#economic antagonism

[rotenotes]

TAKAHISA OISHI - The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx's Critique of Political Economy

The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx’s Critique of Political Economy TAKAHISA OISHI Professor of Economics Takushoku University Tokyo, Japan Introduction In my latest paper[1], I examined the editing problems of “I Feuerbach” of The German Ideology (1845-1846)–hereafter FEUERBACH–. Here I am concerned with the so-called ‘materialist interpretation of history’, which has been said…

[opstandelse]

TAKAHISA OISHI - The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx's Critique of Political Economy

The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx’s Critique of Political Economy TAKAHISA OISHI Professor of Economics Takushoku University Tokyo, Japan Introduction In my latest paper[1], I examined the editing problems of “I Feuerbach” of The German Ideology (1845-1846)–hereafter FEUERBACH–. Here I am concerned with the so-called ‘materialist interpretation of history’, which has been said…

[mesetacadre]

Any resources you would recommend about why proletarians would be against worker's rights? It's a topic that has been interesting to me lately

I don't know any specific resources, maybe Lenin touches on this in What is to be Done but I'm not sure. I think a better way to phrase the question is to ask why workers would go against their class interests, even in the most economicist and immediate struggles. Essentially, I'd say it's a concatenation of two facts: most workers lack actually consistent politico-economic education, and the propaganda of liberalism works more like an invisible mold than anything explicit you can point to and single out as a Propaganda Piece. No matter how angry a worker is at their own bad situation (which they might not even conceive of as exploitation), if they've spent all their lives soaking in liberal ideology everywhere from school to the generally accepted trains of thought to even the most innocent piece of media, it's not that surprising they might oppose, say, a rise in the minimum wage. Maybe they've bought into smart-sounding liberal economics and have some vague notion or memorized slogan about inflation rising. Or maybe they've internalized the narrative of individual achievement, they feel like they've "earned" having a better salary than minimum wage and feel it's unfair for others to begin at a better place than them.

Typically the first and only type of class consciousness that workers develop, what Lenin defined as economic-spontaneous consciousness, or consciousness from within (and the type of consciousness most anarchists love to praise), is the one that arises from the daily happenings of class antagonism. But this is a highly subjective and imprecise class consciousness. Without further education and a scientific approach (acquiring political-revolutionary consciousness, or consciousness from without), spontaneous consciousness can be easily misguided by the aforementioned liberal state of affairs or by the worker's own biases. Someone predisposed to racism for whichever environmental reason might take that imprecise, spontaneous class consciousness and assign the cause of their felt exploitation to the presence of migrant workers in the economy, and therefore support measures that harm that specific minority while also greatly benefitting the capitalists exploiting both. The worker aristocracy is also very vulnerable to supporting the imperialist system when their spontaneous consciousness, especially in regards to trade unions, aligns with imperialist interests. And besides all of this, some workers never develop any sort or consciousness and believe themselves potential equals to their exploiters

[komsomolka]

The Ukrainian state is US/Western controlled and, in its alliance and arming, is effectively NATO-like. Washington, according to coup-happy Victoria Nuland in 2014, pumped some $5 billion into Ukraine since the Western-intelligence induced “Orange” revolution in 2004; an additional $15-$18 billion in arms, loans, and grants (from the US and EU) were poured into Ukraine since the 2013-2014 CIA-backed, far-right enforced regime change of the democratically elected Ukrainian government and until before the war began.

With on-the-ground CIA direction, power in Ukraine was consolidated among a small sociopolitical base of venal Russophobes, political pluralism representing genuinely alternative visions to the essentially nationalist, ultranationalist, pro-NATO parties disbanded. The Ukraine army, neo-fascist death squads, and small, Nazi-throwback extreme right-wing parties, celebrated by the new leaders and incorporated into the Ukrainian state, went on a repression spree, a terror campaign, to crush protests and dissent against those who were unhappy with what transpired and to erase all things Russian, including an eight-year shelling and sniping war on civilians designed to create terror and ethnic cleansing in eastern Donbass. This was not a democracy but a monopoly on power to consolidate a vociferously, fanatically anti-Russian state.

Ukraine is (or now, was) merely a platform for a Western proxy war against Russia, a forward operations base, a front line state, its “foreign policy” directed by the American proconsul, its institutions “advised” by American/Western intelligence functionaries and embassy officials, whose job since 2014 was to ensure continuing aggravation and antagonism in Donbass to elicit, in fact, a Russian response justifying long-prepared sanctions, escalation and pretext for “confronting” Russia. [...]

The Russian offensive, therefore, occurred for a much more ominous reason than the Ukrainian state terrorism visited upon eastern Donbass: the US/West’s wordless wish is no less than demoralizing, weakening, bankrupting, and territorially fragmenting the Russian Federation, controlling its markets and resources, indebting its people and rendering them dependent on US-dominated financial institutions, and bringing Russia under American dependency.

A pivotal principle of American hegemony is to obstruct and destroy friendly, normal ties, much less integration, between Russia and Europe, Germany being the fulcrum.

More simply, the strategic US/CIA goal is to ensnare Russia in a protracted war, deplete it, damage it, regime-change it, install a supine leader—all as a prelude to the big fantasy: bringing down China.

The multifaceted war on Russia has been ongoing since at least the late 1990s, but really, it never stopped with the Soviet state’s disappearance. This veiled hostility and aggression certainly existed when Boris Yeltsin was in power (a good vassal according to Washington, this silly and funny man that made Bill Clinton laugh) but took off around 2005, after Washington understood that Vladimir Putin was putting Russia on an independent course, reversing the conditions overseen under the preceding, deplorable Yeltsin era, including steep economic, social, military, and developmental decline and the immiseration of the vast majority of the population, looting oligarchs, and economic “liberalization” designed in Washington. [...]

