Nostr Web Client

Jeez, this is like a really really big question that demands like 200 pages of historic context to really get into and parse out. Marxism today is a highly mutilated version of its own assertions starting as early as the communist manifesto, as Marxism was originally an application of scientific socialism; a theory that came long before Marx. Today we have some form of Stalinist-Maoist ideologies divorced from the classic ideas that were first put forward as scientific socialism.

As to the second question, I think it’s obvious that the consolidation of capitalism into the hands of a few and their relationship to the state and regulatory regime has been hugely damaging to humanity on a whole and that needs to be checked in someway.

This is where and why I side with anarchism, which was allied with the socialist up until the second international where Bakunin broke with Marx over the use of the state to create a communist society.

Interesting thanks man 🤙

I wasn't familiar with Bakunin, but I realize that taking the means of production by force and then magically distributing it to the people is insanely unrealistic.

The main idea I have appreciated from Marx is this concept about the commodification of our desires. The way commercials try to sell us on crap we don't need by displaying a happy family for example. (I believe Marx wrote on advertising specifically, but I haven't read him directly so it could have been a contemporary)

The division between young Marx thought (alienation) and older (materialism) both have important distinctions as well.

Imho anarchism recognizes many of the criticisms of capitalism, but addresses them in a way that doesn’t lead to insanity or totalitarianism. This is why anarchism was such a failure of political theory in the 20th century it just didn’t have the tools to actualize itself. However we do now have those tools, just very few recognize their political nature.

Nice, I love that.

Most of the anarchist literature I've read has been in the ancap vein, with the exception of Bookchin, Chomsky, and Graeber who are all too far left for my taste.

On the flip side, the transactional nature of ancap ideology seems totally soulless to me. For example, Rothbard siding against farmers in favor of the banks reposessing their land left an awful taste in my mouth.

Can you think of any particular books or authors worth checking out that provide a decent balance?

. 11mo ago

You may find Guy Debord "Society of the Spectacle" an interesting take on modern commodification. The Situationist perspective is a modern Hegelian critique of the soulessness of capitalism and a challenge to the Stalinist state vs daily choices of a council.

Nice, thanks for the recommendation. I will give that a read.

Guy is the strategist that I think bridges the gap between classic and modern understanding of these concepts in many ways.

I had a good response that got ate from me not having a good connection, But Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, and rudolf rocker all have interesting takes

Nice, three new names for me. I will check them out.

This is the renaissance 🤙

Yeah I don’t really dig contemporary anarchist, as the ideology is all messed up imho.

I have not read these in a while, but Rudolf Rocker, Peter kropotkin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon all influenced my thoughts on this division between anarchism and communism.

Both left/right ideologies seem captured by poorly incentivized institutions. Bitcoin fixes the sponsor/patron problem.

Keen addresses your first question in a way and with historical context. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lex-fridman-podcast/id1434243584?i=1000570189155

I'm listening to this now, about 30 minutes in. I find this guy's economic theory really challenging to understand or relate to.

It sounds like he's advocating for credit based monetary expansion by private institutions, which is very similar to what we have with the federal reserve. He hasn't mentioned the bond market yet, but he's against sound currency.

I'd take the time to consider what he's saying, but now that bitcoin exists his opinion is irrelevant to me personally. I would never choose to use an inflationary credit currency over bitcoin.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Also haven’t finished listening to it but he does take a passing swipe at bitcoin at one point, which seems odd for such a well read economist. Tho he admires Keynes as a writer which is like saying Mussolini was a fashion designer.

Yeah the whole thing seems unfocused and wide ranging. I don’t know how one can be an Austrian without a sound unit if account.

The guiding question still seems to me this: who owns your ideology, whether a charismatic strongman or a secret intelligence agency? Sub-question being implied is this: can any political movement ever be pure, un-manipulated at the narrative or financial level? If not: fuck the sponsors or war and fuck their fucked incentive structures.

Political movements exist only in the realm of ideals. They aren't real in the physical sense.

I think bitcoin provides us with a unique opportunity to link the ideal to the physical.

In this sense it will brush aside all the ideals which are not compatible, including this arm chair economist.

But that’s manifestly untrue. Just think of the 99% or the MeToo or the Woke movements: all ideals turned to occupied buildings, losses of prestige, and neutered kids respectively.

Follow the provenance of your ideal. As many philosophers say.

I see your point. I might have been too absolute in my statement. Those ideals obviously informed physical action and outcomes, but the ideals themselves are not real in a physical sense.

There's nothing tying them to reality except for the people who chose to believe them. There's no bounds to how those ideals are translated into action.

I'm not sure if I've fully formulated what I'm trying to get across yet, but maybe you see what I'm getting at.

Narrative control: the institutions have psyops but we have memes. I say we win but it’s going to be a fight. They have the world to lose and we have the world to free.

Absolutely yes

Jen 11mo ago

Time to start a regular Free Speech Nest for sure gents. There are so many interesting and nuenced things to discuss and no-one to stop you.

Also GM.