☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @ yogthos @lemmy.ml

Posts

9,821

Comments

10,584

Joined

6 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Exactly, the recognition of the central role of labour in society has to be part of any genuinely socialist aesthetic. Solar-punk sells a vision of a comfortable society while ignoring the labour that underpins it, how things are created is left entirely up to your imagination. Thus, solar-punk aesthetic becomes equally compatible with people enjoying the fruits of their own labour or a society built on slavery.

Petit Jupiter strikes again.

Solar-punk feels like of like an inversion of socialist realism to me. Socialist realism celebrates the worker as creator with muscles straining, tools in hand, actively building the world. Labor is heroic, collective, and visibly transformative. The aesthetic screams: WE made this. On the other hand, solar-punk envisions society after the work is done with comfortable citizens enjoying green tech built by unseen hands. The aesthetic whispers: Look what grew while no one was laboring.

Burial at Sea/Hymn to the Immortal Wind by MONO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEvpqR6B8ns

very much agree with all taht

I find it helps to develop a mindset of thinking in terms of dynamic systems where you can identify forces acting upon the system and try to understand likely ways the system will evolve as whole. For example, if we're dealing with capitalist relations be it today or a century ago, the forces within the system form an invariant. We have people who own substantial capital and those who do not. Their interests form a contradiction because they are fundamentally opposed to each other. If I'm a business owner then my desire is to minimize my costs an maximize profits, while if I'm a worker selling my labour I want to maximize my salary and benefits. Once we frame the problem in these terms we can try to think about potential resolutions to these contradictions, and that's where historical record becomes informative. If we can identify similar situations in the past, they can inform us on what we can expect going forward.

Given the reactionary position people in tech are increasingly taking with AI, I think we know the answer to that.

The only thing surprising here is that people thought it worked any other way to begin with. Given that it's a reinforcement mechanism then it makes sense that it would be both spatially and temporally discrete.

I expect that there will be a split between the US and Europe in the coming years. The US sees China as its main adversary, and Europe is losing strategic relevance for the US because Russia is not an ideological opponent the way USSR was.

However, if the US simply left Europe then it would end up gravitating towards the east, first economically, then politically. That would be highly undesirable from the US perspective as it could result in a huge Eurasian bloc with from Europe, to Russia, to China. In my view this is what the war in Ukraine is all about. In fact, National Interest published a very revealing article back in 2021, while it focuses on Russia, it's pretty clear how the argument extends to Europe as well https://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-front-war-192137

The US has also been predating on Europe economically since the start of the war. US companies have been enjoying selling energy to Europe at high prices while Biden's inflation reduction act lured companies away from Europe. Today, Trump is building on this strategy with massive tariffs designed to stifle Europe's economy and lure more business to the US. The threat of Russia is also being used to force Europe into massive increase in military spending, most of which will go to American military industry.

All of this is bad news for Europe economically, and that's creating a lot of internal political tension. As people see their standard of living collapse, they're turning to nationalist parties because the neoliberal center has lost its credibility in their eyes. Hence why we see a surge of support for RN in France, AfD becoming a major party in Germany, and so on. I expect we'll see more of what we saw in Romania where elections will be cancelled, candidates arrested, parties banned, and so on. All of that will further delegitimize the current system as people start realizing they're not living in a genuine democracy.

Unfortunately, the left has been systematically dismantled in Europe since the end of WW2. What I mean specifically is the economic left. Socialism in Marxist terms mean worker ownership over the means of production which is directly at odds with the current capitalist state of relations where private ownership is the norm. Most of what constitutes the left in the west, such as social democrats, does not challenge capitalist relations. These parties simply want to curb the worst excess of capitalism such as having the rich pay more taxes, provide more social services, and so on. These are reformist parties that seek some form of sustainable capitalism.

There are a handful of genuine socialist parties in Europe, but they're extremely marginalized and I can't see how they can break into mainstream politics at this time. One of the problems is with messaging. The right has a big advantage here because their narrative is largely compatible with what people already believe. In a sense, the right is also a reformist type of movement where they're not suggesting any revolutionary change. People who become disillusioned with the mainstream have easy time gravitating towards the tropes the right peddle like immigrants being the problem and taking people's jobs away.

On the other hand, accepting socialist narrative requires accepting that the current system is fundamentally broken and there needs to be radical restructuring of society. In my opinion, what socialist left needs to focus on is crafting its messaging in a way that resonates with the public. The narrative has to be at least as appealing as what the right offers for people to even start to listen.

I found this particular book was incredibly eye opening because it clarified a lot of the mechanics of how our system works for me. What I found most shocking was how it's pretty clear exact same types of debates that we're having today regarding reforming the system were happening a century ago. And that goes back to your original question of how relevant this stuff is. If we're still having these same discussions about the same kinds of problems, then we have to inform ourselves on the history of these debates. There is a huge wealth of knowledge and experince that's been built up that's being ignored today.