Russia has literally allowed itself to be cornered since 2014, though it needed time to achieve a conventional and nuclear deterrent. It’s not hard to see reality: Russia is given no quarter, no voice, its real concerns and grievances dismissed, its leader demonized, its marginalization doggedly pursued at every level of international and bilateral social and cultural interactions. No appeal to reason, to international law, to security, to evidence will do for the West, no amount of patient legal argument, explanation of Russian concerns, appeals, professional warnings, consummate diplomacy and transparency of Russian interests made an impression. Instead, the Western response was and is always to double down. [...]

Finance capitalism, the system of speculative bubbles, derivatives, debt, declining standards of living, and hyperinflation, is ruining Western economies, states and societies, destroying the middle classes. The US cannot tolerate Eurasian integration and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, determined to stop any alternative development model to hyper-capitalism enriching the few, cannibalizing the many; that reduces the US to one of a handful of important multipolar players.

Washington’s grave mismanagement of international relations, its self-defeating policies, has actually weakened genuine American interests and national security and the well-being and safety of the American people, a phenomenon that cannot be naively attributed to Democrats or Republicans, this or that president. Instead, the war-state is deeply embedded in the American political economy, in factions such as the “intelligence community,” the military-industrial complex, influential establishment neo-cons, and liberal interventionists, all living in a world of yesterday.

We are rushing headlong into extremely dangerous times in which facts are a threat to the state narrative and any dissent or differing opinion is treachery. Fascism does not come from below, always from the top.

[huggywuggysuppy]

Notes on Scott’s Wild Life 3 POV

In summary: our gaslight king controlling the narrative as usual, what an icon.

Scott has very economical editing, having one of the shorter POVs, yet takes care to include several instances of being nice to Pearl (noticed this when he left in giving Pearl food, both at the beginning and when they were building the new castle together). However, he left out the session routine of chastising Impulse and Pearl for picking fights with Gem/Joel (seen in Pearl’s POV), only including warning a freshly yellow Pearl to not try to kill them.

Scott doesn’t die this episode. Notably, his main contributions to base building are simply moving materials from one chest to the other — a very safe activity when being pursued by a snail. Gem and Joel who also avoided snail death built in a wide open area, and the other no-snail-deaths generally forgoed building and dangerous activity altogether (although, RIP Lizzie for surviving mining only to be Skizz’d). All this to say: Scott wasn’t playing sweaty, he still took risks, but they were very small and calculated.

Scott doesn’t include a lot of the Spanners antagonizing GGGG. Partly because they failed and it’s not very interesting to just see Scott looking at the dirt for Mumbo and Grian digging, or warily watching Skizz from 15 blocks sway. But I also think he’s building a villain narrative for Pearl and Impulse and having other groups wrong GGGG would upset that balance. Though, this point is my most tinfoil hat theory.

Scott, Cleo, and Impulse half-heartedly warn Etho of an approaching creeper, sort of totally 100% causing his death. They all celebrate, Cleo and Impulse both breaking into delighted cackles, however Scott calls Impulse out on taking more glee from Etho’s death than the other two. He’s taking care to point out any villainous behavior in Impulse/Pearl, justifying his own negative behavior towards them and painting himself as a long suffering yet loyal teammate. He does this every season, and I eat it up every time — although he’s particularly negative towards Imp and Pearl compared to, say, Martyn.

Related, Scott is stressing how put together and connected GGGG is. He’s complimenting all of them and turning to the camera to gloat about how they’re not gonna fall apart. This session didn’t leave a lot of room for Impulse and Pearl to prove him wrong, but even then he’s doing the prep work to make it their fault if/when the divorce happens. This is made easier by his reputation as a good and loyal teammate combined with Impulse’s and especially Pearl’s fandom reputation as instigators. (And to an extent, yes, they are both consciously approaching WL with a “cause problems on purpose” mission.)

But I can’t ignore every time Scott badmouths their decisions to other people and denounces their actions as suspicious/villainous. That sort of behavior only makes him look better instead of strengthening his whole team: if he really believed in GGGG, he’d be lying on their behalf and definitely not calling them out for picking fights. Just as Cleo didn’t back up Pearl when she tried to poison Gem, Scott is actively making his teammates look worse. And I fear he might get away with it.

I love Smajor and watch his perspective as a fan! I think he intentionally plays “the social game” like this: partly to make it more interesting, and partly because he enjoys the chaos. And really, who doesn’t?

[artbyblastweave]

What's effective about The Superhuman Gambit, right, is that the AntAgonizer and the Mechanist are modelling a very 1950s superheroic paradigm basically to a T. The question of why you need a superhero around- the gag that superpeople do nothing but pointlessly fight each other for the sake of it- has been the number one criticism that basically every non-parodic piece of superhero media published after 1986 has attempted to pre-empt. Contemporary superheroes might encounter and defuse high-stakes crises at a completely unrealistic rate, but within the logic of their stories, contemporary superheroes pull their weight- by authorial fiat, their worlds would constantly be suffering mass casualty events if they weren't out there doing their thing. In the 1950s, though, all of this shit, by editorial mandate, was completely siloed from real stakes, even a lot of forms of real crime that were considered too risky to acknowledge as a thing in that political climate; it was all cops and robbers, themed heists, superdickery, nothing of substance, because the entire medium was declawed by the Wertham Scare.

