• 1 Post
  • 69 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 24th, 2024

help-circle



  • “I Got a Feeling” by Neva Denova. It’s not a famous band or song, but its so incredibly sad and angry and nihilistic and there’s nothing else that comes close. When I’m feeling really shitty though, it kind of cheers me up. It has this long sing-along outro, “The world’s a shitty place, and I can’t wait to die.” But after repeating this over and over the song ends and someone in the background says affectionately, “I’m just kidding world, you know I love you.” I’ve struggled with intrusive negative thoughts for most of my life, and there is something cathartic about having my internal pain externalized in song-form, and that final line is like a voice I’ve had to develop that fights against all the negativity, to like survive the worst of the blackest depressions. Except instead of taking no small amount of energy to consciously or automatically summon that voice, it comes easy; it’s right on the recording, and it plays every time.

    I wouldn’t say I’m embarrassed to tell people about the song, but I do think people would worry about me if they knew I listened to it when at my worst. But it really makes me feel like, “well at least I’m not that depressed and nihilistic,” and it helps.


  • Juice@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlviolently cries and sobs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I looked it up, it appears in a lot of places though its origin is unknown. So you picked it up from somewhere. Definitely not your fault for mangling what is obviously a distorted Friere quote, though it remains mangled and now a part of public consciousness. I still have the same reservations about it and I wish you would consider reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed rather than dismiss what I’m saying and probably keep repeating this. But you’re right, it was a waste of time.



  • Juice@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlviolently cries and sobs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Imma take issue with this.

    You’ve rephrased, and essentially reformulated Paolo Friere’s famous and enlightening quote, “Equality feels like oppression to the oppressor.” Does having privilege make one an oppressor? In some cases, it most certainly does but I would disagree that coming from privilege makes one an oppressor: history is full of examples of people from the oppressive ruling classes risking or sacrificing everything to fight against oppression and restore equality. I am privileged but equality would not feel like oppression to me; or if it did I would have to self criticize harshly since I spend so much of my time and energy fighting against oppression and for equality. And this is what your rephrasing has done, it has eliminated the class aspect from Friere’s formulation; furthermore it isn’t connected to anything. So when you say this in isolation you create a privileged other. Friere on the other hand was fully aware of the dialectic between the oppressed and their oppressors, and scientifically worked out his thesis: through dehumanization of the oppressed, the oppressors lost their own humanity. While oppression had to be fought, first the oppressed had to restore their own humanity by restoring their own subjectivity. Once they had liberated their minds, and in fact through this process they would become organized in such a way to organize their bodies as well. This is the perceived nadir of the oppressors, the equality that feels like oppression. However, in its final stage this equality restores the humanity of the oppressor, in fact it is the ontological mission of the oppressed to restore the humanity of the oppressors. this final synthesis of the dialectic is not inevitable however, and the whole enterprise is based on education. “When education is not liberating,” he said, “it is the dream of the oppressed to become the oppressor.”

    I don’t know what that deleted comment was, probably some hateful bs, but was your comment intended to educate, and set others on the path of education?



  • Juice@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlcouldn't be me
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The point of the meme isn’t about whether you personally would want to sleep with someone who is trans, and whether that makes you a good person or not, its about how the first, second, and last thing a lot of people think about wrt trans people is whether they are fuckable or not. Its not good to objectify people, if you do it is transphobic/sexist/racist/whatever dehumanizing. But if you see trans people as people, and respect their gender, their right to express themselves openly even if you aren’t sexually attracted to them, then this meme will never be a problem for you. And if you feel personally attacked by this meme, try and figure out why, because it’s probably not about you. Don’t be a creep isn’t that complicated, folks


  • Noone believes that people have full freedom with no context, no extenuating circumstances. What makes arguments like this seem convincing is how uncommon it is for people to think dialectically.

    Here’s a very good essay that steps through all of the different parts of the problem, and looks at different views historically. https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individual.html

    To the hard deterministic explanation that “something always came before,” it asks “what is the role of the individual in history?”

    This excerpt isn’t a substitute for reading the whole essay but it makes a point pretty concisely:

    But let us return to our subject. A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes. Carlyle, in his well-known book on heroes and hero-worship, calls great men beginners. This is a very apt description. A great man is precisely a beginner because he sees further than others, and desires things more strongly than others. He solves the scientific problems brought up by the preceding process of intellectual development of society; he points to the new social needs created by the preceding development of social relationships; he takes the initiative in satisfying these needs. He is a hero. But he is not a hero in the sense that he can stop, or change, the natural course of things, but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course. Herein lies all his significance; herein lies his whole power. But this significance is colossal, and the power is terrible.


  • Yeah I read WL&C after a failed attempt at reading Capital (I had never read much Marx other than the manifesto at that point) and realized I needed to understand his economics first, as I felt completely out of my depth. Turns out reading Capital v1, the first few chapters are just like that! But I’m glad I read WL&C, like you said its short and gave me something to chew on for a year or so before diving back into the big book.

    I edited my comment above about CotGP. All solid recommendations, for exactly the reasons you state.


  • People should read Value Price and Profit because Marx proved that inflation is just companies raising prices, thoroughly debunks all the lies about causes of inflation that economists have been using to protect profits since before even his time.

    All solid suggestions.

    Wrt critique of the Gotha programme, it’s interesting to me that Marx was such a critic of Lassalle, so much so that Engels actually apologized for Marx’s harsh criticisms of the social democrat. Marx had called Lassalle a would be petty dictator or something like that. Except he was right, Lassalle was secretly plotting with von Bismarck on a plan to unify Germany under a bourgeois led social democracy, which von Bismarck could later seize absolute control over. Marx didn’t know about this conspiracy, he just reasoned it out.




  • What have you read of Engels? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is one of my favorites. Other than some of his letters, forewords, and some essays, I’ve been really wanting to read The Conditions of the Working Class in England, since it’s referenced in Capital; and I think I have something else saved by him on my Kobo, can’t think of it ATM. I think Engels is really easy to grasp; Marx is a phenomenal writer but unless you’re in the mood to read about 1. Economics 2. Dense academic history or 3. A blistering criticism of some “Young Hegelian” scholar like Feuerbach or Bruno Bauer its hard to find something of his to just easy-read. The Manifesto is pretty accessible but it was mostly written by Engels, the two men were really one author most of the time, and I’ve read the manifesto several times and while its good its not my favorite work.

    Sorry for coming off confrontational, but you picked two very good and influential thinkers to target. You could have said “don’t just read Malcolm Gladwell and Sam Harris” or “Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro,” who are all hacks, but very popular authors; whereas Marx and Engels have fallen out of fashion. It’s conspicuous, is all.

    Geez the downvote brigade is out in full force


  • How does one make a point using an example they know nothing about? To be clear, I agree with you, but as someone who has read a fair amount of M&E and know a ton of people who have read M&E, they are among the top 1% of readers in terms of sheer volume, but also curiosity and intellectual honesty.

    Combined with the fact that the vast majority of Marx and Engels was social science, not ideological polemic, I get the impression that you are giving advice that you haven’t actually taken. Which would be fine, we are all contradictory beings to some extent. But it does beg the question.

    And if you had read them, then I would want to know your insights on what you had read