>By treating young adult fiction as a laboratory for professional-class moralizing, the publishing industry has effectively abandoned actual teens.Goes on to talk about how YA is now geared to pander to adult fantasies and political moralizing of diversity and "queer creations">"I prefer to work with queer creators; Black, Indigenous, creators of color; and disabled creators," writes another>Ethical positions, more than stories, became the products that were marketed and sold to readers. Young adult literature was particularly susceptible, given the genre, if not handled carefully, can lend itself to simplistic storytelling>That all these endeavors sprang initially from writers and publishing professionals coalescing under hashtags on Twitter--not generally a space where kids spent a ton of time--is no coincidence. And how this reflects society's increasing marginalization of actual children, and increasing infantilizing of adults >childish media--made for, marketed to, and consumed by adults--is everywhere, YA books being only one symptom of a broader cultural infantilization. >Fully-grown adults are eagerly buying up such juvenilia as Disney trips, Marvel movies, and LEGO sets in massive numbers.
Why would lefties have an issue with this? If you believe in historical materialism, then the singular, non-kitsch purpose of art is the raising of class consciousness by means of didacticism. This is the entire reason why lefty art tends to be the way it is.
>>25289634How is that raising class consciousness?
>>25289621This nigga is retarded if he doesn’t think that kids are eagerly going online to get their political views, and that his political project is responsible for making them this way. If anything, the problem is the reverse, and these adults are eating up a form of leftist morality designed to appeal to teenagers. “Of course you think everything should be free and there ought not be any borders, you’re twelve.”
>>25289667Kidshit is absolutely marketed to adults notwithstanding your damage control
>>25289634Because what you think are lefties are just liberals selling and being sold a product.
>>25289685They're the exact same thing
>>25289685>>25289730Yeah, what's the difference lol
>>25289621>And how this reflects society's increasing marginalization of actual children, and increasing infantilizing of adultsA lot of Jacobin's articles are the same tiring "Here's why X good thing is actually socialism", but every now and then they do cook something good
>People are doing a thing I don't like>Therefore...socialism is good
>>25290058Their diagnosis is that capitalism is causing emotional regression by making it impossible to either own a home or have a family
>>25289730>>25290054Liberalism is a right wing position. This isn't the French Revolution anymore. That isn't to say communists are not liberal, but not in the same way mainstream establishment liberals are.
>>25289621>geared to panderlike these commie posts
>>25290111Academic Marxists will say this and then turn around and say that single-family private homes and family values are reactionary products of capitalism that's should be abolished during/after the revolution
>>25290125Maybe so, but at least the populace shall not be infantilised by material misery. We will get full adults who start responsibly contributing to society the moment they turn 18 and in turn they'll live fulfilling lives with home security and community formation. Wherein the entire community becomes one big family.
>>25290125Also that dogs must have total equality with their masters and that mice must be allowed to form soviets. And that, my friends, is why we need capitalism
>>25289621>Interesting communist take
>>25290125I don't think any academic Marxist says that, anon
>>25290141>Engels "The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules."The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884)>Sophie Lewis"Where pregnancy is concerned, let every pregnancy be for everyone. Let us overthrow, in short, the 'family'."Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation (Verso Books, 2022)>M. E. O'Brien "In capitalist society, the private family carries the impossible demands of interpersonal care and social reproductive labor."Family Abolition: Capitalism and the Communizing of Care (Pluto Press, 2023)It seems like a common thing they say. I just looked it up using AI, but like I've heard these things all over during the course of life coming from these types.
>>25290156Engels says in the same paragraph>if she carries out her duties in the private service of her family, she remains excluded from public production and unable to earn; and if she wants to take part in public production and earn independently, she cannot carry out family duties.Thus capitalism forces a woman to either forfeit family, or become completely without rights, which women lacked in marriage then. Women had no legal personhood after marriage. They became not just formally but legally, "Mr and Mrs [husband's full name]." The woman did half the labor of maintaining a home while the man had all the income. Unless she got a job outside of the home in which case she could not have a family because there was no public school or daycare or maternity leave. All this is contingent of course on capitalism, since socialism recognizes homemaker as a legitimate occupation.>Where pregnancy is concerned, let every pregnancy be for everyone. Let us overthrow, in short, the 'family'This sentence is self-explanatory. She says abolish the idea that pregnancy is not a social concern and instead only a family concern. That shouldn't be particularly controversial>"In capitalist society, the private family carries the impossible demands of interpersonal care and social reproductive labor."How is this controversial? Especially when conservatives themselves lament the decline of community?
