theluddite

theluddite, 2 days ago

I’m feeling better and better about my “pornetariat” theory.

theluddite, 2 days ago

Glad you enjoyed!

theluddite, 11 days ago

Alexandra Elbakyan (Scihub) has probably done more for scientific progress than anyone alive.

theluddite, 17 days ago

This kind of consumerist green-tech is not solarpunk. Solarpunk is about imagining a postcapitalist future, when human needs are met not just within ecological constraints, but as part of a healthy ecosystem, and technology exists to aid us in doing that. It’s about envisioning a radically changed world. Tools like these are the exact opposite end of green-tech: They’re specifically designed to fit neatly into our life as it exists today. The ad copy is super clear about that. The promotional materials even have an SUV.

To be clear, I’m not taking a stance on whether they’re bad or good, but I am saying that they’re not solarpunk.

theluddite, 17 days ago

Just because a postcapitalist world should have a battery for every house does not make batteries in and of themselves solarpunk. The story surrounding the battery, in this case, the branding, is actually precisely what matters, because solarpunk is explicitly about speculative futures. It’s a genre of science fiction that creates an optimistic and green aesthetic to aid in imagining a postcapitalist world. Posting a link to a currently existing consumer grade technology with consumerist branding is, by definition, not solarpunk.

“A good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam.” You’re posting the automobile. Science fiction is about the social context of the technology as much if not more than about the technology itself.

Again, I’m not saying that personal batteries are bad, or have no part in a postcapitalist future.

theluddite, 17 days ago

I think that’s a very weird interpretation of that, but fair enough :)

theluddite, 17 days ago

Oh hey I wrote that lol.

Not all protests for Gaza were meant to gain engagement, many were organized to cause direct economic disruption to those that profit from the war, that is a goal.

I actually totally agree with you. I should’ve been more careful in the text to distinguish between those two very different kinds of actions. I actually really, really like things that disrupt those that profit, but those are not nearly as common as going to the local park or whatever. I might throw in a footnote to clarify.

theluddite, 17 days ago

That’s kind of a weird critique, because it’s actually consistent with the book. He spends a lot of time talking about how wildly different every person’s interpretation of the event is, and that’s kind of the problem. It’s part of why these movements are illegible to power. He’s very clear that this is his interpretation, based on his own contacts, experience, and extensive research, but that it’s not going to be the same as everyone else’s.

Same is true with the moniker. Whether or not the people on the ground felt that way about it or not, that story, fabricated without input from those on the ground, is what ended up creating meaning out of the movement, at least insomuch as power is concerned. That’s like the core thesis of the book: The problem with that wave of protests was not being able to assert their own meaning over their actions. The meaning was created for them by people like western media, and they weren’t able to organize their own narrative, choose their own representatives, etc.

edit to add: IIRC, he even specifically discusses how the different people in the core group of Brazilian organizers disagree on what happened.

theluddite, 17 days ago (edited 17 days ago)

I don’t think its wired to critique someone for having a widely different interpretation of what happened than multiple others that were directly involved and then taking this very peculiar subjective interpretation to make wide sweeping (and IMHO wrong) conclusions about what we should learn from it.

It is because that’s literally what the book is about. The book is addressing that very phenomenon as its core thesis. That’s exactly what he is talking about when he says that the protests are illegible. If someone says “people disagree a lot about what happened and that’s a problem” responding to that by saying “i disagree about what happened” isn’t really engaging with the argument.

My impression is that Bevin started out with a preconsived notion and then kinda made up a retrospective narrative of these protests to fit to that.

I’m sorry but I don’t think that anyone who has actually read the book in good faith can come to that conclusion.

edit: added more explanation

theluddite, 17 days ago

Yeah, again, I take pretty strong issue with your characterization of Bevins’s stance. Have you actually read the book? I think that this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion, but I also don’t want to go in circles if you haven’t…

When he says that they’re illegible to state power, he doesn’t mean that they want to appeal to the people currently in power (and maybe this is a conflation that I accidentally invite in my own write-up). He means that they cannot participate in state power as an institutional apparatus, be it as reformists or revolutionaries.