The problem here is that businesses only think about their own needs, and nobody is actually running the nation as a whole. Businesses being in charge is akin to a bunch of cancers running amok and killing the host.

I really can't recommend reading The State and Revolution enough. It is the most lucid explanation of what's currently happening and why. It's a short read and you're going to be surprised how relevant it feels to the current moment. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

The dynamics in Asia are indeed different, and China acts as a stabilizing force there. The economies there are hedging against the west, and they're increasingly focusing on trade amongst themselves and the developing world.

Not really, because the main alternative to the neoliberal centre seems to be on the right. I'm really not sure what to expect in Europe in the coming years.

EU is a giant mess at this point, and it's really not clear to me how it's going to move forward. The EU doesn't appear to have a coherent strategy on how to deal with the US, Russia, or China. It's becoming geopolitically irrelevant, and the economy is going into a recession. The apparatchiks running the project don't seem to have any bright ideas or even basic awareness of the problems EU is facing.

Js is indeed painful. I find the right approach is to simply treat it as a compile target. I've worked with ClojureScript when I had to do front end work, and I find it's a huge improvement because it has sane language semantics. You have things like proper equality, comparison by value, immutable data structures, and so on. It's not perfect because you still have to deal with stuff like source maps to get errors out of minified bundles, and you have to interop when you deal with Js libraries, but it's a huge improvement overall I've found.

I don't think human society has fundamentally changed in a century. I think the problems the Bolsheviks dealt with stem from the exact same material relations as the problems we face today. Nobody has proposed a better solution that's been demonstrated to work in the past century that I'm aware of.

Both world wars wore a direct result of capitalism, and had the Europeans not shat the bed after the Soviet revolution, we may have moved past the capitalist stage of development by now. The longer capitalist regimes are allowed to continue to exist the more likely the scenario you fear will come to pass.

Indeed, and another point to consider is that it's highly unlikely we'd observe a civilization at our level of development. Life on Earth appears around 4.5 billion years ago. Humans start evolving around 2.8 million years ago. Use of language appears around 100,000 years ago. Writing is invented around 5500 years ago.

Inventions of language and writing are the landmark moment here. Before language was invented the only way information could be passed down from ancestors to offspring was via mutations in our DNA. If an individual learned some new idea it would be lost with them when they died. Language allowed humans to communicate ideas to future generations and start accumulating knowledge beyond what a single individual could hold in their head. Writing made this process even more efficient.

So, after millions of years of life on Earth no technological development happened. Then when language was invented humans started creating technology, and in a blink of an eye on cosmological scale we went from living in caves to visiting space in our rocket ships. It’s worth taking a moment to really appreciate just how fast our technology evolved once we were able to start accumulating knowledge using language and writing.

Now let’s take a look at how technology itself has been evolving. Once we discovered radio communication we went through a noisy period where we were leaking a lot of our broadcasts into space, and within a span of a 100 years we started using more efficient communication, and encryption. If somebody intercepted our broadcasts today they would look like noise because they’re designed to look like noise. Our society today is utterly and completely unrecognizable to somebody from even a 100 years ago. If we don’t go extinct, I imagine that in another thousand years future humans will be completely alien to us as well.

So the period during which intelligent life would be recognizable to us during its course of evolution is infinitesimally small. The time between creating language and becoming an advanced technological society is measured in thousands of years, while evolution of life is measured in millions of years. The chance of two different intelligences finding each other at exact same stage of development where they might be able to communicate is incredibly unlikely.

I would also imagine that the biological phase for intelligent life is rather short. We’re likely to develop human style AIs within a century, and they will be the ones to go out and explore the universe. Meat did not evolve to live in space, we’re adapted to gravity wells. An artificial life form could be engineered to thrive in space without ever needing to visit planets. This is the kind of life that’s most likely to be prolific in space. Furthermore, post biological intelligences would likely be running at much faster speeds than our mental processes operate on. What we consider real-time would be might we consider to be geological scales. Such beings might consider what we view as real time akin to the way we look at continental drift. We're aware that it's happening, but it's of little interest to use on day to day basis. It's quite possible that advanced civilizations become solipsistic and care little for the outside universe.

For all we know the Universe may be teeming with intelligent life and we just don’t recognize it as such. We might be like an ant hill next to a highway looking to see if there are other ant hills around.

Chances that there is other intelligent life somewhere out there are pretty high, but the chances of us meeting it are slim to none.

https://redsails.org/witbd-rs-abridged/

The US worked hard since WW2 to ensure that Europe would be politically subservient to the US. The Marshall Plan indebted Europe to the US, and NATO made Europe militarily dependent. Such economic and military dependence necessarily led to Atlanticist politicians rising to the top. Incidentally, the EU makes the whole problem worse because the bureaucracy there is not accountable to the people living in individual European countries.