If had a nickel for every time I had a person with a passing interest in Marxism mansplain the world to me. This is a starting point, materialism is not exclusively how socialists and anarchists criticize or understand capitalism.
You seem to think this is contradictory, which should spur you to question something more fundamental instead of assuming others are just dumber than you. “Coordination” would require a conspiratorial level of organizing between groups that, while maintaining common interests, distorts the reality of this system to the point of incomprehensibility. If your way of thinking finds it impossible to analyze the interaction between people – individual actors – and the system they are positioned in – as in their class interests – then you will find this system incomprehensible. This is so because, guess what, there are individual actors who are not powerlessly making decisions in accordance with their positionality.
In order to do that, you must start understanding these things as relational. There are class interests motivating these policies, those class interests are not the sole mover of these actions. To suggest as much would do what you are trying to do right now, which is universalise human action. I wonder if you’ve thought about power dynamics in indigenous nations under settler-colonialism, and what it would mean to only interpret their navigation of this system with the frameworks that originate from Europe with the goal of understanding European ways of organizing. How do you understand conflicting interests within shared classes even under the same material conditions?
Getting fuckin tired of people on here presuming they’re all-knowing; many of these interactions happen to occur in discussions on Europe, go figure. Won’t be responding to anything else from you unless it is actually serious.
Is it really conspiratorial when the people who own all of the capital create political parties, lobbying groups, think tanks, newspapers, etc to collectively push their ideas of how the world should work into action? It’s a conspiracy for sure, one that is in the open and well documented. And my analysis literally does discuss the dialectic of individual actions with their corresponding class and broader class organizations, it’s my main point even. Furthermore, I’m not mansplaining a passing interest in Marxism; I’m not a man, I’m presenting my analysis while trying to acknowledge shared aspects with yours, and I’ve been active in organizing for Marxist, decolonial, and social justice struggles for over a decade. I think it does us no favors to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the structure of the system in front of us for individualized analysis. And stripping the nuance from the argument I present to make it out as class reductionist does nothing for either of us. I’m talking about acknowledging class at all when your argument seems to be to ignore it entirely. Yes individuals within a class can have conflicting desires or interests, the point is that they primarily share their core interests and rally behind them, and we have endless examples of this.
If had a nickel for every time I had a person with a passing interest in Marxism mansplain the world to me. This is a starting point, materialism is not exclusively how socialists and anarchists criticize or understand capitalism.
You seem to think this is contradictory, which should spur you to question something more fundamental instead of assuming others are just dumber than you. “Coordination” would require a conspiratorial level of organizing between groups that, while maintaining common interests, distorts the reality of this system to the point of incomprehensibility. If your way of thinking finds it impossible to analyze the interaction between people – individual actors – and the system they are positioned in – as in their class interests – then you will find this system incomprehensible. This is so because, guess what, there are individual actors who are not powerlessly making decisions in accordance with their positionality.
In order to do that, you must start understanding these things as relational. There are class interests motivating these policies, those class interests are not the sole mover of these actions. To suggest as much would do what you are trying to do right now, which is universalise human action. I wonder if you’ve thought about power dynamics in indigenous nations under settler-colonialism, and what it would mean to only interpret their navigation of this system with the frameworks that originate from Europe with the goal of understanding European ways of organizing. How do you understand conflicting interests within shared classes even under the same material conditions?
Getting fuckin tired of people on here presuming they’re all-knowing; many of these interactions happen to occur in discussions on Europe, go figure. Won’t be responding to anything else from you unless it is actually serious.
Is it really conspiratorial when the people who own all of the capital create political parties, lobbying groups, think tanks, newspapers, etc to collectively push their ideas of how the world should work into action? It’s a conspiracy for sure, one that is in the open and well documented. And my analysis literally does discuss the dialectic of individual actions with their corresponding class and broader class organizations, it’s my main point even. Furthermore, I’m not mansplaining a passing interest in Marxism; I’m not a man, I’m presenting my analysis while trying to acknowledge shared aspects with yours, and I’ve been active in organizing for Marxist, decolonial, and social justice struggles for over a decade. I think it does us no favors to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the structure of the system in front of us for individualized analysis. And stripping the nuance from the argument I present to make it out as class reductionist does nothing for either of us. I’m talking about acknowledging class at all when your argument seems to be to ignore it entirely. Yes individuals within a class can have conflicting desires or interests, the point is that they primarily share their core interests and rally behind them, and we have endless examples of this.