#17801

lo posted:

Belphegor posted:

I just started that book yesterday! Which you would have known if you were in the chatroom...

much like the nomadic pastoral mode of production after it has conquered a sedentary society, the chatroom is parasitic on the forum, merely stifling the growth of the forum's production while producing nothing of its own.



It’s a good safety valve so people post less about their boring and inconsequential lives. Y’all are being saved from extensive factorio chat

#17802
1. does the chatroom have watch2gether or equivalent integration so we can watch vintage skrillex memes and 2. does it have integrated minigames with chatroom wide leaderboards?
#17803

pogfan1996 posted:

It’s a good safety valve so people post less about their boring and inconsequential lives.


good wway to get me to shut up. on the forums

#17804

second_axiom posted:

pogfan1996 posted:

It’s a good safety valve so people post less about their boring and inconsequential lives.

good wway to get me to shut up. on the forums



I retract my claim that the chat room is an effective safety valve

#17805

lo posted:

i'm reading perry anderson's 'passages from antiquity to feudalism' and i'm learning all about different premodern modes of production, such as the slave mode of production, the feudal mode of production, and other auxiliary modes of production like the nomad pastoral mode of production. i heard that if you use a link cable with another copy of the book you can unlock a secret mode of production as well, which is helpful because i intend to collect all the modes of production and become a modes of production master.


#17806

tears posted:

1. does the chatroom have watch2gether or equivalent integration so we can watch vintage skrillex memes and 2. does it have integrated minigames with chatroom wide leaderboards?



every time I suggest building an Omaha Hi/Lo room into this site my posting star burns off another layer of Irony

#17807

liceo posted:

liceo posted:

a thousand plateaus

initial thoughts:

reflecting on writing in assemblages and recognized that benjamin utilized this method incessantly. this is perhaps the key to benjamin that i've never fully understood or noticed before. specifically, in moscow diaries, berlin childhood, and arcades project, every segment is effectively a scrap of paper glued to another scrap of paper, some water-damaged with bleeding blue ink, some pristine and crystalline. arcades the most of the three. that said, in MD and BC, benjamin made use of the 'arborescent' reality-image but smashed through it by negating beginning and end. everything is just there in itself and nothing really happens to it. where marx turned hegel upside down, benjamin holds a mirror to proust that methodically turns into a windowpane. benjamin is the only proust that remains, and the quasi-historical personal sentiment of lost time is replaced with a time that never existed and never will.




I wrote this about benjamin on another website:

Walter Benjamin was reading for his entire life. He applied to a university, and submitted an essay that consisted entirely of quotations of other authors. He was not accepted. Theodor W Adorno personally criticized his philosophy and suggested he stopped being funded by the institute for social research. Under extraordinarily unlikely circumstances, he was discovered by fascist police on his way out of Germany, and subsequently took his own life.

I could not imagine a more successful career for an author.

#17808
reading secession debates around the election of 1860 with an eye on the idea of "the shrinking South", which is what made the people eventually behind the Confederacy so rabidly into the idea of the U.S. conquering Cuba, pushing it over and over with the same fervor they pushed invading Mexico, but with less nationalist support from the North exactly because of the question of the South's slave-owning oligarchy's continued economic and political power.

What's at the core of this idea is something I don't know gets discussed much: what other options the South's slaveholder upper class saw for themselves (or anyone else saw for them) beyond unlikely Western expansion of slavery into new ventures, such as gold & silver mining, to the same degree as plantation farming, if the upper class wanted to avoid a politically dangerous future concentration of slaves in proportion to whites of any class—that is, an outcome of sheer population growth that made widespread slave rebellions, Denmark Vesey times ten, likely in places such as Charleston and Richmond. The problem was known and discussed. Any alternatives advanced at the time are harder to find.