A superhero isn't any more of an outlandish person to have in the Fallout Universe than the kinds of people that are the protagonists of these games. Moreover the actual powersets on display aren't even particularly stupid. Being able to control giant ants with your mind is the kind of thing that nets you feudal territorial holdings if you take it seriously, stupid costumes or no- ditto for being able to field an army of battle-ready robots. Canterbury Commons is very pointedly the site of the one group of people in the game who are trying to get, like, an actual economy going. They're the economic analogue to Project Purity. If either of these assholes threw their personal armies behind that project, the setting would look very very different by the time you climb out of the vault. But they aren't allowed to be the kind of superheroes who notice that, or apply themselves in that way, or really meaningfully engage with the world at all, because, again, they're specifically 1950s superheroes. And this all dovetails really well with my read that Fallout 3 is largely a game about people burying their heads in the sand, immersing themselves in a nostalgic past as a way to avoid thinking about the horrors of the present.

[beguines]

[C]lass is not an essence but a social classification made by social scientists to explain reality; it is not some inherent nature possessed by the people who are hypothetically divided up according to a scientific assessment of a social reality. In such a context, being conscious of one's membership in a social class, let alone embarking on class struggle, is produced by a mechanism that is based on developing the hypothesis of social classes, which is unified by the concept of class struggle: a revolutionary party. Marx and Engels maintained that the point of a communist party was to organize workers as a class because they understood that the hypothesization of class was in fact a scientific intervention upon the social in much the same way that the hypothesis of the double helix model of genetics, as mentioned above, is an imposition upon crude biological existence.

There are popular strains of first world Marxism (autonomism, communization theories, "left communism") that argue against the above interpretation of class and are thus opposed to the notion that the ultimate meaning of class and class struggle is the business of a party project. My contention, however, is that such an interpretation of class and class struggle, even when it opposes orthodox categories, remains thoroughly economistic because of a reliance on a workerist spontaneity . . .

My position is that class comes into being through a political intervention that declares the meaning of class struggle and intends to impose this meaning upon a conflicted social plane. Such an imposition was also responsible for grasping the foundation of class structure, as analyses such as Marx's Capital demonstrate, but it is not enough to assume that class structure functions abstractly without a lived formation/composition or a political project to determine its conscious articulation as a class for-itself. These class categories are always conflicted, compromised by the detritus of history. To assume that there is a natural unity amongst the entire working class in all social contexts is a grave mistake. Social classes, as we have discussed, are often divided according to interior antagonisms. The point is to accept the fact of this division and locate the most conscious elements of these classes to understand: i) the enemy that is conscious of itself as the ruling class; ii) those who have nothing left to lose but their chains who are also conscious of themselves as a class. Class is thus realized in the crucible of a party project because, whether it be a bourgeois or proletarian party, such projects stamp their cadre with class partisanship.

Thus, class is defined by structure, formation, and consciousness. It is a structure insofar as a mode of production would have no meaning if it did not possess sites of structural occupation that would give it a definition, just as a factory requires pre-existing structural rules that would allow it to function as a factory. It is a formation insofar as the empty structural sites of class are composed of assemblages of real people; the composition is the result of a historical process of formation, the assemblage of multiple identities that are stamped with meaning based on the social context inhabited by the class structure (e.g., a white supremacist society will be a society where the class structure is designed to promote a racist formation). But class is also defined by consciousness, by the awareness of those who inhabit the class structure of their position within this structure, and this consciousness is consummated in a party project. Moreover, since the concept of class is overall a categorical judgment made by social scientists, and since such a judgement is always partisan, it is political inasmuch as it is an economic theory. In this sense the party of a particular class and the ideologues of such a party, call class consciousness into being for-itself. That is, the bourgeois or proletarian subject recognizes themselves as a partisan subject because the meaning of their class consciousness is declared by an organized political faction that provides a line of march. The bourgeois organization or party takes a position on the class structure and proposes a conscious meaning to class formation; the proletarian organization or party expresses a different political line and generates a different conscious meaning.

J. Moufawad-Paul, Politics in Command: A Taxonomy of Economism

[jewish-sideblog]

I think there are a lot of reasons why BDS has never had any practical effect and why I think it never will. But the biggest reason, for me personally, is that they’re calling to boycott Standing Together.

Like. If you’re refusing to support the major Israeli organizations calling for peace and self determination for Palestinians? If you’re demanding that other people withhold their support for such an organization? Then you clearly care more about fucking over Israelis than you care about helping Palestinians.

Y’all. Israel has the most advanced and well-organized military in the region. The IDF has fought the entire Arab League at once, after being hit with surprise attacks from all sides, and won handily. It’s done that multiple times. Israel has the economic and military backing of nearly the entire Western world. Israel has nukes.

As a practical matter, Palestinian sovereignty in the former British Mandate must come with Israeli permission. The best way to achieve Israeli permission is to support peace organizations within Israel, and support Israeli voices in favor of peace. But if your goal is just to antagonize millions of people in a country with an elite military and nuclear weapons, including the people in that country who agree with you, you’re probably not gonna get what you want. Just sayin.

[yantalia545]

What if reader married someone else? She knew what England is up to by suddenly trying to make her economically fall, she was able to figure out that this is his a-holish way to try to get her stuck with him through marraige. So she married France of all nations because she knew he was always down for pissing him off. (plus he gets to marry her). So here they are, rubbing their marraige on his face flirting, pda, commenting about how he treats her better and he really is the best lover of all lovers.

But the final nail on the coffin was France thanking England for giving him the chance to be with reader by being a lying sh*tty lover, saying he'll never understand why he did what he did when he had her. But oh well, it worked out for everyone. Just not for him.

You heard the rumors about England. You didn't want to believe that someone you loved and cherished for centuries would be capable of something so atrocious. Destroying your economy so you would be forced to become dependent on him. The two of you were supposed to be a team and work together to better the world, not bring each other down. It wasn't until you dug through his office when he was away did you saw the horrifying truth.

There were documents addressed from his boss of potential plans for your downfall. You felt hurt and betrayed by your own husband. You left your shared house in tears that very day before he could get home. You couldn't face him after finding out what he had done.

