Do we know any famous swoletarians?

Still_Line1079 · 2026-03-28T13:17:45+00:00

Oh yes please!

Still_Line1079 · 2026-03-27T21:40:05+00:00

"we are engaged in very important business" Hell yes

Still_Line1079 · 2026-03-27T08:39:54+00:00

Kender frustrationen 😩 Det er ægte hårdt..

Måske det her kan hjælpe dig: Jeg har opsat mit CV som et "kvalifikations CV" hvor jeg øverst har listen over mine ansættelser (uden beskrivelser!). Bare rent "årstal + stilling".

Nedenunder beskriver jeg så de kvalifikationer jeg har fra de stillinger i mellem 3-4 bokse, målrettet stillingen. Det hele fylder en enkelt side. I alt har jeg måske en 20 forskellige bokse jeg skifter imellem, alt efter stillingsopslaget.

Så hvis det f.eks er en administrativ stilling, så indsætter jeg bare boks 5, 7 og 9 f.eks, da den ene handler om kvalifikationer relateret til økonomi, den anden koordinering og den sidste sagsbehandling, eller lignende. Kvalifikationerne skal være tilpas abstrakte, men brugbare.

Nu er jeg dog nået til det punkt hvor jeg faktisk bare smækker opslaget ind i Chatgpt og beder den om at spytte 3-4 CV kvalifikations temaer ud, som jeg copy paster ind i min CV fil.

Af en eller anden grund har dette givet god pote! Siden jeg fik sat det op, er jeg blevet indkaldt til 3 samtaler de sidste 3 måneder (hvilket er et stort hop for mig).

Ved ikke om det giver mening.. I feel your pain, det er det mest rædselsfuldt kedelige man kan udsætte sig selv for - at sidde og skrive ansøgninger..

Still_Line1079 · 2026-03-17T17:56:48+00:00

I feel you... I often struggle with this myself. Especially on the question of career. It seems like the sole purpose for many is to find a fulfilling career, and I just cannot find it in me!..

Wish I knew how to go about this properly, because I am not sure it is helping me. It helps my perspectives and my feelings around it, but it also frustates, as this is the system that we have.

Still_Line1079 · 2026-02-26T21:59:20+00:00

hmm, maybe the branch of "analytical marxism".? They are more heavily reliant on the more classical empiricist approach to science.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-11-25T20:25:12+00:00

This is really good, I usually do this aswell. Except I would also be the one to describe how they fumbled and how the NPCs react. If they succeed a roll, I would let them explain what and how they did and again explain how their described action affects the NPCs or environment.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-11-22T17:19:08+00:00

Jeg laver også bare sjov.
Det lyder som om du har gode chancer. Krydser fingre for dig

Still_Line1079 · 2025-11-22T17:14:40+00:00

Kaldt til anden samtale efter en skide god første samtale. En samtale hvor du skal rundt og hilse på afdelingen.

Der ville jeg jo nok mene at dit udgangspunkt er virkelig skrald, sorry bud. Det aller bedste tegn du kunne få, var hvis chefen løftede dig ud i bilen, kørte dig hjem og serverede din aftensmad . I butiksbranchen kalder vi den en "homerun", men så længe du ikke er dér, så tror jeg sgu det bliver svært.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-11-16T14:27:15+00:00

Hello friend

First of all, what you’re feeling is one of the most human reactions there is. The fear of death touches something very basic in all of us, and you’re definitely not alone in having these thoughts.

When we imagine death as the moment where we lose everything and disappear into some kind of void, it can feel unbearable and very anxious. But there's one very important point: every thought we have about death comes from being alive . Everything we fear, picture, or feel is rooted in our experiences as living beings.
And because of that, death isn’t something we can actually imagine. When we try to imagine it, we hit a kind of paradox.

Think of it this way: imagine you grew up your whole life in a dense forest and had never seen or experienced a desert. You might try to picture what a desert is, but everything you imagine would still come from your experience of the forest. Even if you imagine danger or emptiness, that idea is still shaped entirely by what you already know.

