CuriousCat Archive Page 97 of 202

  2. How much should we distinguish between the bourgeoisie and just, like, rich people (i. e. Owners of the means of productions and beneficiaries of the capitalist system)?

    hell, weren't the bourgeoisie supposed to be the class BETWEEN the proles and the wealthy? I can't keep up with this.

  3. Ever read David Graeber? What did you think if so?

    I've heard of Debt: The First 5000 Years, but I haven't read anything by him.

  4. for all their faults, do you have any examples of each/any of your six traditional action movie heroine tropes that you actually like?

    I think The Innocent is the only one I see basically no value in. All the others are types that I think can exist healthily with a bit of tweaking. The main issue is that there's just so few of them.

  5. should we fear death?

    I've found that question moot since I don't seem to have a choice in the matter

  6. favorite park

    in response to favorite adam

    chan-wook

  7. Can upper-middle class people be left-wing? Asking for a friend.

    Sure, same as proles can vote Republican.

  8. Being open to considering any vaguely left leaning -ism as a viable replacement for our current system definitely falls under the heading of "pretty much anything".

    And to answer your question: the Soviet Union, China and the Polish People's Republic to name a few.

    in response to How have I put words in your mouth? You advocate for "scrapping capitalism" while openly admitting you haven't done the research for what you'd replace it with. Which *strongly* implies you believe pretty much anything would be better. You promote socialism and communism while all but rolling your eyes at anyone who (in my opinion rightfully) associates these models with some of the most devastating authoritarian regimes in human history. How is that not irresponsible? For the record, I wouldn't replace capitalism. I'd institute social democracy and limit capitalism's worst excesses through strong government oversight.

    You drew a pointed distinction between communism and socialism earlier, so I'm going to bring up that all of those nations were communist. In which case you don't seem to have any examples of a socialist nation turning authoritarian.

  9. Suckers be saying they can take him out. Any thoughts on this development?

    in response to favorite adam

    Well, word is he beat a body down with an aluminum bat, yeah.

  10. How have I put words in your mouth? You advocate for "scrapping capitalism" while openly admitting you haven't done the research for what you'd replace it with. Which *strongly* implies you believe pretty much anything would be better. You promote socialism and communism while all but rolling your eyes at anyone who (in my opinion rightfully) associates these models with some of the most devastating authoritarian regimes in human history. How is that not irresponsible?

    For the record, I wouldn't replace capitalism. I'd institute social democracy and limit capitalism's worst excesses through strong government oversight.

    in response to Just handing the reigns to democracy and scrapping capitalism *without a plan for what we'd replace it with" would be bad in a multitude of ways, yes. As I said, what I take issue with is the idea that *literally anything* would be better than our current system. As if allowing any period of time to pass without a formalized economic model in place wouldn't lead to mass chaos and a power vacuum that could potentially hurt a hell of a lot more people than capitalism ever has. Like it or not, what attempting to reform the current system as opposed to abolishing it "brings to the table here" is societal stability.

    you know full well it implies no such thing. you know full well I don't advocate a return to nomadic city-states, mercantile imperialism, or hereditary monarchy. you know I'm a leftist. I know the general direction I want things to go, and I'm in the process of figuring out what in specific I want to advocate. getting where I am now has been a lifelong process and I imagine it will take some time to pick an -ism; it's not like the revolution is tomorrow, so I'm not pressed for time. you're making up reasons why my position is invalid.

    can I ask you: what authoritarian regimes are you calling socialist?

  11. favorite adam

    in response to favorite jean

    horovitz

  13. Why is antisemitism so widespread? It seems like every conspiracy theory and repressive ideology at some point boils down to a fear of Jews, even more so than movements and demographics that are more actively in conflict with them (e.g., the current fear of "socialists" at least makes some sense for the right as they're ideologically opposed, while anti black racism stems our history of slavery.) It seems like Jewish people were almost drawn out of a hat to be attacked by western culture.

    There are some theories and observations I find enlightening, but none of them really satisfy. It's also tricky to discuss, because any time someone talks about the unique characteristics of the Jewish people that makes them targets, it cuts awfully close to sounding like "it's their own fault." I am largely of the belief that bigotry needs an Other, there are facets of Jewishness that made them a particularly durable Other, but, if it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else.

