star_wraith Now • 100%
This is the communist festival right? That one is very high on my list of things to do before I die.
star_wraith Now • 100%
All my Frogs and Toads, gone...
star_wraith Now • 100%
Interaction with other social/economic classes.
I like everything you said about travel but want to hone in on this one. I think it's suuuuper important. I grew up in a middle class environment and it took a long time for me to truly "get" that there's so many people who have less than that, just because it's not something I grew up around (and media heavily reinforces this).
star_wraith Now • 100%
Likewise, if not for Hexbear I would living in a bubble of people roughly my own age and completely cut off from younger people, who (especially but exclusively comrades here) are very cool and good. I despise when older people hate "the youth" and have promised myself I will never become like that.
star_wraith Now • 100%
I'm thinking more like little kids (mine are little). When their older yeah, let them listen to their music during their time and your pods on your time (or however you split up what plays when kids are older, idk)
star_wraith Now • 100%
I strongly suspect that if Pete's dad was like every other college professor I've known, there's a good chance he was violating #1. Most professors I know put the job first and their families a distant second.
star_wraith Now • 100%
Ooooh dang, that's pretty good.
star_wraith Now • 100%
I am a big fan of PBS Kids, not exactly "subversive" but on the whole teaches kids a lot of good stuff.
star_wraith Now • 100%
I think there's plenty of "serious" podcasts. To name a few: Already Existing Socialism, Cosmopod, The Measures Taken, Rev Left, Varn Vlog. But I do lots of others than are not explicitly commie, like Means Morning News, Electronic Intifada (my kid asks really good questions about Gaza), Red Nation, Citations Needed, Macro & Cheese, and others.
But like Frank said, I'm not too worried about the crass factor too much. I don't listen to TrueAnon or Chapo. Deprogram I think is more or less fine. I've already played Trillbillies for them and my kid loves them honestly. I think my kid picks up on the fact they are friends and that they have a nice conversational style to them.
This topic comes up somewhat regularly here. If you have kids, what can you do to at least give them the best shot at understanding and embracing your communist / Marxist / dialectical materialist views? We usually come up with a couple big picture ideas, but over the last few weeks I've been jotting down very specific, concrete actions you can take. This list is not meant to exhaustive - I'm hoping you all have great ideas to share, too. But this is what I've come up with so far: (And to clarify something, I'm 100% convinced to do need to be somewhat intentional and didactic about your values and views if you want your kids to share them. To think "I'm just going to let them find their own way, I don't want to influence them" is 1,000% lib shit. I'm not even sure most liberals think that way.) **Be a good parent**: This one seems obvious, but it's so important it bears repeating and should be at the top of the list. You should be a good, involved parent for a number of reasons anyway. But, if you want your kids to share your views, being a good parent is the #1 way to encourage that. Or at least, being a shitty parent is a surefire way to make sure your kids rebel against everything you care about **Get organized**: Get involved in an org, even if it's something like DSA. It can be an actual org like PSL or even just helping feed homeless folks in your town. Your kids can see how you have a great grasp of reality thanks to materialism, which might make them inclined to think you know what you're talking about. But if they know you see the problems in the world, but aren't doing anything to change that world... I can see how some kids might see that as kinda hyprocritical. **Learn history, especially from a materialist perspective**: This is easy for me because I love history, even long before I was a Marxist. But if you don't enjoy history, I think you should at least push yourself and try to understand at least the materialist history behind what your kids will learn in school (so for American kids, making sure you understanding things like how the constitution was formed, how African-Americans have been held down throughout history, etc.). Especially if you are American, this is easy because most Americans are dumb as shit when it comes to history, and K-12 history teachers aren't much better. If your kids see that you know what you're talking about, they will largely trust your analysis. So when your kid hears in class that "the US fought the Korean War because the Soviets wanted to take over", they will know to come to you and ask if that's true - because they know you likely have a much more thorough and accurate answer. **For little kids, read history books to them**: Right now my kid loves Nelson Mandela, because we have a couple books about him. I happen to believe that fostering a love of history can definitely help point kids in the right direction (even if by itself it probably won't turn them commie). Just make sure it's "good" history and not just that crap that glazes the founding fathers. **For older kids, engage with them on what they're learning in school**: Good idea for