SweetLava [he/him]

In study.

  • 8 Posts
  • 65 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2022

help-circle
  • SweetLava [he/him]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlThe myth of consensual peace
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Russia can go wherever they want and the problem won’t be resolved. It’s not about what countries are involved in Ukraine, it’s about why countries feel the need to go there in the first place. Ukraine, like Haiti, Syria, and Sudan - to name a few more - is a site of inter-capitalist rivalry

    You can get peace - sure - but the Ukrainian economy will be subjugated to whoever the ‘victor’ is. You can argue that economic integration reduces conflict and wars, but what will remain is a sort of neo-colonial relationship; or a dependency of sorts. That’s what I have an issue with.

    But that is the only realistic outcome - that exact economic dependency on one power or another (whether that be the US, the EU, or even Russia, or even a mixture, say, for instance, the EU+US or EU+Russia)

    There are no liberationary movements in Ukraine to my knowledge, just a reactionary military regime where political rights have been greatly reduced, even by liberal standards for governance. It is exceptionally rare that a country caught between two capitalist rivals gets the ability to form their own sovereign and independent liberation



  • Philosophy should not be used to justify regular human actions, and non-scientists should not expect their crank-adjacent theories to be taken seriously in the respective science communities. We don’t need awful people running around calling themselves ‘solipsists’ to ‘explain’ their behavior, and we do not need Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists popping their heads into debates about the Big Bang Theory or whether electrons exist


  • this is definitely controversial, you got that down

    you’re arguing for something extremely non-conventional among philosophers themselves - without sufficient arguments to make anyone believe you. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, it just means people won’t take you as seriously

    one thing i would say, where you would likely agree, is that most people calling themselves Marxist are not well-versed enough to argue for their Marxist or Marx-influenced philosophy - if Lenin wasn’t confident in his Marxism without starting to understand Hegel’s Greater Logic… I think we all know what I’m implying here

    What you’re arguing for here sounds like something that requires several months of studying philosophers from their own works. You can go even further and argue something like Derrida, that maybe we’ve all been reading philosophers who misread their contemporaries who misread their contemporaries and so on and so forth.

    This isn’t something I myself am well-versed enough to do, so all I can do is wish you luck on this one




  • i personally thought the most common form of idealism was summed up as this: “humans cannot perceive reality perfectly, they perceive things to their human limit and see appearances of things”

    or, alternatively: “humans have experiences that trascend humanity itself and can’t be fully understood by humans”

    For Marx in particular, he saw any theory divorced from practical experience as a slipperly slope towards idealism - I’m still working through this argument myself, though, and I believe I misunderstood his point. I’m not very strong on my Young Hegelian critiques, truthfully




  • There is no limit to accumulation itself (=> profit), but there is a law of diminishing returns, so to speak

    Profit itself can trend towards infinity, but the rate at which it is extracted has a tendency to fall; in theory, a low rate of profit can continue for several centuries towards that $$$

    In practice, however, we have to consider that war (and other means) can contribute to a destruction of capital; that unequal trade relations exist; that climate catastrophe is on the horizon; that humans cannot live forever; and so on.

    tl;dr - assuming humans live forever, there is nothing setting a limit on profit itself









  • SweetLava [he/him]@hexbear.nettomemes@hexbear.netWHO MUST GO?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    Secular leader who turned from a social-democratic stance into a more gradually pro-privatization stance as she gained more power; alleged chemical attacks; has said something about Russia; thought of as disproportionately wealthy compared to constituents without solid proof; silly photos leaked