    First, there's the fact that, for almost all of history until the founding of Israel, the Jewish people have been a diaspora. Meaning, whatever nation they were in, they were always a minority. There was no place with a Jewish majority where you'd have to hold your tongue about them. This meant they were a people you could wage war against but who could never wage war against you. And, by the foundation of Israel - itself a cultural and geopolitical gordian knot - we'd entered the atomic age, where, yes, there is now a Jewish-majority nation, but it doesn't pose much threat to anyone but its immediate neighbors, by whom it is still overwhelmingly outnumbered. This means Jewish people have always been "safe" to mistreat.

    Second, unlike most social minorities, Jewishness is associated with wealth and power. This has to do with their minority status in Christian Europe throughout the Middle Ages, where there were usury laws against Christians lending money and discriminatory laws against Jewish people working most other jobs, so you ended up with a lot of Jewish bankers. Like, according to Arendt, this was to the point where most royal castles had a kind of "house Jew" for when they needed to borrow money. Because Jewish bankers were common in most European countries, and because the diaspora had strong internal connections, they were kind of the first international bank, where kings in one country could ask their resident Jewish banker to borrow money from a Jewish banker in another country if needed. The wealth and privilege this afforded Jewish bankers by no means trickled down to the entirety of Jewish people, but it was very VISIBLE wealth and privilege.

    So you've got a social minority that small in number and legal to discriminate against, who holds basically no institutional power, but, nevertheless, REPRESENTS power in a way almost no other minority has. I mentioned in How to Radicalize a Normie that any hatred of wealth that COULD funnel one into class consciousness can be redirected towards antisemitism by blaming inequality in "the Jews." You can't really do that with any of the other racialized go-tos - African-Americans, Latinx immigrants, and Muslims - all of whom are associated with poverty.

    I could discuss this for hours but CuriousCat has a character limit. But, in short: white supremacy sometimes requires the Other to represent power, and Jewish people are the best suited to be that avatar.

  15. What's up with you having a problem with people not liking the new Cruella movie based on the trailer? Is it the usual suspect of making a popular villainess a sympathetic protagonist?

    I would call "Ian has a problem with people not liking the Cruella movie" a radical interpretation of the text

    my only observation was that a lot of people who find Cruella unsympathetic because she's cruel to animals still eat meat, and that's always going to seem hypocritical to a vegetarian

    the movie itself is of very little importance to me

  16. How much is a polar vortex cutting though flyover country and only flyover country going to change people mind on climate change in your opinion?

    in response to How much of the weird weather things like hurricanes and record cold in the South is due to climate change?

    much of conservatism has already moved from "climate change isn't real" to either "it's real but it's not man-made" or "it's real but it's a good thing"

    there was never any logic to denying it and whatever denialists shift do won't be logical, either. the only consistent point will be "we're not going to fix it."

  17. favorite jean

    in response to favorite john

    luc picard

  19. Actually, what *is* your opinion on Us? Apologies if you've discussed this earlier/elsewhere.

    in response to Put on the fucking glasses!

    I don't think the world needs more white opinions on Us

  20. We live in a society

    for now

  23. - VanDerMeer is just good at prose? no matter how good the content, it's rare for a book on writing to be written with *flair*

    Emm for example?

    in response to What appeals to you about Jeff Vandermeer's Wonderbook?

    are you asking me to quote a passage from Wonderbook?

  24. Have you seen Unlearning Economics' three-piece "BreadTube vs Economics" series, and if so, did you have any thoughts?

    nope. should I? I am skeptical of most videos that discuss "BreadTube." it's always a game of "what did someone I've never associated with do that I'm being held accountable for?"

  27. Why does the criminalization of sex work target those who supply it, but not those who demand it?

    you know why

  28. favorite john

    in response to favorite bean

    linnell

  29. I'm looking for a specific leftist video essay I remember having seen about how the conservative ideology doesn't actually want to improve its constituents lives because evangelical malthusianism and "purity through suffering" is baked into its DNA. Ive been trying to find it for a while now to no avail. Would you happen to be able to point me in the right direction? Huge fan btw. Sorry if this isn't the sort of thing I'm supposed to be asking here.

    maybe?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw

  30. Remember the film It? What if all pronouns were movie titles?

  31. Would you say that it's their home terf?

    in response to Is there an Old England?