"Colonization" (in the sense of Liberia and the ACS) never came together as a major political force despite a lot of support among big-time elites in the North and Upper South, in part because forcible overseas relocation of Blacks, free or slave, was likely the only way to make it happen but would probably have led to mass violence anyway and everyone knew that. It just wasn't going to happen. And it certainly wasn't in the heads of Southern slaveholders that slaves were averse to rebellion in such circumstances. If anything, there was intense suspicion of the opposite, that slaves in greater proportions would be easily driven to rebel. The slave rebellions of the first half of the 1800s led to all sorts of paranoia-fueled measures, like Charleston declaring that every sailor deemed Black would be jailed by the city as long as his ship was in port.

To me it seems like the only recourse of Southern governments might have been mechanized murder of slave populations, a sort of late-19th-century equivalent to Nazi death camps with corresponding attempts to hide what was happening from the targeted group and the world at large. But I'm not really interested in this in the sense of "alternate history". I'm more looking for what, if any, other options real, existing political writers in the antebelleum-period U.S. saw for the future of Southern white leadership over a population of slaves that would not stop expanding, beyond an immediate Western expansion of slavery, and not in the sense of slave states and free states, but in the movement of slave populations westward for some economically viable venture no one could name.

(The problem of what Western slavery would actually mean economically was a big one itself, and it got discussed a lot. Daniel Webster had famous contempt for the idea of slavery's expansion into the West for exactly the reason that he couldn't imagine anything like cotton or rice or sugarcane plantations emerging in that climate, and again, it's one of the big reasons why Southern politicians weren't satisfied with Mexico and wanted Cuba as well, so much that they just could not shut up about it. It's not that someone couldn't conceivably have made e.g. gold mines into a national slave-power venture, but rather that they'd never manage to employ as much labor power as plantation farming just by the physical realities under which veins were discovered and mines established and exploited to exhaustion. Everyone knew that and the problem it presented, and that damned the whole idea of the West as a "safety valve" for slavery.)

So far what I've found, beyond those few who dared to predict civil war, has been just outright denial of reality by writers in both North and South, that either (as advanced by writers in the North) the crisis of an expanding slave population would end in the peaceful, necessary abolition of slavery (by Southern state governments already physically threatened by slave revolts...?) or a demographic crisis just wouldn't happen (as advanced by writers in the South), because slavery was the immutable condition of civilized societies and blah blah blah, which I have to imagine worked better for sympathetic readers as a moral defense of slave power than as a prediction of future population changes the educated among them could work out in their heads in a few seconds. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, or maybe it's just one of those contradictions that could not be resolved through liberal thinking in anyone's mind and didn't even attract the usual weirdos advancing utopian strategies. My guess is the former, because this is within areas of interest to me but outside my area of expertise.
#17809
would mass murder of the slaves not have totally undermined the southern economy without really gaining them much, apart from removing the people who might revolt? it doesn't seem like they would obtain much economic benefit from doing it in the way that the nazis were able to benefit economically from the holocaust, because the slaves didn't really have any existing wealth or anything similar to loot and they're already being exploited for their labour to a very great extent. or is the idea more like regularised ongoing killing of enough slaves that there's never quite enough to make a successful revolt happen?
#17810
It wouldn’t have happened anyway but more because of another sort of perceived value, the lot price of slaves themselves, where the predicted decline in those prices was one big immediate concern of those who feared “the shrinking South”. No rapid addition of slave states meant no rapid increase in demand for slaves. Slavers who witnessed the people they sold drop precipitously in value before the demographic crisis would have howled in protest against state-mandated liquidation of their property. That they would have quietly submitted to that process during cutthroat competition at a collapsing widows-and-orphans market, let alone helped cover it up out of collective social concern, seems impossible. (There were also ideological reasons preventing it, though most U.S. historians probably underestimate the mutability of that ideology because it says nasty things about the antebellum social consensus in the U.S.)