>>25290141I'm the person you replied to. I should clarify that I'm not >>25290156 and that I believe AI citation can be dubious even in the best of timesHowever, there has always been a strain of thought around "collectivizing" the family, as it were in Marxist circles going all the way back to Engels & Marx that waxed and waned in popularity depending on the intellectual fashions of the time.Its a thing among the academic Feminist-Marxists/Marxians as well though you may not consider them "Orthodox" Marxists
>>25290188You are thinking of>Aufhebung of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.From the communist manifesto. The term often translated as "abolishment" is used a lot by Hegel and therein translated as "sublatation".Also from the manifesto>The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.>The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relationsMarx's thesis is that the capitalist's family is built upon the destruction of the laborer's family. Which is true
>>25290111>making it impossible to either own a home or have a familyBut 2/3 of Americans do own homes
>>25290203Maybe the elderly. But not younger than 40. And the elderly have done so well because they benefitted from opportunism in the Marxist-Leninist sense. They also could afford families but due to the pressures of opportunism (which cannot continue over generations), they maintain loyalty to their class over their family.
>>25290125>>25290156You have conflated having a roof over your head with having a family. You made that subtle turn through the course of this conversation. Either your mind is disorganized or you’re a nefarious individual. Nobody takes you seriously.
>>25290206>Maybe the elderly. But not younger than 40Home ownership rate for millenials (30-45) is 55%
>>25290290The census bureau counts living with your parents as home ownership.
>>25289621>Interesting>Communistlmao
>>25290199Sublation abolishes by definition as the product distinct from the input. Nevertheless, even if we grant that instance of aufheben as being used in the elevatory sense, there is still the matter of determining what most Marxists mean by "sublating" the family. The common line is liberation of each of the individual members of the family from the alienating structures of interpersonal relationships under Capital but what that looks like in practice varies widely between thinkers. Some see it as a continuation of the family as is but without the inheritance of property or the exclusive dependance of wife upon her husband for economic wellbeing. Others propose the abolition of monogamy and sexual exclusivity which would no longer be necessary to establish chains of inheritance. Still others would propose communal families where the father and mother hold no more a special relation to the children than any other member of that community.
>>25290307It means ending the inheritance of capital and this is both explicit and obvious because that is family that capitalists have and laborers don't. That is family in the Trump family sense.
>>25290181women who dont take their husbands last name are extractive whores
>>25290386We're not even talking about the last name, the couple was historically referred to by the husband's full name, e.g. Mr and Mrs John SmithIn Islamic states, which were hardly feminist, women maintained legal autonomy and property rights in marriage and didn't change their names.
>>25290386What if the wife was the breadwinner and the husband the stay-at-home parent. Should the husband take his wife's name?
>>25290388am i supposed to think that women who dont want to be legally the same as their husbands arent there to extract resources and then leave that paypig? in islamic countries divorce is the man says i divorce you and the man retains custody of his kids. islam is absolutely more Christian than the way church people behave
>>25290402I don't even know what that has to do with socialism which eliminates that concern. But I would, to hazard a guess, assume women from a western background who don't take their husband's last name are career women, not homemakers (which you would consider a parasites)
>>25290397>What if the wife was the breadwinner and the husband the stay-at-home parentlike if the husband is disabled or whatever, it does happen to families. so like, instead of asking me, why dont you go look it up in a book, or watch the episode of the chosen that presents this scenario of a woman living with her disabled husband and their daughter and the Lord and His disciples treating them exactly like every other family (and healing him)
>>25290410>a yahwehistOh boy
>>25290408>career women, not homemakers (which you would consider a parasites)no, having a career doesnt make a woman a parasite. a woman is only identifiable as a parasite when she walks away with the resources the man has spent on her, up until that point, no matter how much shes thinking about it, she isnt an vow breaker. and the most important resources the man spends are his time and his love
>>25290415No, I meant you consider homemakers parasites
>>25289621yeah I noticed this during the Harry Potter craze back in 2000. It seriously took this retard 26 years to catch on?
>>25290419>you consider homemakers parasiteswhy would i look inside someone elses home and tell them whos parisitizing who? they can negotiate their responsibilities between themselves and if theyre overgrown children they can talk to their parents or the pastor about it
>>25290423The article starts with Harry Potter but notes the series was not originally written for or marketed to adults, and that this phenomenon became acute with Trump's rise and YA becoming a sort of holy text for anti Trump morality
>>25290298Vast majority of 30-55 in usa do not live with their parents. Everything you believe is wrong and easily debunked stupid tranny. Go back to trannypol.