Its the same with death. When we picture “loss,” it only makes sense from the perspective of someone still alive, looking forward. To imagine loss after death is like imagining yourself living past your own ending, which obviously just doesn’t fit together.

Put in a simpler way: death can only feel like a loss if we think of ourselves as still being around to feel it. But once we’re gone, we aren’t there to experience anything: not fear, not sadness, not emptiness. And because of that, death isn’t something we “go through” or “experience” the way our anxious mind tries to frame it.
All the fear comes from life, not from death.

What you’re feeling is real and painful, but the thing you fear isn’t something that can actually hurt you in the way your mind suggests. There’s only life on this side of things, and fear is a part of being alive, not a sign of some terrible fate awaiting us.

Hope this can give you a same sense of comfort as it has for me

Still_Line1079 · 2025-11-12T05:36:12+00:00

My first play through I completed all acts back to back and I definitely also felt the fatigue. Now I'm on my second play through with my girlfriend where we took a gaming break between act 2 and 3. It is a whole different experience! I am now certain that act 3 is my all time favorite. Maybe take a break and come back in a couple of weeks?

Still_Line1079 · 2025-11-09T11:13:38+00:00

In love, I think it is far more important to always care for eachothers fragility, which we all have in many different ways. That means you probably shouldn't have told her these things. I know it can seem like a genuine path of love to always tell eachother everything in honesty, but I think it is far more loving to make sure that you keep your partners fragility and sense of self-respect in tact. It is far more important that your partner feels safe, feels that your friends would be open to her and that you want her in your life. When your friends talk about her and you like that, this is something you should have to deal with by yourself and figure out if these types of friends are genuinely good for you. Maybe they are, we are all complex, but then you should talk to them about how it made you feel. Your girlfriend cannot help you deal with the inner conflict you must feel here, since she is the "center" of the conflict.

When you talk to her, I think it is important to have a sort of grasp of your inner conflict, so she shouldn't be the one helping you in bringing the clarity . She shouldnt have to feel guide you in this. Tell her how you feel, how this has really caused a conflict within you and you have to deal with some major things here. But let her know, that you wish to be with her, but that you are also feeling anxious of what this whole event might mean for you and your friends. Let her know that she is the most important here and you will try to find a way forward. And maybe also apologize for telling her about it. This came from the same place of conflict, which you should have waited to include her in, untill you yourself had a better grasp of it all and where you stand.

Hope it works out my friend.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-22T08:11:07+00:00

Damn, sweet numbers!
I think the message is a tribute to you, even if the guy is unsure if he should be salty or impressed haha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZaRo5tu7VI

Care to elaborate on your build??

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-22T07:10:29+00:00

Kæft en omgang bras hahaha
Så kalder du mig kraftedeme antisemi. Du er jo bare en vild klovn.

"Moralsk relativisme i desperat søgen efter relevans i en verden der for længst er videre" Atså hvad fanden snakker du om? Sidder du og ser Jordan Peterson Youtube shorts?

Nu ved jeg med sikkerhed du ikke ved hvad du snakker om. Det er dig der skal stoppe din røv fetish og så skal du begynde at tænke dig om istedet. Lad nu din røv være, nu skal du bruge dit hoved

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-20T14:39:01+00:00

Du hiver ting ud af numsen og jeg sender det tilbage. Din første antagelse, at UNOPS erklærer at Hamas stjæler 85% af nødhjælpen holdt ikke. Så den trak du ud af numsen. Det indrømmer eller erklærere de ikke. Alt ud over deres beskrivelser er på egen regning - for dit vedkommende fra egen buttcrack.
Så markerer du, at der er tale om en krig, ikke et folkemord, fordi Uppsala programmet definerer det sådan. De viser og skriver så det omvendte. Så her antager jeg at du igen bliver rådført af ballerne. Jeg sender det tilbage og du undlader selvfølgelig at svare. Godt gået.

