Zompist Bboard Again

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:26 am To the extent that Europeans were racist, Arabs were fanatical and Indians were superstitious, these were the worst qualities of these societies. At the height of their power, Europe was never white, the Caliphate was indifferent to religion and India never achieved any ideological unity. That's how these societies managed to achieve whatever meagre prosperity they cobbled together. There was no utopia.

i°¿k°³PkÁ±¯k°³¾x®±…°¿±4²i½³C®C°b°®i°¿¾
(name of things and not able to be lived as these things giving soon big eyes of us following the path indicated by these words...)
concepts do not exhaust the things that always surprise us who know no other way...

For the upper classes, "culture" is a way to keep the population ignorant and docile. For the goons who kill for them, it's a way to spin the murders they want to commit into heroic legends.

Personally, just about the only ideal proposed in the 21st century that I don't utterly despise is Luxury Space Communism.

Golden Age incoming: https://youtu.be/Qwsi23FzOwM?si=wHl3EnmyWoE7HLFb

PS. This is the whole culturalist ethos as I see it, a boot stomping down on our collective neck forever.

Personally, just about the only ideal proposed in the 21st century that I don't utterly despise is Luxury Space Communism.

https://youtu.be/Qwsi23FzOwM?si=wHl3EnmyWoE7HLFb

i®x®±4°¿k°Sk°®Tak
(word giving vision of future maybe lived by no man...)
promises allow us to explore improbable futures...

xxx wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 4:59 am

https://youtu.be/Qwsi23FzOwM?si=wHl3EnmyWoE7HLFb

i®x®±4°¿k°Sk°®Tak
(word giving vision of future maybe lived by no man...)
words allow us to explore improbable futures...

This is not the conlang fluency thread.

xxx wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:50 am

Torco wrote:I'm afraid you've fallen under 21th century fashy propaganda. the burgeoisie does not in fact import people from elsewhere to work for free or cheap....

um, no, that's pure Marxist theory...

Travis B wrote:While there is human trafficking, the matter is that people want to migrate of their own accord (not because of any replacement conspiracy by the "elites"),

no one migrates voluntarily and where do these conditions come from if not from decolonization and globalization, and who is behind...
migration is only the result of the profit we get from it...
it is only in that economies need migration, but it is no longer a question of national economy, it is a question of globalization,

nations only have to bear the consequences, unemployment, immigration, social disintegration,

politicians no longer have the hand, they have fun with rattles without effect on the causes,
the left boasts of universalist ethics but it participates in the deviation of its own ideal by favoring what it condemns,
the reactionary right cowers on these universal values ​​and only reflects the bad side of them,
the ecologists who should be autarkic right-wing reactionaries are globalist leftists...

rotting bones wrote:Currently, their plan seems to involve creating a new "Holy Alliance": White Nationalism in Europe, Islamism in the Arab World, Hindutva in India...
abolishes science in general and replaces it with inspirational bullshit drawn from tradition...

the return to the golden age of each society, before globalization, the return to traditional societies, the end of ecological risk,
what a utopia...
the problem is that each branch will believe itself to be universal and will try to invade and reduce the other,
and here we are again riding on the same powder keg...

xxx wrote:politicians no longer have the hand they have fun with rattles without effect on the causes,

shit, which got me back on these sterile political debates...

i½³€x®±Ui¿³RÁ
(our brain having to give new words...)
let's conlang again...

Short answer: RN has the anti-ecological policies https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/20 ... _3232.html The NFP has pro-ecological policies https://reporterre.net/L-ecologie-socle ... -populaire

PS: 1° The trend I follow in the LFI is that left-wing voters are more educated, RN voters less:
https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/legislative ... tives-2024

2° CNEWS is run by an industrial, Vincent Bolloré, who actively organised the link between the RN and Eric CIotti. And makes children work in catastrophic conditions in Africa.

3° The main economists these incude, not Marx, but Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo, both of whom support NFP https://www.nouvelobs.com/politique/202 ... poque.html

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:50 am Short answer: RN has the anti-ecological policies https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/20 ... _3232.html The NFP has pro-ecological policies https://reporterre.net/L-ecologie-socle ... -populaire

I agree. Premodern societies were not ecologically conscious. They just had a low population. Using their methods today would destroy the planet in the next 5 minutes.