I’m instead saying realistic options didn’t abound for plantation owners in the U.S. South. For instance, Cuba itself was a pipe dream, since it already had a slave-labor plantation system, and the immediate object of conquering it would be to seize property for distribution among the victors. For the same market-competitive reasons, even if a conquering force slaughtered Cuba’s large free Black population, it’s hard to imagine one killing off hundreds of thousands of valuable slaves, destroying Cuba’s immediate productive power as a prize, with the collective plan of making way for slaves from U.S. soil. Who among the biggest backers of invasion would agree to that if any of them might seize a fortune in both land and slaves, bought with other people’s blood? So I’m curious what anyone offered up as alternatives to what seems like a guaranteed future political crisis, or if no one bothered and everyone just stuck to arguing for absurdities as though they made sense.
#17811
Periodically liberating some % of blacks in 'exchange' for deportation to free states for the majority (and integration or extermination for the rest) would shift the population problem to the north. In addition making northern whites more hostile to the idea of both free black labour or the idea of blacks in the USA for that matter. I made this up now but someone at the time could have floated it. Illegal immigration kind of works the same way. Majority enserfed in agriculture, small minority integrated and the surplus deported south where they die or rotate back.
#17812

Acdtrux posted:


writing like you've contributed to 1m+ wikipedia entries

#17813
#17814

neckwattle posted:

Acdtrux posted:

writing like you've contributed to 1m+ wikipedia entries




my contribution to wikipedia is a protracted people's debate about the correct naming of the DPRK

#17815
i liked that perry anderson book so much that now i'm reading the thrilling conclusion to the perry anderson SaGa, 'lineages of the absolutist state'. i love all the detailed and intricate materialist analysis, and i can't wait to see how the absolutism boys get out of this bind they've found themselves in
#17816

lo posted:

i liked that perry anderson book so much that now i'm reading the thrilling conclusion to the perry anderson SaGa, 'lineages of the absolutist state'. i love all the detailed and intricate materialist analysis, and i can't wait to see how the absolutism boys get out of this bind they've found themselves in


It's a good book, feel like there's truth to his central thesis of absolutism being a period where king and aristocracy work hand in hand to the benefit of both, but it remains pretty vague and, despite his attempts at analyzing non-western european societies, it's obviously still heavily focused on western europe. To be fair to him, given his background and nationality, he did make an effort. If you haven't already you should read something like Samir Amin's eurocentrism afterwards to really get the sense of how it's all linked (even tho Amin sort of fetishizes european "modernity", can't shake the french education there).

#17817

ultragauchiste posted:

lo posted:


i liked that perry anderson book so much that now i'm reading the thrilling conclusion to the perry anderson SaGa, 'lineages of the absolutist state'. i love all the detailed and intricate materialist analysis, and i can't wait to see how the absolutism boys get out of this bind they've found themselves in


It's a good book, feel like there's truth to his central thesis of absolutism being a period where king and aristocracy work hand in hand to the benefit of both, but it remains pretty vague and, despite his attempts at analyzing non-western european societies, it's obviously still heavily focused on western europe. To be fair to him, given his background and nationality, he did make an effort. If you haven't already you should read something like Samir Amin's eurocentrism afterwards to really get the sense of how it's all linked (even tho Amin sort of fetishizes european "modernity", can't shake the french education there).


i've never read amin but he sounds cool, and it turns out that he said some 'controversial' stuff about pol pot, so he's going on my list sooner than he would have otherwise. i would also like to read any other people that analyse the mode of production of premodern societies in a similar way to anderson. like if there's dudes doing that sort of stuff for ancient egypt or medieval islamic world or wherever that would be cool to read

#17818

lo posted:

ultragauchiste posted:

lo posted:


i liked that perry anderson book so much that now i'm reading the thrilling conclusion to the perry anderson SaGa, 'lineages of the absolutist state'. i love all the detailed and intricate materialist analysis, and i can't wait to see how the absolutism boys get out of this bind they've found themselves in


It's a good book, feel like there's truth to his central thesis of absolutism being a period where king and aristocracy work hand in hand to the benefit of both, but it remains pretty vague and, despite his attempts at analyzing non-western european societies, it's obviously still heavily focused on western europe. To be fair to him, given his background and nationality, he did make an effort. If you haven't already you should read something like Samir Amin's eurocentrism afterwards to really get the sense of how it's all linked (even tho Amin sort of fetishizes european "modernity", can't shake the french education there).