I get what you’re saying, and I agree with a lot of it (but not all of it), but you’re just not responding to an argument that Bevins makes, at least in how I read him. You are responding to one that many in western media did in fact make, and I agree with you in that context, but that was just not my reading of Bevins at all.

theluddite, 17 days ago

I once again disagree with your characterization of the book.

You realize how funny it is that you post this in an Anarchist community?

That’s stupid. Anarchist revolutionary theory and historical practice are full of ideas that are perfectly compatible with this analysis, even if Bevins himself is clearly not an anarchist. There is no more legible act to the state than organized violence, for example.

I’m not sure why you’ve taken this unpleasant posture towards me. I’m genuinely here for a discussion, but this is my last response if you keep acting like I’m some sort of uncultured idiot that needs you “to start from the basics 😒”

theluddite, 17 days ago

To be clear, I wasn’t advocating for organized violence as a good tactic. I was just picking a simple example.

I still think that Bevins’s history and analysis has merit, even if you disagree with his conclusions. I’ve read at least two books by anarchists that put forth similar concepts of legibility: Graeber’s “Utopia of Rules” and James Scott’s “Seeing like a State” (which I actually read to write this post and have a bajillion opinions about, but that’s a post for another day). Regardless of your stance on whether your movement should or shouldn’t be legible, you have to understand legibility, both to the state, and to other capitalist powers like, say, social media (to pick one at random 😉 ).

theluddite, 19 days ago

“The workplace isn’t for politics” says company that exerts coercive political power to expel its (ex-)workers for disagreeing.

theluddite, 20 days ago

Thanks friend! I appreciate it so much!

theluddite, 20 days ago

I’m very upfront about my slant. I’m biased against war, and against those who profit off weapons of war. The site exists to advocate openly and honestly for the world that I (and my collaborators) want to live in, and that world just doesn’t include popular YouTubers making ads for companies worth billions of dollars that make death robots owned by billionaire ghouls, even if some of their products aren’t as bad as others.

I don’t remember Mark saying the drones were cooler than the Patriot, I remember him saying that they were significantly less expensive (though I didn’t go back and watch to confirm).

He has an animation about how they’re recoverable and talked about how they’re part of their program that use new technology like SpaceX and such. He definitely hyped it up.

This piece seems to be saying that there can be no good use of military systems, and we shouldn’t say anything positive about them, because some of them are being abused, which is nonsense.

“Because some of them are being abused” is a comical understatement when talking about the American drone program, or American militarism in general.

But more importantly, that’s just not what I said. There’s a huge difference between “there can be no good use of military systems” and criticizing one of the single most influential educational YouTubers with more followers than there are people in most countries for uncritically repeating American “war on terror” style propaganda towards children while fawning over an arms dealer.

theluddite, 20 days ago (edited 20 days ago)

Like i said in the OP, good propaganda isn’t lies, but the truth selectively emphasized. Drones are a threat, but I have a problem with the way that the whole package is being presented here. I get that, in a way, it’s a subtle complaint, but the subtlety is part of what makes it effective. That’s why it took me 3000 words to explain my point!

I suspect that another important point of disagreement here, besides my personal moral objection to making weapons of war in general, is that I believe that arms manufacturing and wars themselves can’t be treated separately, as you’re doing. Weapons contractors are hugely influential in American politics. They spend tons of money advocating for war, which reenforces the giant war budget, which feedbacks forever. Basically every news article about foreign policy quotes a defense contractor funded think tank, for example. They also give generously to hawkish members of Congress.

theluddite, 19 days ago (edited 19 days ago)

But situations like Ukraine (and what’s brewing in Taiwan) are conclusive proof that we need a capable military.

That’s extremely facile. The word “capable” is a massive understatement. Our military budget is bigger than the next ten countries combined. That includes Russia and China. There are years when the American military budget grows by an amount bigger than the entire Russian budget.

Also, because American weapons do sometimes end up on what you consider the right side of a conflict doesn’t conclusively prove anything about the American war industry, or the American military, in general. There’s a Yemen, a Gaza, an Iraq, or a Pakistan for every Ukraine.

re:Taiwan - When reporting on the situation in Taiwan, American media relies heavily on think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It’s a very sanitized, academic sounding name, but they’re funded by the Arms industry and the Pentagon, and all they ever do is advocate for a bigger military budget. I’m not saying that China is puppies and rainbows, but I am saying that our military budget is already so much bigger than China’s, and that these think tanks have a vested financial interest in convincing us that China is a huge threat and our budget is too small to confront it.

