The majority of Burning Man participants these days are members of the bourgeoisie, with those that are not, many of them in direct control of the policies that dictate the majority of our social interactions online. Some are influencers, a cancer upon a dying society.
They are closer to ‘being in control’ than not.
‘Hard’ science nerd doesn’t understand classical economics, philosophy and social sciences because they are definitely too easy to actually read the primary documents about, more at eleven.
Yeah, when I say I’ve never been a fan of China’s foreign policy I mean that. They’ve only recently started to turn it around with their debt forgiveness to smaller countries, but overall China really whiffed the last 60 years of foreign policy.
What they shows is that the majority of people are losing their savings, and that their savings is basically enough to cover a couple of emergencies, but not any other particular catastrophe. This is essentially looking the credit agencies right in the mouth here.
I mean it’s fine if you are generally ok with nobody below 85% of the population having any money, but expecting people to be happy or excited about these economic policies is simply delusional.
The wealthy 1% made more than 42 trillion dollars since 2020, nearly 2/3rds of all new wealth generated, with most food and energy corporations in the U.S. doubling their profits. The ‘economy’ isn’t struggling, it is people who are struggling, the average global and American worker, while these industries get bailouts and ‘loans’ (bailouts by another name), none of which gets shuffled down the value chain to labor, and any that does immediately gets hoovered up again by corporations testing their price/demand curve on essentials in a ‘crisis’.
Idk if it’s going to be enough to make him lose an election, but pretending people aren’t upset and don’t have a good reason to be upset is missing the forest for the trees.
If anything, it is a sign that there can be no more value given to the American proletariat in this system, we are completely stuck where we are in these ratios as an economy under this model of economic governance.
Lol no, the mods would just ban them from the local like they did with the Kerry posters during the beginning of the forum’s existence, depending on the level of spam. They’ve done this song and dance before. This isn’t that difficult to do unless you are allergic to any sensible level of moderation. If you don’t like what the hexbear people are saying, or how they are saying it, ban them. It doesn’t matter, you’ll find some excuse or another anyways.
See, unlike your or other forums, this forum doesn’t pretend to be ‘neutral ground’, which means we actually have a robust and old-school moderator culture. There is very little of that new shit of ‘laissez-faire forum culture’ which was mostly an excuse to keep the pedophile and Nazi forums around, as this forum isn’t focused on growth.
This is besides the fact that we just have more terminally online people in our instance. Which isn’t a brag, but good luck out-posting us. It’ll be an uphill battle for sure even if the moderation wasn’t robust here.
Because it is easy comedy for an American audience. I knew the second that the Washington Redactedskins changed their name to the Washington Commanders there would be a million ‘Commie’ jokes, and I was not disappointed. The worst part about them is that they aren’t even good, just the same joke over and over and over again.
Oh man, when I was growing up, kids used to ride all sorts of weird things, like fucking gassed up go-karts. An e-bike would have been a relief.
Ehh, kinda, but not really. It’s pretty standardized (which is hilariously rare for these disciplines) within sociology, anthropology and even economic theory. At most economics would label it an ‘inefficient market’ but even they are stretching their definition to the breaking point when there is no actual expectation of reciprocity for most transactions.
You absolutely need an army to sustain market economies. Somebody has to collect the debts. Why do you think America spends more money than anywhere else on it’s police force? You have to have a monopoly of force in order to sustain obviously unfair and arbitrary property relations. Why does America have military bases across the globe and sanction countries that refuse to engage on it’s market terms? Because we need to have the potential to place a boot down or provide training for those that will do our enforcement for us.
Look at crypto, without centralized financial support it all but crumbled, to only resurge as a speculative asset, only to dip again. Maybe it will make a resurgence, but it is capital with no army, never to break the bounds of the fin-tech industry.
Force is what drives and has always driven market economies. To believe otherwise is to be an-cap, to separate the historical development of markets, capitalism and the state.
Look, when one says “There are (as in exists) only two classes” I generally expect them to mean “There are (as in exists) only two classes.” Which is not true.
I’m not offended, it’s just that I made my pedantic point, and now you are insisting that you didn’t say something that you said. You are only technically wrong, and it’s still a better quip than mine.
Look, I’ll take the L here if it really matters all that much to you, but claiming that we can’t make theoretical mountains out of molehills in terms of theory in arbitrary instances is practically denying our Marxist heritage. If anything we should be founding and publishing newsletters against each other at this point. Surely you can spare a section of a little ol’ measly memes comment section.
Again, purely pedantically, no it is not, unless you just mean ‘the middle class does not exist’, then we are in agreement. There are many classes that still exist, but only 2 have ‘revolutionary potential’ according to Marx.
Though I (and Lenin and Mao) would even disagree with that. The ‘peasantry’ of the 20th century proved to be more than capable at staging their own revolutions.
This is not true. Market economies originate with the state. Prior to markets, most societies engage in gift-economies, where value and price are relatively arbitrary and dictated by personal relationships, not scarcity. It is only when an army comes in and forces you to trade with it do we see the emergence of market economies. You are however, correct that the market we engage with right now focuses primarily on capitalization, which is generating the most amount of money. That is the structural logic of a ‘capitalist’ mode of production. The liberal (or really neo-liberal, but we are splitting hairs at this point) lie around this is that this mode of production is and encourages the most ‘efficiency’ or ‘productivity’. This is not true, as demonstrated in your example.
Within capitalism there will always be perverse incentives to value the ‘fetish’ (money) over the commodity (the object being produced). And it is this ‘fetishization of commodities’ that ultimately creates the series of rolling crises within capitalism, as the fetish must grow larger and larger even if (and especially if) the commodity production itself does not. The incentive isn’t to satisfy demand, it is to generate profit.
The problem is that the ‘middle class’ doesn’t exist. It is a series of cultural affectations, that do not apply to the majority that supposedly make up ‘the middle class’. If the ‘middle class’ can or can’t make up welders pulling 55 hours a week on overtime and an accountant working 40 hours a week, then the distinction is arbitrary. That is why Marxist distinctions of class are superior. They are dictated instead by your relationship to your means of production, and how you acquired the rights to that relationship.
From an purely pedantic Marxist standpoint, that is not true. Marx identified several classes. It’s just that he saw societal transformational potential in both the bourgeoisie (a revolution he lived and was living through) and the proletariat (a revolution that he expected and wanted to happen).
People would absolutely watch this, you just shouldn’t over-expose them to Terry Crews like they did with Dwayne Johnson.
Ah yes, as if anarchism, liberalism, libertarianism or really any other human ideology and methodology centered entirely on egoism don’t engender some strange communal cargo cult behavior. It’s almost as though they too are full of shit?
It is funny to believe in ‘self-determination’ when you can’t even recognize that all the important decisions have already been made for you. It is rich to pretend to fight against the nihilist when you only believe in yourself. So go egoist, live your life as you please, blissfully unaware that you are just as stuck the very herd of individuality that we all find ourselves in.