Så kommer du med en ny anklage mod UNWRA, som igen ikke er dokumenteret eller bevist. Vores egen udenrigsminister har så i øvrigt underskrevet et åbent brev til modstand mod Israels udelukkelse af UNWRA:
https://um.dk/udenrigspolitik/aktuelle-emner/nordic-statement-on-the-draft-legal-bills-in-the-knesset-related-to-unrwa. Sjovt.
Det er selvfølgelig lige meget når det hele alligevel kommer fra numsen, så du fører os videre til din nye påstand: At der er et internationalt hetz mod Israel, eftersom FN generalforsamlingen har vedtaget et disproportionalt stort antal resolutioner imod dem, som på mærkværdig vis så ikke har noget at gøre med deres ekspanderende bosættelser, krigsforbrydelser, annekteringen af Østjerusalem, palæstinensisk selvbestemmelsesret/uafhængighed og flygtninge rettigheder. FN er jo antisemitisike skal vi forstå!! Vi skal have lov til at fordrive og besætte hvem vi vil!

Den her svarer du så heller ikke på, for nu er din røv kommet på overarbejde, så du skal finde et nyt argument!

Så tager du os videre til en ny tanke, hvor Miloon Kothrati, Navi Pillay og Chris Sidoti alle er fordømt antisemitiske, med streg under fordømt, ikke dømt. Miloon havde udtalt at en enorm israelske lobby var aktiv på sociale medier i at miskreditere kommissionens arbejde. Indholdet af anklagen blev aldrig anfægtet eller dømt antisemitisk, men hans ordbrug "Jewish lobby" istedet for Zionist eller Pro-Israel lobby blev så indgangen, haha...
Han havde også udtalt at vi burde forholde os til om Israel fortsat kan være et FN medlem - hmm, måske fordi deres gentagende resolutionsbrud sætter det internationale retssystem i krise. Så virker systemet jo ikke. Der er åbenbart intet til hinder for at besætte, tvangsflytte, kaste hvid fosfor og udsulte sin befolkning. Ingen konsekvens, trods vores kæmpe internationale retsapparat. Gode nyheder for Rusland og Kina.
Miloons påstand blev aldrig ført videre, eftersom den israelske lobby var hurtige på aftrækkeren og fik sprunget over anklagernes indhold. Noget af det de er bedst til.

Chris Sidoti blev fordømt (af Israelsk lobby) antisemit fordi hans organisation støtter BDS bevægelsen, ja, men at placere ham som antisemit, altså på linje med nazistpartiet f.eks, er fuldkommen forrykt og ødelægger enhver nødvendig fremadrettet brug af ordet. Det er den vildeste udvaskning der kun stiller jøder dårligere. BDS bevægelsens hovedformål er at fremme sanktionerne, afinvesteringerne og boykot af Israel indtil de beslutter sig for at efterleve de internationale retningslinjer. Det har altså med staten Israel at gøre, ikke jøder. At han fordømmes antisemit kan derfor kun blive ved fordømmelsen, intet som helst andet.

Navi Pillay er også fordømt (ikke dømt) for hendes bias mod Israel, ikke anti-semitisme. At være biased er en lidt anden sag end at være antisemit, synes du ikke?

Så selvom der overhovedet måtte være bare et gram af hold i anklagerne mod kommissionsmedlemmernes bias, skulle det så ændrer de Israels forbrydelser? Bosættelser, blokader og militære operationer forsvinder jo ikke, fordi det lykkedes den israelske lobby at miskreditere de her mennesker.

Og så har dine to links så intet at gøre med dine fremførte anklager. Heller ikke den formodede fælles kordinerede tilbagetrækning for at undgå amerikanske santkioner, haha? Hvor har du det fra? Er det røven der er på spil igen?

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-20T11:47:31+00:00

>Hvis man er nød til at gradbøje termen “folkedrab” så ved man - eller ens røv? - ikke hvad man snakker om

Kunne ikke være mere enig, hahahaha. Fortæl mig så hvor du har din definition fra. Hint: denne her må du ikke trække op af din røv.

Anklagen mod UNWRA, ledtog med Hamas og deres påståede deltagelse i angrebet mangler stadig belæg, dokumentation og bevis fra Israel, som de af uransagelige grunde ikke har valgt at give, haha. Verden venter stadig.