i've never read amin but he sounds cool, and it turns out that he said some 'controversial' stuff about pol pot, so he's going on my list sooner than he would have otherwise. i would also like to read any other people that analyse the mode of production of premodern societies in a similar way to anderson. like if there's dudes doing that sort of stuff for ancient egypt or medieval islamic world or wherever that would be cool to read



de Ste Croix’s Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World for the ancient classical Mediterranean, published after Passages with more detail (to an extreme degree at times)

I have this on my to read list: Before European Hegemony: The World System 1250-1350 by Janet Abu Lughod

Samir Amin like the other poster said

Andre Gunder Frank goes against the Eurocentric grain w/ world systems theory as well although I haven’t yet read him.

#17819
postmodern logic of late capitalism, mim theory 8, under the volcano by lowry. all three are good
#17820
i'm reading The Necrophilic Landscape by ex rhizzone poster tracy auch, aka ??? does anyone know her s/n on here?
#17821
fUCK AND DESTROY BY jOHN CHRISTY
#17822

toyot posted:

i'm reading The Necrophilic Landscape by ex rhizzone poster tracy auch, aka ??? does anyone know her s/n on here?


https://rhizzone.net/forum/topic/15967/?page=1#post-402706

rip

#17823
rip
#17824
https://jiminykrix.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/killing-leftist-fragility-the-roughness-of-the-working-class-is-the-power-that-moves-history/ thats right.
#17825
Dirty Work the cia in western Europe is p good especially bc it has a chapter of snippets from Kissinger's foreign policy scrapbook.
#17826

I honestly think they imagine that as they win working-class people to revolution, they will soften them, “civilize” them, make them gentler and more like Leftbook or radical-liberal Tumblr says people should be: You are valid!



This dichotomy of real working class vs internet leftists comes up again and again in criticisms like this one but I don't think it's valid. We can yell at internet kids all day about their many shortcomings and maybe sometimes we should but I don't get why we should pretend that internet forums are anything other than places to exchange messages. I mean the Rhizzone has been miles ahead of all those spaces but we know we're not a revolutionary organization and we don't aim to develop each other as cadre. The only way this criticism makes sense to pursue is by buying into the delusions of the internet leftists that they're in any way poised to create revolution through their keyboards.

I've found that undesirable internet sub-cultural traits do sometimes bleed through into real life organizing. Either because participants of those communities get into real life or people who began from practical organizing get into the internet stuff to talk to more like-minded people than are available immediately around them. But for one, those things that look so stupid through tweets and profile pics make a lot more sense coming from real faces. If someone is a bit sensitive or fragile, we help them stand up taller and get stronger with understanding and encouragement. They probably have some reasons for being the way they are and saying "man up" won't help. For two, the venue to fix it is at the site of organizing, not facebook and twitter spheres. The drivers of that behavior online are not accessible through the platforms themselves. And even if you could change it, the result would be arguably worse. "Scumbag leftists" with inflated egos and a love for ad hominem are quick to point out this same fragility issue but they just use it as an excuse to act more insufferably than everyone else.

Fragile people who get into real organizing are much more valuable than leftbook users who talk like the guys after work. It's not fragility that's the problem.

#17827
Yeah saying 'get real' is a better indicator of online leftism than politeness. Also the retarded idea of 'working class culture' as some monolith. Everyone speaks their mind in some situations and less so in others. The working class usually do not have the energy or desire to be 'crude' in the way these idiots envision that. Suffering and injustice produce compassion and humility, believe it or not. The 'crudeness' is them lashing out at circumstances in the exact same way anyone else would, except more often, more tangibly etc than say MLM bloggers who wants to get in touch with working class crudeness.
#17828

colddays posted:

This dichotomy of real working class vs internet leftists comes up again and again in criticisms like this one but I don't think it's valid. We can yell at internet kids all day about their many shortcomings and maybe sometimes we should but I don't get why we should pretend that internet forums are anything other than places to exchange messages. I mean the Rhizzone has been miles ahead of all those spaces but we know we're not a revolutionary organization and we don't aim to develop each other as cadre. The only way this criticism makes sense to pursue is by buying into the delusions of the internet leftists that they're in any way poised to create revolution through their keyboards.