You ran straight to your good friend, France in seek of comfort and support. It's not easy to divorce a political figure, after all.

France was so sweet. He welcomed you with open arms; Much to his delight. You came to him of all people!

France has loved you since the day he met you. He knew you were the one for him ever since. It pained him to see you marry England of all people, but he was supportive of you two nonetheless. France just wanted to see you happy even if that wasn't with him. But now, he has the chance of a lifetime.

England really screwed up here. You were a treasure among a sea of stones and he threw it away by being a brute. France would never treat you like that. You deserve the world. Not to be brought down by someone's own insecurities.

It wasn't long after your divorce from England did you remarry France. The two of you have always been close, so it wasn't a real surprise to anyone. Anyone but England.

How could you do this to him? He could give you anything and everything you want and you run away to his sworn enemy of all people. Honestly, what do you hope to achieve here? Antagonizing him will get you nowhere and you look like a whore. He thought he taught you better than to boast about your relationship so openly.

It hurts to see you openly happy with someone else. Your smile, that laugh, should only belong to him. And when you give sweet kisses to his long rival, his heart sinks just a bit lower every time.

England knows he messed up. He should have been more careful about his doings. But let's be real here, England only feels bad for getting caught. Not because his actions could have done great harm to you. As your husband, he felt it was his right over your welfare but you insisted on remaining your own despite your relationship. You wouldn't give in to him regardless of his higher status.

England could have made you greater than you already were. In his mind, England needed to break you down from all your little flaws in order to build you back up again as his perfect little colony, His ideal wife. You would have been perfect, but you refused to see the bigger picture. You insisted on holding on to your traditions and imperfect culture.

He had to do what he was planning to do behind your back due to your stubbornness. A part of you he also wished to dispel.

Given his position in power, he can't just go to war over a little lover's spell. He'll have to remain patient, but do expect many drunk calls from him on his lonely nights; Some curses, so pleads for you to come back.

He'll build up morale and wait for the perfect moment to strike. England doesn't care how many years he has to wait. Your marriage to France can't last forever. Political differences or economic crashes are normal affairs for nations such as yourselves. It would only be a matter of time before England will have you begging at his feet for his protection.

It will be a glorious day when the day finally arrives.

[zvaigzdelasas]

"The first session of the 118th Congress was one of the least productive in the body’s history. Only 22 bills were signed into law this year by the president — by far the lowest total since at least 1993, the first year for which the National Archives have data. (For comparison, the next least productive year during this timespan was in 2013, when 72 bills became law.) Despite the slow year, members nonetheless found time to introduce an abundance of bills relating to the threat of China, which was the focus of hearings in committees ranging from Financial Services to the Judiciary committee, and of legislation concerning everything from fentanyl distribution to TikTok. In 2023, members introduced 616 pieces of legislation that contain a variation of the word “China” — more than 3.5 for every day that Congress was in session on average. That’s already more than any two-year congressional session, except for the 117th Congress (2021-2022; 860 bills) and the 116th (2019-2020; 620 bills), according to a search of the congressional record. One of the few “accomplishments” in Congress this year was the formation of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party — which was almost instantly dubbed the “tough on China committee” — in January."[...]

Members of Congress introduced at least nine bills aimed at restricting foreign ownership of agricultural land in the United States. As RS has explained, these efforts are not always logical, even if there are some legitimate national security concerns over China or other nations buying up farmland.[...]

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) and five co-sponsors introduced the “Defund China’s Allies Act” to “prohibit the availability of foreign assistance to certain countries that do not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan,” aimed at 21 countries in Central America and the Caribbean. The bill argues that the “United States efforts to condemn these countries’ willing diplomatic shift toward a genocidal government is undermined by an incomprehensible adherence to the so-called ‘One China’ policy, on terms dictated by the Chinese Communist Party,” implicitly calling for an end to the policy that has maintained peace in the Taiwan Strait for decades.[...]

bills introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Reps. John Curtis (R-Utah), and Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) [...] would have renamed the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in Washington, D.C. to the Taiwan Representative Office, because it “better reflects its status as Taiwan’s de facto diplomatic mission to the United States.” That was only one of many bills that were purely symbolic and antagonizing, including one that demanded that Beijing “must be held financially liable for $16,000,000,000,000,” because of its responsibility in the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and a resolution that declared China to be the biggest threat to freedom in the world. “Whereas it is the opinion of Congress that the Chinese Communist Party is the greatest threat to freedom and to the free world,” reads the text, introduced by Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.). “Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress agrees that the Chinese Communist Party is the greatest threat to freedom and to the free world.” That’s the entire resolution.

27 Dec 23

[communist-manifesto-daily]

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part 18

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

This historical situation also dominated the founders of Socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalistic production and the crude class conditions correspond crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies.

These facts once established, we need not dwell a moment longer upon this side of the question, now wholly belonging to the past. We can leave it to the literary small fry to solemnly quibble over these phantasies, which today only make us smile, and to crow over the superiority of their own bald reasoning, as compared with such “insanity”. For ourselves, we delight in the stupendously grand thoughts and germs of thought that everywhere break out through their phantastic covering, and to which these Philistines are blind.

Saint-Simon was a son of the great French Revolution, at the outbreak of which he was not yet 30. The Revolution was the victory of the 3rd estate – i.e., of the great masses of the nation, working in production and in trade, over the privileged idle classes, the nobles and the priests. But the victory of the 3rd estate soon revealed itself as exclusively the victory of a smaller part of this “estate”, as the conquest of political power by the socially privileged section of it – i.e., the propertied bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie had certainly developed rapidly during the Revolution, partly by speculation in the lands of the nobility and of the Church, confiscated and afterwards put up for sale, and partly by frauds upon the nation by means of army contracts. It was the domination of these swindlers that, under the Directorate, brought France to the verge of ruin, and thus gave Napoleon the pretext for his coup d’état.