Generally speaking, a lot of people who think in aesthetic terms seem to have trouble grasping why the Far Right in no way challenges the power of capital. They seem to think that if women wear headscarves, that would magically increase the power of workers over CEOs or something. I don't think the mental act of abstracting physical processes into symbols is the real danger. People who are insulated by privilege simply don't care enough to think clearly. Killing hundreds of thousands can be a single line of a poem to them, tragic yet glorious.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:50 am 3° The main economists these incude, not Marx, but Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo, both of whom support NFP https://www.nouvelobs.com/politique/202 ... poque.html

Having read both authors, the main differences between Piketty and Marx are that: 1. Piketty obviously has a lot of up to date data. 2. Piketty doesn't seem to grasp the seriousness of the resistance which capitalists put up.

Marx originally came up with the framework that Piketty applies. Piketty also makes a lot of false statements when he tries to analyze culture. Marx has his Hegelian philosophical weirdness, but if you actually read Marx, it's nowhere near as bad as 21st century commentators say. It was mainly a way of phrasing arguments that Marx had been taught, and which commanded respect in Germany at the time. (It was also taken seriously by intellectuals throughout Europe. The founder of analytical philosophy, Bertrand Russell, was a Hegelian when he was younger.) Most of the time, Marx rails against it himself. To the extent that he makes use of it, he is mainly fascinated at the analogy between Hegelian dialectics and his cybernetic scheme. E.g. If capitalists pay workers less to increase their profit, workers can't buy enough products, thereby decreasing the profit collected by the capitalists. This causes instability and punctuated equilibria, etc.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:33 pm People who are insulated by privilege simply don't care enough to think clearly.

But then, stupidity can't explain all of it. I have never seen a Far Right pseudo-leftist openly address the fact that they use idpol bullshit as a facade to empower businesses over workers.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:02 pmBut then, stupidity can't explain all of it. I have never seen a Far Right pseudo-leftist openly address the fact that they use idpol bullshit as a facade to empower businesses over workers.

Not sure what you mean by that. Most examples of identity politics on the left that I've seen are focused on opposing forced assimilation or persecution on the basis of ethnic identity. They're objecting to demands that people adopt Western dress, abandon their native language or dialect for normative English, and Anglify their name. You can argue that such objections have no connection to concrete economic policy aimed at helping workers, but I cannot see how they benefit businesses over workers as you suggest.

no one migrates voluntarily

oh, i'm sorry, i thought we were having a serious conversation. i can't entretain this. obviously some people migrate voluntarily, what are you talking about.

Torco wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 12:24 am

no one migrates voluntarily

oh, i'm sorry, i thought we were having a serious conversation. i can't entretain this. obviously some people migrate voluntarily, what are you talking about.

Echoed: migration is not always involuntary. And lots of people in my field also migrate voluntarily, whether temporarily or for extended periods. (Hell, I'm also a voluntary migrant!)

doctor shark wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 5:57 am

Torco wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 12:24 am

no one migrates voluntarily

oh, i'm sorry, i thought we were having a serious conversation. i can't entretain this. obviously some people migrate voluntarily, what are you talking about.

Echoed: migration is not always involuntary. And lots of people in my field also migrate voluntarily, whether temporarily or for extended periods. (Hell, I'm also a voluntary migrant!)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
k¾´y¯²xÄKj¾

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:33 pm

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:50 am Short answer: RN has the anti-ecological policies https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/20 ... _3232.html The NFP has pro-ecological policies https://reporterre.net/L-ecologie-socle ... -populaire

I agree. Premodern societies were not ecologically conscious. They just had a low population. Using their methods today would destroy the planet in the next 5 minutes.

I disagree. Many societes, such as Mbuti, have deliberately ecologically conscious methods. The RN is not pro-premodern, except perhaps on a (low) intellectual level. Notably, the RN were the first political party in France to have a website. The RN are actually hypermodern in some ways, often the worst ones.