I've found that undesirable internet sub-cultural traits do sometimes bleed through into real life organizing. Either because participants of those communities get into real life or people who began from practical organizing get into the internet stuff to talk to more like-minded people than are available immediately around them. But for one, those things that look so stupid through tweets and profile pics make a lot more sense coming from real faces. If someone is a bit sensitive or fragile, we help them stand up taller and get stronger with understanding and encouragement. They probably have some reasons for being the way they are and saying "man up" won't help. For two, the venue to fix it is at the site of organizing, not facebook and twitter spheres. The drivers of that behavior online are not accessible through the platforms themselves. And even if you could change it, the result would be arguably worse. "Scumbag leftists" with inflated egos and a love for ad hominem are quick to point out this same fragility issue but they just use it as an excuse to act more insufferably than everyone else.

Fragile people who get into real organizing are much more valuable than leftbook users who talk like the guys after work. It's not fragility that's the problem.



yeah... seems like idealist reasoning, imagining class as clique... the proletariat is the revolutionary class because: go for a walk. walk on the paved streets, see airplanes overhead, artificial light. 30% of earth's land made agriculture, and the good 30%, near the water. observe what world we were born into -- which class made all of this, under the pressure of the wage? the internet is all ultimately handmade, airplanes are handmade... which hands did it? the proletariat isn't the revolutionary class because it talks tuff. the proletariat is the revolutionary class because it has terraformed its planet in 10 short generations to meet human ends. and we either participate in this task alongside and within, or we don't. but everybody alive today was born into the decaying handiwork of a billion-armed class.

'the proletariat is the revolutionary class' is not a hope for future social revolution, it's an observation of the here and now. hold our artificial world in one hand, and the sum of revolutionary fires burning in our hearts, in the other. which organ physically transformed the earth, the heart or the hand?

uncharitably, it reads like an infiltrator's guide into 'the working class'. talk tuff and macho, you're in. and his next post is titled, with similar content, "Destroy the “subculture of communism,” make yourself truly appealing to the working class". why not teach people how to show up on a job site the first day with the correct tools. that's the quicker route to respect.

it reminds of a moment at standing rock when a native woman, a welder, showed me a secret bismarck settler facebook group she'd found. people posting, "i'm in! no one suspects a thing". settlers teaching each other how to dress like a white activist, talk like an activist: blend in. you become aware the mass white activist presence, in a natlib struggle, is perhaps doing police and their volunteers a favor, helping the enemy blend in. our false internationalism, exposed. here: talk tuff, and you can help lead the class to glory. instead of teaching people how to respect advanced machinery, & ask for just enough advice, so you don't break anything on the job, in the process of transforming the world with your hands.

i feel like i understand 'the negation of the negation' for the first time: he wisely negates the PB internet tendencies, all the charming meme twee tourist cultural junk food. but he stops the line of thought at the first negation. he recognizes it accurately as a subcultural sideshow, but as solution, only proposes its negation: donning a working class culture, real tuff, macho, fuck your feelings, as the route to class respect. he should negate the negation. it's all sideshow. what counts is what our hands build.

Edited by toyot ()

#17829

colddays posted:

Fragile people who get into real organizing



this is me lol

#17830
Revolutionary movements tend to go through shifts. In the early stages of any revolutionary movement, the character of the individuals is radically different from those when it moves to a larger mass movement. People that are far more likely to become politically active in the early stages of a revolutionary struggle are not necessarily the most economically oppressed, but the ones that are social outcasts, students, mentally ill etc. They are come to revolutionary because they don't fit in with expected social norms.You have to be a certain level of nutty to decide to join a group of two dozen other people and be like "well I guess we are gonna work to prepare for a protracted people's war"
#17831

toyot posted:


So are you saying that the correct path for revolutionaries is to proletarianize themselves? cause I think there's two issues here.

