EssentialismWokeralWar
I do not support wokeness , overkill idpol etc
What is wokeness? Maybe this can answer your question
I love this inclusive casting call for the Lord of the Rings and I feel this type of casting call is a great way to make our movies and tv shows more inclusive while celebrating the uniqueness of each and every individual:
"A casting agency working for Amazon based in New Zealand said it was looking for only “unusual” or “funky looking” actors for the new series.
“Do you have an overbite, face burns, long skinny limbs, deep cheekbones, lines on your face, acne scars, ears that stick out, bulbous or interesting noses, small eyes, big eyes, any deformities, Skinny faces, missing limbs?” BGT Actors Models & Talent asked in an ad.
It is a privilege to be a human from Earth who is not of a non Earth race or ethnicity or species. It was a privilege in my past life to be the identity that I was in my past life
Here are some out of this world takes I have on intelligent life ETs on other planets in other solar systems, galaxies ,universes and realities
I am a fan of fellow post leftist Malcolm Kyeune who has good works on wokeness and idpol in particular . I am fine for his brand of 'populism'. He is correct in that "a country where the will of the people steers the agenda will be a country which is just and well-functioning" and "believe in regular people, in workers" .
Some good pieces by Malcolm Kyeune can be found here, here, here, here
I tend to agree with this article by Malcolm Kyeune "Wokeness, the Highest Stage of Managerialism"
"What about the owners of capital themselves? The old assumption on the radical left—that small-business owners are the faithful incubators of reaction and thus will always end up on the opposite side of working people—may be disproved in the years ahead."
The rest of this article is very nice but I have to slightly critique this here, there is some contradiction between the interest of wage laborers and the petty bourgeois in which a temporary coinciding of interest with regards to the taxation structure cannot merely erase.
"Regressive taxes have ignited fuel protests in Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and, most dramatically, in France. There’s no particular reason to expect Europe to be spared from large-scale conflicts between classes and political factions in the years ahead. If anything, the gilets jaunes’ rebellion prefigured a growing dynamic in European countries. [...] Leftists were always taught that workers, once robbed of leadership and organization from a well-educated vanguard, would devolve into an inert mass of potatoes with no political agency"
Yep and this is precisely what was the situation with the yellow vests. The sheer amount of numbers got Emmanuel Macron to scrap his fuel tax though the utter lack of organization (not even counting the short-lived informal "assembly of assemblies") made it so that there was no relevant pressure on Macron or anyone around to meaningfully change France's economic apparatus to benefit the exurban workers who were the heart of the movement.
Great article. It is obvious for some time that wokeness as performed by petit bourgeois is class interest with cultish attributes.. How do Marxists and Leftists react to the entrenchment of this parasitic quasi-priestly caste and how might it be explained sufficiently and disarmed by way of dialectical materialism alone?
Wokeness has adopted a lot of aesthetics and terminology along with thought-terminating cliches as to make it hard to even approach the truth of this leaderless though cultish multilevel marketing structure that manufactures legitimacy and its own claims to power. How do we awaken what is already Woke?
I feel a fair bit of despair that this would have to be endured until wokeness loses its ability to pay the bills for its fanboys and fangirls. I guess the most ideal thing to do before that is to strive to make wokeness irrelevant
Businesses have no desire to be sued or to end up in the news so they pay protection money to their HR departments and outside diversity consultants.
They also realize if they build a “company culture” around diversity and equity people would not be as likely to attribute their grievances to discrimination. Also it’s vital in many white collar jobs to not give offense to clients or coworkers, and this thinking of politeness can in an easy way become codified into some edict of never offending people.
Not far off from now, we will be at a point where people realize the method to get ahead is to parrot woke b.s and to punish other “tone deaf” or offending employees for not fitting in with these stupid, childish , crypto fascist values, commonly by refusing to promote them.
It's a great read (his invariably are - other than the one where he claimed his party should constitute a de facto vanguard) but I ponder that it wrongly is dismissive of the symbiosis that is found between the managerial class and capital. Capital's power delegation to this parasitic rabble is a. nearly up front reversible and b. truly, highly effective in focking up attempts to challenge capital itself - I know better but instinctively, even I would priorities defeating these woke vermin first.
Interesting read, from my view I think there’s a bunch of personal problems that underlie wokeness, it’s not actually about the social issues themselves as it is merely a lack of self acceptance and not being capable of handling disappointment, among a lot of other things. But as Kyeyune says, government expansion/provided jobs that pay relatively fine can help with this somewhat
On this article by Malcolm Kyeyune. I pretty much agree with his whole article but...
Like how I feel about some of my fellow post-left in general I feel with this article in that post leftists like Malcolm are great at diagnosing problems with the left (and liberal left) yet I think they go "too far" in the opposite direction (even though I usually hate "distance" arguments such as these), where they simply revive plain old cultural conservativism due to them thinking it's more authentically working class. They are workerist. The more 'better optics' position, certainly, is "class reductionism": the rejection of culturalism in toto.
