Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)W

woodenghost [comrade/them]

@ woodenghost @hexbear.net

Posts
7
Comments
666
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • With whom? Anyone important?

  • Checks and balances

  • Yes, true

  • China would be in the game, but not as a playable faction. In the campaign, they would constantly show up in cutscenes in critical moments where all seems lost. They'd appear in strong force, but refuse to engage on grounds of international law, free trade and the rules-based order. Then they'd leave again. And then you'd usually lose for real and in a brutal way. Also, there would be a China-DLC where you get to puzzle together strongly worded letters from little text blocks. /s

    (Sorry, I'm not usually bashing China, but couldn't resist. I know things are more complex.)

  • What? Are they really? That would be a good sign. Maybe more have actually died.

  • I think we need to distinguish between military damage and economic damage. US capital does not lose profits from damage to military targets, it's the opposite: they stand to profit big on future contracts. Destroying lots of value is actually one of the main points of imperialist wars to deal with the crisis of overproduction. The class for which this war is being fought doesn't care how many military bases or even aircraft carriers are destroyed, as long as they believe they will profit from rebuilding them.

    That's why driving the oil and gas price up is so important. Choking the inputs doesn't necessarily lower profit rates on average (because necessary labour time goes up, prices just rise), but it stands to lower the mass of capital that's able to circulate across the whole chain of production and thereby lower total profit by making some enterprises unprofitable.

    The war will stop, when the capitalist class in the US believes it will be losing them more profit opportunities, then potentially opening up new markets, stealing resources and military contracts would be worth. When the ruling classes agree, that their attempt to temporarily dispell a crisis by pushing it on Iran has created a bigger crisis at home, that can still be slowed by stopping the war.

  • I think you are mistaking mystification for vagueness. Mystification is a purposeful obfuscation. There is a clear explicit idea, which is blocked off to keep the aura of mystery. It's still an explicitly defined being with boundaries and identity.

    Yes, I admit it, I missed that useful distinction that you make here. Here's another distinction: I don't think the ideas behind mysticism are always the result of mystification of something that's easy to express in language.

    All in all, I feel like our positions are not that different. It's mostly just a different use of language. Some context to where I'm coming from: As a Marxist, I tend to emphasize dialectics. Also, as an atheist, I'm careful not to dismiss the philosophical complexity of religious metaphysical systems too quickly.

    We might still differ on some points, but I respect how sharp your anthropology of religion is. Thank you for this interesting exchange of ideas.

  • I didn't say it did, I said god being too big did.

    Yes you said "either to small, or too big".

    God is specific, not vague.

    No every God is vague. There are degrees of vagueness. Like a slight fog, where you can still see some distance.

    A useless god will be destroyed.

    Yes, in an advanced society, but your argument was about personal, individual believe outside society. With this addendum, your argument just became circular.

    Religion always was there to fulfill a role in society at all points of its existence. No such shift ever occured.

    Religions are constantly born anew out of personal believes. Most never rise to institutional level. They are not eternal. The role they fulfill at the beginning is individual, personal and doesn't affect society. They don't come into being with a full hierarchy of clergy intact. Organization progresses from lower to higher levels and once one religion is finally able to achieve hegemony, that's a clear qualitative shift born out of quantitative change. It's not just religion. That's how all of history proceeds. This is Engels second law of dialectical materialism.

  • You make an interesting argument. I'm an atheist, but I'm philosophically interested in religion. You mention "your own will" and that of humanity, which were already two examples for how to coherently speak about God. God being "small" doesn't hinder coherent believe. Neither does vagueness. God also doesn't need to be useful.

    One could also conceptualize god without even referring to "will". For Spinoza, god is nature. For Ibn Sina, it's the necessary existent. In process theology, God is changing and fluent. There are many possible ways to conceive of something divine or practice some form of religion without constantly referring to a larger organizational structure.

    outside of organized religion, outside of the group

    That's not necessarily the same. A groups believes don't need deliberate organizing. Small groups can just have a continuity of practice. Levels of organization matters. A qualitative change occurs, once organization progresses to a level, where religion becomes institutionalized to fulfill a role in society. Societies need to constantly reproduce themselves, so if they aren't communist, the ruling classes need to establish hegemony.

    That's what institutionalized religions are: tools for hegemony, for generalizing the particular interests of a ruling class without direct violence. Instead of referring to the will of "the" group, as if every society were homogenous, a sociology of religion needs to acknowledge the societies class conflicts (directly opposed wills) that give rise to institutionalized religion.

  • I totally agree with the sentiment and the anger, but don't use "pussies" as a slur. Pussies are good and strong. I'd rather call USians weak cowards who only punch down. At least those who either lack class consciousness or have accepted a class compromise and entered the labor aristocracy.

  • This might be the plan, but is it realistic? Won't China be less dependent on oil by then? And regardless, there are pipelines running through Mongolia, but also directly across the Chinese-Russian border. I don't see them being completely cut off. This would need regime change in Russia by 2030.

  • "God" is the collective will of a group of people laundered through mystification to justify itself, it's impossible for an entire congregation to be "blasphemous" because they are god.

    Amen to that. Incredibly well put.

    I don't know much about evangelical Christians though. Is that stuff in the earlier comment really what a majority believes? (Most) Protestants in Europe don't seem to believe they need to cause the Armageddon to summon Jesus.

    The modern christian congregation, the modern "christian" god does indeed want civilizational clash against Islam and has a death drive that could end all life on earth.

    Yes, maybe. This is a tendency, that needs to be fought. Not sure, if it's the collective will. But I'd still expect a majority of Christians are against the war on Iran. A majority of USians are..

    Basically, God dosn't equal organized religion. Religion is more a tool of hegemony, than a manifestation of collective will. And the hegemony of the ruling classes in the West is nearing crisis.

  • Yes, I agree

  • I agree, we should tone it down. But in this case, it kind of seems likely that anarchists in US and Europe would vocally support that and end up being useful for imperialism.

  • It's AI

  • Maybe edit this to reflect that it's fake AI.

  • I feel like Iran has won this already.

    Inshallah. I want to believe that, but maybe damages to military infrastructure in Iran are under-reported? (no Internet etc.) If all those leaders were killed, does that mean the imperialists are free to operate and bomb the missile sites too, one after the other? Any planes shot down yet?

  • No it's not subjective, that's an idealist notion. These words have actual meaning beyond discourse. Our economic and social reality is defined by class struggle over real material contradictions. Politically left people actively support the large majority of humanity who make up the oppressed classes trying to liberate themselves. The actions of the political right keep the oppressed down. The right is materially useful only for a tiny minority of brutal oppressors. That's the world we live in. It applies in every country. Just because the right is stronger in the US, than in practically every other country, doesn't make half of them suddenly left.

  • "You're absolutely right, if you feel fine, you probably are. Who better to judge your blood sample than yourself? And it's only natural to be suspicious of doctors, especially if they seem to only want to give you autism with shady "vaccines" and "antibiotics"." /s

  • askchapo @hexbear.net

    Which historical Communist would be the best roommate?

  • askchapo @hexbear.net

    Help, my (ML) brother is a Trotzkyist! How can we still connect over politics?

  • Science Memes @mander.xyz

    "You're a scientist? Name all 30 cockatoo dance moves."

  • Chapotraphouse @hexbear.net

    How to explain why supporting war is bad, for libs/budding leftists?

  • Chapotraphouse @hexbear.net

    Thoughts on Hopelessness

  • philosophy @hexbear.net

    Still figuring out your gender? Why not try God's own gender™: JUSTICE (also beauty, might, infinity, freedom, truth etc.)

  • memes @hexbear.net

    Left Unity