One is that the proletariat are the revolutionary class, they change the world with their activity as a class and in those terms it follows that someone wishing to change the world should become a true proletarian and learn many technical skills. Of course I agree with that, everyone should try to get some technical knowledge and production skills regardless of who they are, it'll help them understand the world better and be more competent in life. In high school I was exposed to some engineering curriculum and it made me understand that practically every single thing I see in my daily life was made out of some kind of material, through some kind of process, done by a whole host of people. I began to see through commodity fetishism early on and it changed the way I looked at the world. If you want to effect this revolutionary class you should be able to understand it as well, and that can best be done through social practice, so to that end of it's also important to live as a member of this class.

However, the proletariat only does all these grand things as a class, not as individuals, and it does not do them organized autonomously except for a few times in history so far. So becoming a proletarian in itself isn't a good revolutionary strategy. It doesn't necessarily make you any more capable of organizing the proletariat or a better person, it just means you sell your labor for capital's ends. Learning how to organize effectively via speaking, writing, leading, following, acting tough or being genuinely vulnerable as the situation calls for it and recognizing those situations is honestly more important than being able to operate a drill press or install drywall.

#17832
FUCK SHIT PISS
#17833

colddays posted:

However, the proletariat only does all these grand things as a class, not as individuals, and it does not do them organized autonomously except for a few times in history so far. So becoming a proletarian in itself isn't a good revolutionary strategy. It doesn't necessarily make you any more capable of organizing the proletariat or a better person, it just means you sell your labor for capital's ends. Learning how to organize effectively via speaking, writing, leading, following, acting tough or being genuinely vulnerable as the situation calls for it and recognizing those situations is honestly more important than being able to operate a drill press or install drywall.



right. we have the semi-organized NCM experience in the 70s-90s dissolving themselves into the class, within the factory, but it wasn't enough to stem capital's counter-revolution against labor in the 80s. they had a front-row seat to it and unfortunately to also their own strategic mis-judgement. they devoted their lives to answering this question. these stories we read today by them, sakai, bromma, the NCM guy in appalachia during the oil strike, they are fragments of the same picture. i think that the settlers et al, kersplebedeb thought, rhizzone thought, you know, prioritizing the settler/colonial question, can be traced to the NCM's failure in the factory and their observation of national job categories and the consent to this imperialism by white labor. the picture's fragments pieced together, show that the white working class is full up on ideology around this material relationship, esp the black-white thing and towards land acquisition. not so much the liberation of humanity...

i'll get to the point tho. the proletariat is the revolutionary class, it transformed our planet. i believe we over-emphasize proletarian exploitation, at the expense of the rest of the class's historical scope. of course the proletariat is exploited, we have parasite classes. if it weren't exploited, the lumpen and bourgeoisie wouldn't exist, there would be no class society. in our era of mass extinction the critical question isn't who receives the fruits of labor but what is the large-scale effect of proletarian labor? the first is a very useful question in the midst of revolution to determine who are our friends, and who are our enemies. but the second is a question on the mind of humanity today, and judging by past extinctions, will be for the next 5 million years of biological recovery. the bourgeoisie compartmentalizes it as 'environmentalism', but who cares what they say. it's a question we need to answer within the class, which labors do we need to stop today, which new labors will the people need tomorrow. waiting for the boss to tell us to go home, you know, stop making profit, that's a false hope. only one class has the technical skill to both answer this question, and then actualize its own answer. for example, you wouldn't trust a banker to shut off and dismantle the pipes sunk miles into the earth's crust, or trust a marketing VP to dismantle imperialism's nuclear weapons. our class can recognize its ability to do this, now, seize history. social revolution's purpose can be greater than the simple end of exploitation, dissolving the enemy classes into the productive class. say tomorrow all the bankers and CEOs use their baby-skinned hands to make their living: what do they manufacture? is it more jeeps and restaurant food, with different hands, for different mouths? the big prize is class control over the content of labor.

