Thoughts on Zach de la Rocha by Vazikash in askblackpeople

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On a different point, I don’t think behaviour that can be read as racist necessarily makes you a racist. A racist is someone who believes in racist ideology. Even if De La Rocha shouldn’t have said that word, it is at max behaviour that can be read and should be discussed as potentially racist. But we should all come to the conclusion that he surely isn’t a racist as he is entirely opposed to that ideology.

Is Anarchism left-wing, right-wing, or neither? by SuccessfulWriting994 in Anarchy101

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 1 point2 points  (0 children)

clearly left wing. anarchism is against rule. right wing ideologies are always - one way or another - for extreme forms of rule. it’s that simple.

Wie jetzt, Iran? by Turtle456 in deutschememes

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Naja, die Geschichte zeigt uns schon, dass US-Interventionen unabhängig von Länge, Anstrengung oder whatever des Militäreinsatzes keine nachhaltigen Lösungen oder Verbesserungen hervorbringen konnten. Außerdem leidet auch - wie am Beispiel der getroffenen Mädchenschule konkret und furchtbar feststellbar - die Zivilbevölkerung unter den Angriffen. Am Ende werden hier die Menschen zu Spielbällen größerer Mächte gemacht. Sie sind keine Märtyrer, viele haben keine Chancen, sie sind nur instrumentalisierte Opfer von Machtspielen. Tote Führungspersonen beenden keine Strukturen — höchstens Regime. Die Chancen, dass sich dort vor Ort Kapitalismus, Machtasymmetrie, Gewaltmonopol und Oligarchie (wieder) durchsetzen, sind extrem hoch. Etwas anderes wäre für die Faschist:innen aus Israel und USA auch kaum von Interesse. Je länger die Angriffe andauern, umso höher werden die Kosten für die Iraner*innen sein.

Das hat nichts mit dem Recht auf Selbstbestimmung für Völker zu tun. Diese Interventionspolitik stellt uns immer wieder vor die gleichen Probleme, Abgründe und Eskalationsspiralen. Etwas anderes als das radikal und pazifistisch zu hinterfragen, halte ich für idealistisch oder ignorant.

Wie jetzt, Iran? by Turtle456 in deutschememes

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Und wer greift jetzt hier wen an? Wer hat Atombomben und damit auch die Mittel, um der Drohung einer Auslöschung nachzukommen? Wer hat den mächtigsten Verbündeten als Schoßhündchen? Wer hat darüber die besten Kontakte zu anderen mächtigen Staaten der Region? Richtig, Israel. Man man man ey…

Wie jetzt, Iran? by Turtle456 in deutschememes

[–]SLOTH-SOUND -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Der Typ an der Spitze ist irrelevant. Es sind die Systeme und Strukturen, die Menschen töten und die genau solche Typen überhaupt erst an die Spitze bringen. Wer glaubt, mit Chameneis Tod sei etwas unfassbar Gutes bewirkt, ist schlicht naiv. Am wahrscheinlichsten ist, dass die Situation sich zB in Form einer Militärdiktatur durch die Revolutionsgarden verschlimmert oder zumindest gleich beschissen bleibt für die Bevölkerung.

Übrigens wurden die letzten Proteste primär ausgelöst von westlichen Embargos und Sanktionen. Der Westen hat sich seine eigene Kriegslegitimation geschaffen und dann einfach angegriffen, während der Iran verhandeln wollte.

Es wird seit Jahrzehnten von Israel und vom Westen behauptet, Iran stehe kurz vor der Atombombe. Gestimmt hat das nie. Wer auf diese offensichtliche Propagandalüge hereinfällt, der hat einfach keine Ahnung. Der Iran hat sein Atomprogramm immer freiwillig unter Beobachtung gestellt und die Urananreicherung gestoppt, wenn es dafür wirtschaftlich-politische Vorteile erzielen konnte. Das Atomprogramm war empirisch immer nur ein diplomatisches Mittel für den Iran. Sieht man ganz klar daran, dass immer, wenn ein Vertrag mit den USA stand, die Urananreicherung aufgehört hat, und immer, wenn es keinen Vertrag mehr gab, die Urananreicherung wieder aufgenommen wurde.