This is a very good quote from that article:
"Q: The real conflict this century will be between Globalism and National Sovereignty. Our western elites are already solidly post-nation-state, with the various satraps of the USA (The Metropole) little more than branch offices managed by people who wouldn't be out of place at Deloitte and Touche. Globalism has taken a few slaps to its face, with 2008 the best example, yet it is showing not just some resilience, but even more importantly, a devotion from its elites. This resilience is being tested by what may be a supply chain crisis thanks to COVID-19 and thanks to business concepts like JiT (Just-in-Time logistics). But what this Globalism has is a budding universalist worldview that is religious in nature, in which the individual and his or her desires are sacrosanct, provided that they conform with prevailing liberal mores. A universal regime with a universalist faith-based worldview is quite the adversary.
A: I don't really think it is a very imposing adversary, for the simple reason that revolution is never really a game of toppling the elite or defeating the rulers. A functioning, united elite cannot be toppled by the people under any circumstances, for the very simple reason that for an elite to be functioning and united, it essentially has to be able to secure the passive consent of the ruled.
There's a saying in the military that I often come back to, which is ”amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics”. In the age we live in, where everyone who has a public voice is almost by definition a member of this new urban ”Spreadsheet Class”, the actual art of understanding logistics in the widest possible sense – to wit, the actual workings, inputs, and processes of the societal, economic and military machines we all depend on – has basically cratered. The Spreadsheet Class looks at the prospect of, say, civil war, and all they see is a battle of ideas, a question of strategy; they never really stop to consider how many divisions you have at your disposal, what sort of inputs (food, ammo, fuel) those divisions need, how much capacity there is to sustain operations at length, and whether the people in that division are politically reliable. The material world is alien to this class of ”intellectuals”, who consider themselves such by merit of basically being stuck inside their own heads.
The upshot of this is that while the urban classes may have faith (but it remains to be see how long that faith can last in the face of real adversity), they do not really have much else if a real crisis were to erupt. The task of a real revolutionary today is not going to be to figure out how to ”defeat the globalists”. It is going to be to get organized enough in the time we have left so as to have some sort of plan and capacity to try to pick up the pieces once this current order fails under its own contradictions. The supply crisis in particular is not getting solved, basically ever. It is permanent because the dynamic behind it is what is known as a ”cascading system failure”. The only way to fix a failure cascade of the sort the logistics system is in currently is to basically ”reboot” it at a much lower level of complexity, where the rate of ongoing failure is reduced below the capacity to repair failed nodes in the system. Unfortunately – both for the globalists and the people they rule over – the purpose of the now unsustainable levels of complexity inherent to the system was to slash costs, and thus make goods more affordable to the American plebeian, among other things.
There's a scene in the old Jurassic Park movie that is pretty instructive here. After the hacker Dennis Nedry basically knocks out the entire computer system necessary to run the park in order to disable the security and cameras so he can steal some dinosaur DNA, the only way for the heroes of the movie to get the system back to working order is to restart it. Unfortunately, restarting the system means knocking everything offline for a very significant amount of time, including the electrical fences keeping the most dangerous dinosaurs in place. During the downtime, these dinosaurs of course escape, and start causing a lot of mischief, and then a very hungry Tyrannosaurus eats the lawyer that nobody likes.
This is basically the situation the elites of the United States find themselves in currently, though they may not have yet fully realized it. The parallel is both specific and general here. Specifically, the computer system in the movie is experiencing its own cascading system failure as a result of Nedry's actions, and the only way to fix it is to reset it with a bare minimum of functionality and then fixing the broken stuff piece by piece, which is what will happen to the logistics system as well. More generally, the process of reforming a broken system is historically by far the most dangerous place a regime can find itself in. It's when you attempt to reform what has failed catastrophically that revolutions almost always occur; it's when you shut down power to the fences that the dinosaurs escape.
Again, if you just think about these things on the level of tactics or strategy, you are a happy amateur who is probably a lot more sanguine about the political situation. At that point, it's all a contest of ideas, of historical forces, and so on. I find that world boring and inhabited by quite stupid people with needlessly expensive pieces of paper that are meant to impress on the world that they are very, very smart. In the context of Jurassic Park, where the Park Managers have ”spared no expense” to build their incredibly opulent, efficient, and wondrous dinosaur theme park, the truly smart man studies where the power keeping the dinosaur fences actually comes from, and how the fuck the people who designed the system managed to make it tie into the same code that keeps the security cameras and electronic door lock systems in the main building running. The ”globalists” you talk about quite literally have no idea about any of this stuff, and they are likely to be the last ones to get the memo when the systems they all depend on start failing catastrophically."
Malcolm Kyeuyune is spot on with that. Our society rests upon complicated infrastructure only a small amount understand and a lot assume will be “always-on”, even in a disaster situation. Read Facebook’s engineering blog for the ways that they dealt with the October 5 outage for a glimpse of this. They don’t state it, but at the end of the day, they wound up applying angle grinders to defeat their own physical security measures in order to get into their own equipment rack to get it back online.