i mean this to say, the purpose of developing technical skill isn't just to get an ear at work, it's to assist our class in answering this modern question (which new labors will revolutionize the planet in the next century, and which must be stopped). with technical skill we can intelligently deliberate answers within the class, with classmates, truly the only people who can peacefully dismantle, or sabotage, problem factories. our "magic hands" have greater potential than reproducing the 1870-1970 inventions indefinitely. even if all the labor's value were kept within the working class, does the planet need another billion cars and the haber process? these are questions only our class can possibly answer in the negative. there's more than a whiff of pity coming from PB communists, towards the global proletariat. less so, recognition of proletarian power to revolutionize plant and animal life on the planet for a second time.

Edited by toyot ()

#17834

dizastar posted:

https://jiminykrix.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/killing-leftist-fragility-the-roughness-of-the-working-class-is-the-power-that-moves-history/thats right.



really i don't understand how the sentence "They do not use PC language." is not in contradiction with the sentence "And most important at all times is that our politics are as correct as they possibly can be."

Edited by Acdtrux ()

#17835

Acdtrux posted:

dizastar posted:

https://jiminykrix.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/killing-leftist-fragility-the-roughness-of-the-working-class-is-the-power-that-moves-history/thats right.

really i don't understand how the sentence "They do not use PC language." is not in contradiction with the sentence "And most important at all times is that our politics are as correct as they possibly can be."



It means men get to joke about rape because women’s liberation needs to take a back seat to class struggle

#17836
that blog post is terrible because it serves to smuggle in fascism through the back door using some imaginary proletariat as a meat shield. this is ironic in light of all the bluster about "crudeness and directness," because whining about tumblr and "PC language" is only less cowardly and indirect than posting this blog with "that's right."
#17837

colddays posted:

I honestly think they imagine that as they win working-class people to revolution, they will soften them, “civilize” them, make them gentler and more like Leftbook or radical-liberal Tumblr says people should be: You are valid!

This dichotomy of real working class vs internet leftists comes up again and again in criticisms like this one but I don't think it's valid. We can yell at internet kids all day about their many shortcomings and maybe sometimes we should but I don't get why we should pretend that internet forums are anything other than places to exchange messages. I mean the Rhizzone has been miles ahead of all those spaces but we know we're not a revolutionary organization and we don't aim to develop each other as cadre. The only way this criticism makes sense to pursue is by buying into the delusions of the internet leftists that they're in any way poised to create revolution through their keyboards.

I've found that undesirable internet sub-cultural traits do sometimes bleed through into real life organizing. Either because participants of those communities get into real life or people who began from practical organizing get into the internet stuff to talk to more like-minded people than are available immediately around them. But for one, those things that look so stupid through tweets and profile pics make a lot more sense coming from real faces. If someone is a bit sensitive or fragile, we help them stand up taller and get stronger with understanding and encouragement. They probably have some reasons for being the way they are and saying "man up" won't help. For two, the venue to fix it is at the site of organizing, not facebook and twitter spheres. The drivers of that behavior online are not accessible through the platforms themselves. And even if you could change it, the result would be arguably worse. "Scumbag leftists" with inflated egos and a love for ad hominem are quick to point out this same fragility issue but they just use it as an excuse to act more insufferably than everyone else.

Fragile people who get into real organizing are much more valuable than leftbook users who talk like the guys after work. It's not fragility that's the problem.


you find people saying really stupid shit in "irl organizing spaces" too. everyone's "online" to some degree. ive heard people harp on about the revolutionary potential of bitcoin and open source and suggest that a union should prioritize a prudently invested income fund

#17838
ive stalled out on "man withouth qualities" because ive been going down a long rabbit hole about financial history and banking for a class

Edited by c_man ()

#17839

c_man posted:

ive stalled out on "man withouth qualities"



thanks for standing me up bro

#17840
mods rename me to CUMBURP_SHART_HOLOCAUST