the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this.
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
This is an incoherent analysis based entirely on liberal ideology, particularly an acceptance of the libertarian notion that 'neoliberal capitalism' is a separable entity from 'capitalism as described by Marx, imperialism as described by Lenin, super-imperialism described by Hudson'. This is not the case and does not bear itself out historically, as described in great detail by Parenti in multiple well-cited books.
To the extent that neoliberal capitalism is a different entity it is a different entity BECAUSE it normalized and made permanent the corporatization and privatization of German fascism. Cultural flattening and globalization ARE NOT historically unique to capitalism nor to the neoliberal project. If anything, they precedes them by at least 100 years or more, and capitalism COMES OUT of the cultural flattening of nationalism, and is not it's root cause. And because of that, capitalism is inextricably tied to the maintenance and perpetuation of the national project.
Hand-in-hand with the capitalist's at-home national project is to insistence that others are too culturally different to ever find solidarity with and that we must spend all of our time and energy preserving an celebrating those cultural differences. Anthropologists and sociologists should be studying supply chains and monetary theory, not if the town of Anstead spins right three times when they salt their pork. But now, the only proper cosmopolitan is the bourgeoisie, while workers are told that they must represent their national interests.
Fuck you and your liberal aesthetic argument. You cannot convince the liberal bourgeoisie to be socialists or actually approach socialism or communism, because as soon as you get close they will immediately use fascism and fascists to suppress you. One is the tool of the other. You especially cannot do it if you continue to vote for them even when they are the most anti-labor and genocidal president in your lifetime.
They know where their interests lie. Do you?
Could you give me some literature on this? It is a fascinating point.
There is some level of literature on the concept of 'cosmopolitanism' and 'ethics of race', but it's basically an under-developed concept in philosophy. My personal opinion of anthropologists and sociologists is my own, developed by a wide array of readings and personal experiences, and I literally do not have the time to actually write a book or article on it, even though that might be something I do in the future.
Well here's hoping you do have that time eventually. It seems like a useful string to pull on