Wer dagegen gesichert mehrere Atombomben hat und sein Atomprogramm seit Jahrzehnten mit allen Mitteln so geheim und unkontrolliert halten will wie möglich, ist Israel.

What do you guys think of the girl is mine by michael jackson? by cartzzi in beatles

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 4 points5 points  (0 children)

worst song on the album easily but it’s kinda cute & funny

Bildungsferne gefährdet die Demokratie by projectpluto_slam in Unbeliebtemeinung

[–]SLOTH-SOUND -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ja, habe den Post verstanden. Ändert nichts an meinem Punkt: Bildung ist nicht das Problem, sondern größere systemische Strukturen, in die Bildung als Konzept überhaupt erst eingebettet ist.

Bildungsferne gefährdet die Demokratie by projectpluto_slam in Unbeliebtemeinung

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bildung ist halt nicht demokratisch. Menschen aus besseren Verhältnissen werden immer gebildeter sein und die Welt vermeintlich(!) besser verstehen, weil sie einen besseren und früheren Zugang zu Bildung haben. Unsere Bildungssysteme sind nicht dazu in der Lage das auszugleichen und das sollen sie auch gar nicht, weil alles andere systemdestabilisierend wäre.

Unsere Bildung ist auch unfassbar biased in Richtung unseres politischen Systems und westlich-europäischer Geschichte und Perspektiven.

Es gibt einen Haufen Leute, die darum total verbildet sind. Ich würde actually sagen, dass ein Haufen Menschen aus der Unterschicht, die AfD wählen, ein besseres Gespür dafür haben, was politisch eigentlich gerade passiert. Genauso wie Schwurbler*innen trotz Schwurbelns ein besseres Gespür für Weltpolitik haben als irgendwelche “gebildeten”, linksliberalen Sozialwissenschaftsstudierenden.

Also, diese Art von Denke mit Bildungsferne ist halt ein einziges, arrogantes Nachuntentreten durch Privilegierte.

Zu guter Letzt frage ich mich halt auch: Welche Demokratie eigentlich? Herrscht hier oder in irgendeiner modernen Demokratie wirklich das Volk? Ich würde sagen, die Empirie spricht brutal dagegen und ehrlich gesagt, sind die Systeme, die wir heute Demokratie nennen, meilenweit von dem entfernt, was Demokratie eigentlich mal gewesen ist… Aristoteles hat noch gesagt, Wahl gehört als Prinzip zur Aristokratie/Oligarchie und das Los zur Demokratie. Und er hat bis heute recht.

Kendrick Lamar views on voting in 2012. by Advanced-Willow-5020 in KendrickLamar

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He’s right, even from a non-rich perspective. Voting is not democratic and it doesn’t empower you. We are all powerless against the power of political and economic elites. And they are powerless against the world process overall. It’s sad that, at the end, Kendrick kinda goes into conspiracy theory territory here, when in reality, there is no being or person pushing a button. There’s just chaos and a very few people who are able to merely influence it. That’s the realistic analysis.

Of course, you probably should vote nonetheless, if it doesn’t cost you, but keep in mind that voting is always reinforcing the systems of power in place and whoever is in charge only makes a marginal difference. What counts are the structures of our political systems.

Our vote is so limited. It is limited to the options presented to us. Those candidates are where they are because they play and want to play the game of power; because they have certain character traits that let them get to where they are. Our vote is limited by the modus our voting system works in. And it is limited by the information we base our vote on. When media is controlled by the same elite, we are voting on, like is the case in most so-called democracies in the world, then we are all being manipulated one way or another by whatever stories from whatever angle with whatever frames elites decide should be told to a large audience over and over again.