PS the distinction between 'modern' and 'premodern' is sufficiently nuanced, not taking into account the details of reality as there are significant differences between industrial, feudal, pastoral, nomadic hunter-gatherers etc

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 4:23 pm Not sure what you mean by that. Most examples of identity politics on the left that I've seen are focused on opposing forced assimilation or persecution on the basis of ethnic identity. They're objecting to demands that people adopt Western dress, abandon their native language or dialect for normative English, and Anglify their name. You can argue that such objections have no connection to concrete economic policy aimed at helping workers, but I cannot see how they benefit businesses over workers as you suggest.

I was referring to xxx. He's not a leftist. Despite all the references to Marx, he wants to revive the French Colonial Empire.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 10:16 am I disagree. Many societes, such as Mbuti, have deliberately ecologically conscious methods. The RN is not pro-premodern, except perhaps on a (low) intellectual level. Notably, the RN were the first political party in France to have a website. The RN are actually hypermodern in some ways, often the worst ones.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 11:33 am PS the distinction between 'modern' and 'premodern' is sufficiently nuanced, not taking into account the details of reality as there are significant differences between industrial, feudal, pastoral, nomadic hunter-gatherers etc

1. xxx never mentioned hunter gatherers.
2. Hunting and gathering doesn't scale. How would billions forage in the jungle?
3. For hunter gatherers, ecology is like cleaning the neighborhood. This is something humans do naturally when they're not stressed. It doesn't scale to industrial society.

I'm suspicious of culture for a number of reasons. Take Zizek, for example. Marxism has a clear explanation for why the abolition of slavery was possible with modern industry. But because of his training in cultural analysis, Zizek is now trying to analyze the biblical roots of the Western tradition that allowed it to happen.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:33 pm Marx originally came up with the framework that Piketty applies.

Also, I don't remember specifics about Piketty's take on human rights, but it can't be worse than what Marx has to say about them.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:33 pm Generally speaking, a lot of people who think in aesthetic terms seem to have trouble grasping why the Far Right in no way challenges the power of capital. They seem to think that if women wear headscarves, that would magically increase the power of workers over CEOs or something.

No, that's really blindingly obvious to anyone on the left. Right-wingers seem convinced themselves the Far Right is not compatible with capitalism or neo-realism; but IMO they're just fooling themselves.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:33 pm

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:50 am 3° The main economists these incude, not Marx, but Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo, both of whom support NFP https://www.nouvelobs.com/politique/202 ... poque.html

Having read both authors, the main differences between Piketty and Marx are that: 1. Piketty obviously has a lot of up to date data. 2. Piketty doesn't seem to grasp the seriousness of the resistance which capitalists put up.

xxx, like many right-wingers seems convinced the French left is Marxist. Marxist thought is marginal among the French left.
The interesting bit is that we have a lot of very serious economists, who are definitely not Marxist -- Piketty started out neoliberal, saying, very loudly and publicly: 'Socialists were right all along.'
Neoliberals think they have economics on their side; but this is no longer true, and hasn't been since 2008.

I think that socialists are moralists in word and neoliberals in deed,
they gave birth to Macronism,
but through the wear and tear of power it has further accentuated its turn to the right
accompanied by the socialist schizophrenic neurosis
pushed to psychosis with its "at the same time" theory...

our elected representatives share among themselves :
- morality without common sense, this is dogmatism,
- common sense without morality, this is cynicism,
- and neither morality nor common sense, they are politicians...
we're still waiting for the one who would still have morality and common sense after being elected,
but could he form a government with all the others......
_______________________________________________________
m´â¹Rk°z°³yÅLXm´o°z°yÅLXâ¹Xm´‚J²°z°³ee

xxx wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:37 am I think that socialists are moralists in word and neoliberals in deed,
they gave birth to Macronism,

There's an interesting point about language; 'socialist' as the word is understood in English and as it was used in French until relatively recently: ie, capitalism replaced or seriously amended.
In French of course 'socialiste' refers to the Parti Socialiste, which the last time it governed was indeed close to (but not quite) neoliberalism.

I think socialism/socialisme is a good word that should be reclaimed; it's perhaps noteworthy that Piketty uses socialisme in the historical acception.