#radical economics

[txttletale]

i invite everyone who scoffs with self evident disbelief that it is impossible for the family to be abolished to take it up with the feudal states who abolished the clan, or the capitalist states who abolished the extended (non-nuclear) family

[eclecticwordblender]

thinking about this one time at uni when i, an english literature student had to explain to an economics major how billionaires build wealth by creating human-made deficit and therefore there aren’t any ethical billionaires.

funny how this economics major's conclusion was, "yeah but i have faith in taylor swift."

when i say i wanted to bang my head on the wall so bad…

[wiserebeltiger]

I hope Trump puts Nancy Pelosi in prison for insider trading! I’d fucking enjoy that shit!

[thewhizzyhead]

if I said eisa davis' influence in making lmm actually write something rather radically progressive has subsequently inspired me to return to my roots of actually fucking thinking of making radically progressive musicals after a 3-year long hiatus in doing so, then what-

[thedreadvampy]

I guess a question I actually have is what would it actually look like to build communism/radical leftism in the imperial core?

I do believe (when I can) that we're living through a transition away from the imperial age, and that necessarily requires loss for people in Northern Europe and North America.

To be clear, that isn't an argument against it. In the imperial core there are things we are very very used to having which a) we aren't entitled to and b) cost a disproportionate amount to the rest of the world. and in a post-colonial future we could see a flattening of social and economic inequality (if we made it happen).

but I increasingly think there's a difficult tension in building liberation movements within the borders of countries which built and are at the heart of the current hegemon. And then at the same time, NOT building liberation movements within our own countries isn't really an option, both because a) we have to live now and letting ourselves continue to get fucked over by power is just pointless self-harm and b) because the internal collapse of these systems is part of the external collapse of the imperial order.

buuuuuut a lot of the current leftist movements in the imperial core are very much based on improving the lot specifically of people within the country and idk when/if that starts to run counter to a global restructure of power?

[feministdragon]

"All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as “The Right to work,” or “To each the whole result of his labour.” What we proclaim is THE RIGHT TO WELL-BEING: WELL-BEING FOR ALL!"

120 years ago a man wrote this in an extremely influential book. I read this and want to cry, that everything he wrote about the state of the world is still true, and still Bad.

Now I read these words as history, and not a call to action, and this also makes me want to cry. But I read on, to find out what those that were thinking this 100 years ago have to teach us now.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Academically established reading of Wives and Daughters as a Darwinian manifesto my beloathed.

[sideboot]

there’s knowing that Roy Kent’s being sent off at the age of nine by his family was probably understood as a necessary sacrifice for the financial future of the family and then there’s knowing  that Roy would have been born in the mid-80s right in the middle of thatcher administration and the era of austerity.

[marblecakemix]

I fucking love women!

Today I went to [insert city] women's health congers and it was the most amazing thing I've ever come to. No man was talking on the panels, there were no male doctors, all made for women by women and all of them were so based. It felt like home it was so empowering to hear that "I'm proud to be a woman and all of you girls should be too!" It was so nice to learn that there are so many women in my city who think the same as me.

There were classes on sex ed exclusively for women, childbearing and sterility, women's health after menopause, and more. You could go and get yourself checked for free and have breast Ultrasound to see if you have breast cancer. We broke last year's record in breast self-examination and every woman got a little cute gift after that. But most importantly we were all together and we were celebrating our diverse femininity.

I made some friends too, it was great!

[rotenotes]

Saul Newman - The Politics of Postanarchism

The Politics of Postanarchism Saul Newman In recent years radical politics has been faced with a number of new challenges, not least of which has been the reemergence of the aggressive, authoritarian state in its new paradigm of security and bio-politics. The ‘war on terror’ serves as the latest guise for the aggressive reassertion of the principle state sovereignty, beyond the traditional limits…

[epitome-the-burnkid-viii]

[mariocki]

"We should stop thinking in terms of 'compensatory education' but consider, instead, most seriously and systematically the conditions and contexts of the educational environment.

The very form our research takes tends to confirm the beliefs underlying the organization, transmission and evaluation of knowledge by the school. Research proceeds by assessing the criteria of attainment that schools hold, and then measures the competence of different social groups in reaching these criteria. We take one group of children, whom we know beforehand possess attributes favourable to school achievement; and a second group of children, whom we know beforehand lack these attributes. Then we evaluate one group in terms of what it lacks when compared with another. In this way research unwittingly underscores the notion of deficit and confirms the status quo of a given organization, transmission and, in particular, evaluation of knowledge. Research very rarely challenges or exposes the social assumptions underlying what counts as valid knowledge, or what counts as a valid realization of that knowledge."