>>25290199Marx writing in 1848 was talking about urban factory workers in western europe. A tiny proportion of the population at the time. But because marx said this thing in 1848 about this tiny subset of the population, trannies have to pretend like it applies to everyone in 2026 who are not billionaires. Even though if you go outside or interact with humanity in the most basic way you'll find that the vast vast majority of non billionaires in fact do have families. Goddamn trannies are pathetic and ridiculous.
>>25290448He doesn't mean they don't marry and reproduce, retard
>>25290451None of my coworkers have families because even though they're married and live together with their spouse and children, it doesn't count for marxist word salad reasons.
>>25290458Will they have dynasties? Are they passing on capital? Will their great grand children even know anything more about them than their name? Will they have family estates they pass on, perhaps with portraits of themselves retained in them? They are nothing like the Bushes or the Trumps. They have an immediate family but it dissipates in place and time. Their children will grow up and leave and hardly talk to them anymore, but even if they didn't the rest would still apply
>>25290181>Thus capitalism forces a woman to either forfeit family, or become completely without rights, which women lacked in marriage then.This is an incredibly stupid thing to say considering the female workforce participation rate has doubled since 1948 in the U.S. You retards don't check claims. You lack the intelligence to check claims empirically.
>>25290122Except that rightist hate liberals and blame all of society's faults on woke leftist liberal sjws
>>25290727>Except that rightist hate liberalsThat would result in them hating themselves because they are just as liberal as the sjws. In fact one could argue that the sjw is a tad bit less liberal position. Objectivists, libertarians and other assortment of rightoids are all liberals.
>>25289621>communist take on YA>it's what chuds have been spouting out for years but without mentioning the jews>it was communists who fueled this trend to begin withjeets really have done a number on this place
>>25290402>>25290410You're making a mockery of Christ. Please read the Bible (old and new testament) and pray for wisdom and humility. These leftists are wrong but your not doing them or yourself any favorsGod bless you and Godspeed
>>25290156>I just looked it up using AIYou brownoid rightards are hilarious sometimes. Your jewish masters thank you for your service for using AI, you utter mong
>>25290316You would think so but unfortunately other Marxists who are active in the Academe disagree and believe in literally abolishing the family and replacing it with something else, usually by either getting rid of monogamy or by desacralizing/de-differentiating the parent-child relationship from any other relation between adult and child
>>25290689>Will they have dynasties? Are they passing on capital? Will their great grand children even know anything more about them than their name? Will they have family estates they pass on, perhaps with portraits of themselves retained in them?No and this is obviously what everyone means when they talk about having a family, so leftypol trannies are right they don't have families
>>25290762This is the same level as, We can't oppose Israel because opponents of Israel want Sharia Law.
>>25290316So much of marxism consists of defending statements that are patently absurd on the face of it by redefining common words totally. To trannies this is considered peak intellectualism.
Wish there was to exterminate any subhuman with a /pol/ posting history. Truly the most retarded people on the internet.
>>25290805Lol tranny leaves leftypol to heckin marxpill the chuds and gets easily btfod because their ideology is 100% retarded and false in every way, has tranny meltdown.Happens everytime.
>rajeesh seething about trannies unprompted againObsessed lol
>>25290804
>>25290729Objectivists & Libertarians are liberals, but I don't think most Conservatives, Traditionalists, what remains of actual Fascism-NationalSocialism, is - which are right wing positions.
>>25290755Hehe I got a lot of people with that bit :)
>>25290817Even under your retarded “right wing” ideology, you’re still subhumans groveling at the feet of your capitalist masters. Either way, you’re an untermenscu
>>25290820>you’re still subhumans groveling at the feet of your capitalist mastersThis is what modern Marxists are
>>25289621Terrible screenshot but you can redeem yourself by posting the full text of the paywalled article. If you fail to do this you are just shilling.
>>25290820IDK man, it's a given that non-M/L will not be as radically anti-capitalist, but to say that, say, a Traditionalist (be that in the Catholic sense, or the Italian one) is not also, in their way, also anti-capitalist is absurd. For a contemporary example of post-liberal conservatism that is not Marxist, you've got people like Alain de Benoist.
>>25289621What a chud article.