Just to add another example, it’s the same with Iran: When those protests broke out in 2017, the American media had arms-industry-funded think tanks on nonstop constantly advocating for “regime change” and military build up in a country already completely surrounded by American military bases. That doesn’t seem like a good faith path to peace to me. Imagine for a second how the US would react if Iran put a single base within our hemisphere, let alone all along the Canada and Mexico borders.

theluddite, 22 days ago

Your comment perfectly encapsulates one of the central contradictions in modern journalism. You explain the style guide, and the need to communicate information in a consistent way, but then explain that the style guide is itself guided by business interests, not by some search for truth, clarity, or meaning.

I’ve been a long time reader of FAIR.org and i highly recommend them to anyone in this thread who can tell that something is up with journalism but has never done a dive into what exactly it is. Modern journalism has a very clear ideology (in the sorta zizek sense, not claiming that the journalists do it nefariously). Once you learn to see it, it’s everywhere

theluddite, 25 days ago

There is nothing more impractical than destroying the only home for life as we know it. We literally have nowhere else to go. Banning single use plastics and nationalizing oil companies is so unbelievably convenient compared to the alternative.

In fact, revolutionary change is not just possible, but inevitable. It’s a question of whether we’re going to do it proactively, mitigating the harm that we’ve already done in the most just way that we can, or do it reactively. Either way, the day that enough of us wake up and decide to stop doing capitalism – and that day will come – it’ll stop, because labor wakes up every single day and makes capitalism happen.

theluddite, 25 days ago

What exactly does “practical” mean to you? To me, it’s just a manifestation of what Gramsci called “common sense” (“senso comune” in his Italian), which is itself part of what he called hegemony, or the mainstream intellectual/cultural ideas that justify the current regime. He argued that this common sense is the sort of popular philosophy that always surrounds us, which will always be uncritical of existing power, and that it’s the job of leftists to reject capitalism’s own notion of practicality because it cannot ever be practical to go up against the people who are deciding what is practical, by definition. Instead, we need to write our own version of practicality, because if we go around repeating the existing one, as you’re doing now, then we’re doing the work of entrenching it instead of opposing it.

So, for Gramsci, this feeling that you feel doesn’t mean that it can’t be done; it means that you’re suggesting something that would threaten the people in charge, because they’re the ones who get to define “practical.” It means nothing more or less.

theluddite, 25 days ago

It’s all good that we say, let’s do this, but it’s how we get there. How do we topple the systems of inequality which prop up capitalism, because it’s not enough to say give up plastic and make a peace sign.

We learn and we organize. Speaking for myself, I started a worker cooperative and work in international human rights. I’m a member of many socialist organizations, some local and some international. I’ve joined more picket lines than I can count. I go to conferences, where I network with other socialists to start other projects and support each other. I’ve been part of local efforts against evictions, expanded police budgets, and so on, some of which actually won. It’s not a mystery, but it is hard, and we have to keep showing up and doing it.

Also, if I may probe, I think that your dismissive comment (“it’s not enough to say give up plastic and make a peace sign”), which clearly implies that I’m not doing anything serious, is telling. I think that you’re being defensive. Zizek (I think in “Sublime Object” but it could be in something else) notes that ideology, as he defines it, is something that we don’t see in our day to day life, but being forced to see it is a painful process, and we often respond defensively to having it challenged. Your current worldview seems to take for granted that no one (at least, no one serious) is doing anything meaningful to change the status quo, or even has a plan for how to change it, but that’s actually not true, so we end up in this strange situation where you think that saying the most superficial thing about the current state of the world is somehow explaining something to me.

If you’re actually interested in that question that you asked, and not just using it rhetorically, I have approximately ten thousand reading suggestions for you. I’ve already mentioned Gramsci and Zizek, but they can be a bit esoteric. There are also very good and very practical theorists of revolutionary change, many of which were themselves practicing revolutionaries.

theluddite, 24 days ago (edited 24 days ago)

Okay here’s some wide-ranging suggestions, mostly focused on theories of change, as requested. A lot of it is authors whose views I don’t necessarily endorse, but I find their contributions meaningful all the same, if that makes sense.