- Basil Bernstein, Education Cannot Compensate for Society, in Education for Democracy (2nd ed., 1972)

[dipperdesperado]

i'm not sure about dialectical materialism...

I spend a lot of time talking about strategies and frameworks for IRL worldbuilding. This can be a bit problematic for a lot of reasons. I’ll start by looking at two: a “democratic centralist” ideological lineage that I disagree with, and a different, more insurrectionary response to that tendency. Now, that is something I have much more respect for, but don’t see it as being able to carry the torch the whole way.

I am someone who sees the importance and benefits of strategic thinking but also understands the negation-oriented spontaneity of uprisings, direct actions, and isolated confrontations. I don’t want (nor do I think it’s possible for) those things to stop, but I want them to be as effective as possible. This means that more people need to become collaborative and autonomous (in the self-directed, can-make-decisions-for-themselves sense). We have to organize around this, and we need a strategy so that we can both make it happen and iterate more successfully.

That’s all I’ll say about that section of things. Anti-organization/anti-strategic folks are dope, but they can’t get us all the way. The best case is that they widen the spaces for autonomy to flourish. The main thing I want to focus on is people who strategize and organize in a centralized way. I’m going to discuss dialectical materialism as it is conceived, and why I think that it blows.

Let’s talk about dialectics and materialism separately for a bit. Dialectics is a way to think about the world, a kind of mental model builder, that allows one to analyze tensions (or contradictions) in society and resolve them in a way more satisfactory than either choice. It is an undergirding idea that can animate further thoughts. Materialism, meanwhile is that the material world/reality itself is what promotes history and social development. Ideas aren’t what make history move, it’s the material conditions. So, the way that they are combined, becoming the philosophy of dialectical materialism is meant to be a framework to allows us to understand and critique society so that we can make it more liberatory.

Dialectical materialism is an idea that I’ll mostly attribute to Stalin that sees social change and history through understanding contradictions and material circumstances. It’s meant to understand the base of society, which is the economic mode of production, and the superstructure, which is everything that is birthed from that economic mode of production. So things like culture, art, ideology, etc. Base = economics, Superstructure = the rest of the pieces of society. Got it?

While this may sound great, dialectical materialism as a framework has some glaring blind spots. People don’t act purely from a place of rationality or determinism based on their conditions. Said otherwise, you cannot look solely at material conditions and understand why the world is why it is, or why people act the way that they do. We have to dialectically (ha) look at the tension between materialism and idealism, analyzing both of their places in the world. With this in mind, the way that dialectics are bundled with materialism (creating the philosophy of dialectical materialism) claims scientific rigor without proving it through a relationship of experimentation and iteration. There isn’t enough empirical evidence to support this conception of dialectical materialism.

It leaves me to question whether or not a more holistic, systems & complexity-oriented method/philosophy can surpass dialectical materialism. Complexity theories, namely the ideas of self-organization, emergence, chaos, and entropy are exciting and interesting ways to see how social change works. Rather than a simple machine, societies are complex adaptive systems that are more than just resolving tensions between contradictions. A useful mental model builder is DSRP (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, and Perspectives) structures. Distinctions are about looking at the elements/agents within a system, where identifying one element implies the existence of other elements. Systems are an understanding whole that necessitates parts. Relationships are the actions and reactions between the other structures (Distinctions, Systems, other Relationships, and Perspectives). Perspectives are specific positions/points, implying a view. Using DSRP, we can construct models of systems and understand them on a holistic level, rather than reducing the fidelity of our analysis to our detriment. DSRP, similarly to dialectical materialism, is a fractal tool, creating as little or as much fidelity as we would like in our models.

I think that the most damning thing for dialectical materialism is a lack of understanding of how power functions within both the base and the superstructure, influencing and steering social forces. Power is a relationship between both people and their positions within a society. By not questioning the form that power takes (power-over vs. power-to vs. power-with), it cannot actually resolve the contradictions within society meaningfully. It undermines the whole project. We need to unpack the multifaceted nature of inequality, relating to all of the vectors that identity exists (race, gender, ability, sexuality, etc.) and seeing their relation to the structure as both of and from that structure. How social discourses, institutions, and practices reinforce matrixes of domination is very important to understand.