>>25290802No, it's more like, saying >no Israeli supports the genocide of Palesitinans. They just want their land back which they should be entitled to because they are indigenous to Israel (and the greater Levant)sidestepping my objections entirely by pretending they don't exist
>>25290829>No uThe quintessential capitalist bootlicker response
>>25290111Birthrate were already decreasing even when things were better than they are now.
>>25290181>since socialism recognizes homemaker as a legitimate occupation.I thought it was a shackle of the patriarchy.
>>25290846It's whichever is more convenient to win arguments online
>>25290728I find it strange that retards equate communism with the welfare statet. right-winger
>>25290839Your objection is not even to any actual platform of any Marxist party anywhere in the world but to some anecdotal and unnamed professor somewhere at some time.
>>25290846Every occupation can be a shackle, Marxism recognizes that. It's entirely a question of whether labor alienation is involved. Where there is labor alienation and servitude, every legitimate occupation is a means of exploitation
>>25290895So you're a liberal?
>>25290125Said academic Marxists will then turn around and crown Muslim theocrats as the vanguard of the global anti-imperialist struggle, so perhaps they should be ignored entirely
>>25290910>>25290815this is /lit/. if you want to discuss politics you have to go to /pol/.
>>25289634TRVKEThe only issue is that LGBTQIA+ is not a class.
>>25290910Sophie Lewis and her rather notorious book has already named previously in this thread. Apart from here there's Alva Gotby (eternally shilled on the critical theory subreddit for her books "They Call it Love" and "Emotional Reproduction") who champions a more communal replacement for what we tend to view as the family, and Helen Hester who is a Marxist-Accelerationist and Xenofeminist whose work is primarily overcoming gender by eliminating gender scarcity through the introduction of limitless forms of gender expression via technology, with all that entailsI'm sure there are more. Maybe you'll tell me next that these women are nobodies or that they're neoliberal plants sent to undermine the work of real Marxists
>>25290122>That isn't to say communists are not liberalWhy do they have to be? Only the bastards of Hegel project their liberty fetish onto the superstructure of communism.
>>25289621Chuds have been saying for a decade that women and libtards enjoy YA because they are slow.
>>25291020Marx and Engels were supportive of the liberal bourgeoisie revolutions. Their grievance was that these revolutions didn’t go far enough, not that they were bad
>>25290841Am I wrong though?
>>25290924>retard brings up politics>call retard a retard>no you can't do that it's too political
>>25290122>>25291028temporarily supporting liberalism/capitalism because it's better than feudalism doesn't make them liberal
>>25291025The article is written by a woman
>>25290978>Sophie Lewis and her rather notorious bookThe one neither us of knew about until you asked AI? And so far all we see from it is quotes that don't really lend support to your argument>eternally shilled on the critical theory subreddit You should go back there>who champions a more communal replacement for what we tend to view as the familyAs communal helping of families in childrearing and education?>Helen Hester who is a Marxist-Accelerationist and Xenofeminist whose work is primarily overcoming gender by eliminating gender scarcity through the introduction of limitless forms of gender expression via technologyI don't see any Marxism in her work or identity
>>25291243Man, /lit/ really needs to track IDs. >>25290978 is not >>25290156 I am >>25290156. It leads to a lot of confusion here. I am enjoying the conversation though. I'm not at all an expert on Marxism, which is why I mentioned I asked AI for quotes (although I've often read in various places of this sentiment) - that said, if it's your position that Marxism is not abolishing the family, but rather these other things like: >She says abolish the idea that pregnancy is not a social concern and instead only a family concern.Does this not in itself rail against the idea of 'family' as conceived by the average person? I think you'd be hard pressed to find commoners who are keen on involving the entire community in the rearing of their children. Which, is then, exactly an abolition of 'the family' as colloquially understood? If or if not you think it's controversial is not relevant. I think it can be said that in every case you've mentioned it would be an attack on family, as understood (just or unjust irrelevant).
>>25291194So?
>>25291116Are you talking about commies? Oh they are definitely liberal. But not in the Capitalist sense of course. In fact commies will tell you that they process a deeper kind of liberalism than liberals because the scope of the liberties of a human being are not limited by his private property. Of course it's not "that" kind of liberalism where you do whatever the fuck you want even if it hurts te community. Like what modern liberals allow Capitalists to do.
>>25289621
>>25291322No communist calls themselves liberal, least of all Marxists.
