That's quite fast, it's only been a week after the shooting and they're already using the precedent.
commiunism
joined 3 months ago
Yeah, maybe you're right.
I'm definitely on the side of marxist feminists (which is one of the bigger branches/theories in the feminist spaces), which is one of the major theories that is based on class analysis and one that recognizes how capitalism and patriarchy (which are not being conflated into one) are interconnected and support one another.
It's also opposed to bourgeois feminism, which might deliberately omit systemic causes behind oppression (see: the original post) and just aims to benefit women at the top while working class women get shafted.
Hope this answers what my stance is at least.
The subtleties of who is and isn’t the bourgeoisie takes a level of brain power that the average person just does not have today.
Yeah, the subtleties of "whoever owns a business/land" or "whoever owns capital" or "capitalists and landowners".
The hyperfixation on billionaires shifts the blame from the system and class society to the personal excesses and individual wealth concentration of those at the tippity top. It also completely ignores how billionaires get to where they are (what happens with businesses below 1 billion) and has the implication that they're the "small guys who might be good as opposed to evil billionaires", which normalizes and legitimizes the system. Besides, you can't really focus just on the billionaires via reformism given how they own most of the power and can lobby the shit out of any bourgeois government, leaving anti-billionaire talk just talk.
This narrative should be actively fought against, not accepted given how it aids and reinforces the system.
Yeah, but posts and the recent sudden narrativization of only billionaires being bad or them being "the focus" really tries to divert from the existence of bourgeois as a class.
Leave it to bourgeois feminism to recognize a real and serious problem in today's system (the exploitation and deliberate oppression of women via unpaid labor to grow future workers to be exploited by capitalists for no cost to them), only for them to toss aside the class character of the problem and blame men.
Based mask off.
Can't wait for Dems to respond by wanting to rename it to department of peace
The vast, vast majority of artists do it as a job to survive and not for fun though.
It can certainly be a hobby that is done for fun with no time constraints, where you can just make whatever you please, but it can also be stressful, soul-sucking necessity once money gets involved.
No, it's exactly how capitalism works and the narratives like technofeudalism claiming that we live in some post-capitalist neo-feudalism are nonsense.
There's a concept of fictitious capital, which is different from other types of capital in that it doesn't exist yet - it's a claim to income generated in future production. It's nothing new, Marx for example wrote about this in Capital (written in second half of 1800, almost 200 years ago).
Besides, a lot of tech companies do report losses because they put most of their profits in R&D, both to avoid taxes and probably develop new products along the way. It isn't an unfounded investment.
The two classes: billionaires and workers
If species progressed far enough in technology to simulate billions of years of an universe that consists of tiny atoms under a constant refresh rate that only gets harder to run as time goes on, there's 0% chance it'd happen in a system where proprietary software and similar private and intellectual property can exist
Idk, I took the "this is the best we got" as some sort of acceptance of it as in the narrative should be used and supported