all subjects, but especially for the social sciences. Ask questions. Be genuinely interested. While like said above, you need to be didactic but older kids especially aren't going to want to hear you rant about how Stalin saved the world from fascism for 15 minutes every time he comes up. Know when to just ask and listen with them. **Stay on top of current affairs**: Keep up with the News Mega! All the stuff I said above about history applies to news & current events. **Play some commie podcasts when you're in the car with them**: I feel like I might get push back on this, so let me explain. When I was a kid, my parents had news radio on whenever we were in the car. And even if I didn't understand what was always being talked about, I know for a fact I absorbed a ton of information passively that way. I believe that is a big reason I'm as interested in what's going on in the wider world today. I know we're generally down on leftist podcast but the reality is there's a ton of good content out there. **Try to have answers ready for when kids ask about what you believe**: I think especially for younger kids, it's good to have simple answers ready that they can understand. And don't worry about being precisely correct in your response. When your kid asks “are we republicans or democrats?” or “do you vote for republicans or democrats, keeping in mind they may have a hard time understanding a complicated response. Say something like “I vote for whoever helps poor people or immigrants or people who work for a living”. That's much better than trying to explain the drawbacks of electoralism to a 7 year old. Obviously you can be more detailed and precise with older kids. **Try and have leftist adult friends who also have kids**: Believe me, I get how hard this. It's nearly impossible to find any broadly leftist parents in my area, much less those who have time for socializing. So this is more of an ideal to try and reach, not a concrete action. But I think having some friends around who share your views - and have kids who can befriend your kids - is very effective. Just hard to pull off. **Push back hard against any transphobia or homophobia**: Whether you see it IRL or in media, don't hesitate to be clear with your kids what being LGBTQ is about and that anyone who against LGBTQ rights sucks. I say this because I was raised in an environment very hostile to LGBTQ people. Just the other day, my kid wanted her two Barbie dolls to get married. For a fraction of second, there was that old voice in the back of my head saying "they're too young to understand". But of course they're not, and I explained how of course two Barbies can get married. Kids DO need to understand the validity of LGBTQ identities at a very young age. **If you're white, teaching anti-racism is important**: Because if you're white, it's incredibly easy to fall into the trap of "well I'm not racist and no other white people I know are racist, so racism must be over". It's easy because white society pushes this notion so hard. You absolute have to teach kids about systematic racism and how they actually do need to stand up to racist pricks, because they *will* encounter them. That's the list I have so far, would love to hear your additions.
star_wraith Now • 100%
Earlier today, I was reading an abstract of a paper that showed there was a relationship between being an overly fearful child and eventually becoming a conservative adult.
star_wraith Now • 100%
And on top of that, they can always write down the value further due to “impairment” like obsolescence. For example, maybe a specific missile costs $1 million and it is straight-line depreciated for 5 years. After 3 years the book value is $400k. However, they can just say “we have a new missile that’s better so this old missile is obsolete, the value should only be $100k” then they can write down the book value even further.
Also, if they use FIFO inventory accounting, only the oldest stuff on record is used EVEN IF IT ISN’T physically the oldest stock. So if the costs of the equipment get more expensive every year then what’s counted as being given to Ukraine has the lowest value, even if in real terms they are giving them the newest stock.
star_wraith Now • 100%
8.9k upvotes. If there was ever a comment that convinced me Reddit is astroturfed / an op, this is it. Because they are objectively wrong. Or at least intentionally misleading.
They’re focusing on the fact that the valuation equipment changed and ignoring what that actually means. Sure, by itself it doesn’t affect US taxpayers. But the point is, the military says they overvalued it by $2, so that allows them to send $2 billion more worth of equipment. That’s additional stocks of weapons that ostensibly have to be replaced, which is paid for by tax dollars.
And while it’s not provably corrupt, it strains credulity to think this was not done in order to ship more weapons. Revaluations of this kind are much much more likely because someone wants it revalued, i.e. corruption.
star_wraith Now • 100%
I don’t remember why it took me a like a week to sign up. I kept checking the lifeboat discord for news. I think I missed it by a couple days. I made an account but didn’t like the name so I came up with this one.
star_wraith Now • 100%
This was Obama’s slogan, because he would always call out issues but then act like he was powerless to do anything.