• Erik Olin Wright’s “How to be anticapitalist in the 21st century.” It’s short. It’s easy to read, and makes a case against capitalism, for socialism, while sketching out a light revolutoinary theory. I actually don’t like his theory of change, personally, but I do respectfully recognize his contribution to the discussion as a clear-writing and insightful scholar.
• Rosa Luxemburg’s “Reform or Revolution and the Mass Strike.” I like Luxemburg. A lot of Marxists have many critiques of her theory, but no one can doubt her revolutionary practice. She and Lenin were contemporaries, and had many, many, many disagreements about socialist revolutionary theory, often writing in response to each other. I find their disagreements to be productive.
• Lenin’s “State and Revolution,” or maybe “What is to be done?” Lenin is not, in my opinion, a particularly compelling writer, nor do I necessarily endorse his politics. Frankly, he comes across as kind of an asshole. Still, I think that the modern anglosphere could benefit greatly from reading him, especially re: your “peace sign” complaint. Lenin writes with urgency about the issues that face him and his revolution. He’s completely fucking appalled at the state of the world, and to him, the injustice inherent to the status quo makes every single new day of it intolerable, so he is determined to do something about it now, not later. His clear goals, his urgency, and his complete commitment to an orthodox interpretation of Marxism are a wild combination of strenghs and dangers that come through very clearly in reading his work. In my opinion, Lenin is at his best when analyzing imperialism, though I’m suggesting things that have a theory of change right now.
• Huey Newton’s “Essays from the Minister of Defense.” Huey Netwon was a Black Panther. It’s challenging stuff, in a lot of ways, but I thought it might interest you given your previous comment.
• Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia.” When the fascists were taking over Spain, Orwell grabbed his gun and was determined to shoot them. The book is about his experience as part of the leftist resistance that was both fighting the fascists and running Catalonia.
• The work of Abdullah Öcalan, or anything else about the existing situation in Rojava. It’s super interesting and complicated, and not much discussed in the anglosophere. It was also greatly influenced by the work of Murray Bookchin, who I have somewhat mixed feelings about.

I have a ton more but this comment is long and I have to work so I’ll leave it there.

edit (can’t help myself): I also want to recommend the work of the various socialists involved in The International during the lead up to the first world war, like Trotsky, who I do really like and is a very strong writer, but also Lenin (this is what I was talking about earlier re:imperialism) and many others. This history was a big part of my own journey to becoming a socialist. The International saw what they called the “imperialist war” coming. They knew how bad it was going to be, and they tried to organize all the socialist parties in Europe to be disloyal to their national governments in favor of international peace if/when it came. There’s an alternative reality, much closer than many of us realize, where the parties that composed the international held firm to their commitment to oppose their national governments by any means, and WW1, one of the worst things that has ever happened, didn’t happen, at least not as we know it. Instead, the international collapsed as the parties folded to their domestic pressures. The lyrics to l’internationale talk about this commitment (formatting with code because I don’t understand how to make lemmy keep the newlines):

<span style="color:#323232;">The kings make us drunk with their fumes,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Peace among ourselves, war to the tyrants!
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Let the armies go on strike,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Guns in the air, and break ranks
</span><span style="color:#323232;">If these cannibals insist
</span><span style="color:#323232;">In making heroes of us,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Soon they will know our bullets
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Are for our own generals
</span>

This is extremely based, and it was much more mainstream in the early 20th century than it is today. How much better would the world be had we kept this alive? Imagine if there were active major parties that prioritized loyalty to international peace before their own “national security” interests.

theluddite, 24 days ago

You’re always invited, and always fun to run into you on the other side of the fediverse from my perspective (I could never find a satisfactory way of using both lemmy and Mastodon on a single account that worked for me).

That’s such a great suggestion! I haven’t read it but will now, and I’ll get back to you when I do.

theluddite, 24 days ago

That’s why I say that antisolutions are context-dependent. This is being presented as the solution to plastic, not as a clean-up plan after we have banned plastic, or even while we ban plastic. The former is an antisolution, while the latter could be a responsible project. Antisolutions are dangerous because they deflate the political will necessary to actually solve the problem, not because the technology is problematic in and of itself.