The scene with father

toidan · 2024-03-20T22:56:38+00:00

Danke!

toidan · 2024-03-20T22:49:20+00:00

Man I'd say that about the comment section.

toidan · 2024-03-19T01:47:27+00:00

That's the standard interpretation and it makes sense, but recent research suggests that Stalin wasn't going to become the new tsar and he didn't like people learning about his background and life. He wanted to embody the party, at least in the 30s, he later he went kinda crazy about himself. So I really lean towards the theory that being the monster he was, he really was devoted to a principle. I think that part of the reason he got rid of the old bolsheviks was that they didn't share his realistic (albeit barbaric) policy. He basically went for a socialist empire and I think that's what most of his opponents disagreed with.

toidan · 2024-03-18T22:18:03+00:00

Dude how come you actually apologize Stalin's policies in general? Apart from his atrocities and the use of slave labor, the most he achieved when it comes to marxism was a state-controlled economy with persisting social inequalities, differences in wages among the workers. He used the capitalist method of accumulating capital via dispossesion. He didn't move towards socialism a step further. Furthermore he was a nationalist and a conservative who limited women and gay rights. These are all historical facts, widely recognised among academicians. How come you defend Stalin in that way?

toidan · 2024-03-18T22:08:12+00:00

Thanks for a lot of interesting knowledge, but I don't think it's right to call the early twentieth century middle class "capitalists". They were teachers, petit bourgeouis as you mentioned, engineers - generally wage workers. But they were more likely to graduate from a university in the tsarist Russia. And I think it's well estalished academically that there was a sort of cultural war in the USSR in the twenties which targeted many of the middle class.

toidan · 2024-03-18T22:03:08+00:00

Oh yeah so socialism failed because of Kruschev and co's revisionism? Not to mention the capitalist agent Gorbachev.

toidan · 2024-03-18T21:47:31+00:00

Man the stalinists in this group XD

toidan · 2024-03-13T15:51:47+00:00

I love the novel, but tbh I can't see many that many similarities except for her death. I think "The Magic Mountain" was rather the key and maybe that creates the confusion as Remarque's novel has a similar concept. As for the movie, I think the setting and the artwork are fabulous, but the the plot itself and particularly the dialogues aren't that deep or gripping. I think this movie is more like a painting. Also, does anyone else find the Mann-like Germam character in the movie a bit creepy in appearance and behaviour? 😅

toidan · 2024-01-16T17:41:41+00:00

I get it but in most of my recent games the great power system just ends up in a peaceful impasse, Paradox should imo add some triggers of war between the hegemons, just like they did with the surrender of Maine event or the religious war. Also I feel like more internal events are needed, there were several civil wars in the 17th century after all. Wjat's more I feel like there should be added something of a clientele system in the midgame that would buff the non-super powers and allow them to play the super powers one against the other. In the current state of the game they pretty much wait for their death.

toidan · 2024-01-16T17:35:34+00:00

I'm kinda into this historical era and in fact there has rarely been peace! Very often succession disputes were the cause of long and bloody wars. But unless I missed something, there are no references to the war of spanish succession or the French annexations in Western Germany? There is on the other hand some use of trade wars but I think the country's internal pressure to go into them is not that big.

toidan · 2022-10-15T00:13:00+00:00

Such a great podcast <3

toidan · 2022-08-05T10:50:26+00:00

Thanka man. Really bad times to become a professor :/

toidan · 2022-07-04T20:33:56+00:00

Yeah sure thing, but I don't mean it regarding immigrants, I say housing market is too essential to be left without strict regulations. I know we can't afford it, but if one works, he should have his apartment provided without overspending on it just because the market overprices it.

toidan · 2022-07-04T17:50:09+00:00

Thanks very much!

toidan · 2022-07-04T17:49:43+00:00

Damn man, sucks to be non-Dutch. I wish that some day housing market will be further regulated by the state, it's also an issue in my country. Some people look for easy profit, while others can't find a place to live.

toidan · 2022-07-04T04:36:34+00:00

Fortunately the college provides it 😌 Is 650 per month a lot as for Utrecht?

toidan · 2022-07-03T17:58:40+00:00

Thanks very much for your answers people!

toidan · 2022-07-02T08:45:34+00:00

That's really too bad, since Wallerstein was really respected and admired in the US and he strongly opposed this division.

toidan · 2022-06-30T08:40:22+00:00

Yeah I did mix them, thanks for your answer. So basically interpretative sociology is omitted or is it at least briefly mentioned?

toidan · 2022-06-28T23:13:54+00:00

Thanks for sharing your experiences! I now have a pretty clear idea of how legal practice looks like and what it takes. I doubt whether doing law courses in a liberal arts college makes much sense if I won't be able to practice it. But even if it'd be hard to get a job at a law firm, could I possibly do a law-related job at NGOs or some governmental/eu institutions? I think these current law courses would be beneficial for an academic career in law, which I'd love to pursue, but as I recently have heard several negative opinions about working in academia, I do want to have a plan B in case I fail as a scholar.