Hence, to Saint-Simon the antagonism between the 3rd Estate and the privileged classes took the form of an antagonism between “workers” and “idlers”. The idlers were not merely the old privileged classes, but also all who, without taking any part in production or distribution, lived on their incomes. And the workers were not only the wage-workers, but also the manufacturers, the merchants, the bankers. That the idlers had lost the capacity for intellectual leadership and political supremacy had been proved, and was by the Revolution finally settled. That the non-possessing classes had not this capacity seemed to Saint-Simon proved by the experiences of the Reign of Terror. Then, who was to lead and command? According to Saint-Simon, science and industry, both united by a new religious bond, destined to restore that unity of religious ideas which had been lost since the time of the Reformation – a necessarily mystic and rigidly hierarchic “new Christianity”. But science, that was the scholars; and industry, that was, in the first place, the working bourgeois, manufacturers, merchants, bankers. These bourgeois were, certainly, intended by Saint-Simon to transform themselves into a kind of public officials, of social trustees; but they were still to hold, vis-à-vis of the workers, a commanding and economically privileged position. The bankers especially were to be called upon to direct the whole of social production by the regulation of credit. This conception was in exact keeping with a time in which Modern Industry in France and, with it, the chasm between bourgeoisie and proletariat was only just coming into existence. But what Saint-Simon especially lays stress upon is this: what interests him first, and above all other things, is the lot of the class that is the most numerous and the most poor (“la classe la plus nombreuse et la plus pauvre”).

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

[dagwolf]

Recent viral images of Southwest agents getting yelled at and crying have resurfaced a valuable lesson about the nature of our economic system that’s worth examining this holiday season: the deliberate, built-in ways corporate “customer service” is set up to not only shield those on the top of the ladder—executives, vice presidents, large shareholders—but pit low-wage workers against each other in an inherently antagonistic relationship marked by powerlessness and frustration. It’s a dynamic we discussed in “Episode 118: The Snitch Economy—How Rating Apps and Tipping Pit Working People Against Each Other,” of the Citations Needed podcast I co-host, but I feel ought to be expanded on in light of recent events. Watching video after video, reading tweet after tweet, describing frustrated stranded holiday travelers yelling at Southwest Airlines workers, and hearing, in turn, accounts of airline workers and airport staff breaking down crying, is a good opportunity to talk about how none of this is natural or inevitable. It is a choice, both in corporate policy and government regulation. 

There are three main ways capital pits workers against each other in the relationship we call “customer service”:

1. Snitch economy. As discussed in Citations Needed Ep. 118, we are provided with more and more apps, websites, and customer surveys to effectively do the job of managing for management—free of charge, of course. Under the auspices of “empowering” the consumer, we are told to spy on our low-wage servants and gauge the quality of their servitude with stars, tips, and reviews. Uber, DoorDash, Fiver, Grubhub—a new “gig economy” has emerged that not only misclassifies workers as freelancers to pay them less, but hands over the reins of management to the consumer directly. This necessarily increases the antagonism between working-class consumers and the workers they are snitching on. 

2. Automation. Increasingly, even getting to the bottom rung employee to yell at is difficult. Under the thin pretense of Covid, increased labor power has exploded the use of automated technology that creates a frustrating maze to get a simple problem solved or task accomplished. Don’t go to the register, instead download the app and order. Scan the QR code, don’t wait on hold, go to our website and engage a series of automated prompts and maybe you can solve your problem. More and more consumers are being pushed away from humans onto automated systems we are told will “save us time,” but instead exist solely to save the corporation labor costs. So, by the time the average consumer does finally work their way to seeing a human, they are annoyed, frustrated, and angry at this faceless entity and more willing to take it out on someone making $13 an hour. 

One recent visit to Houston’s George H.W. Bush airport portended our obnoxious “automated” future. To cut down on unionized airport labor, all the restaurants use QR codes and require you to order food and drinks for yourself. Per usual, it’s sold as an exciting new technology that’s somehow good for consumers, but really the basic technology is 30 years old. It’s just a screen—the same ones restaurants have had for decades. The only thing that’s changed is the social conditioning of having you do all your own ordering and menu navigation. The waiter hasn’t been replaced by an iPad, they’ve been replaced by you. Invariably, it’s clunky and annoying and reduces the union jobs that airport construction is said to provide to justify soliciting public dollars. The only winner is a faceless corporation with a Delaware LLC and its shareholders living in a few counties in Connecticut and Texas.

Automation not only annoys and adds labor burdens to the customer, there is also evidence that it is a significant contributor to income inequality. A November 2022 study published in the journal Econometrica looked at the significantly widening income gap between lesser and more educated workers over the past 40 years. It found that ​​“automation accounts for more than half of that increase,” as summarized by MIT News. “This single one variable … explains 50 to 70 percent of the changes or variation between group inequality from 1980 to about 2016,” said MIT economist Daron Acemoglu, co-author of the study. Whether or not, under a different economic system, automation could be a force for good is a debate for another day. But what is clear is that, while both consumers and workers are harmed by this trend, there is a significant want of solidarity between them. 

3. Deliberate understaffing. This is a major culprit in this week’s Southwest Airlines meltdown. In parallel with the increased use of forced automation, cost-cutting corporations, facing increased labor power, are gutting staffing to its bare bones and hoping their corporate competitors doing the same will lead to a shift in consumer’s willingness to put up with substandard service and conditions, and overall bullshit. “We apologize for the wait,” the automated phone prompt tells us. Of course a machine cannot be contrite, so the effect is both surreal and grating: You’re not fucking sorry, you don’t exist. You're a recording. But now, who am I yelling at? 