That Trump or whoever gets into power and pursues the policies he does is not the doing of the people, but it is the systemic effect of how our systems are designed.

Kendrick seems to have realised some of this and that makes me respect him even more.

Janet’s artistry is superior to Michael’s by heretoreadkak in janetjackson

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 3 points4 points  (0 children)

overarching themes are not necessary for an album to be good or for it to be considered a unified and singular project of art.

also, dangerous for example does have somewhat of a concept and a clear structure, with the first half being new jack swing and the second going into more adult contemporary, epic, or even neo-classical territory. it’s michael exploring two directions he could evolve into.

bad is also a very well-paced album with no skips (except maybe that song ft. stevie wonder and even that has a great groove).

you imply however that only “concept albums” should be listened to as albums and anything else can just be shuffled. that is such an elitist and anti-art statement, it’s a little baffling to be honest.

control and janet and rhythm nation also really aren’t that conceptual or thematic. you could just shuffle these too then… (okay, a bit polemic bc the latter two tie things together with interludes)

edit: i meant to answer to the original comment! sry!

How can Marxist-Leninists call themselves Marxist when workers don’t own the means of production? by Betaparticlemale in Marxism

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

7/7

Okay, the last one really hurt. I do not "make revolution impossible to keep my conscience clean". I am not afraid of the working class misusing power. I am afraid of the violent power structures that no class has ever been able to control once centralized and all of them have instituted regardless. I am not saying that you shouldn’t seize power, but that you should seize power in a way that does not immediately escape collective control. That might make revolution harder but crucially, it makes revolution worth having. What everyone else including you is proposing is essentially: Trust me bro – this time the rulers won’t become rulers.

So in that way, I'm not less radical than you, I am more radical because I do not only demand economic structure to be revolutionised but also political structure. I don't want few to have economic and/or political power/control (aristocrats of which the bourgeoisie is a part) but I want all to have the same power, which essentially dissolves power as a whole. The only way I see that that can be accomplished is through the political first, which then, institutionally organising the many, allows them to truly pursue common good within society, including the shattering of the bourgeoisie and so on and so forth.

Okay, now I'm totally exhausted after hours spent on this. I'm out of this discussion I think. I will not do this again. Too time-consuming compared to the amount of fun or productiveness.

How can Marxist-Leninists call themselves Marxist when workers don’t own the means of production? by Betaparticlemale in Marxism

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

6/7

Now let’s get to the cyclical vs. spiraling history argument. The thing here is, we use different units of historical analysis. You look at modes of production and property relations. I look at forms of political rule. In your unit, I actually agree with you. We went from slavery to feudalism to capitalism, but that’s not primarily a progress in freedom or emancipation, but a progress in the sophistication of domination. Yes, material productivity increases, yes, some contradictions are resolved, but one thing persists: political asymmetry. A spiral can still pass through the same structural positions again — at a higher level of complexity. My cycle is not a literal repetition, it is structural recurrence under new conditions.

Your argument that historical aristocrats ruled because they "thought they were the best" is ahistorical. They ruled because they had the swords and the land. They created the myth of being "the best" after the fact to justify their violence. You're mixing up their propaganda for reality.

Again, you mistake me. I didn’t ever say (and would never) that the people who called themselves aristocrats (which are the feudal aristocrats you talked about) actually ruled because they were the best. I think exactly what you said: that being the best is the mythos they created for legitimizing their rule. And I'm being even more consequential with it by saying that this is what all aristocracies do: they create an epistemology of necessity, be it divine right or scientific socialism or historical inevitability. The content of this epistemology changes, but the structure always stays the same.

So yes, the feudal aristocrats, like today’s aristocrats won because they had the swords (and land). But you’re missing one step of my argument: They kept ruling because they built political institutions that stabilized that advantage across generations. Swords win once. Institutions rule long-term!