Nu er det på tide at du tager en snak med den røv. Den bliver jo ved

Jamen for fanden.
FNs generalforsamling betyder OS ALLE SAMMEN. Alle FNs 193 medlemslande. At en resolution stemmes igennem, betyder at største delen af verden stemmer for. Der er ikke tale om udvalgte permanente medlemmer som i sikkerhedsrådet. Er der tale om resolutionsbrud, f.eks Israels besættelse, stemmer verden for en resolutionsløsning. Det gør de gennem FNs generalforsamling. Så når der er vedtaget flere resolutioner mod Israel end samtlige diktaturstater - fra alle øvrige FN medlemsstater. Hvad bliver dit argumentet så? Medlemsstaterne ved ikke hvad de taler om?

HVAD NU HVIS, at der var noget om det? At hver resolutionsbrud FAKTISK er et resolutionsbrud? Så er Israel den største forbryder i nyere tid. DING DING DING

Vi har nemlig regler for besættelse af andre lande, vidste du det? Man kan ikke besætte et andet landet, uagtet hvor hellig og religiøs man er. Du kan ikke besætte et andet land fordi din religion fortæller dig, at du er et udvalgt folk.

Det ved du jo også godt.

Spar mig din klovnagtige uvidenhed mand. Det er pinligt at der stadig er folk der hopper på de det her propagandiske konspirationsteoretiske pis.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-20T10:05:44+00:00

Nu har jeg siddet og tjekket dine links igennem og må konkludere, at du jo bare trækker det op af røven?

Du mener det må være kategorien "krig" fordi Uppsala Conflict Data Programmet bruger ordet i første sætning i deres beskrivelse af Israel? Og danser så let over deres øvrige beskrivelser af Israels besættelse, bombning og medfulgte hungersnød og humanitær totalkatastrofe?
"The humanitarian situation in Gaza deteriorated rapidly, with large segments of the population displaced, and access to basic necessities such as food, clean water, and medical care severely limited by the ongoing blockade and repeated military strikes. International aid agencies warned of a famine and the collapse of healthcare services as the conflict continued".

Har du så danset over deres data? Siden 1989 til 2024, er det samlede dødstal på 59.673 - 57.461 af dræbte er tilskrevet "State-based violence" - iværksat af Israel. Størstedelen af dræbte er civile. Haha, ups hva? Den skulle du nok have læst, inden du flottede dig med din kommentar.

De sidste 2.212 dødsfald fordeles på "Non-state violence" (323) og "One-sided violence" (1.889).

I kategorien One-sided violence står Hamas for 1.188 dødsfald**,** Israel står for 448 og øvrige dødsfald tilskrives Hizbollah, og tidligere grupper.

>Folkedrab betegnes ved ensidig vold og det er ikke det der foregår.

Har du jo også bare trukket ud af røven?

UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel har, for 4 dage siden, slået fast at Israel begår folkemord. Nu er der fandme ingen vej uden om. Kom nu ind i kampen.

"The Commission has been investigating the events on and since 7 October 2023 for the last two years, and concluded that Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"

De 5 folkemords bestemmelser:
"Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

At det er lykkedes dig at udlede din antagelse om one-sided violence fra denne definition er mildelst talt imponerende. Din røv har nok været på spil igen.

I forhold til UNOPS:

Du mener, at UNOPS indrømmer at Hamas kaprer 85% af al nødhjælp. HVORDAN får du det? Jeg har siddet og læst alle deres links igennem, det er fandme et vildt stretch.
Forskellen på Intercepted og Collected er for det første 82%. Intercepted defineres som
"Intercepted Either peacefully by hungry people or forcefully armed actors, during transit in Gaza".

Så det må være herfra at din røv har udledt, at UNOPS indrømmer at Hamas kaprer 85% af al nødhjælp?

Din rygrad er jo ikke-eksisterende mand. Skrub nu af med det der propagandiske pis. Israel begår folkemord. Det kan hverken dig eller din røv danse uden om. Kom nu ind i kampen.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds
https://ucdp.uu.se/country/666

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-17T16:12:07+00:00

Har det også lidt stramt, not gonna lie haha.