...

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Yale Environment 360:

The November 5 election was the worst-case outcome for climate regulation. The return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office and Republican control of the Senate and the House of Representatives will halt federal progress and lead to a reversal of most of the climate initiatives undertaken by the Biden administration.

Such a rollback occurred after Trump first won election in 2016, but this time the stakes are even higher. Trump has promised to halt spending under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law that dramatically increased federal support for clean energy technology and electric vehicles. And the president-elect has pledged to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, reverse a key regulation aimed at reducing emissions from power plants, and roll back a host of key rules aimed at curbing climate change and air and water pollution.

Signs of light remain, however. Rapid advances in the technology and economics of clean energy have created a momentum that can be slowed but not stopped, with the cost of solar dropping globally by more than half since 2016. States and cities still retain much ability to reduce emissions and to prepare for the worsening physical impacts of climate change. But major progress will be in jeopardy because of the administration’s actions on a host of fronts.

Renewable Energy

A clean energy economy requires the construction of a massive number of new wind and solar farms and the associated electricity storage and transmission infrastructure. Such facilities are needed to replace all the old coal plants and most of the natural gas plants, and to provide the added power needed for electrifying vehicles, building heating systems, powering energy-intensive industries, meeting the demand for data centers for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, and other new loads. In 2022 Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks for clean energy. The IRA, coupled with rapidly dropping costs, has spurred a large upsurge in new projects.

The IRA passed Congress without a single Republican vote, and Trump has said he will ask Congress to repeal it. However, most of the IRA money for clean energy is going to districts represented by Republican members of Congress, many of whom oppose full repeal. Thus, Trump’s ability to eliminate the relevant parts of the IRA is in question, though a cap on the multiplicity of tax credits seems likely. However, the Internal Revenue Service under Trump could make it difficult to utilize the tax credits by issuing very restrictive interpretations of the credits or refusing to release the necessary forms.

The fate of the IRA will be an issue next year with the scheduled expiration of parts of the 2017 Trump tax cuts bill. Trump will presumably want to extend those tax cuts. Congress will be looking for ways to pay for this. Slashing IRA subsidies could be part of that.

Another expected Trump target is the fee imposed by the IRA on methane leakage from oil and gas production. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and this fee is the first nationwide carbon tax in the U.S. The industry is pressing for its repeal, and Trump will clearly be sympathetic.

Wind and solar projects located on federal land or waters (which includes all offshore wind) require federal approval. Trump has often expressed antagonism to wind, and federal approvals for new wind projects are likely to stall. Wind and solar projects on private or state-owned land generally do not require federal approvals.

Motor Vehicles

A critical area where the new Trump administration is expected to slash environmental rules is motor vehicles, which are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Federal agencies set emission and fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. Under both Presidents Obama and Biden (with a halt by President Trump in between) both these standards were strengthened, leading to progressively cleaner cars. Regulations adopted late in the Biden administration are even stronger.

Federal law allows California to set its own even more stringent standards if EPA grants a waiver, and if it does, other states may adopt those. States that have traditionally followed the California standards amount to around 40 percent of the market for passenger cars. California has adopted rules that would phase out internal combustion engine cars and require that all new cars starting with the 2035 model year be zero-emission, and EPA has granted the needed waiver. Eight states have adopted plans requiring all new cars to be zero-emission by 2035, but this depends on the California waiver; without it, state laws inconsistent with the federal standards are preempted.

Both the stronger fuel economy standards and the California waiver are being challenged in court. Trump is likely to direct the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to freeze or weaken the standards and to revoke the California waiver, as he did during his first term. These actions, too, will face court challenges.

The automakers are, of course, free to make as many electric cars as they want and are already retooling to increase their output. But whether they are compelled to do so depends on the outcome of these court cases. And importantly, the subsidies for electric vehicles in the Inflation Reduction Act are also at risk, as Trump has said he would consider ending them.

Coal-Fired Power Plants

No one is building new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. any more, but there are about 225 still operating, and they are now the second largest source of greenhouse gases and also major emitters of unhealthy air pollutants such as fine particulates. Democratic administrations have for decades tried to accelerate their cleanup and closure, but the courts have frequently thrown up roadblocks. In 2024 the EPA issued a new rule that requires the eventual closure of these plants unless they install carbon capture and sequestration, a very expensive proposition. This too is being challenged in court and is very likely to be repealed by Trump.

Fossil Fuels

Trump has adopted the “drill baby drill” mantra. He has also promised to cut energy prices in half, mostly by greatly increasing production of oil and natural gas. However, current production levels under President Biden are the highest ever seen in the U.S., and higher than any other country in the world. This is mostly due to fracking, which has become the largest source of primary energy in the U.S. (47 percent in 2023). However, fracking is economical only if the prices of oil and natural gas are high enough; a drastic decline in prices will drive down production. Trump will probably open more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and relax environmental restrictions on them. But whether this will dramatically increase production is open to question.

Last January, Biden announced a temporary pause in the approval of new liquified natural gas export terminals. Trump will end that pause and try to expedite the approvals of these terminals and the associated pipelines.

International Agreements

Under Obama, the U.S. joined the Paris climate agreement; Trump withdrew; Biden rejoined; and Trump will no doubt pull out again. He might also go further and remove the U.S. from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the Senate ratified in 1992 and is the foundation for the Paris Agreement. Any of this would deny the U.S. a seat at the global climate bargaining tables and cede climate leadership to China.

For more than 30 years at the annual U.N. climate conference, the developing countries have been demanding “loss and damage” — compensation for the injuries they have suffered as a result of climate change. The U.S. has long been a target of these demands. With Trump in the White House and a Republican Congress, any hope of the U.S. providing funds for this purpose appears gone.

