopoly; the balance of trade, the drawbacks of taxes; landed property, the drawbacks of credit.
By taking the economic categories thus successively, one by one, and making one the antidote to the other, M. Proudhon manages to make with this mixture of contradictions and antidotes to contradictions, two volumes of contradictions, which he rightly entitles: Le Système des contradictions économiques.
*1. This was perfectly correct for the year 1847. At that time the world trade of the United States was limited mainly to import of immigrants and industrial products, and export of cotton and tobacco, i.e., of the products of southern slave labour. The Northern States produced mainly corn and meat for the slave states. It was only when the North produced corn and meat for export and also became an industrial country, and when the American cotton monopoly had to face powerful competition, in India, Egypt, Brazil, etc., that the abolition of slavery became possible. And even then this led to the ruin of the South, which did not succeed in replacing the open Negro slavery by the disguised slavery of Indian and Chinese coolies, F.E.
lo posted:what would be the point of privatising functions of government, and moving USAID to a position where it has less public oversight and does less soft power things. the mind reels at such questions. here's an excerpt from marx about proudhon for some reason
The means of production are maximally socialised and privatised under capitalism. Trump is doing what every government in the third world did and none of it involved privatising the functions of government. Probably not even that, so far what has actually happened is GFC 08 style austerity that is being shoved down your throat as Trump vs whoever. The US trying to end a lost proxy war with Russia on favourable terms is supposed to be a controversial "restructuring" of empire by the same figure who is also supposed to be an insane demon. This is even stupider than 2016 when Trump was a "symptom" of liberalism not trying hard enough. Now liberalism isn't trying at all but also Trump is destroying it in the bad way not the good way that does some good things for the people. The Proudhon quote is because the narrative is about the CIA (or AID, DSA, privatisation, China, Russia, Syria and so on) being too communist and not communist enough. The narrative is those two sides taken together. You can't separate the "good" from the "bad" side because neither exists as such. You also can't separate these two (or several) contradictory sides and then put them back together again into one based on arbitrary and alienated notions of doing good things for the people, which is a kind of polytheism devolved out of Proudhon's Christian simplicity and it even comes with worshipping scantily clad idols. Yet this is exactly what passes for communism almost everywhere today in opposition to, for example, the fact that "more equality" is a contradiction in terms. You are not so special that "public oversight" is fundamentally anything other than a sick joke in the US or Germany as opposed to Kenya or Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, are you going to limit yourself to the calories that AID or whoever feeds the poor starving masses "over there" who are a minute fraction of the population that is actually undernourished? No. Are you going to endorse the poverty line in the United States or Europe (which is itself inadequate as is) be set to that level? While tiktoking about how Israel is intentionally starving the Palestinians - the oppressed mass of the moment? Nothing is inherently preventing me or you or any other middle-class/wealthy radleft hipster parasite from doing exactly that, and increasingly (perhaps irreversibly, which is a terrifying thought) that is what communism means but my point is that it does not.
Broadly speaking the purpose of AID and similar orgs is to link the third world "subaltern" middle-class (including rich and, to some extent, middle peasants) to the globalised parasitism of the agriculturally unproductive (without fossil fuel inputs) and minerally deficient northern metropoles. Simultaneously, to suppress militant resistance in the other 90% of land-poor and landless under the supervision of rich peasants and under the cover of "teaching SRI to Tanzanian rice farmers who will sadly now starve to death because of Trump". Agronomic practices like SRI have been known and implemented for decades, they are not arcane wisdom bestowed by USAID the grimdark but redeemable-in-the-third-act god of fertility. They also require the national and international coordination of the armed workers and peasants in order to be objectively beneficial to humanity, in order not to be inherently partial and self-defeating mediations of fundamentally antagonistic material forces. The monopoly-semifeudal capital relationship has matured to the point where active foreign or domestic state intervention is superfluous. Precisely because of that the functions of the domestic compradorial state are needed more than ever. Enforcing the hierarchy of monopoly over semifeudal capital at its own discretion, guarding maintaining and staffing private godowns, lumpen RSS upper caste larvae making peasants' lives even more miserable to protect the cows, directly distributing hilariously inadequate food under ad hoc government schemes much of it going into the pockets of bureaucrats and private middlemen. This relationship is alternately interpreted as a combination of woke trans DEI globalist elites and "multipolarity" by feckless lefty pundits and none of it makes the slightest bit of sense because they won't recognise the contradictions. Doesn't have to be that way though, especially not here. Anyway under the rule of alienated wealth "government" is for keeping the slaves in line, and the more keeping the slaves in line necessary the more government it is.