This makes sense given she's seen chimps go to war and commit war crimes and shit.
Chimps are capable of engaging in rudimentary warfare, and do terrible shit to the losers.
Gorillas 🤝 Bonobos 🤝 Orangutans
Being cooler than Chimps and Humans
Bonobos are extremely horny animals, and use sex rather than violence as a means of conflict resolution and deciding internal hierarchies
Great comment, but I wanna challenge something about the phrasing 'to become cops' it implies there wasn't a brutal and inhumane program of stripping away the fundamentally cooperative, empathetic and compassionate nature of these poor abused humans and dogs. ACAB and nothing but contempt but they didn't have to be cops, they were socially and structurally coerced into becoming monsters. Dogs are good, humans are good, cops, alone, are bastards. Also, I should just stfu, comment made me laugh-upbear
Horses, on the other hand, are both terrifying sociopaths by nature and cops by training. (This is a joke.)
What? I like small/friendly dogs but hate my chud neighbours walking around with their fucking pitbulls without leash.
Yeah also I was afraid of stray/unknown dogs when I was young cuz a group of them chased me when I was little.
And I really hate my chud neighbours, cuz I'm sure they use their dogs for dog-fights
Often when I woke in the night, horrific pictures sprang unbidden to my mind—Satan [one of the apes], cupping his hand below Sniff's chin to drink the blood that welled from a great wound on his face; old Rodolf, usually so benign, standing upright to hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body; Jomeo tearing a strip of skin from Dé's thigh; Figan, charging and hitting, again and again, the stricken, quivering body of Goliath, one of his childhood heroes. ---Goodall
Damn I never saw a photo of young Jane Goodall. Gonna :bonk: myself preemptively
Uh, jokes aside, I once was in an airport and said "hey, those old dudes look absurdly british" and when they got close turns out they were British Airways pilots.
Once I was at a sake Brewery in japan. A man comes in and he looks exactly like an austin powers character. It was the most British sight I'd ever seen and I have family in London.
I loved her until I learned that Jane Goodall is an ecofascist :deeper-sadness:
what did you expect? she was a wealthy british woman who skipped college and went to grad school. :england-cool:
Seriously? As someone who spent 10 years of their life in academia before dropping out, that makes me :monke-rage:
yeah. She went to secretary school and convinced Louise Leakey to let her run her expedition in Africa, then used that to get into graduate school. If your White and come from money you don't actually need to jump through hoops and put on a circus show like the rest of us.
Thinking about it, i think growing up and being told all these stories about "exceptional" people who could bypass the normal channels and do cool and exciting research without ever having to worry about funding or other financial concerns really set me up for disappointment.
yeah. it makes you expect special breaks or miracles because you're passionate or talented. In reality your best bet is to be incredibly good at mind-numbing paperwork and somehow never get fatigued by infinite rejections all while being financially stable enough to put in the time needed for this, and be talented and engaging enough whoever might be supplying support will like you. Academia is insane because it was set up to deny interesting research and be a cover for rich people's kid's passions. Some people have fought their way through, but we need to rip it apart so actual good academic work can happen.
Reminds me of that guy who researched baboons, and he said" You know, you'd think after about a decade of living studying these things, I'd like them, but they're just awful, mean creatures."
EDIT: Also I don't get what this meme means in this context.
LMAO
Maybe the mold in the walls is taking its toll in my posting abilities.
BMF getting in your lungs, dude. (Don't worry, I thought it was a funny post.)
idk, i kinda like shitposting and that's what i spend most of my workday with
This is just a strange meme choice for drawing a comparison to people you dislike, idk
I couldn't care less about what a colonizer descendant thinks about AES, even if they consider themselves a "communist" or a "leftist". Support it or not, China, Cuba and other AES will continue to advance towards socialism, and they (Westerners) will continue to rot in their neoliberal shitholes, sticking to their inherited white supremacist sense of superiority (that if they don't die for their billionaires/capital in the upcoming war first).
Westerners do not appreciate being told they're in the wrong. :shrug-outta-hecks:
:side-eye-1: :side-eye-2:
Jokes aside, though, I'm not gonna answer about where I'm from because I don't want to doxx myself.
I’m just reading multiple people with good ideological opinions having horribly thought out takes.
Let me add mine. I think it should be stated that it is very important to support AES nations. Countries with already existing socialist governments will be critical for end stage situations. Communism can only fully occur worldwide, however. The elimination of threats to the establishment of communism has to take priority. Fortunately, even though the USSR has collapsed, and many other socialist nations have seemingly overliberalized, they will outlast the main world threat to communism, in the United States, which will collapse into a hellfire of a civil war in 15-25 years, a war which will allow for the destabilization of NATO nations, which will lead to the realization of the contradictions, and global revolution. In short, Stalin and Trotsky were both correct in most areas, and the world situation will call for the end of Capitalism, through blood, tears, and agony.
Oh, there is doom in my predictions. There are several places that will undergo counter-revolutions, and reactionary fascism will be seen in a disturbing amount of nations. The US will also be fractured, and what may form from it may be too hideous to describe.
Now this is a wayyyyy better take than what's going on elsewhere in this thread.
Fused to an armchair, face in a permanent state of :bordiga-despair: .
Anyways I get your point, it's just I had to :very-intelligent: :vuvuzela: kneejerk comment
Western Marxists sitting in America fused to their armchairs arguing about how China isn't socialist enough.
:debord-tired:
Some of the best revolutionary attempts in the 20th century (in particular the situationists and their role in 1968) were from staunchly anti-Stalin anti-Mao revolutionaries like Debord.
I guess the subjective metric "best" here means "what makes American leftists feel comfy cozy" rather than "most successful"
If your goal is to bring down the actual imperial core, you would do well to look at what movements came closest to doing so. To bring up Debord again, he opposed strictly third-worldist revolution ("the revolutionary project must be realized in the industrially advanced countries") and was wise to do so imo. Some of the greatest AES projects have either been crushed (Sankara, Allende) or had to spend all of their energy on the defense rather than spreading their project (Cuba). No true progress can be made until the imperial machines are dismantled.
Okay, but saying "lmao you dipshits have to topple amerikkka obviously" and not making any progress towards doing that doesn't make him any kind of revolutionary, much less a better one than Sankara, Allende, etc.
not making any progress towards doing
France's government collapsed and it was only through maneuvering in partnership with both the right wing and the communist party of France (who opposed the student revolution) that France was able to avoid a full realization of a true revolutionary project.
wowie, he almost achieved something but didn't! That's so much cooler than Mao achieving the most comprehensive land reform in history, smashing all opposition, and setting up a state that America can't invade.
delete this :agony-immense:
Edit: this is a bit, right? Like, look at the whole 20th century.
No. A ton of 20th century Marxists and leftist philosophers were incredibly critical of the USSR and China.
Rosa Luxemburg, Guy Debord, Marcuse, Sartre, Lyotard, Deleuze, Baudrillard. Hell even Lukacs flipped between pro and anti Stalin.
The poor situationists were especially mad because the pro-USSR Marxists in France helped Charles de Gaulle end their socialist revolution after they had straight up toppled the government for a very brief time.
Oh my god, it's not a bit.
Look, "the situationists were some of the best revolutionaries in the 20th century" is one of the most chauvinistic things I've heard in my entire life. I cannot believe you were seriously making that point. And Rosa Luxemburg supported the Bolsheviks even though she had criticisms.
I'm not really here to argue about the positions themselves, just clarifying that the ubiquity of uncritical examination of Stalinism and even of orthodox Marxism is not what was going on in the 20th century. It is mostly a product of these things being rediscovered after many years of a totally dead leftist project in those countries. The Frankfurt School in particular had great things to say.
edit: I should add though that they were the best revolutionaries in the western European imperial core, yes.
I'm not going to really reply to this because I'm too tired to get into any involved discussion, but this post is about
western "marxist" scholars who shit on AES 24/7
none of which ever actually achieved anything remotely comparable. Obviously, there are criticisms to be made of AES, as with any project. That's not what this post it about.
Also, crediting the situationists, a very small group of academics and artists, for 1968 is just really, really, really not it. 1968 was primarily a movement of labor unions, the largest of which was affiliated with the Marxist-Leninist CPF. Regardless of what you think of the CPF or the Unions' roles, crediting the situationists for a mass movement of the people is clearly ridiculous.
The poor situationists were especially mad because the pro-USSR Marxists in France helped Charles de Gaulle end their socialist revolution after they had straight up toppled the government for a very brief time.
This is the first I've heard of this, can someone provide a link?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/why-the-french-communists-stopped-the-revolution/6F04F09942CDE95948C2022CEB18E0FA
As much as I like Debord, he was not a revolutionary. He had some good analysis of the material basis for the media state and the greater propaganda aparatus of late imperialist financial capitalism, but he never really did anything about it except drink heavily and complain.
but he never really did anything about it except drink heavily and complain.
To be fair, he was French, so he'd probably have been doing those things even if he was a revolutionary.
If complaining and drinking heavily makes you a revolutionary, France is full communist and I'm Che Guevara
This obviously ignores 1968 as well as his role in organizing resistance to France's role in the war in Algeria.
But yes, he was explicitly a revolutionary. That you are equating SotS with propaganda and media, which it is not at all what it is about, is a sign that Debord should maybe have practiced a little of the obscurantism of his peers to avoid unprepared readers misreading it.
It is a work that is about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat and this is captured and misdirected via the loss of subjectivity caused by homogenized experience.
There's a reason his book doesn't stop at chapter 3 but damn do people seem to stop reading there.
I understand that, but would still classify that as analysis of industrialized propaganda and the de realization caused by ever present and invasive marketing.
Propaganda implies intent. The layout of your neighborhood is more important when it comes to spectacle than a billboard, for example. Which is why he has no chapter dedicated to marketing but an entire one devoted to psychogeography. The important part of "images" is that it's whatever you observe, not a literal image on a screen or object.
He goes over this a bit at the beginning of Comments.
I know. I've read both comments and SotS multiple times. Advertising and marketing are two different things. The most powerful and successful American propaganda/marketing crusade was the suburb. The idea of the "American dream". The creation of alienated little worlds that have no ability to self sustain or self organize.
Beyond that the campaigns by Ford and GM to gut and destroy public transportation in favor of private motor cars. These psychogeographic methods of control are directly related to marketing and advertisment. The creation of a false reality.
This stuff didn't just spring out of thin air. It was planned and designed to produce an expected result. It's a tool used to manipulate people into following a specific ideology. Like how video games force you to do certain actions, living in a world designed by financial capitalists and marketers forces people to participate in the markets they deem necessary.
"Actual Existing Socialism" or something like that, but more generally, any country with a leftish government.
What? Sorry if my comment sound like me shitting on AES, I'm just not sure which countries can be defined as that.
You are right, sorry, I was actually trying to avoid the discussion "which country is or not doing a socialism", lol.
I recognized you as being a good take poster!
Well there's the problem, am stoopid
Am I the only not seeing the connection between the title and the image?
I was trying to pull the joke about western leftists who hate countries doing, or trying to do, socialism.