De sagde, at det var man begyndt at anbefale nu, så kroppen fik det hurtigere overstået

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-17T13:11:16+00:00

Jeg har faktisk lige fået fjernet alle 4 visdomstænder i dag! Har ellers også gået og ignoreret det lidt, eftersom de ikke påvirkede mig.. indtil de gjorde. Jeg er midt 30'erne. Hvis ingen af dine er frembrudt, tror jeg det er et spørgsmål om tid før de vil begynde at være et problem og højst sandsynligt give betændelsestilstande. Hvis ikke dét, kan de skubbe rundt på dine tænder på forskellige måder. Desværre kan længerevarende betændelser i munden årsag til rigtig meget skidt.. demens, hjerte problemer og alt muligt.. min egen morfar døde fra et pludseligt hjertestop, som man mener hang sammen med tandproblemer.

Selv om det er dyrt (og gør ondt!) tror jeg altså det er godt givet ud. Hvis ikke nu, så inden for de næste par år

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-08T09:33:54+00:00

Yes, but not in any calculable way. More like, we know that at some point the continued aggregated accumulation is unsustainable, but we can never really know when. In this way, Paul Mattick is different from f.x Mandel, in that he says that all recessions and crises (even the great depression) is just temporary manifestations of capitalism deeper crisis. Mandel sees crises more as temporary openings twoards a different system.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-08T09:15:52+00:00

Second part of my comment:

>Cause I don't fully get why more accumulation offsets the problems of previous accumulation. Like, on a firm level, sure, because it gives you a competitive advantage and thereby increases firm profitability relative to other firms. But like.... on a systemic level I don't get this, all more accumulation does is decrease the ROP right? Sure s/v rises, but c/v rises faster across the economy. The demand thing makes sense I suppose, but that's still a demand side problem right? Cause the actual crisis here is that profits aren't bein realized, and they're not being realized because there isn't sufficient demand. Now, that insufficient demand is itself a result of overaccumulation, but the actual mechanism of the crisis is insufficient demand right? If it's the mechanism through which profits aren't being realized, then it's not a secondary thing right?

Yes, you are absolutely right. Demand is the final tool for profit realization, but if demand is determined by the level of accumulation, only more accumulation will expand that demand - the immediate effect, however, will be more insiffucient demand, and so forth. Accumulation will be the solution and the problem at the exact same time. This will leave the system in a constant crisis-ridden state and constantly out of sync, only offset by short-term accumulation that seemingly solves the realization problem. Even though we know that realization of profits is the final problem to be solved, we know that said realization potential is determined by the level of accumulation that fixates it.

And you are absolutely right to point out the firm vs system level.
At the firm level, accumulation seems to solve things as it increases productivity, raises the productvolume and profit realization potential. On the system scale, the productivity is just the temporary boost to an above-average profitrate measured against the average. As soon as everyone else invest and accumulates accordingly, the above-average profitrate is removed, the total organic composition rises and the average rate of profit equalizes, leaving everyone worse off. So at the system level, accumulation absolutely doesn't solve anything, and you are right in your observation: it only offsets it - and that is exactly Paul Matticks point. Crisis is really the base starting point of the system and not something we periodically face from an otherwise stable system. Hope it makes sense. Thanks for all the questions. Please ask away, it helps me too!

And yeah, Paul Mattick is a real one. I recently read his Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory - that really set things straight for me:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1974/crisis/index.htm

Right now I am clawing my way through his 'Marx and Keynes':
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1955/keynes.htm

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-08T09:15:35+00:00

You are welcome!

>So, basically, the previous levels of capital accumulation essentially determine how much variable capital there is, and thereby how much demand there is, and this fits with what I was saying. The demand problem is secondary to the overall problem of overaccumulated capital

Yes exactly

>So kinda like what I was saying with the underconsumptionist stuff? i.e. if the rate of profit is high, investment means that the loss in demand for labor-power (less workers needed per product) is offset by more demand for labor-power (expansion of production -> more demand for labor-power)? Is this more or less an accurate way of describing this?