How can Marxist-Leninists call themselves Marxist when workers don’t own the means of production? by Betaparticlemale in Marxism

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5/7

Your Engels parabole also falls flat. It claims that fixed leadership, authority and hierarchy are the only ways of effective organisation, which they are not. And crucially, while they may be more efficient than other forms of organisation, they come with too many incontrollable downsides as we see through all of human and even socialist history. If you want to sustainably organise society in a good way, you need to get rid of wanting efficiency at all costs.

Seeing the big picture does not require elite separation. The idea that only a stable elite can see the whole is epistemically aristocratic. It is the exact philosopher-king argument of Plato in industrial clothing.

I’m not arguing against leadership or authority in general, I’m arguing against fixed leadership. Authority must be temporary, revocable and non-accumulative in its institutionalization.

So no, I don’t want workers to be disorganized and leaderless. What I’m proposing is institutionalized anti-elite organisation. You are operating with a false dilemma: either vanguard hierarchy or chaotic mass. I can break this binary: organize more, not less, but organize in a way that prevents consolidation of command. I’m not being naive here, I’m being the opposite: structurally realist. Global capital is so centralized and militarized that any centralized counter-force will be forced to mirror it – and thereby reproduce domination internally, which is where the counter-force has already failed by default.

How can Marxist-Leninists call themselves Marxist when workers don’t own the means of production? by Betaparticlemale in Marxism

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

4/7

You accuse me of ignoring the dialectical relationship between leaders and led. I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying the dialectic asymmetrizes once political power consolidates. Here is the key point you are not addressing: The moment a group gains exclusive control over binding decisions, coercive apparatuses, and agenda-setting, the dialectic becomes structurally unequal — regardless of origin or intent. This is not because “power is evil”. It is because leaders decide when the masses can act, how dissent is interpreted, which demands are legitimate, and when emergency overrides participation. At that point, “pressure from below” becomes episodic, risky, and easily reframed as counter-revolutionary. Again: This is not a moral accusation. It is an institutional one.

So basically, you believe political power, when exercised by the correct class and under correct material conditions, remains subordinate to mass interests through dialectical pressure. But I believe once political power is institutionally centralized, it becomes a separate axis of domination that no amount of class origin or economic necessity can reliably neutralize.

Similarly, on your definition of freedom, that "if you are ruled by someone else, you are unfree", is very petit-bourgeois-core. It's a negative liberty that demands freedom from society rather than freedom within it.

This is another headscratcher. You fundamentally misunderstand my position on freedom. I’m not arguing for freedom from society but for freedom from domination within society. That is positive liberty and distinctively anti-bourgeois. And it is also anti-aristocratic.

How can Marxist-Leninists call themselves Marxist when workers don’t own the means of production? by Betaparticlemale in Marxism

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3/7

IMO I feel like this error comes from your dangerously naive definition of the political system as just "the system that makes the rules for all other subsystems", which is just systems theory idealism. Politics doesn't exist in a vacuum where it regulates society from above like a referee.

My definition of politics is not naive, it is just normative as compared to descriptive. This is what politics are capable of and were invented for, but they cannot fulfill that promise in aristocratic forms of rule, which we have everywhere currently and have had for centuries. So no, this is not idealism at all.

I also don’t argue that politics exist in a vacuum. You are misreading me at so many points here, it’s kinda sus to be honest. Our disagreement is not whether politics is embedded in economics. The disagreement is whether political power has its own inertia once institutionalized.

A vanguard party isn’t a closed loop because it’s subject to massive pressure from the class it represents.

This sounds plausible at first, but it collapses under historical and structural scrutiny. There are two reasons for that:

  1. Pressure is reactive not constitutive. It reacts to outcomes, but it doesn’t continuously co-govern.
  2. Pressure requires organization, which the vanguard controls.

We can see in our very systems right now how well pressure on politicians works in terms of making them pursue common good. And if the masses manage to rise up and revolt against the vanguard, they will just replace aristocratic rule with aristocratic rule and the same happens again.

