this mostly applies to the U.S. but also most of the western world:

As Marxists we know that most policy is driven by what capital allows or within the increasingly narrow range of acceptable discourse it allows within bourgeois dictatorship

Obviously it's not a conspiracy of ten guys in a secret room but a general consensus that develops from a chaotic web-like oligarchy of money peddlers, influencers, lackeys, billionaire puppetmasters, etc

But this really, really hurts Capital. they need the influx of cheap labor or face the real threat of forced degrowth. and we know every international-community-1 international-community-2 including russia-cool is trying to make it harder for people to be childless but short of forcing people to procreate at gunpoint..

  • so why allow this to become a bipartisan consensus (U.S.) instead of say throwing some scraps of social democratic programs?

  • or in Europe's case allowing these parties to come to power instead of reversing some neoliberal austerity?

Is this a case of anti-immigration just being easier to do vs. building resiliency into the system? i mean it's always easier to write laws crimializing stuff and throwing cops at a problem i suppose

Or something else?

  • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    I remember this stream and watching it live and was like finally somebody said it. Finally somebody crystallized it. They are given the option and choose murder. And it won't happen overnight. You'll just wake up one day and you will find out the "yes, murder" people outnumber the "no, what the fuck, how did you already conclude murder is okay?" Like it got escalated while you were asleep. And these goofy people are the first to try. And they're stupid and they will fail. But they'll keep trying. It's bone chilling.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      To be fair, Marxist theorists have been saying similar for quite some time. From Samir Amin's Eurocentrism:

      The recognition of the role of colonialism in the unequal development of capitalism is not enough. For, despite this recognition, the dominant view is based on a refusal to accept the principle that the contradiction between the centers and the peripheries constitutes the fundamental contradiction of the modern world. Certainly, until 1914 the world system was built on the basis of a polarization between the centers and peripheries that was accepted de facto at the time. Since then, this polarization is no longer accepted as such. Socialist revolutions and the successful independence struggles in former colonies are proof of this change.

      To the extent that modern media places the aspiration for a better fate than that which is reserved for them in the system within the reach of all peoples, frustration mounts each day, making this contrast the most explosive contradiction of our world. Those who stubbornly refuse to call into question the system that fosters this contrast and frustration are simply burying their heads in the sand. The world of "economists," who administer our societies as they go about the business of "managing the world economy," is part of this artificial world. For the problem is not one of management, but resides in the objective necessity for a reform of the world system; failing this, the only way out is through the worst barbarity, the genocide of entire peoples or a worldwide conflagration." I, therefore, charge Eurocentrism with an inability to see anything other than the lives of those who are comfortably installed in the modern world. Modern culture claims to be founded on humanist universalism. In fact, in its Eurocentric version, it negates any such universalism. Eurocentrism has brought with it the destruction of peoples and civilizations that have resisted its spread. In this sense, Nazism, far from being an aberration, always remains a latent possibility, for it is only the extreme formulation of the theses of Eurocentrism. If there ever were an impasse, it is that in which Eurocentrism encloses contemporary humanity.

      • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        That's such a great quote. I'd emphasize this part instead, though.

        Modern culture claims to be founded on humanist universalism. In fact, in its Eurocentric version, it negates any such universalism. Eurocentrism has brought with it the destruction of peoples and civilizations that have resisted

        We can apply this to modernity or the Islamic conquests or the crusades or fucking Rome or all these versions of people that tried to "enlighten" other people by stabbing them to death. This is all part of them trying to force the world to make sense. It's just death. You are trying to solve the equation of life and you found this "cheat code" called death. You can dress it up in all the pretty colors but thats really what's going on. That's the actual finality going on here. Living with other people who are different can be difficult. It can upset the balance. But I got a knife or a rock or whatever and I can make the problem go away

        And that is the fundamental flaw. They don't want things to be "un pretty" but their solution is killing people which is the messiest thing. Moving a body takes so much work. Like even if you accept the premise of fascism they are doing it the wrong way. There is a mechanical rebuke of them that goes beyond the appeals to emotion that normally could be used to condemn them. They're doing bad things and they aren't doing them well.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          2 months ago

          We can apply this to modernity or the Islamic conquests or the crusades or fucking Rome or all these versions of people that tried to "enlighten" other people by stabbing them to death.