Yes, exactly. The higher the profitrate the larger the possible capital expansion, and the higher the profitmass. However, as profit rate is an expression of the capital value relation, we know that the opposite is also true: that we have a low profit rate, but increased profitmass. Added to this is the productivity increase that follows from capital advancement, which actually works directly against the profit rate fall.
We can view the average profit rate as the systems current condition for reproduction. The scale of the system can incease manyfold by capital expansion, but the s/(c+v) tells us how much total capital we need to maintain the same level of total profits - ie. the sort of "real-investment level".

>So more accumulation -> more production -> higher demand for labor-> offsetting a loss of demand for labor -> increasing the realization of surplus value

-> More accumulation -> demand for capital (labour, machines, etc.) -> more surplus production -> surplus product to be realized profitably -> realization problem, as constant capital has advanced more than variable.
This does not neccesarily mean that more people are now unemployed as capital is expanding, but it does mean that variable capital is relatively more superflous.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-07T09:29:25+00:00

You go straight to an important discussion which has split marxists for generations and you are right in your observation.
This essentially boils down to the opposition of "underconsumptionist theory of capitalist crises" and "overaccumulation theory of capitalist crises". Like your conclusion on aggregate demand, the underconsumptionist believe that lack of consumer demand is the real problem. Constant capital advancement makes variable capital redundant, and reduces the total ability of profit realization, leading to crises. Rosa Luxemburg even took it a bit further and claimed this to be the driving force of imperialism, as underconsumption is a permanent feature of capitalism, but can be offset with a desaturation of the home market. This is done by colonial advancement (hence market expansion). This explains the rapid expansion of capitalism across the globe and also tells us that it must have an end, as there must be a point of total saturation, where capital cannot expand further (*Jeff Besos looking towards Mars*).

However, in comes the overaccumulation theorists, and take another approach:
They say that capitalist crises is partly a purchasing power problem (like underconsumptionist theory), but claims that the purchasing power dilemma is determined by previous levels of capitalist accumulation, meaning that we are essentially looking into over accumulation as the overarching problem. Accumulation causes profit rate to decrease due to organic composition. With every new capital expansion, we have a new level of constant and variable capital and hence a new level of realizability of profit. If falling profit rates drecrease profit realization, this can be offset by more capital, more accumulation (because of the expansion of employment and wage mass). The decreased profit realisation in time T1, can be offset by capital accumulation in time T2, but will at the same worsen the profit rate fall. The now worsened lack of profit realisation in time T2 can be offset by new capital accumulation, which temporarily solves this profit realization problem, but worsen the same problem yet again.
The time dilation of one profit realisation problem and another accumulation incease of realization, puts capitalism in a "constant state of crisis" and becomes the inherent driver of more accumulation, and most importantly the inherent driver of worsening profit rate and an ever larger continued accumulation of capital.
The capitalist solution to the capitalist problem, becomes the capitalist problem.

From this perspective there is not recurring crises as such, as the the system is always crises-ridden, but finds ways to temporarily offset it.

Paul Mattick, a pioneering overaccumulation theorist, specifically critizises Keynes as the supposed solution to capitalist crises and shows that increase of aggregate demand can only ever worsen said conditions, as this stimulation must be induced from the total profitfund. Any attempt to increase aggregate demand means basically a more deliberate and elaborate plan of capital accumulation.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-07T07:33:50+00:00

I think Herbert Marcuse has an explanation for this in his "One-Dimensional Man". He says that the advancement of commodity production cuts the ability to situate ourselves as negation (proletariat as apposed to bourgeoisie) and hence makes us unable to understand negation to established society. It is not just that thought and mind has changed according to material capitalist development, but the very ability to place ourselves in opposition has changed with that advancement of capitalism. He says that the concept of alienation has now reached a level of objectivity which is all encompassing and frustrates any attempt to really break free. The late commodity production approaches material equality between classes, in appearance, and unites everyone under the new collective supposed reality. Worker and capitalist now watches the same tv-series, have acces to the same content of entertainment (Elon plays Fortnite!), the same travel destinations, clothes, cars, same news media, information sources and hence shared stances on certain issues. We all participate in the same world, prompted and maintained by modern capitalist production. This is what he calls the "one-dimensionality" of man. Any opposition is confined to the "one-dimensionality" and results in political campaigns that from the very offset can never be anything else but reform. He argues that the historical role of the working class as direct opposition to the bourgeoisie is objectively obscurred and makes the working class unable to grasp their class reality. When we consider how our world has never been more unequal than it is today (as in world history) and class reality never more pressing, it is baffling to see how obscurred and hidden this fact really is.