>>25291419This board really has become midwit central. I blame the zoomer infestation
>>25290978This sort of navelgazing academic professional isn't really representative of 'Marxism'. These people are critical theorists and utopians, the former having been stripped of its Marxism throughout the 20th century. They may call themselves communist or socialist but Marx is a secondary or tertiary figure in their writing. Taking a cursory look at Hester it seems like she's focused on social transformation, family abolition and 'xenofeminism', without any immanent need for class struggle in order to bring it about. In fact her writing seems to be more influenced by Nick Land from what I can gather.There was a book recently called 'Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism' which uses FOIA requests to demonstrate objectively that some critical theorists were integrated into American intelligence. I remember the reddit critical theory crowd being very mad at it despite not reading it. There isn't any 'conspiracy' in that these are agents of the state that are being fed a line from washington, but a more sophisticated process by which incentive structures were created to select people with the correct opinions on state adversaries of the US. I don't think critical theory is entirely useless or irrelevant but at its worst it creates these hyperbaric chambers of academics who have retreated from any idea that the world runs on human labor.
>>25291419Yeah, they tend to take offence to that term used to describe them... I think this is an American terminology thing - where, in most places, Liberal describes an economic system/orientation what have you, in the US liberal has come to take on a different meaning related to being pro democracy, pro egalitarianism and universal suffrage, and the idea that all people should have equal political power as well as the combined influences of mainstream media, academia, and bureaucratic institutions. This term is used like this particularly among the working class. In an academic setting they talk about it normally, I think.
>>25291243I'm not the fucking AI guy
>>25291286Please stop posting AI excerpts. No one is going to take you seriously
>>2529029055% home ownership for that age range is pretty bad thoughbeit
>>25291286> I think you'd be hard pressed to find commoners who are keen on involving the entire community in the rearing of their children.That is actually what public school is. And nobody of means did all of the raising of their children by themselves, they hired nannies and tutors for them, or slaves in antiquity. Many families today already use state-funded daycare. Why is it uncontroversial when it's a privatized capitalist enterprise raising children, but controversial if it's the community?
>>25291439Liberal is not used to mean socialist among the working class.
>>25291713I'm AI guy, though. What? It was long ago that I experienced the reasons for my opinions. Would I not have to be a barrel of memory if I wanted to carry my reasons around with me? It is already too much for me to remember my own opinions; and many a bird flies away.
>>25291732>That is actually what public school is No, that's not the whole community. Regardless, many of the same people who take issue with this sort of thing are also critical of the fact that these public services even exist in the first instance, ya know?
>>25291748Well yeah obviously they want to reduce literacy, education and critical thought among the masses but I wouldn't try to talk such people into socialism since there is a fundamental break in aims and ideals there and they are more in the nrx camp
>>25291734Having been brought up in a rural, extremely working class background, I assure you, the working class uses liberal in the sense that I stated there - it does not mean 'socialist' necessarily, but socialists can be included in the general sentiment. That is the sense that the person who was saying 'socialists are liberals' was saying it. I've grown up around it my whole life.
>>25291751That's exactly right! There is a fundamental, typically moral break in aims and ideals. You've stated it in the worst possible terms, but more to the point it IS an attack on the family... Takes a round about way of getting there for you to see this, I guess, but I think in reading the whole thread, you can clearly see what I am trying to get at. (This is AI guy)
>>25290429I'm pretty sure the "adult HP reader" was a thing in 2012 or even earlier, and Trump only became a thing in normie couciousness when he won the election at the end of 2016 (yes I know he was famous way earlier, but it was a different thing).
>>25291754The sense used here does not mean socialist, it just means Democrat, not someone who wants a dictatorship of the proletariat. Although in America even socialist is often used to mean Democrat.
>>25291760It's an attack on the family qua livestock. Not an attack on the family as a social unit
>>25291761"A thing" (redditism) is not the point here, though. The question is that of YA beinf developed for adults and marketed for them. Harry Potter was written for kids and marketed to them
>>25291762"Dictatorship of the prol" Sounds like a liberal who is like a SUPER liberal! ~ some worker.
>>25291768>this phenomenon became acute with Trump's rise and YA becoming a sort of holy text for anti Trump morality
>>25291770I am some worker
>>25291767Well, this remains to be determined. I'm not so sure yet. But that's the only contradiction I'm able to point out as of right now.
>>25291773Yes YA as an industry, not a particular text of YA but YA as an ethos. In fact the article talks about the massive shift in publishing in response to Trump in regard to authors that publishers wanted
>>25291779I think it's historical revisionism to say that the whole social justice market became a thing after Trump. A more honest assesment would mention Gamergate (2014-2015), and Tumblr (2013-2014).