          This is actually addressed in the earlier chapters of the book in which Amin analyses the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity from a Marxist perspective. How these religions deal with concepts such as modernity, universalism and the question of time. The analysis of Christianity and how that became the dominant religion in Europe at the dawn of "modernity" is very interesting, and one I hadn't heard before. I'll try find it now.

          • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]
            ·
            2 months ago

            That sounds super interesting and if you can find a pdf I'd really appreciate it. There is a lot of stuff written about holy wars that is either too permissive or too condemnatory. Like you get all these pop history books that are either too forgiving or they do the "new atheist" shit that just is another way of trying not to understand the thing you are condemning. Marxist history is the only one worth pursuing. Edit: especially when it comes to things like holy wars

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          2 months ago
          The section of Eurocentrism referencing Christianity I talked about earlier

          :

          At its beginnings, Christianity avoided theocracy. Subsequently, it drifted towards theocracy and then moved away from it again.

          At the time of its foundation, Christianity does not seem to break with Jewish tradition as far as the end of time is concerned. The declaration of the Last Judgment and the second coming of the Messiah certainly has eschatological dimensions, which were strongly emphasized in texts, such as the Apocalypse. Moreover, this is certainly the reason why there have been numerous messianic and millenarian movements in the history of Christianity.

          Yet, because of the very nature of its message, Christianity is actually a radical break from Judaism. This break is fundamental since what is so dramatically expressed in the history of Christ is clear: the Kingdom of God is not on this earth and never will be. The reason the Son of God was defeated on the Earth and crucified is obviously because it was never the intention of God (the Father) to establish His Kingdom on this Earth, where justice and happiness would reign forever. But if God refuses to take on responsibility for setding human problems, it falls to human beings themselves to assume this responsibility. There is no longer an end of time and Christ does not proclaim it as coming, now or in the future. But, in this case, He is not the Messiah as announced by the Jews and they were right not to recognize Him as such. The message of Christ may, then, be interpreted as a summons to human beings to be the actors of their own history. If they act properly, that is, if they let themselves be inspired by the moral values which he enacted in his life and death, they will come closer to God in whose image they have been created. This is the interpretation that eventually prevailed and has given to modern Christianity its specific features based on a reading of the Gospels that enables us to imagine the future as the encounter between history as made by human beings and divine intervention. The very idea of the end of time, as brought about by an intervention from outside history, has vanished.

          The break extends to the whole area that was until then under the sway of the holy law. Undoubtedly, Christ takes care to proclaim that he has not come to this earth to upset the Law (of the Jews). This is in accordance with his core message: he has not come to replace ancient laws by better ones. It is up to human beings to call these laws into question. Christ himself sets an example by attacking one of the harshest and most formal criminal laws, i.e., the stoning of adulterous wives. When he says "those who have never sinned should throw the first stone," he opens the door to debate. What if this law was not just, what if its only purpose was to hide the hypocrisy of the real sinners? In fact, Christians are going to give up Jewish laws and rituals: circumcision disappears and the rules of personal law are diversified, insofar as the expansion of Christianity outside of the Jewish world proper adapts itself to different laws and statutes. A Christian law, which anyway does not exist, is not substituted for the latter. Also, alimentary prohibitions lose their power.

          On the level of dogma, Christianity behaves the same way. It does not break openly with Judaism, since it accepts the same sacred text: the Bible. But it adopts the Jewish Bible without discussion; it is neither reread nor corrected. By doing so, Christianity comes close to voiding its significance. Instead, it juxtaposes other sacred texts of its own making, the Gospels. Now, the morality proposed in the Gospels (love for fellow human beings, mercy, forgiveness, justice) is considerably different from that inspired by the Old Testament. Additionally, the Gospels do not offer anything precise enough to encourage any sort of positive legislation concerning personal status or criminal law. From this point of view, those texts contrast strongly with the Torah or the Koran. Legitimate power and God ("Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar") can no longer be confused. But this precept becomes untenable when, after three centuries of having persecuted Christianity, the ruling powers switch sides and become Christians. But even before, when Christians secretly founded churches to defend their faith and still later, when the Emperor himself became the armed protector of Christianity, a new law is worked out, a law which claims to be Christian, primarily on the level of personal rights. What is a Christian family? This concept had to be defined. It will take time, there will be setbacks, and a final agreement will never be reached. This is because earlier laws and customs, different from place to place, are accepted. Slowly, however, those new laws will be recognized as sacred: the Catholic canon laws, which are different for the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches, and the legal forms of the different Orthodox and Protestant Churches are the result of this slow process.