But maybe this doesn’t mean that we fully discard dialectics and materialism. I see them as something that can complement complexity theory and a liberatory power analysis. Dialectics are a great way to look at shifting terrains and sites of struggle, based on our understanding of the complex adaptive system of society. We also need to understand the material world, which benefits from a holistic scientific framework like understanding complexity. Ecosystems (a descriptive, holistic science) are a much more useful touchstone for understanding society than physics (a prescriptive, reductionist science). Oppressive ideas come from material conditions and are shaped by power structures. We could critically employ dialectical materialism to get a fuller picture, but that comes from being in concert with other tools.

Instead of fully abandoning it, we can integrate some of the most useful insights from dialectics and materialism, blending them into more modern systems analysis and theories of power. This has to be done in concert with those marginalized by society. Fuddy-duddies are the ones who have bungled everything, so it’s time to pass the torch. If we can do this, if we can empower the folks on the furthest margin, they will be able to emancipate themselves with a theory that simultaneously facilitates a building of dual power, contesting oppressive power, and ushering in a new world.

[livvyofthelake]

wow i hope he dies.

[pantestudines]

I dont think I'll ever really have the pc, time, or following to ever actually stream something, but if I did I know exactly what it would be. I'd title it "Space Truckin'" and I'd be playing 2003's Freelancer (a game so unknown here that I could find three whole posts about it, but that I am personally obsessed with). This game is a space dogfighting game, but instead of buying paramilitary war machines to blow up space hackers with, I'd limit myself to ONLY buying freighters and running cargo from place to place, severly dampening my combat abilities in the still-very-dogfight-focused main plot. I'm just a poor space trucker, dammit! I didn't want to get involved in intergalactic politics!

[spiderfreedom]

gender around the world

thinking of making an effortpost elaborating on my 'gender is about power' post. a lot of people don't know just how common gender roles are across the world. like, every society that we know of has gender-segregated labor. they're not all equally strict, but this division is one of the few human universals we know of. and another one is that in every society we know of, women are responsible for childcare.

not all societies denigrate women. the extreme denigration of women is basically societies that imprison women at home, because to appear in public is to be 'indecent' and therefore mark you as a bad woman worthy of punishment and violence. these are called ideologies of female seclusion. examples include, to varying extent, ancient athens, modern iran, ancient china, the modern christian fundamentalist movement. these societies also tend to culturally devalue women's contributions to society. lip service will be given to the importance of mothers, but the most important and recognized people in society will be men. any influence women have tends to be behind the scenes influence on particular powerful men. this type of seclusion is somewhat more common in europe and asia.

some societies culturally recognize women's value and allow women to become high-status individuals publically. women appear in public, have spheres of power they control, and are not systematically degraded (but a caveat, which i explain soon). these societies include the ancient oyo benin of western africa (modern day descendants are the yoruba), the iroquois, the inuit, the !kung people. this type of cultural recognition is somewhat more common in africa and the (indigenous) americans.

now for the caveat - even societies that viewed women as valuable, important, powerful, often have anti-women organizing principles. arranged marriage exists among the inuit and !kung people, for instance, with an older man betrothed to a girl or young woman. there are multiple yoruba proverbs that denigrate or patronize women. these societies are not feminist utopias. they are societies that believe in the complementarian value of women's work, recognize it, and where women are expected to be full members of society. this does not mean that men and women are utterly equal in dignity.

there are many manifestations of the arrangements above - the lamalerans of indonesia don't have a culture of seclusion but do value men's labor over women's. even among fundamentalist christians, we see different levels of female seclusion and leadership among the different subgroups. i note trends, and trends are not absolute.

why does this matter to us? because it proves that gender is not a liberatory principle. gender is not even primarily an aesthetic principle. gender is a script handed to people that they must play so society can function. some scripts say that women's roles are important and valuable and ought to be celebrated. other scripts say that women's roles are less important and women are shameful and should stay secluded. but it is worth noting they are scripts nonetheless.

understanding that gender exists to organize labor, values, reproduction, also means you understand why feminists should study economics. male anxiety about female empowerment rises when male employment is threatened. in other words, rising unemployment for men = increasing anxiety about women "replacing" them = increasing desire for strict gender roles that "assure" men places in society. (btw - many women also feel the same in societies where they depend on men, and employed women are viewed as enemies.)

until we figure out how to get men to stop being existentially concerned with their place on the masculine hierarchy, decreases in male employment and male success will continue to be boons to anti-feminist. and so, in addition to being worried about unemployment because of how it affects women's labor directly, feminists should be worried about unemployment because it ferments anti-female resentment. (could managing unemployment levels thus turn out to be a way to control anti-feminist sentiment, so that feminists can lay groundwork for more advanced feminist points? instead of always worrying about maintaining the gains we have? food for thought)