>>25291777The family upheld by capitalism comes to naught because capitalism demands capitalists be loyal to their class above their family. Hence why so many of the younger generation feel abandoned by boomers: they are alienated by being a lower class
>>25291779>>25291784I forgot to mention, that Trump-as-president itself was a reaction to the rapid growth of the SJW movement. So Trump was a reaction to YA, not YA a reaction to Trump.
>>25291784You may say that but the article documents the twitter movement that overtook YA after Trump and reshaped YA. Social justice warriors existed as a market prior is different from them being the only market and given precedence over actual kids
>>25291787Trump as a manifestation of what Marxist-Leninists call opportunism: a promise by the worst capitalists to give benefits to labor in exchange for supporting them against other elements of labor. Trump of course never actually fulfilled his promises
>>25291791I think the article is wrong on that point. Unless my memory is failing me, I remember "Trump = Voldemort" being a thing from the very beginning. I'm like 99% sure that the causality chain is reversed, and it was actually Trump that was the reaction to SJWs, not that YA SJWs were a reaction to Trump, as I said here >>25291787>>25291795I agree 100% but it's not really on-topic. And by the way, another way by which Trump-like elements "succeed" in politics, is through nationalism — because workers are alienated from their labour, they yearn for an identity, and nationalism is the easiest surrogate identity.
>>25289621with all these pred-I mean people constantly yapping>THIRD SPACE THIRD SPACE THIRD SPACEim starting to think their intentions arent so pure
>>25291801I'd rather be raped in a 3rd space than spend my entire life in my room jacking off to anime porn.
>>25291799>Unless my memory is failing me, I remember "Trump = Voldemort" being a thing from the very beginningI don't what "a thing" means but I am sure your memory is failing you. Trump was called a fascist and Hitler
>>25291807
>>25291805I've been on public transportation before. If the third space is anything like that, I guess it's anime porn till the day I die.
>>25291837Third spaces focused around literature probably have fewer niggers than the public transportation.
>>25291842My brother - go to the public library and see if this theory holds true (It does not)
>>25291848This is a uniquely american problem (i.e. a skill issue):https://www.youtube.com/shorts/u1t7jNQsCWMhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/p0aZASFl9EM
>>25291832So it obviously did not dominate publishing
>>25291799>because workers are alienated from their labour, they yearn for an identity, and nationalism is the easiest surrogate identity.I've always been curious (and this is a legitimate question) about how a reclaimed factory reduces the alienation of labor. Just the piece of mind that it's products are going to the benefit of the larger community, or something like that?
>>25291857Yes, yes, thanks for reminding me. And further literally every political faction seems to want to integrate them more into our daily lives and fuck whatever cost. It's really not that fun.
>>25291863It's purely theoretical because nobody in a proper modern liberal capitalistic economy would allow for a *de facto* "reclaimed factory". Even if you *think* that in some particular instance the workers have regained the control of their means of productions, what really is probably going on is that the union or whatever becomes the new owner and the new extractor of value — basically the king changes but you're still a peasant.But yes, in principle if you're working for your own community instead of some guy on the other side of the earth, then yes you'll feel better probably.
>>25291874Well, in this theoretical, let us say that global communism is achieved... the boots made at the boot farm are still going to china (or wherever), and this seems like it would still be alienating. What difference does it make to the worker? Almost none as far as I can see.
>>25291883>global communism is achieved...>the boots made at the boot farm are still going to chinaThat doesn't sound like communism to me... but I'm a national-communist so you'd have to ask those retards with rainbow flags about this one.
>>25291886Oh, Nazbol... You guys want the same thing long term I thought, you know... it's just one of the stages in the history before eventual dissolution of the state or something to that effect? Maybe I am wrong. Like I said, not a Marx scholar.
>>25291890I'm more of a nazi who's slowly warming up to Marx. I'm not really sure about the dissolving of the state, I think it's a gay fantasy. I like Athens and even more Sparta, I think the State should be the embodiment of the collective will, and if you dissolve the state you will just end up with the Capital manipulating everything from the shadow (like the Jews are doing right now, because the states are weak).My version of the communist fantasy has the state being stronger and more pervasive than whatever we have now, rather than "dissolved".
>>25291883>Well, in this theoretical, let us say that global communism is achieved... the boots made at the boot farm are still going to china (or wherever), and this seems like it would still be alienatingThis situation is contradictory since reaching global communism would actually mean that the entire globe becomes one community. In which case, those boots going to the Chinese wouldn't be alienating. Your consciousness would not perceive the receivers of the fruits of your labour as "other" from your own material being.