  32. Ever heard about Rusty Lake, the game developer?

    yes

  33. I reckon if you contacted Hank there’s a good chance he’d see it

    in response to You should ask

    I've met Hank, and apparently he's seen some of my stuff! But I've responded to tweets and once sent an email when he was soliciting information and I've almost never gotten a response. I don't think y'all understand the sheer volume of emails the guy gets on a daily basis. Hank has nearly 1 million Twitter followers, ~20 million YouTube subscribers across three channels, and runs several businesses. If I am not someone he has already decided to make time for, I'm not going to break through the filter. I'm not fussed, it's just the nature of internet fame.

  34. What appeals to you about Jeff Vandermeer's Wonderbook?

    - unlike a lot of books on writing, it's not interested in selling a Grand Idea on the Nature of Storytelling a la Robert McKee and all his charts, but, instead, offering you many different ways of looking at story and letting you pick the ones that work for you and help you write

    - it gives a lot of prompts and examples that are designed to just get your imagination working, which feels very different from other books I've read that seemingly want to narrow your focus on a specific idea instead of broadening it to a range of ideas

    - VanDerMeer is just good at prose? no matter how good the content, it's rare for a book on writing to be written with *flair*

    - I like the illustrations

  35. CC AUTOQUESTION: What is the first thing you would do if you won the lottery?

    pay off my student loans and those of my loved ones

  36. Just handing the reigns to democracy and scrapping capitalism *without a plan for what we'd replace it with" would be bad in a multitude of ways, yes. As I said, what I take issue with is the idea that *literally anything* would be better than our current system. As if allowing any period of time to pass without a formalized economic model in place wouldn't lead to mass chaos and a power vacuum that could potentially hurt a hell of a lot more people than capitalism ever has. Like it or not, what attempting to reform the current system as opposed to abolishing it "brings to the table here" is societal stability.

    in response to Of the successful coup d'état's on that list, very few were of socialist nations. More than a few were communist, most were generally left-leaning, but those things aren't interchangeable. The truth is you advocate for the end of capitalism with no regard for what -ism you'd replace it with (you openly admit you haven't done the research). You act as if *literally anything* would be better, when the entire scope of human history proves that not to be the case. You quoted a guy basically suggesting that we reenact the "Dark Age" ending from Deus Ex IRL (We'll live in villages! Small states! Genuine self-rule! Find me, JC etc.) which like it or not is what it would take to *topple every global superpower in the world* so that we could start over in some kind of socialist utopia. It's irresponsible. I advocate for reforming and exercising constant vigilance over the system we already have. For the life of me, I can't see what's wrong with that. But I'm sure you'll tell me.

    so what you take issue with is the attitude that capitalism should be abolished without any plan for replacing it, or that absolutely any economic model would be superior

    you're in luck, my dude, because I've never argued either, and it's weird of you to put those words in my mouth

    so now that we agree that capitalism is bad and should be replaced, let's talk about what to replace it with

  37. How much of the weird weather things like hurricanes and record cold in the South is due to climate change?

    like all of it

  38. how did we get there, who have you read that thinks about solutions

    in response to Is it immoral to neuter pets?

    we domesticated a lot of animals

  39. Is every "is this thing okay within a Leftist framework" question just "am I going to go to Hell for this?" because even atheist commie pinkos can't escape their Protestant upbringing?

    in response to Is it immoral to neuter pets?

    while I think there's truth to that, I don't feel it applies in this case? I think this is really more of an "I'd like to pick a vegan's brain about animal rights" question, because those questions are actually quite complicated and it's reasonable to assume I've thought about them.

  41. Is there any truth to the idea that the UK is more transphobic than other western countries, and if so, why is that true?

    in response to Is there an Old England?

    I'm neither trans nor British, so I can only go by how things seem. The UK is *very* institutionally transphobic these days, to a degree that's hard to recognize in the States. Also, the transphobia is very LOUD. It's possible other Western countries are comparably-but-less-vociferously transphobic, but it's hard to imagine a Western country that hates trans people MORE.

  42. Have you ever made a mistake in one of your videos that you still think about?

    And if so will you ever do a "Things I got wrong" type of video?

    Love your vids man!

    There are the little mistakes, like the time I mentioned Pluto but put up a picture of Charon. Or the time I misused the word "mortified." Or the time I mispronounced JP LeBreton's name. Or when I somehow got it in my head that "Palestine" was a synonym for "Middle East" and not a specific region. Those are all embarrassing, but not substantive enough for a video.