Biden’s strategy is to act like problems don’t exist and actually it’s the people who are wrong, the economy is doing great. To say otherwise is to imply you actually support Trump.
star_wraith Now • 100%
It’s honestly impressive how well Marx understands accounting. People who aren’t involved in accounting may not think it’s important but accounting is how you can understand how money flows within and without a capitalist enterprise. The whole idea about how fixed capital adds value proportional to its “wear and tear” is essentially the same thing as how we calculate depreciation on equipment. Cost accounting is how costs are allocated to things that don’t directly incur a cost that can be measured per item produced, and Marx uses that conceptually throughout Vol 1 & 2.
star_wraith Now • 100%
Absolutely. Maybe I can just scan them to text and share, might be a bit disorganized since I just did it free form to help my knowledge but if it’s helpful I can share them.
star_wraith Now • 100%
I haven’t been involved in Vol 1 since it had been a while but I wanted to follow along still. But, I just finished Vol 2 so I really want to get involved there. I missed ch 1-4 but here I am.
Ch 6 is an absolute beast. It’s confusing and Marx isn’t clear in a number of areas. Even David Harvey I think got some conclusions wrong (no fault of his own, he’s never worked in accounting in a manufacturing setting like I have so it’s understandable).
That said, I think it might be one of the most important if not the most important chapter in the book, certainly in its relevance for modern capitalism. The idea that value is created only in the production sphere is ground breaking and the implications for an economy that has hollowed out its own productive capacity (like the US has) are profound.
Ch 6 is a struggle. I read it through and was really confused, so I sat down and took like 20 pages of notes (I write big though) and committed to not moving on until I finally grasped it. It was a ton of work but I’m at the point now where I think I get it.
If you’re struggling to understand what kinds of cost add value and which do not, I found that thinking about modern production is only going to confuse you. Instead, think about a grain farmer. For a grain farmer, storage adds value because grain, by its very nature, MUST be stored. Otherwise you can’t just have everyone eat grain for a month and starve the remaining 11 months. Likewise transportation costs must be productive because farms are far away from cities.
I highly recommend checking out Ian Gough’s paper Marx’s Theory of Productive and Unproductive Labour in conjunction with chapter 6. I’ll try and summarize my notes as best I can but probably easier if I try and answer questions as they come along.
star_wraith Now • 100%
Because the market processes all information at a speed that makes regularly beating the market impossible; and literally every investor on earth is looking for an “edge” at the same time. The stock market is “efficient” from the standpoint of, any profit you can make by trading on new information vaporizes in a nanosecond.
I use quotes around the word “efficient” because I’m NOT implying the stock market is efficient from a Marxist or resource allocation perspective. Just that today’s stock prices reflect the sum of all information that we have about a given stock up to the moment.
The outperformance of index funds is largely due to their lower expenses and the fact that money managers, just by trying to beat the market, often do the wrong thing.
star_wraith Now • 100%
So about 2X more women are vegan than men? Honestly I would have thought the ratio to be a lot higher.
www.cnbc.com
Well over $100k in the higher cost of living states, too. And as the article states, that’s typically about double what the median salary is for a single person in most states. I’d like to point out that AES states - while maybe they didn’t have all the same quality or quantity of consumer goods - were able to able to to provide a comfortable life for *everyone* without all the predatory that US workers currently have. And don’t take my word for it, take it from the neoliberal queen herself, Angela Merkel. When asked about life in the former GDR, she described it as “almost comfortable”. Now before you mention that “almost” is an important qualifier, note that the context of her quote was her trying to criticize the former GDR but she grudgingly conceded the comment above.
I’m white. My daughter is also white. She’s 3 years old, almost 4. Up to this age, my approach to teaching her about race has been to focus exclusively on skin *color*. Meaning, we talk about how people can have all different colors and tones to their skin. Talking about skin color on a spectrum. But always emphasizing that people are all the same and that everyone should be treated the same. In isolation, this all sounds lib. I of course want to get all into structural and institutional racism et al. But… she’s 3. Up until a few months ago she was still pooping and pissing in a diaper. My thinking is that emphasizing this more lib understanding of race is more age-appropriate now, and we can get into the real stuff a little later on when she has the mental and emotional maturity to handle it (that said, I have told her that the cops aren’t very nice to people who don’t look like us. Whatever, the daycare has pigs come over and talk to the kids even at her age, so fuck em I’m gonna counter that shit now). Is this the right approach? Is there more I should be doing? If you all have any age-appropriate books on this topic you can recommend, definitely let me know.