What's with all the fucking commie threads?
>>25291899That seems like an impossibility. Certainly every person is different from one another?
>>25291899This is incongruent with everything we know about psychology, sociology, biochemistry/neurochemistry, etc, etc... It's stuff like this which gives the marxists the bad rap.>>25291902For the minimum wage to have the same buying power as when your parents were 20 years old, it'd have to be like $100 per hour or whereabouts.
>>25291907Not what I asked.
>>25291905>Certainly every person is different from one another?Yeah, but that says nothing about the communal nature of human life and productive activity. You are different from your brother but you are still part of the family.
>>25291895Then you're based! I'm undecided about all the structural stuff, but I basically just want to live apart from nons. (the most homeless of political orientations)
>>25291910The communal nature of human life and productive activity is more limited than the entire global population, don't you think? Like, this is an inconceivable ideal!
>>25291907>or whereaboutsOh, you're an idiot. Gotcha.
>>25291907>This is incongruent with everything we know about psychology, sociology, biochemistry/neurochemistry, etc, etc...This is my (imo very correct) interpretation of what the logic of Marxism/communism ultimately leads to. Whether it's incongruent with "human nature" is a different debate in it's own right. Whether you feel any sense of "community" or "camaraderie" with a Chinese worker or not has no bearing on the fact that your life is materially tied to his. A lot can follow from this premise.
>>25291902Jobless losers are shilling here on disability benefits
>>25291913I can't say if it's inconceivable but productive activity has already been global for quite some time. Capitalism as it exists today is a planet encompassing system.
>>25291921I mean - in the same insignificant sense, our lives are already intertwined...
>>25291928Right! >>25291930, you said it first.
>>25291921Perception is reality. If you don't "feel" like the Chink on the other side of the Earth is your brother, then he's not your brother. Doesn't matter that you two are "materially tied", you could even both be working for the same company, but you'll still be strangers to each other.>>25291913Again, it is common for Marxists to confuse dreams for reality. They are fundamentally unserious people, which is why I'm reluctant to call myself a communist or a marxists, despite the fact that I consider Marx to be a genius visionary, especially with regards to the more descriptive parts of his body of work, rather than the normative parts.
>>25289621Good point. Maybe turn towards Truth then.
>>25291932Back in college I remember liking some of the things Marx was saying, but other things seemed to me shit test tier facile. Critique of the Gotha Program has got to be my favorite work by him. Libshit kys copy pasta.
>>25291932>Doesn't matter that you two are "materially tied", you could even both be working for the same company, but you'll still be strangers to each other.Yes. That is literally what Alienation means in Socialist theory. Glad someone understood the concept.
I dont think leftists have had an interesting take on anything in like 60+ years now
>>25291945>BAP and Fox News are interesting takes
>>25291959Whats with leftists and instantly thinking youre a foxbot or something, even your retorts are predictable.Grim
>>25291941I think the concept was understood from the get go. It's just that the proposed remedy of alienation does not seem to follow. Now, if we were talking strictly of some primitive society, or regional ethnic group with a common culture etc, I see how this social structure may lend to some greater sense of belonging (maybe!), but when scaled to the levels of the globe it seems to follow you'd still be rather alienated from your labor. What's more, at the primitive level of society, I don't think that the Liberal structure actually would be all that alienating, you know what I mean?
>>25291985Let's not make believe right discourse has been any more elevated these decades
>>25292021Seems kind of elitist of you ;( I wonder... if after the level of education necessary to understand leftism is achieved you've at once have elevated yourself outside of the class you've been concerning yourself with, and hence no longer represent their interests ;)
>>25292021When did I ever make that argument retardkun?
>>25292028>um if your discourse isn't retarded and just about sucking Orange dick then it's elitistThe irony is rightist discourse is extremely elitist, just retarded and elitist
>>25292044At least they're formal about it; you know, instead of imagining what those interests are and substituting your own interests and calling them universal. I do like my government to be honestly oppressive rather than pretending as if they're not. It's like mama and papa, you know? Papa says 'you do this, I don't care if you like it' mama says 'you do this, but if you don't like it I'm going to guilt trip you and cry'.
>>25292078No they aren't, you stupid faggot
>>25292087You think their elitism is in any way obfuscated? It seems to pour from every word, imo.
>>25291902Leftypol raid but also because leftism as counterculture is back in vogue coz L'Orangeman is a vulgar Caesarean and his evangelical followers have to much pride to admit that they were wrong.