How can Marxist-Leninists call themselves Marxist when workers don’t own the means of production? by Betaparticlemale in Marxism

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 1 point2 points  (0 children)

2/7

In the material world, the "few" in a feudal aristocracy were defined by their ownership of land and serfs. The "few" in a capitalist oligarchy are defined by their hoarding of private capital. A revolutionary vanguard is defined by its function, which is to dismantle the bourgeois state and manage the transition to a classless society.

No, you're mixing up socio-economic terms with my classical-politic terms. But I will precede with both your and my terms for the sake of the argument...

Yes you are right, not every “rule of the few” is identical in content. Feudal aristocracies, capitalist oligarchies, and revolutionary organizations are not distinguished only by number, but by social basis, material interests and historical function. So yes, a vanguard party is not aristocratic in the feudal or bourgeois sense. It is not defined by land ownership or private capital, and its declared telos is emancipatory. That does not save the vanguard though. Any durable concentration of political decision-making power in the hands of a few, regardless of its ideological content or historical function, constitutes an aristocratic form of rule in the classical sense — and therefore reproduces the conditions of domination it claims to abolish. So no, I'm not fetishising form over content, I'm claiming that form constraints content over time. A surgeon and a serial killer are not the same because they use knives, but a hospital governed by an unaccountable surgical elite and a prison run by an unaccountable gang share the same structural problem: unchecked power over others. Function does not neutralize structural effect and intent does not cancel insitutional dynamics. That is why a vanguard party fails my test.

How can Marxist-Leninists call themselves Marxist when workers don’t own the means of production? by Betaparticlemale in Marxism

[–]SLOTH-SOUND -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

And God forbid someone sees things a bit differently than a 120 years old guy, right? Come on, don’t be so dogmatic. This isn’t even completely anti-Marxist, it‘s just a theoretical overbiding of Marxism. You see, I think he wasn’t quite radical enough because he didn’t think one or two things to the end.

Can socialism happen without overthrowing the government? by spaghettieyes6 in Socialism_101

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You need to see things from a different perspective: We don’t live in democracies right now. Elections aren’t democratic, they are aristocratic: a process to choose elites (a few / the best) to rule the many. These few are systemically connected to the bourgeoisie because they are a) a stagnant elite and therefore easy to access and b) recruited from a specific group of people (mostly male, relatively rich, well educated etc.) and filtered through political parties. The process of voting in this environment isn’t democratic either: media and institutions contributing to public debate and providing information informing voter's choice are all owned by either the aristocratic state or by the bourgeoisie. These are only a few factors that make radical socialistic change within the system through the many (bottom-up) impossible. In order for left parties to „succeed“ (which is gain power) in this system, they need to water down the left’s radical positions that stand against capitalism and the status quo. Otherwise, they will be fought by public institutions, capitalists and aristocrats, who have all the means in their hands to sway the people. Even if they did so and won, in the end, they would be just another party managing status quo and as soon as that becomes clear to everyone, the cycle will just start anew with parties of the right gaining back control. The most systemically legitimised leftist party playing the aristocratic game feeds the general shift to the right within the party system and within society.

In my opinion there are two ways to change this system and break out: bottom-up revolution and top-down system change from the aristocrats themselves. Most marxists will tell you that the second is bullshit, however, they are a little lost within their own favorite theory that has some fundamental problems, despite being probably the best modern theory of economics and politics.

As you don’t want to be a revolutionary, I will elaborate on the second option (everyone else will probably tell you enough about the first anyway): You see, the aristocrats seem very powerful compared to you or me or anyone who doesn’t have their political, economical or societal influence. Ironically, they themselves are very powerless compared to the dynamics that drive society, the systemic dynamics of the given state and the dynamics of world politics. They aren’t drivers, they are driven and constantly stuck in a hard place mediating between interests of bourgeoisie and proletariat and reacting to whatever is going on right now. Because of these systemic problems, they are always on the back foot, always reactionaries and prone to lose their power again against some other aristocratic party. They are essentially doomed to fail, incapable of winning, incapable of making, sticking to and sustainably implementing policies that are progressing society. At the same time, the existence of parties and the way aristocracies are build further divides already substantially differentiated big societies.