(Specifying “post-NEP” since think the war communism economy and the NEP should be viewed as it’s own thing) Trying to get into the real fine details regarding the Soviet economy - either the total period from Stalin to Gorbachev, or segments of that period. Really want to understand what went wrong, and what went right. The problem I’m having is when I go to the bourgeois economic historians, they unsurprisingly shit on the economy under Stalin (or rather, emphasize the unsustainability of it long term) and praise Khrushchev and Gorbachev. Obviously that’s a biased route I’m not interested in going down. However, whenever I go in the opposite direction, I feel like I’m reading sources that are maybe a bit too uncritical of the Stalin era economic policies. And you know what, maybe Stalin *did* actually get everything about the economy right. I’m open to that possibility. Obviously the track record is there. But idk, I haven’t found one source yet who has sufficiently shown their work on that (that I’m sure is due to me not finding the right sources yet). Like, when it comes to economic history, I don’t feel an overwhelming need to defend Stalin or criticize Khrushchev and Brezhnev, just trying to find a sober analysis from a Marxian source. I have a background in econ so I would feel comfortable handling something that’s a bit more technical, if such a resource exists. Any suggestions welcome!
 Death to America and viva la revolucion!    Was just thinking about this since I’m wearing my Cuba WBC cap around town (from the most recent WBC when Cuba was actually “allowed” to be in charge of their own team).
I don’t have any myself, but thought you all might know some.
I’m not a native German speaker obviously, but doesn’t “Das Kapital” translate to “THE Capital”? Also, English-speakers should call it just “Capital”. Calling it “Das Kapital” is just propaganda to make the title sound more menacing than it is.
Liberals will point to how improvements in quality of life have occurred in capitalist countries in recent centuries (debatable, and certainly not true for the entire world, but let’s assume they are correct for now). What is usually implied is that it’s all thanks to capitalism that we have the quality of life that we do, thus capitalism should be allowed to continue. The thought I had was, do most of the quality of life improvements come down mostly to how agriculture and medicine developed? Meaning, famines were a harsh reality of life for much of human history, and modern agriculture has allowed us to now be in a position where globally, we can produce more than enough food consistently for the whole planet. Likewise in regards to medicine… in the past just getting sick could be a death sentence. People had to live with incredibly painful conditions their whole life that we now have cures for. Honestly modern medicine is the one reason why I would rather live in 2023 than any other time. What I’m getting at is… though these advances did occur under capitalism, I don’t think I would give capitalism the “credit” for them. Obviously socialism was not possible 200 years ago. I’m not denying standard Marxist historical progression. What I am doing though, is trying to attack the liberal narrative of treating capitalism as some god who has bestowed his mercy on us - that everything good we have is from Him, and thus we must give Him our praise and continue on His economic system into eternity. The Soviet Union and China were/are both able to be incredibly productive in agriculture and ended their historic, periodic famines. The Soviet Union (and Cuba!) were/are renowned for their advances in medicine. I think the only things you can give capitalism “credit” for is developing the productive forces, allowing for high levels of commodity production, and increasing levels of wealth (though not equally shared).
m.youtube.com
This looks kinda fun. The trailer kind of assumes you’re familiar with the “magical negro” trope, but I’m sure the movie fleshes it out. Of course, white folks are getting in a tizzy over it, lots of comments about “well I don’t ask any black folks to make ME feel comfortable!!!” and “this is divisive!”, entirely oblivious to both the trope and broad social implication: that in 2023, black folks are not allowed to bring up historical injustices (much less they look for them to be remedied), be angry about *anything*, express displeasure with the current state of this, etc lest the white folks be made to feel uncomfortable.
Wherever he is, I hope he’s doing good. I don’t remember if he was an open communist when he was in the Virginia legislature but probably the least lib politician in America in a generation. Seemed like a pretty genuine dude, too. Feels like he dropped out of politics and has been pretty quiet since.
Had always been a boxers enjoyer, until a friend made a devastating insult: “You wear boxers? What are you, like 80 years old?” Completely bodied and no way to recover. So I decided to try out boxer briefs. I always hated that constricting feeling on my thighs, so I avoided them. Decided to buy a slightly loose, larger size and I’m liking it.