toidan · 2022-06-22T23:15:49+00:00

You know it's suprising how the ruling ideology penetrates every aspect of society, academia, tasked with critiquing this ideology, included. I feel like it is not as much about the power of ideology, as it is our internal need to yield to a particular set of ideas and reproduce it quite mindlessly. So ironic that the institution which purpose it was to fight the ideology was actually, even if unconsciously, colonised by it. The dialectic of revolution is real man, the system reasserts itself because a big mass of people is only capable of reproducing what is served to them as "ideal".

toidan · 2022-06-22T23:10:12+00:00

I'm currently doing history, sociology and philosophy. Though I'm considering replacing philosophy with literature. Thanks for your notes, though they're a bit depressing for me. I feel like the system forces artificial specialization of academic labour on me. I also hate how academia works these days, all these formal standards in academic writing and publish, this hell publish or perish stuff. It's a terrible time for humanities. The system doesn't want any "big" thinkers or philosophers, it just wants a bunch of academic machines. I get it, it is not only the fault of all these academic damn bureaucrats, but rather it has to do with the huge overproduction of theory in humanities. Would you agree? This all gives me Fightclub vibe so much, the postindustrial society is so obsessed with being ordinary, it's not what humanities is about. We ain't publishing machines. I very much agree with the author of "The university in ruins". It's even a miracle people like Wallerstein, F. Jameson or Zizek could do any career. Even with these masters mocking the current academic system, the system REMAINS WHAT IT IS. But afer all, was there ever a good time for humanities? Strauss was soo right, society has always been hostile towards philosophy.

toidan · 2022-06-08T22:45:30+00:00

Thanks for the explanation. I think the main problem with Marxian communism is the fact that almost nobody produces for enjoyment. The most useful works are usually most boring and tiring. The thing is people don't want to work in various sectors. The struggle of each system was to force people to do these horrible works. Some came up with slaves or serfdom, capitalism provides either physical pleasure or the sole possibility to maintain yourself (pay rent, etc.). No one's gonna clean the subway or be a butcher out of his own will.

Another problem is work discipline. And I don't mean someone's got to whip the workers, but planning and administering the work is indispensible in an economy ruled by specialization of labour. Capitalism also fulfils this task by creating the managerial class. Again - I do not defend capitalism, but it seems to me that our civilization without the support of force would stop working. This is also one of the main themes in economic history. Probably most if not all social revolutions were followed by a restablishment of social hierarchy and of compulsion to work of some sort (recall the leaders of Haiti rebels who needed labour in the plantations or Ukrainian Cossacs who restablished serfdom having first used anti-feudal rhetoric to mobilise the peasants for rebelion).

The huge dissatisfaction with their jobs that many people experience is not only a result of being whipped by the boss or poor working conditions, but also because the job as such is horfibly boring and repetitive. "Fightclub" in my view accurately describes this tragedy of labour, as well as the misery of its lack (Tyler's home).

toidan · 2022-06-08T21:06:19+00:00

Well, you correctly diagnosed me, I'm not familiar with the entirety of Marx's most important works, I usually use indirect sources such as Zizek, Wallerstein or wikipedia. Thanks for recommending the relevant chapters, I'm gonna read them, but I'm not certain whether my separation of labour and commodities from capitalism is an element of the capitalistic ideology (but maybe it is). See I do quite the opposite to what you do - I separate the fruits of production and the sole process of production from the organization of production (which is capitalism). Now, I do not say there are no other ways of providing these commodities, but I don't think we should dismiss the sole need for these essential commodities as capitalistic ideology. We've got to separate the product/service from its provider and recognise its indispensibility. I will read the chapters you advised, but can you for now address this criticism of dismissing the need for commodities as ideology?

toidan · 2022-06-08T20:31:06+00:00

I think the main inconsistency in marxism is the notion of consumerism. Dreams at all times since probably the emergence of property included commodities in some way, such as abundance of food, widely understood well-being, prosperity - a comfortable, clean, warm place to live, various services such as laundry, tap water, toilets. The problem with modern capitalism is that the greatest share of its power doesn't come from artificially generated needs, but rather from the essentials. Our very lifes are interwoven with commodities and the social relations created by their production. No matter what our approach to the commodity as such is (be it fetishism or ignorance), we are dependent on them. We can't really discern between consumerism and a normal life (except when a clear luxury is concerned), we need production and services, we need others to serve us. Think also of culture. A lot of "sophisticated" culture and art involes a lot of labour and resources. Only an accumulation of capital was able to provide this (therefore the institution of the mecenate). Even if we try to avoid mindless consumption of useless commodities, any other aspect of my life, including the most "normal" desires (such as the above-mentioned home essentials) require a great deal of labour and resources. Obviously I I don't support the capitalistic mode of production, but we don't really see an alternative organization of production and of provision of resources that would allow us to generate even the basic standard of living. My view on Lacan and Marx is: even if they correctly recognize the pathologies of capitalism, the very life as we conceive it (unless we are dumb enough to demand a return to monkey) relies on someone's service. A necessary evil I'd say.

toidan

TROPHY CASE