    Bigger things? They're less "things I got wrong" than "things I now disagree with." I have been walking back my "have more debates with reactionaries" argument in Why Are You So Angry? for years. And I now think my explanation of how people become abusers in We Don't Talk About Kenny is... not *wrong* but reductive. So those could stand to be addressed.

    The problem "Things I Got Wrong" videos is they're almost invariably seen by fewer people than the videos with the mistake in them, often by a pretty sizable margin. I suppose it's better to have the corrective out there to be seen by *some* people, but it's hard to feel motivated when I know the mistakes will keep getting shared the corrections will die on the vine after a couple months.

  43. Are left-wing parents less abusive than right-wing?

    statistically I believe so

  44. Most and least favorite works from Jeff Vandermeer & China Mieville?

    I have read one novel by VanDerMeer, which was ok, and two novels by Mieville, which were both fantastic.

  45. it's late for this year, but have you ever considered making a project for awesome video?

    I ponder it from time to time, but the charities I would support are unlikely to gain traction within Nerdfighteria. I don't think the Greens are gonna support police abolition.

  47. Should left tube stop making videos as much and join a political office

    those two things are not in conflict with each other, not in the Left as a whole nor in any individual leftist, nor are they they only two options

  48. Is a victim more sympathetic than a perpetrator?

    in response to To what degree is the right's constant need to present themselves as the victims of some vague evil a legitimate tactic for radicalization, and how much of it is just the human inability to recognize a reality where they're at fault?

    more like... people can justify becoming perpetrators if you tell them until now they've been a victim, and that those are the only two options.

  49. favorite bean

    black-eyed pea

  50. Is it immoral to neuter pets?

    we've put ourselves in a situation where not neutering pets will cause an unmanageable explosion in population and destroy the local ecosystem, and the only way to prevent it is to do surgery to a living thing that can't consent. neither solution is terribly ethical. arguably the immoral thing was getting ourselves into that situation in the first place.

  51. To what degree is the right's constant need to present themselves as the victims of some vague evil a legitimate tactic for radicalization, and how much of it is just the human inability to recognize a reality where they're at fault?

    Well, the reason the tactic works for radicalization is because privileged feel what you're describing, so both.

  52. what if you could jump like mario

    which Mario?

    like, NES Mario with his floaty fall speed and air control? N64 Mario with his enormous repetoire of jumps? Switch Mario with his somewhat nerfed but more forgiving version of N64 Mario? Smash Mario with his solid SHFFL and long-ish wavedash?

    be specific

  53. Was your card says moops or any of your ARP videos influenced by Heidegger? The philosophy he wrote at times sounds like a direct response to people using that strategy (right-wingers claiming that there is 'no meaning' vs Heidegger saying everybody engages with things meaningfully)

    I haven't read Heidegger, but, I dunno, people I watch read him, so maybe I picked some up

  54. Of the successful coup d'état's on that list, very few were of socialist nations. More than a few were communist, most were generally left-leaning, but those things aren't interchangeable.

    The truth is you advocate for the end of capitalism with no regard for what -ism you'd replace it with (you openly admit you haven't done the research). You act as if *literally anything* would be better, when the entire scope of human history proves that not to be the case. You quoted a guy basically suggesting that we reenact the "Dark Age" ending from Deus Ex IRL (We'll live in villages! Small states! Genuine self-rule! Find me, JC etc.) which like it or not is what it would take to *topple every global superpower in the world* so that we could start over in some kind of socialist utopia. It's irresponsible. I advocate for reforming and exercising constant vigilance over the system we already have. For the life of me, I can't see what's wrong with that. But I'm sure you'll tell me.

    in response to ...and now you're picking apart semantics without addressing the argument. Great.

    I don't need to have a detailed plan for a complete, worldwide shift to leftism to say "there are serious problems that cannot be solved under capitalism"

    what I don't understand is how you can say "the healthiest nations are the ones where democracy has an antagonistic relationship with capitalism - indeed, the more antagonistic the relationship, the healthier the nation - but just handing the reigns to democracy and scrapping capitalism would be bad somehow"

    what, exactly, do you feel capitalism is bringing to the table here, other than "it's what already exists and it's hard to get rid of"?

  55. So coming from the USA do you think an democratically elected USA version of Allende would be allowed to stand, or would the CIA coup themselves?
    Cause honestly i'm betting long odds on "socialist states of america" because it's the only outcome apparently that allows the rest of us to do socialism at all, including with elections

    in response to ...and now you're picking apart semantics without addressing the argument. Great.

    hell if I know

  56. Have you played the classic RPGs, like Vampire: the Masquerade or Deus Ex?

    Deus Ex, yeah, and some other immersive sims. None of the Bethesda or BioWare games, though.