Never really been a huge fan of Christmas. Something has always bugged me about it, but I've never been quite able to figure out what. I've thought about all the reasons people - especially leftists - don't like Christmas. Like, the consumerism aspect can be annoying. But tbh I don't know anyone who actually is focused on spending money on people. I really only see people I know worry about gift-giving because they want to give something meaningful, myself included. It can be stressful and overall I kinda wish gift-giving wasn't a part of Christmas, but it doesn't really bother me. Stores obviously push you to buy stuff but really, when isn't that the case under capitalism? There are other aspects of Christmas I really don't like - the music and how long the season drags out in particular. But those are admittedly just "me" things. There are a lot of people who like that part of Christmas, and I'm firmly in the "let people enjoy things" camp. So while these aspects might bug me *personally*, there is something else - something *social* - that feels off with Christmas. But then a couple weeks ago, I was watching another "Christmas special" kids show that emphasized "Christmas is special time with the people we love" message, and I started thinking through something: I think what bothers me about Christmas is that it seems there is this massive social effort to resuscitate a sense of social belonging that capitalism itself has killed. In order to survive, capitalism has completely and totally obliterated our social fabric and has turned us all into individualistic atoms. It *had* to do this. The social fabric is what allows us to experience not only common humanity, but common struggle. We are social creatures and we need some sort of social connection. But social connections are a threat to capitalism, so it must be destroyed. We need to be mobile workers who move away from the family and social connections we form. We spend all our time working so we can't form social bonds. The single family residence is considered the only way to live if you have the means. Unionizing or even just viewing our co-workers as group that should collectively act has been demolished. So capitalism rips apart our social fabric in order to reproduce itself. But... we are social creatures. We all *know* something is missing. So to help assuage that angst, capitalism has "invented" modern Christmas. Modern Christmas involves telling people that for one day or one season, yes everything is totally fine. Having social connections is good. Of course, we are not actually given anything that helps improve our social connections. But our rulers deem that for a few weeks, we can have the *vibes* of a functioning social life, as a treat. They take the corpse of a healthy social fabric and prop it up and pretend it's alive, a la *Weekend at Bernie's*. That's really the point of the Hallmark movies. That the point of the news highlighting feel-good stories about the holidays. Of every TV show having a "Christmas special" once a season that emphasizes that caring about others is what matters. I mean, of course those things are *good*. But it's an effort to create something artificial in place of something real. Christmas is capitalism's social [MacGuffin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin). We supposed to think about our loved ones this one time of year because it's Christmas and that's what Christmas is. But Christmas I think is just what's evolved into our release valve. Put all our energy in making one day matter so we don't think about the other 364 where we are alienated from each other. It's why every time we hear platitudes about "Christmas is a special time of the year" in the media, it rings hollow.
It seems highly regarded and well reviewed. Reading some synopses of it, seems like it would be something I’d be really interested in. However I’m also pretty allergic to philosophy, it usually goes over my head. But then again, a lot of reviewers say Mau keeps things very “practical”? (Also, being respectful of my Danish comrades with the ø, which I have always liked anyway because I thought it looks cool).
I’m curious about the experience of reading Marx from our users for whom English is their second language. For me as a native English speaker… I love reading Marx but the language feels so arcane at times. I mean, he rarely uses words I don’t understand, but the context in which he uses them often eludes me. It’s almost like he uses to many words when a briefer sentence would be more effective, at least to a modern audience. It’s nowhere near the experience of say reading Shakespeare, which I can’t do without some sort of modern guide. But I feel like the language is challenging enough that it’s a barrier to some people. So I’m curious if the experience is similar in other languages (especially curious about German).
I played DE for the first time a year ago. I played it pretty “straight” because I wanted to learn as much about the world of Revachol and it’s history as possible (I avoided most spoilers but I had some vague notions there was some sort of communist revolution in the past). So on my skills, I loaded up on Psyche and Intellect with a focus on Encyclopedia and Visual Calculus. I didn’t do a lot of drugs or drink, either. So for my second play through, I’m looking for a different experience. I’m thinking about loading up on Physique and Motorics - Physique in particular. I’ve heard Shivers and Half Light can be fun. I kept Interfacing, Hand Eye Coordination, etc pretty low so I might want to try it with higher levels there. But I wanted to ask you all and get your thoughts and suggestions. Also, I’m torn if I should try the Moralist vision quest or go back to the Communist one. I didn’t have quite enough Communism points to get the “best” ending (didn’t internalize The Suicide of Kras Mazov) so I kinda want another shot. But the moralist one does seem kinda interesting and apparently you learn more about the Pale. Anyway would love to hear your ideas.
pca.st
Our beloved Large Adult Son went on the Age of Napoleon podcast and gave his thoughts about Marx’s *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, which I saw somewhere that Matt said it was his favorite book. It’s a pretty great rundown of the book; I especially enjoyed the insight he had into Marx’s “sack of potatoes” comment. Happy Eighteenth Brumaire, comrades!