State and Local Action

While states cannot impose their own standards on motor vehicles without federal approval, in most other respects states are free to set stronger environmental standards than Washington. States can also adopt energy efficiency standards for appliances that are not subject to federal standards.

States and cities can use their procurement power to require low-emissions production of the cement, steel, and other commodities they buy and can demand clean motor vehicles and appliances. They purchase all of these in large quantities, which impacts manufacturers.

Blue states and cities, together with environmental groups, can be expected to vigorously litigate against Trump’s actions on climate change, as they did during Trump’s first term. The next four years will be rocky, indeed, and will keep lawyers on both sides very busy.

[mesetacadre]

Does socialist theory have any use for classes based on wealth/income? (rich/poor as opposed to bourgeoisie/proletariat)

Short answer: kinda but not really

Long answer: Classes in marxist theory are exclusively defined by the objective relationship of the subject to the property of the means of production and to the organization of labor, in capitalism it being mostly salary work. From these objective and economic relationships spring the classes of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the petit-bourgeoisie, the lumpen-proletariat, artisans...

Income, while highly correlated with one's position in class society, is not the defining trait of the subject, but the consequence's of the individual's conditions and specific relationship to their own work. Income itself is just the remuneration for a part of the labor-power that one exerts, or for the value created by others' labor-power that you exploit by virtue of having private ownership of the means of production. In neither of these cases is income the cause of one's class, but a consequence of it.

What a "class" analysis based on income gets you is the inability to actually strike at the core of what organizes class society. For example, the income-based analysis most radical liberals and social-democrats prefer to use (while still choosing to appropriate marxist terminology like "owning class") does not allow them to properly identify the exploitative nature of small businesses, thus, you'll see them rallying against Big Capital while their beloved family-owned small business commits labor law violations on the daily with 11 hour workdays for minimum wage. The income of the petit-bourgeoise is not that great, it's still higher than an average salary worker, but small enough that recessions or the mere existence of concentrated capital is enough to render the small property owner into a worker, a process known as proletariatization. See this really good explanation of what that dynamic means for the political implications of this economic fact.

An income-based analysis would place the small business owner and their 3 employees on the same side with, supposedly, the same interests, because they don't get a lot of money. I don't need to harp on any more to explain why that is nonsense, I hope.

Furthermore, within the working class, there are contrasts in income. There are workers who have a lavish salary, and there are workers who don't even make enough to support their basic needs. The objective fact of their exploitation is the same: they generate value with their labor-power, and sell it to a capitalist for a fraction of what they generate. Exploitation in the marxist sense is not a moral judgement. This is not about whether it's morally wrong or not to extract value from workers. Exploitation creates alienation and a class antagonism that can only ever be resolved one way, which is through the overthrow of the exploiter class by the exploited, history shows that this antagonism is what has propelled it forwards.

It is another question, and one that concerns us less, whether the salary, the price with which a capitalist buys a fraction of the worker's labor-power, is enough for the worker to lead a relatively accommodated life or not. If this was the question, which it is for, say, social-democrats, then the mere reform of capitalism (which, to be clear, is not possible to enact for all workers and all countries) to ensure a decent livelihood under the system of salary work would be enough.

With a lavish income, some might argue, a worker ceases to share the same interests with the rest of the working class who can't afford the first's lifestyle. But what this is omitting is that, in the cases of some workers with a really high salary, it becomes possible for the worker to join the ranks of the bourgeoisie by acquiring capital. Here, top-rated actors and athletes comes to mind. Actors and athletes are paid a salary in exchange for their labor-power, but the highest rated ones generate so much value that the capitalists pay them a really high salary, and then, most of the time, these highly-paid workers acquire some property and become a part of the bourgeoisie. In the US, for example, a bunch of high-rated workers of the entertainment industry such as Oprah, with more than 2,000 acres, have become large landlords in Hawai'i, taking advantage of the colonization of the island chain.

The break in common interests between highly-paid workers and the rest of their class comes from the change in economic class that their income allows for, not the income itself.

There is one instance when income becomes more relevant, and that is in the case of the labor aristocracy. Because of the international division of labor created by and protected by imperialism, the workers of the imperial core, as much as they are still exploited by capitalists and have revolutionary interests, benefit directly or indirectly from the even greater exploitation placed on the workers of the imperial periphery and global south, allowing for a generalized improvement in the quality of life for the imperial core workers.

Two conclusions can be made from this fact:

First, that the social-democratic welfare state depends on the exploitation of vast swaths of the world, and thus, it is not an applicable system in the majority of the world. Second, that the working class of the imperial core can, by the objective fact of the improvement of their material conditions by the spoils of imperialism, can act in the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Take as an example the SAG-AFTRA union, which decidedly supported the imperialist project of Israel after al-Aqsa Flood. This does mean that a greater effort is needed for most workers in the imperial core, the labor aristocracy, to achieve revolutionary-political consciousness. The spontaneous class consciousness that some people insist is enough to be revolutionary, is born of the daily class antagonisms one experiences, and also of the material conditions underlying one's existence, therefore, as we have seen a lot this past year, spontaneous consciousness can include attitudes that favor the bourgeoisie.

And still, even if the labor aristocracy is broadly defined by a higher income, it is still dependent on the relationship to the organization of labor. Even the most desperate and destitute homeless citizen of the imperial core benefits in a lot of ways from the system of imperialism. For example, they don't need to worry about the political instability most imperialized countries suffer, and to put a cruder example, they are never going to get shot by a 22-year-old USamerican soldier doing target practice.

[captainkirkk]

✩ WEEKLY FIC ROUND-UP ✩

All the fics I’ve read and really enjoyed in the past week-ish. Reminder: This list features any and all ratings and themes.