  57. The entire book is like 80 pages my guy, He even clowns on Adam Curtis a bit at the end

    in response to Capitalist realism Mark Fisher

    yeah I know, I have a lot of research books, ok?

  58. Is ghostbusters (1984) a conservative or progressive movie?

    it's a ghost movie

  60. In "Death of a Euphemism" you talked about how the bigots are the base now but they might not be able to form a coalition and everything would be worse and nobody would be happy.

    Well, that came to pass. Biden won the election, the right wingers immediately turned on each other and raided the capital for extra credit, and now trump is facing the prospect of a second impeachment.

    So, what happens now? I mean, I know you don't have a crystal ball or tarot cards or the personal data and posts of millions of people, but you do have a good head on your shoulders and an excellent general sense of our current political state. What might happen to the GOP? What might happen to the right wing in general? It looks like the whole thing's burning to the ground to me, but I don't have the level of education that you do. Is the right wing going to have to deal with a split vote? Might there be a second raid on the capital? I know neither of us can be one hundred percent certain of anything, but I feel like having a smart guy answer this stuff will make me at least 80% certain.

    I'm afraid my thing is trying to put the recent past in context. I'm not much for predicting the future. I also reflexively push back on the "what's going to happen?" question because, like, what happens depends on what we do!

    For a minute there, the Republicans really looks like they might fracture and many would turn on Trump. If impeachment proceedings had gone through immediately, there might have been a genuine rift. It seems like McConnell delaying proceedings bought them enough time to close ranks, and now most of them are locked in "obstruct Dems at all cost" mode, even if it means defending an attempted coup. I don't know if there's a breaking point there, where the evidence stacks up to the point that they either turn on Trump or ruin their political career. That could be a genuine rift as well.

    There's also a lot of talk about Dems being contrite and letting shit slide to make nice with their colleagues, though I can't tell how much of it is actual politicians and how much is just dipshit thinkpieces. Seems like mostly the latter? But I imagine there's some resistance to hitting Republicans with both barrels from the more centrist-y Dems. Meanwhile you've got members of The Squad saying "I'm not going to govern with people who literally tried to murder me," so maybe there's a Democrat rift coming as well.

    So, yeah. Could go a lot of ways. If there's still an alliance between Trumpists and the Republican establishment, it's going to be tenuous at best. But a lot of Republicans in power seem ready to close ranks no matter how extreme the Party gets, and that worries me. And, if the Republicans DON'T start to fracture after this, I can't help but think it'll be because the Dems fucked a golden opportunity.

  61. I think it'd be easier to eradicate the profit model if every corporation was a coop though

    in response to Would you consider any of the countries that currently require worker representation on the boards of companies to be less capitalist/more socialist, since worker representation on boards means the companies are at least partly worker-owned/directed?

    I mean, yeah, if it were a bill I'd definitely vote for it. I just want it to be considered a step towards a solution, not be mistaking for the solution itself.

  62. Which video game machines did you have?

    A Switch and a PC for current stuff, PS2 and GameCube when I'm feeling retro.

  63. I'm not sure anything you post on here can meaningfully be plagiarism. I'm also not sure it's healthy for us anons to expect you to be able to answer all of our questions in a forum like CuriousCat without occasionally parroting somebody else's work.

    in response to Idk man this one was borderline plagiarism

    I think the criticism is that I should be directing people to more in-depth sources where possible, and making sure not to let people think every thought is my own creation. And I try to do exactly that! But, like, political opinions are large and complex and come from thousands of sources over a lifetime, and I can't always track where I picked every idea up.

