• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • (catches your foot as you try to float away and lifts the finger annoyingly)

    I wonder if the comparison serves the argument.

    Newtons writings about gravity are indeed “not super accurate in the here and now”.

    What I am referring to is ofc Einsteins findings about gravity (general-relativity) which do render Newton’s findings inaccurate. In fact all of Newton’s findings regarding physics (not mathematics) are in the strictest sense false, all of classical physics is. They are an approximation that in most circumstances provide an accurate-enough depiction of things, yet these approximations don’t hold in all circumstances and hence are not the “real” laws that nature adheres to. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are able to describe all phenomena Newton described (by arriving at the very same formula’s) and cover the circumstances where classical physics breaks down. They describe the “real” physics of nature, or at least they do to the degree we know today. Their combination remains the last hurdle of the “standard model” of physics, which eventually will provide the accurate model of the universe and all things in it, should it ever be discovered.

    That being said: Newtonian (classical) physics is used everywhere where Quantum-effects and relativity are irrelevant, which covers a lot of everyday life. In those circumstances they yield the same results as Quantum-mechanics and Einsteins formulas yet are infinitely more practical. So one could phrase Newtonian physics as “correct under the right circumstances”, which is a phrasing that also applies to Lenin’s analysis.

    In the end all we ever have are models that break down at some point, science has simply been able to map out the constraints under which Newton’s (classical) models hold truth. For Lenin’s theory the same applies although the constraints are different.

    Newton’s models hold truth at low speeds and large (but not too large) scales. Lenin’s models hold truth under the assumption that (monopoly) capitalism is the dominant force of production. Some of his concrete findings are obviously more constrained in time than Newtons (as human history changes faster than the laws of physics which hopefully are constant) and some of Newton’s concepts were inherently flawed compared to Lenin’s: Time and space simply work differently, but for concepts like capital and states no similarly transformative descriptions have emerged (Although some supplementation to account for the coordinating effects of a US-centered transatlantic ruling class, as the tricontinental research institute has attempted with hyper-imperialism is necessary).

    To conclude: We have to be weary of the limits of both models, yet most of the circumstances both authors assumed are present in today’s world. Both theory’s have something relevant to teach and both models have predictive accuracy within the realm where their assumptions are valid. So all in all I would deem the comparison apt.

    (let’s go of your foot and let’s you float away in peace)


  • I think you’re absolute right. It’s so crazy how deeply capitalism is poisoning us as humans.

    Other modes of production ofc also imposed a superstructure on the individual, but nothing twists our minds like capitalism does. Because nothing required it to that extend. And most of the stuff is generational. The alienation of the worker that intrudes into every aspect of interpersonal life, the sense of self-worth that is commodified, individualism fooling you into viewing the cure to your issues as the problem, the list goes on and on.

    And all of this is generational, parents and teachers ingraining systemic anxiety into children, families atomizing to the point of being non-existent, workers enslaving themselves in their own mental prisons unable to get out even if they see it, because it has reached the roots of their self-worth and has crippled their facilities for communal relationships.

    We really do need loving, communal support by each other to trace back to our humanity and to be able to fight this together. And then heal that multi-generational capitalist trauma we all suffer from.


  • An aside that’s probably neither here nor there. …but is anyone else annoyed by today’s obsession with looks?

    Creator has shit politics, but some talent too. Yet their profile is their attempt at the best jawline they can muster (and obv the song is about looks).

    I (subjectively) remember a time when it was frowned upon to openly be all about looks. Now it seems cute to obsess over it? Thanks instagram?!

    For a brief period this may felt kind of fresh, as if allowing for honesty where people would have been anxious to be branded superficial.

    Now it feels like people are …well, just superficial. …and I really don’t find it cute amymore.



  • You may be confusing me wthe other person. I just piggybacked onto the discussion.

    But yeah, my read was that settler colonial projects either manage to “complete” their genocide or end in liberation. But maybe there is an argument to be made that one shouldn’t view any settler colonial project as “finished” until it is liberated, that thought peaked my curiosity and prompted my question.

    At the same time it still seems to me that a part of the analysis must be, that the US/Canada/Australia/… are more stable settler colonies than Israel.

    Is your argument with the nuclear reactors about the stability? Or did I misinterpret that?


  • This is borderline patsoc talking point btw.

    Can you elaborate? This got me thinking…

    Is it bc patsocs use fatalism regarding the struggle of indigenous nations as an “argument” to oppose it? Or is it that its reproducing fatalism regarding a just struggle that needs our solidarity and “pessimism” isn’t helping?

    (I hope I am not being insensitive. Pardon me if I don’t have the best read on this. I am not a USian and not super exposed to this and I know far too little about the topic)

    I obviously agree that its important to stand in solidarity with the struggle of indigenous nations in the land under US occupation! But I too would think that the Zionist regime would be happy to have their settler colony achieve US levels of “completion” of their genocide (which I also don’t see happening, but that’s besides the point)

    I don’t see a contradiction between both. It would simply mean that one deems the struggle against the US settler colony, the struggle for liberation, harder as of yet. Which seems to be an unfortunate but fair analysis or not?



  • Seems like one moral of the story, is that eclecticism is a problem. Never confuse a bunch of quotes with understanding theory.

    Yes, the anti imperial struggle in the periphery can utilize nationalism to a revolutionary end.

    And no you can’t compare your conditions in the US to those of Ho Chi Minh and Mao.

    We are not liberals anymore where an action is judged outside of its material conditions.

    Not the most knowledgeable on the topic, it might be fair to demand a more complete / consistent theory of nationalism in Marxism, but Lenin’s distinction between revolutionary and reactionary national movements is still pretty clear in this case





  • I feel like whats desperately missing is a proper critique of capital.

    If you reject it (bc “commies / tankies / Nth iteration of red-scare”) you simply won’t be able to understand the world, period.

    Instead what you end up with invariably will be an “explanation” rooted in grave error, blaming an ethnic group, “globalists”,…

    Ofc by suppressing Marxist lessons the ruling ideology incentivizes this reaction (as does liberalism being rooted in metaphysics even)





  • I am gobsmacked by how bottomless the pit of liberal idiocy is. Even they should see the argument of putting pressure on Biden to make him stop a genocide.

    But that’s supposedly unreasonable. Liberals don’t even see that possibility. Apparently it is the other way around pressure needs to be applied on those who are against genocide as genocide is just a given. How fucking dare they.

    Consequently they see even less potential for political participation than I do, yet they call the US democratic and I don’t.

    They want to get it in your head that there is nothing you can do to prevent your representative from genociding, but that that doesn’t mean he doesn’t still represent your interests, “C’mon man”.

    “If your representative doesn’t represent your interests, then we have to work on your interests! Especially if you have a problem with genocide.”

    There must be a way to wake up from this fucking nightmare. Or better yet wake everyone else up!


  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlDank Brandon Rising
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    6 weeks? They held the trifecta for 2 years! From 01/09 to 01/11.

    If you give the Dems a supermajority even more Senators will have “health problems” for way longer

    Look, I know my instance gives it away, but from Marxist to self proclaimed angry commie: You are dead wrong comrade.

    Dems under Obama didn’t not do anything bc of “enough Senators with health problems” but because they are beholden to their bourgeoise donors. In essence they are a party representing the bourgeoisie who only occasionally throw you a bone when they are pressured to do so

    And you pressure them not by voting harder for them but by doing political work outside of both parties.

    The harder you vote blue, the less they’ll do for you!

    A bit oversimplified but I like the ring of it so I’ll run with it.