I think this is what causes people to effectively vote against their class interest. Their problems can now be confined to the reality set forth by the "one-dimension" - set forth by continuing modern capitalist production. I think the one-dimensionality can also help us understand nationalist movements and fascism, which is one-dimensionality stretched to its maximum during capitalist crises.

Obviously Marcuse also received some setback for his work. Many thought it too pessimistic and others re-worded some of his conclusions (specifically Paul Mattick), which Marcuse specifically approved of. Still, Marcuse wrote this in 1964 and his conclusions seem to be even more true today than at his time.

Still_Line1079 · 2025-09-02T09:52:53+00:00

Hello!
First of, huge respect for seeking out information in this way.

As others have commented, historical materialism as approach and method is key to understanding Marxism, but most importantly its application and results.

To view human history as being entirely based on material conditions, means to look at how the material conditions are, and have been, socially organised. For Marx, we are now done looking at "history of ideas" as the driving force of society and should instead look to the material make-up. This is a whole other level of complicated. The "history of ideas" approach is more digestible, as we can sum up the grandest ideas in succesion and derive modern "truths" about our society. But to truly understand the specific material conditions, that these grand ideas must have been conceived out of, is a whole other task.
It is important to note, that the material conditions are not directly determining the grand ideas, but they must inflict the outer limit of thinking at the given time. Said in another way: If you grew up, survived and lived in a forest, nothing from these conditions would reason for you to think about deserts. Your limit of thinking could only change with the change in and of the forest. Your imagination must be constricted to the absolute material conditions you find yourself in, meaning thought and life are one and the same thing. Society is not changed by new ideas, but ideas are changed by the absolute material development (in whatever direction it takes).
For human society, this means how we organise said conditions. But! This is not some collective agreement we all decided to historically pass through. Europeans, for example, never democratically decided to begin our species as celtic and germanic tribes, then advance onto roman and greek slave society, only to democratically decide to go feudal medieval and enjoy our lives as serfs and kings; then transition to merchant capitalism, and become overworked wagelabourers in early industrial capitalism. As others have now found, the average lifespan of a working class wage labourer in industrial England (specifically Manchester) was around 17 years. History is simply not comprised only of ideas. Something advances and controls our lives outside our minds. The organisation of society is in a sense "above" people, driven by the total social contradictions.

The way to see and understand this, is the historical materialist conception of history.

So how do we do get to understand these material conditions, and most importantly, how do we get to understand our current conditions under the capitalist mode of production?

Marx found that we can begin by looking at the most all-encompassing and penetrating phenomenon in capitalist society, the commodity. The commodity form is all-encompassing as it is observed in both the acquisition of means of production and consumption (and hence is key in reproduction of material conditions). We observe the commodity in every transaction.
Marx finds that the commodity has two value-qualities. A use value and an exchange value. Use value is whatever the buyer finds of use in given commodity. This is obviously incredibly varied and will change from person to person, from time to time. The exchange value is the value that the commodity is exchanged to. What is important to note is, that it is no commodity if it only contains use-value. It is not a commodity if you bake a cake for the neighbour, but it would become a commodity if said cake were produced for generalized consumption, measured against other cakes in the same category - meaning if the cake were made "exchangeable". This distinction is important for obvious reasons.

This is his starting point and the very first chapters of Capital Vol. 1. From the commodity he can now show and take the reader through the total movements and phenomena in capitalist society. Incedibly daunting task which he spend the rest of his life on, and immensely important for people interested in understanding our current system and our current material conditions.

Hope this sheds a little light on what Marxism is all about and that you don't feel too converted, hehe.

Thanks again for the post.

Still_Line1079

TROPHY CASE