>>25292094Your own passive-aggressive "criticizing YA is elitist" is an example of their obfuscation. They pass laws against unions and call them "right to work"
>>25292108Leftypol hasn't even exist for years, time to update your programming
>>25289621>Interesting communist
>>25292111It's pretty ham-fisted, don't you think? But it's fine to agree to disagree. If it is the case that they're these master manipulators, as if often referenced, wouldn't a more formal oppression be preferable? I think my sentiment remains unchanged. You never addressed how it wasn't elitist, you just pivoted calling me such (which is about as far from reality as can be).
>>25292128If you think criticizing YA is elitist, you probably think criticizing any facet of capitalism is
>>25292134See >>25292028
>>25292135See>>25292134
>>25292143Well, address how what it is you're doing is not elitist. There is no argument on my end that the right is elitist.
>>25292148*is not elitist
>>25292148>prove a negative
>>25290125the nuclear family didn't exist before industrial capitalism
>>25292113>Leftypol hasnt existed for yearsDid you get banned in the purgewaves?
>>25292151It's not a negative, It's a positive observation. You not knowing this might actually be sufficient evidence, actually. I stand corrected.
>>25292166You are asking me to prove I am *not* elitist, which is asking me to prove a negative
>Interesting communist takeI stopped reading there.
let's end the retarded poltard issue with one of their "arguments".
>>25292170No, I am asking you to show how this >>25292028 observation does not lend an adherent to an elite orientation. Because elitism isn't nothing, it's a positive characteristic you can actually examine for presence or absence. The left's intellectual apparatus distances it from the people it claims to represent. Anyway, I'm basically just trolling. Pretty much everything I've said today are age old 20th century objections that have no real resolution. But it's fun to see what people have to say.
>>25289621>commie rag>more expensive per issue than Foreign Affairs>more expensive per issue than WSJ or Financial time>more expensive per issue than fucking Barron's>more expensive per issue than Power & Motoryacht
>>25292256The workers of the world demand high net margins.Don’t concern yourself with such things.
>>25289639"raising class consciousness" is lefty code for "steal white people's shit"
>>25291426>This sort of navelgazing academic professional isn't really representative of 'Marxism'. These people are critical theorists and utopians, the former having been stripped of its Marxism throughout the 20th century. They may call themselves communist or socialist but Marx is a secondary or tertiary figure in their writing.Understood, so they're not true™ Marxists >Taking a cursory look at Hester it seems like she's focused on social transformation, family abolition and 'xenofeminism', without any immanent need for class struggle in order to bring it about. It's quite the opposite. She believes the sublation of the Capitalism into communism through class struggle intrinsically involves the abolition of the present gender norms which give/gave rise to the broader Capitalist Superstructure which the present mode of Gender Normativity are part and parcel of>There was a book recently called 'Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism' which uses FOIA requests to demonstrate objectively that some critical theorists were integrated into American intelligence. I remember the reddit critical theory crowd being very mad at it despite not reading it. There isn't any 'conspiracy' in that these are agents of the state that are being fed a line from washington, but a more sophisticated process by which incentive structures were created to select people with the correct opinions on state adversaries of the US.I am intimately familiar with the concept of "the CIA and the Rockefellers did it"If anything, Critical Theorists try to reduce all relationships to unfair Labor extraction ad absurdum. It is not enough to say that the working class is oppressed by the capitalist class but rather that the Racialized labor class, the emotional labor class, the household labor class, and the all other similarly "diverse" oppressed classes suffer under the intersectional yoke of the privileged cishet neurotypical white male capitalist.To pretend that these people do not exist when they produce a significant quantity of Academic "Marxist" Literature of contemporary(outside of china of course which is more ambiguously maybe-fascist in it's character, besides unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool Maoist, China is hardly an orthodox Marxist society) and literature that is broadly identified as Marxist is ridiculous. Heck, it's part of the reason a big chunk of other academicians identify as Marxians rather than Marxists, to distance themselves from this very crowd
>>25292404Heck, it's part of the reason a big chunk of other academicians identify as Marxians or Orthodox Marxists* rather than just Marxists, to distance themselves from this very crowd
>>25291426>This sort of navelgazing academic professional isn't really representative of 'Marxism'Who is? Trannies on leftypol?
>>25292108Leftists supported trump, made a big deal about how he was the peace candidate, how he deserved to win rather than harris, leftists called themselves "maga communists"
>>25290939See: cultural Marxism.Class struggle to oppressor vs oppressed.