  64. It just seems to be a particular instance of a broad tendency to try to pathologize other peoples' behaviors in order to dismiss them, no? If somebody's politics is just displacement you don't have to take their politics seriously.

    in response to What's up with conservatives saying anyone who believes in anything remotely left-wing does so because they resent their conservative upbringing?

    that too, though it's weird to be like "we treat our kids so shitty they won't even share a political party with us" and treat that as a sign of weakness in the kids

  65. this also assumes that models for society can only be applied to countries, as though countries are single monolithic things that are either CAPITALIST or NOT CAPITALIST

    even if you accept this at face value, the obvious response is "of course if you try to make a superpower socialist, you will fall into authoritarianism, the whole idea of a superpower is imperialist, coercive, and generally un-socialist"

    why would you even want a country comparable in population, global influence, and military might to the U.S., have you considered maybe simply there not being any of those? or maybe, not having any countries?

    apparently it's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of the nation-state (or, through an alternative frame, the end of colonization, as you can hardly decolonize what is currently the United States without the abolition of the colonizing entity)

    in response to ...models that only exist on-paper or in small, experimental (and not always successful) communities like MAREZ. Because whenever one of these models is applied to a country comparable in population, global influence and military might to the U.S, they invariably tend to slide into authoritarianism.

  66. ...and now you're picking apart semantics without addressing the argument. Great.

    in response to ...models that only exist on-paper or in small, experimental (and not always successful) communities like MAREZ. Because whenever one of these models is applied to a country comparable in population, global influence and military might to the U.S, they invariably tend to slide into authoritarianism.

    the vast majority of socialist nations do not slide into authoritarianism, they are invaded and overthrown by a capitalist superpower, usually the US: https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

    your "invariably tend" did a lot of work to obscure this fact

  67. To you, what distinguishes "the profit model" from the concept of getting better rewards for harder work?

    in response to Would you consider any of the countries that currently require worker representation on the boards of companies to be less capitalist/more socialist, since worker representation on boards means the companies are at least partly worker-owned/directed?

    well, we're already in the realm of capitalist thinking if you're referring to payment as a "reward." as a worker, your labor must be compensated. that's the deal. more work, or harder work, can mean more compensation, within a certain range. PROFIT is money left over AFTER everything else has been compensated for. you've paid for cost of production, distribution, employees, and your own salary, and there's STILL money left to grow your business. the Marxist argument is that this is theft: you can either look at it as selling a good for more than it's worth, or as the workers generating revenue that they don't share in. either way, it's exploitative.

    let's also not fool ourselves into believing the person who makes the most money under capitalism is the person who works the hardest.

  69. (diff anon) yeah that's silly. i've read the whole thing and the later portions of the book are more about education, decentralized bureaucracy, the post-fordist consensus, and mental health. he doesn't make the points you were.

    if anything, your point seems similar to a jack saint video that came out recently. i'm pretty sure other people have made the same point though. (nothing against you, its not cheating to repeat good arguments lmao)

    in response to Capitalist realism Mark Fisher

    I literally just used the phrase "capitalist realism"

  70. ...models that only exist on-paper or in small, experimental (and not always successful) communities like MAREZ. Because whenever one of these models is applied to a country comparable in population, global influence and military might to the U.S, they invariably tend to slide into authoritarianism.

    in response to "No economic model can incentivize altruistic behavior enough to meaningfully account for people who act in their own self-interest to undermine laws to keep them in check" I say, ignoring several currently existing models that account for exactly that.

    "invariably tend"

  72. "No economic model can incentivize altruistic behavior enough to meaningfully account for people who act in their own self-interest to undermine laws to keep them in check" I say, ignoring several currently existing models that account for exactly that.

    in response to I am *not* defending capitalism. I'm simply arguing that it would be better to reform the system we have than adopt or invent a new one. Better the devil you know, etc. A better question, I feel, would be why do *you* think any other economic system would be better than the one we have. Because what you fail to realize is that no economic model *requires* people to seek out as much profit as possible. It's not the economy that's *desperate* to undermine the laws that keep them in check. It's just people. Acting in their own self-interest. And no economic model can incentivize altruistic behavior enough to meaningfully account for that.

  73. Would you consider any of the countries that currently require worker representation on the boards of companies to be less capitalist/more socialist, since worker representation on boards means the companies are at least partly worker-owned/directed?

    This is one of the reasons why I don't reflexively focus on "who controls the means of production" when asked to define capitalism. I feel like you have to eradicate the profit model to undo capitalism. "Same economy but all the corporations are co-ops" is an improvement, but not the fundamental difference I'm after.

  74. What's up with conservatives saying anyone who believes in anything remotely left-wing does so because they resent their conservative upbringing?

    I dunno, maybe a warning to the younger generations not to stray.

  75. Capitalist realism Mark Fisher

    in response to Idk man this one was borderline plagiarism

    I've only read the first chapter of Capitalist Realism.

Anon commented:
Ian replied: