Thanks y’all

Sounds amazing. What is the aproximate cost for all the parts needed?

I feel everything you say. We need radical critique, grab things by their roots, stop dancing around.

But thinking, and I guess platon (as a pro philosopher) didn’t cover that, is mostly dialectical with doing, with everyday social practice. IRL they don’t seperate as the cognitivist and voluntaristic understanding of enligthment implies.

I think it’s still good to go vote to keep the worst from happening and to improve the circumstances for emancipatory struggle.

But I also think voting is one of the lesser important levers, compared to activism, organizing, unions and so on.

Both, giving up using levers and cosplaying trying by just voting for a shitty neoliberal mess and watch them making people frustrated enough to vote for trumpf and not doing anything else are irresponsible at the end of the day

Good impulse to read theory, but 150y/o theory is not where I’d advice people to start. At least the german originals of what you recomend there are fairly hard to read. Plus they lack the development of marxist theory that happened since then. For example Gramscis thoughts are so freakin important for marxism to be applicable to this society being far more diverse than good’ol working class in the factory vs. Monopoly man capitalists. I’m sure there is updated marxism and introductions available in english. (Dunno, Harvey maybe? Mayo?)

Also “how to conduct yourself as a leftist” sound strict af and kinda deterministic.

Turns out cringe was life all along

… nach ab kommt Arbeit

… after off work follows

Nah but a fresh tick bite. This means I’m from the future

Subjective in this sense would mean everyone has their own singular way as opposed to “its the same/similar indepently of the person looking at it”.

“/similar”

Well my point is just it’s neither fully determined as in ahistoric rule nor random as in “changes all the time” or “everyone has their own singular definitions and concepts”. And in between there is the sweet spot of understanding, interpretation and development…

Objective and socially constructed isn’t a ‘hard’ contradiction.

Yes of course language evolves and so on, but in a given time(period) it needs to be interpretable more or less independently from the specific actor (a dictionary ensures this, even though it needs to be updated regularly).

In other words yeah sometimes language comes up with new stuff. If it would do it all the time, it wouldn’t function

This is a week analogy… french only works as a means of communication because it has internal rules that are objective (as in different people understand the same/very similar thing when hearing/seeing a symbol/word).

Singularity of experience is cool, but anything social requires communication/synchronization.

Even though gender is used as a box or definition people are forced to fit into (and this is bad), reducing human experience to a blackbox kind of singularity is a highly individualist take.

You can work on understanding each other without forcing anyone to fit into your definition…

Means.tv has a weekly good news thing. Check it out!

Imagine the letter H and G would look similar. Now imagine there was a language that didn’t have the letter H. People who spoke that language would post: “Hot Dog” and then go like “aaaahahaha imagine God Dog, like a god thats a dog”.

Now add the fact that germans know and use the word burger regularly and do posess knowledge of the existence of different languages and that “burger” is an english word, thus pronunciation differs.

So I’d say no, not funny.

Then again I have laughed about and made jokes that made use of the similarity of burger and Bürger. But I guess the “rofl different languages”-element needs to be combined with smth more to qualify as a joke.

Yours, german giving german answers

Accepting it is a choice with practical consequences. We should work on understanding what is to change and how and focus on doing it.

Making prophecies about what “Eventually” happens is self handicapping, wich does not help :)

We don’t exist as a whole, wich is the political challenge I would like people to focus on.

I think in post religious thinking it’s not about “deserve”

Edit (cant properly edit on jerboa rn) … your base argument is right.

Of course your base argument - capitalist economy is ecolocically destructive and dysfunctional regarding the needs of the many.

“Until there is noone left to fulfill their orders” thats the kind of “justice” i’m talking about. Like, Homoestasis will put them down in the end. Justice will be served. But that’s deceptive satisfaction.

Don’t go down the “natural balance” kind of revenge fantasy. It only makes one comfy in passivist boundedness. Also the guy in the picture is far more likely do do just fine in a climate catastrophy than you. Gaia nature god lady won’t bring you any justice, at all.