Percy Jackson

Stars on the Water by liketolaugh

"I dunno, I just think it would make a lot of things easier for a lot of people," Percy said to Thalia, when she just stared at him. His cheek rested in his hand, a rare pensive look leaving his eyes distant and unfocused. "Mom has Paul now, so it’ll be easier on her if she doesn’t have to worry about me mucking things up. Dad won’t have to keep threatening war every time Zeus gets his toga twisted. The prophecy’s done, so I won’t be bringing it down on Nico. And no one will have to worry about me blowing up another volcano."

On Heists and Home Economics by chellethewriter

Over the last few days, Annabeth has spent a great deal of time imagining what was stolen, what could cause Percy and the Stolls so much antagonism and strife. She imagined valuables and prized possessions and even—thanks to Malcolm—something as ridiculous as an engagement ring.

But never, not once, had she considered the possibility of a baby doll.

Because who in Hades would?

“That wasn’t just some children’s toy!” 

And Annabeth can feel it. She can feel Percy's rage bursting forth with his words—a pressure that whips through the pavilion like the briny wind of a sea storm. It's something primal, she thinks. Something desperate. So when Percy rises to his feet, climbing and cresting like a tidal wave, Annabeth doesn't blame the Stolls for shrinking toward the floor. If she didn't know Percy so well, she would do the same. 

“That doll,” Percy grits out, “is worth fifty percent of my Home Economics grade!"

Of Storms and Bloodlines by inkncoffee

When people thought of Poseidon they thought of the sea; Poseidon, Lord of the Seas, Commander of the Waves, the Stormbringer. Upon consideration they would add Earthshaker, for catastrophic events such as earthquakes were hard to forget. Few remembered, however, that Poseidon was also Lord of the Horses. Stormbringer and Earthshaker tended to squeeze that one out.

Percy had been able to talk to horses for as long as he could remember. He liked to think he understood them. Although he's not entirely sure why the new stallion thinks he's its foal.

Poseidon is not jealous that Percy thinks a horse makes a better father figure than himself. At all.

Not By Design by inkncoffee

Being a stepfather was hard enough even when your new stepson wasn't the greatest demigod of his time.

Paul's journey from that guy dating Sally to being Percy's father.

Welcome to Demon School, Iruma-kun!

Broody Feelings by writerkat

Quite abruptly, Balam's behavior takes a sudden turn for the aggressive. Though some know why, no one knows how.

It may be wind up up to Iruma to find that out. As well as how to get Balam back to being the gentle giant he's always been.

A Spoonful of Sugar by silvershadowkit.

The stress of living in the Netherworld finally causes Iruma to succumb to the worse of human conditions: the common cold. How do his friends and family react in this moment of crisis?

He's Doing Just Fine by ScatteredNova (Timewormbloom)

Asmodeus and Clara discover the truth behind Iruma's parents and decide that it's their responsibility to make up for the love and affection he missed out on growing up. But they somehow miss the fact that Iruma is doing just fine without his previous family, and he's enjoying his new one very much.

Just a Bit Warmer by Creativitee

Iruma gets himself, quite literally, stuck in a bad situation. He calls on his familiar somewhat accidentally for a little bit of help.

Kalego is more than displeased at the situation to say the least, until he realizes it may be just a bit more dire than first glance shows.

SVSSS

simmering heat by tagteamme

Shen Qingqiu gets hit by a curse that is a little different than the hedonistic traps he and his husband normally fall victim to. In fact, it’s the opposite— in order to make it out of this curse alive, Shen Qingqiu must abstain from touching Luo Binghe.

This should be nothing more than a much-needed holiday for his old hips and waist, right?

[txttletale]

wanted 2 ask u cuz i think u know more than me:

most of the acab / police aboltion stuff i see is based on the US system, backed up with US stats and events, and suggesting changes to the US policing system.

but a lot of the proposed changes i see are similar (i think?) to what we currently have in the UK, and the power imbalance and training issues and violence are much worse in the US (but not absent here obvs). while the institution is still racist. but I'm wary of the usual 'it doesn't happen here' response that ppl usually employ to dismiss movements like BLM in the UK.

how much of acab rhetoric applies here, and how should we adapt the plans for reform for the UK policing system?

i mean the USA is definitely an outlier in terms of police and prison violence but this is broadly a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. i assure you that the police in the UK are just as horrifically racist and violent--they're just not as armed and don't have the same amount of political capital as the far more militarized USAmerican police.

the Metropolitan Police's own report (lol) found them to be 'institutionally racist'. police in the UK have fucking absurd powers, such as being permitted to commit any crime while undercover without judicial review, as long as it's in the interests of 'national security' or 'preventing disorder' or 'protecting the economic well-being of the United Kingdom' (!). they are relentlessly and disproportionately violent towards BAME people. they have a systemic culture of violence and brutality. Bristol police tased their own race relations advisor, twice. when a woman, sarah everard, was raped and murdered by a police officer, police suppressed and brutalized protesters at her vigil.

here are stop and search statistics for the UK police in 2021:

the UK policing system is just as racist and just as much of an oppressive apparatus as the USAmerican one. don't trust anyone from the UK who tries to tell you otherwise. all cops are bastards because the institution of policing under capitalism exists first and foremost to protect capitalist property relations.

obviously the demands of BLM protesters in the USA cannot be adapted 1-for-1 to the UK, and as a revolutionary communist i think there are very hard limits to what can be meaningfully accomplished under liberal democracy. but i think a good place to start if you want achievable short-term reform to happen is relentless protest and action against the recent bills that have expanded police powers more than ever, against the Blair-era counterterrorism legislation, for the abolition of the Met Police, and for justice for victims of police brutality.

Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class […] This public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of all kinds

— Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State