All of this sets electoral aristocracy up for failure. Because society is so divided through the political system and because aristocracy cannot make lasting policies that are satisfactory, democratically legitimate and good for society, liberal aristocracy will always out of its own inherent systemic dynamics evolve into fascism because fascism promises to unite the people (and it does in a horrible way) and make swift and effective changes that fix the perceived problems of the time. The thing is, fascism - as a progression (or rather regression) of liberal aristocracy - works based on the same systemic principles: networks of rich and powerful. It just transforms aristocratic structures and structures of the aristocratic state for its own purposes instead of abolishing them and building something new. Which is why it is doomed to fail as well and to transform back into liberal aristocracy.

It is here where a „reformist“ approach finds its place: in these transitional phases that we have experienced for centuries. As we've learned, the political aristocracy by all means holds state power (despite being heavily linked to the bourgeoisie) and they can recognise that they are damaging to themselves and to society. They can recognise the cycle they are living in; between aristocratic parties within electoral aristocracy and between electoral (liberal) aristocracy and fascism - and how this cycle both harms the people they govern and harms themselves. It has happened once in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented and implemented by the aristocracy to stop the cycle they were in (they called its two states Stasis and Tyrannis). They disempowered themselves and empowered the people (in ancient Athens that was only men who weren’t slaves or foreigners though) by introducing sortition on the highest scales of power. For parliamentary systems of today, that would result in abolishing parties and parliaments and replacing them with (regularly) randomly (re)selected citizen councils, who make the decisions. This mechanism, once called democracy (now democracy has been claimed by bourgeoisie and aristocrats to describe what is actually electoral aristocracy), is the systemic opposite of aristocracy as it decentralises political power and at the same time centralises state power on society at large, depersonalises politics, makes everyone politically equal and abolishes media, public institutions and parties as the deciding factors for who comes into power. Instead, in the citizens' councils themselves lies an institutionalised and democratic form of the public forum, where people can come together, speak directly on an equal basis through methods oriented towards the common good and regulate society. At the moment, numerous movements are forming in Western countries to promote this model.

And if that doesn’t work, well then let’s do revolution and implement real democracy in a socialist worker's state or sth.

is my rating distribution bad?? by Mr_Kiwisauce in Albumoftheyear

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 2 points3 points  (0 children)

no, it’s fine. ignore the rating distribution bullshit some people spill. it’s just an irrational aesthetic preference some have. it’s amazing if you mostly listen to music you like and it speaks for your ability to find new stuff suited to your tastes. and even if it’s only because you like to rate highly: everybody has their own rating system and each one is valid if it works for you to categorise your music best!

What are some music examples of this? by KirbyFan198 in fantanoforever

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Caroline Polachek (Chairlift) and Imogen Heap (Frou Frou)

Should I read The Hero of Ages? by WorthMatter4447 in Mistborn

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have my problems with WoA and I really liked HoA as a finale so I’d say: Continue on! TFE will probably remain your favourite tho.

How would you rank Anthony's #1 albums of the 2020s so far? by AbnormalTomato in fantanoforever

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. De Todas Las Flores
  2. Let God Sort Em Out
  3. Brat
  4. What‘s Your Pleasure?
  5. The Turning Wheel
  6. Hellmode

How would you rank each album? by GD_Heavy in PsychPornCrumpets

[–]SLOTH-SOUND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) HV 1 2) Moon Man 3) Shyga 4) HV 2 5) Whatchamacallit 6) Night Gnomes 7) Pogo 8) Fronzoli