To quote Robert Baratheon I’m not trying to honor you. I’m trying to get you to run my kingdom while I eat, drink, and whore my way to an early grave
This seems to be the approach of every billionaire or person of means, to the exclusion of interest in their own offspring or legacy. There are few Tywin Lannisters, and they can be dicks as well.
I was raised to invent / discover some science or useful art. My dad did some work with solar-synchronus orbits. Still, all of human society is expecting a major population correction (mostly famine) in the next half century, which is likely to wipe out all the culture and science we have. We’ll be lucky if Relativity or Beethoven’s symphonies survive as we get knocked back to the iron age, let alone space science. Maybe Rob has a point.
For now, I’m so depressed, I exist to pet my cat and walk my dog and tell people online they are valid, even if the human species has a tragedy of the commons glitch that may be its great filter.
Regarding the Chad as Anarcho-Capitalist convo: I think we maybe shouldn’t credit value to character archetypes rather than to logic and principles.
No one’s actually a complete Chad IRL. Some look the part. Some look the part and walk the walk some, but plenty are still true believers of white power. Some look the part but are really Gaston, or ready to go Joffrey at a moment’s notice.
Others of us don’t look Chad at all, and may look doomer, or sad girl (or whoever she is. Maybe Female Of The Species) and still have a point or legitimate grievance.
What others classify you as doesn’t make you or your feelings less valid. These archetypes are observer’s perspectives of instances. Moments. They’re not a complete picture of what is happening.
And being or becomming Chad (or Neitzsche’s ubermensch) is not in having perfect positions all the time, but being willing to err and learn from our mistakes. IRL, its a process, and even Christian nationalist Chad can learn, recover, and walk an enlightened path. Chad is a process. And 72% Chad is still pretty Chad.
Posadism attempts to introduce elements of ufology into Marxist thought.
WTF?
…Arguing that only communism can allow the development of interplanetary travel.
I’d argue that the infrastructure we need to colonize other worlds is going to require larger organized population than capitalism can provide.
But as a reader that sees ideologies as starting points (that need to be developed so as to create a pathway to post-scarcity), I can’t say what the corruption-light system is that will allow for interplanetary colonization and trade.
The fabricator IRL would be late-game magitech that manipulates huge amounts of energy. (A fabrication failure could annihilate a continent). Far, far, sooner, we’ll have the food-printer / turbolift system of Star Trek TOS to deliver us our custom-made coffee.
Meanwhile, in 2024, we’re having a tough time escaping the gravity of fascism-driven autocracy.
That seems to be a pretty great idea for a mutual aid project: Make a community coffee dispensary whose mission is to brew the best coffee and give it to anyone who wants a cup. Large-scale production should be useful in controlling the factors of coffee production, hence only a short time of trial and error, the coffee dispensed should progress from bog-standard to half-way decent to pretty good to absolute best.
Stretch goals include a baked-goods dispensary that is attached.
If San Francisco informs, light rail streetcars are a gateway to underground subways. It gets the city in the habit of getting on a railcar to go places while the greater infrastructure (the tunnels) are built.
MUNI is mixed undeground and street. BART is over and under and being extended to this day.
So when one of them is voted off, does a screen plate report the exiled contestant is gay? Because if they’re all typical straights and the comedy is based on them being at least a bit homophobic.
This reminds me of classic USMC gay chicken, which seems to be a conspiracy to turn all our fresh trained marines totally gay questioning.
No one’s utopia rises from the ashes of a collapsed society. Usually collapse is followed by a run of short-lived autocrats, until one of them (or a coalition) sees the trend and is determined not to be the next dead dictator. They then create a constitution and none of them are elected as the executive.
By then everyone is desperate for some quiet, and no one really cares to be king anymore. (Cromwell was unique in handing the theone of England back to a family with some royal legitimacy, but that was before the ideals of the enlightenment.)
What we haven’t tried yet is crafting an ironclad constitution before or during the violence. Were I not a depressed misanthrope with no organization skills, I might have developed an online website that tracked the constitutions of the world (as cross-translated as possible) and made workshops for hypothetical clauses, such as ranked-choice US presidential elections won by popular vote. The point would be to make a site where fledgling states could hammer out ironclad constitutional clauses toward an actual public-serving state. Sadly, I’m pathetic and didn’t do this. And no one else has either.
The more prepared grassroots movements are before the collapse, the less churn of warlords the state has to suffer during the aftermath.
Note that corporations, rich masterminds and foreign interests will still offer finances and materiel to shills to take over and serve as a ruthless puppet dictator. These will be your most difficult adversaries. The DPRK shows us how bad that can get.
Anarchism is about building from the ground up with mutual aid organizations, which create the infrastructure that will support labor unions, community service orgs and other public serving interests. Since these serve as a sneak attack on elite-serving establishment, accelleration doesn’t help them, though mutual aid will help neighborhoods survive when the collapse comes.
Wasn’t John forced at swordpoint to sign the Magna Carta… several times, rather, after betraying the previous version, each time expending more lives of his loyalists?
Richard was awful, yes, but John is conspicuously first and last of his name, which, for my point, screams Don’t be that guy.