It seems that the article interviewer is doing some Marty MacMarty knockoff
"A class war is coming, and it will not be between the 99% and the 1%, but between the producers and the parasites. Then we'll see just how ”permanent” the rule of these parasites truly is.
"Who are the 1% "producers", and why is the working class are in need of them?
Malcolm, I believe meant the other way around actually: the working class are the producers, and the ~1% are the parasites
Kyeyune has stated in the past that he believes that the "parasites" extend beyond only the 1% capitalist class and in fact extends to the majority of the college-educated PMC, which he labels the "transferiat" (he goes into depth on this in his article). There's a bunch of stuff in the linked article, but this is sort of the thrust of it:
"To brutally simplify things for the sake of brevity, the notable feature of many PMCs as political actors is a blend of political liberalism and cultural progressivism, merged with a political project aimed at increasingly subsidizing their own reproduction as a class, ideally by means of state transfers. The state should forgive student debt. The state should dabble in reparations. The state should hire ”ideas people” to write up reports and thinkpieces about reparations. The state should create new racial justice commissions, or just generally create more jobs that can employ people who by dint of belonging to this class feel that them taking a job at Walmart means that capitalism has failed and it’s time for a revolution."
Kyeyune is way more likely than not correct that at least some of the college educated PMCs' politics can be attributed to an attitude of dissapointment in getting a college degree and still ultimately becoming a service worker, but the remainder of the assertions can be seen as a delusion, not by me per say but by some left wing anti idpol people (i.e by some anti essentialist, anti capitalist leftists).
At the end of the day, the conception that the "transferiat" (as he puts it) exists in high numbers sounds ironic or comical. There in fact aren't as many jobs as Malcolm believes that can match the description Malcolm puts out.
How much people would a reparations commission or a racial justice commission employ? maybe like 30? You have to get heavily broad in scope in how a person must define the "transferiat" to even arrive at a numerically significant amount of people, and at that junction, most of it is not actually government money, it is within the nonprofit/ngo sector. Malcolm is more correct in pointing to things like student debt forgiveness, though that's merely not going to happen in any significant amount of numbers, and the reparations subject is even more demented since that merely benefits one portion of the population (which is more than half the working class), and it really isn't going to happen due to how politically toxic it is.
Keyuyune is saying that the upcoming class war is not based on any income or wealth, as that 1% vs 99% narrative indicates, the upcoming class war to him will be based on a class war between "productive workers" in the Marxist framework ("producers") and the privileged unproductive middle-class workers who reap the fruits of the exploitation of the latter (they go by different labels: the "PMC", the "new petit bourgeoisie", etc.). Basically, he's saying that it is the people who work in the offices (and he calls this the "Spreadsheet Class") versus the people who work in the factories.
Whether this is true or not ,by implicitly endorsing such a conflict as this, Malcolm can be seen by some as forfeiting his Marxism and turning into some kind of right leaning person or radical centrist, since for Karl Marx the core class conflict is not between the factions of workers, to Marx it is between the bourgeoise and the proletariat: those people who own capital and those people who do not own capital. The PMC can clearly have an obstructionist or even a reactionary place in such a theory as this, though they are not necessarily the problem or at least the problem at hand. The PMC are not "thieves" since the bourgeoise are the thieves. The PMC are beneficiaries though.
The unfortunate truth that Malcolm doesn't seem to acknowledge is that the "non-transferiat" labor (which I'm assuming he means is industrial/agricultural work + parts of the service sector and small businesses), have been worn down by outsourcing, anti-union politics, and in certain cases immigrant labor. The hard truth that nobody wants to hear is that capital is multinational now and more monopolistic than ever, and any hopes of developing "productive" industrial labor simply can't compete with foreign countries for the most part. It doesn't matter if you say "transferiat bad" three times in the mirror, manufacturers will always move to Bangladesh or Cambodia because they can pay Bangladeshis and Cambodians a fraction of the wage needed to pay an American, with less regulation and oversight (the only exceptions are genuinely high skill/high education manufacturing). Small businesses can't compete with monopoly capital and the service sector has been so beaten down by anti-labor legislation that unionization, one of the few things that improves people's lives, is lower than it has been for a very long time (and if Malcolm is anything like Aimee he opposes unions anyhow, as he sees them as a Democratic Party machine). In fact, the only real large scale transferiat that exists in the US (in the sense of people getting government money to create jobs and maintain their competitiveness), is stuff like the arms industry, steel, energy and agriculture, either because of a lack of international competitiveness or because the US government jury rigs those economies to succeed to produce cheap food/energy or reliable weaponry.
this isn't to say, btw, that there isn't a ton of wasteful spending in the nonprofit/ngo sector but the idea that there is this big bad transferiat is 1. numerically silly and 2. ignores that governments pick winners and losers and always have (and are continuing to do so for all the people Malcolm thinks of as the "non-parasites"), it's that simple.
Related sections
FinancialStructuresClasses/MonetaryCultural
Ideology (Post left/Dark Mutualism)
Comments
Post a Comment