It purely exists for advertisers to profile age groups, and for capitalists to use generational warfare to distract the working class from their real enemy. Shit is fucking stupid.
the concept of "teenager" only exists because advertisers wanted to harness the spending of kids
Boomer is a real demographic phenomena but other than that, yea
But even then not all boomers are fascist kulaks, lots of them are proletarian and are getting fucked by capital just as hard as millennials.
Yeah a lot of boomers suck but sometimes they surprise you
Like that guy at the grocery story the other day who started complaining about the lack of cashiers but then actually blamed the store for not paying people enough instead of saying some "nobody wants to work anymore" bullshit like I was expecting
Didn’t say they were did I? But there is usefulness is the term for demographic purposes (ie budgets, pensions, etc)
I'm rereading Settlers and there's something to be said for the argument that white Westeners* aren't really prole.
*arguably a white zoomer isn't born into the labour aristocracy in the same way as someone who lived through Pax Amerikkkana
there’s something to be said for the argument that white Westeners* aren’t really prole.
Well duh they all have blue hair and work at starbucks
It's extremely obvious that the place of someone's birth is, in the modern age of neo-imperialism, a greater indicator of their revolutionary potential than their relation to the means of production.
Laughable to act like an office worker in the US is in the same position as a teenage Bangladeshi garment factory slave.
This also entirely explains why revolution has broken out where it has and hasn't where it hasn't.
the place of someone’s birth is, in the modern age of neo-imperialism, a greater indicator of their revolutionary potential than their relation to the means of production.
Isn't that just liberal individualism though? Because living in the core means that you're closer to the general means of production, coercion, and exploitation used in the periphery, its a different dimension of the same indicator to me.
Its also a bit strange to paint someone born into poverty in a first world slum with the same brush as an heir to a grocery business no?
entirely explains why revolution has broken out where it has and hasn’t where it hasn’t
Not entirely, both Bangladesh and the US are capitalist "democracies" in terms of government. What revolutions/movements since 2000 are you thinking of that led to socialist rule within the origin countries? Asking in good faith since I only know of Bolivia and Nepal.
Isn’t that just liberal individualism though?
No, it's class analysis. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all talked about the revolutionary potential of various nations. They all talked about imperialist spoils bribing workers. Marx supported Irish nationalism specifically because the British working class was becoming more reactionary due to their reliance on colonial spoils.
Because living in the core means that you’re closer to the general means of production, coercion, and exploitation used in the periphery
I can't tell what this means. The people in the periphery live closer to the things they're oppressed by than people in the Imperial Core do. Unless you're saying Americans building guns to be used on foreigners makes them more proximal to those guns than the people they're being used on?
What revolutions/movements since 2000 are you thinking of that led to socialist rule within the origin countries?
I don't know why you would restrict it to the last 20 years. Socialism has been set back enormously since 1991, but every Socialist revolution (barring the first) before that was in the periphery. Even the Russian Empire was among the most backwards nations in Europe. What Imperial Core nations have ever had revolutions, in the last 20 years or prior?
Marx, Engels, and Lenin all talked about the revolutionary potential of various nations.
Right yes the revolutionary potential of various nations, not necessarily individual actors within these nations.
Unless you’re saying Americans building guns to be used on foreigners makes them more proximal to those guns than the people they’re being used on?
Yes.
I don’t know why you would restrict it to the last 20 years.
Turn of the century, around when I estimate the current neoliberal world order was established and solidified.
Even the Russian Empire was among the most backwards nations in Europe.
Backwards yes but no less mighty afaik, the Russian Empire was a world superpower at the time with a military force that the even the british empire was worried about.
What Imperial Core nations have ever had revolutions, in the last 20 years or prior?
None but other than Nepal no other nation had an armed socialist revolution since 2000 right?
Right yes the revolutionary potential of various nations, not necessarily individual actors within these nations.
Nations are made of people. I don't see why this is a necessary distinction.
Yes.
Making guns and being shot by guns are completely different things with completely different relations. I don't even know how to address this. Violent dispossession happens at the end of the barrel, not the butt.
Turn of the century, around when I estimate the current neoliberal world order was established and solidified.
Alright. I don't know any that match that criterion.
Backwards yes but no less mighty afaik, the Russian Empire was a world superpower at the time with a military force that the even the british empire was worried about.
Might is extremely difficult to quantify. Moreover, it's not a nation's might or lack thereof that primarily leads to revolution, it's the conditions of the people. Russia sending millions of peasants to die was the primary contradiction.
That said, a nation's lack of might can very well lead to poor conditions for the people, as with China's Century of Humiliation.
None but other than Nepal no other nation had an armed socialist revolution since 2000 right?
None that I know of.
Nations are made of people. I don’t see why this is a necessary distinction.
It is because nations are more than individuals, they are made up of groups of people, histories, traditions, culture, socioeconomic systems of governance, not just individual population units. I don't think there is much use in analyzing things based on an individual case by case basis. Individuals don't matter in the grand scheme of things, revolutions don't spring up because all of a sudden everyone decides to have a revolution right?
Might is extremely difficult to quantify.
According to muh wikipedia the Russian Empire was the third largest empire in modern history. The angloids were scared of them invading India.
Moreover, it’s not a nation’s might or lack thereof that primarily leads to revolution, it’s the conditions of the people.
Idk whether this is the primary reason but it certainly plays a part. Problem is that there are many countries around the world where the populations live in worsening miserable slavery, however there have been no revolutions post 2000 save for Nepal. However, what points of hope do you see from the third world?
One secret generationalists don't want you to know:
spoiler
people are born literally every day
If the generations are used mono causal of cause they are bad and often they are used as you write. I still believe that it is important to look at how people experienced the world at certain stages in their life and that means having to acknowledge the benefit US boomers had after WWII in terms of global imperialist hegemony. That did make many of them less susceptible to the realities of class struggle.
yes, but, consumer demographics are also electoral blocks
power flows from the barrel of a pink/blue dichotomy
Sure the labels are marketing, but how else would you describe children as young as 3 navigating TikTok better than a 45 and 60 year old other than "generational gap"
There's nothing wrong with grouping people based on sharing cultural experiences at around the same age. It's just that the current way of labeling people 1. is rather haphazard and doesn't particularly line up with shared cultural experiences and 2. is completely American-centric. Strictly speaking, boomer/gen x/millennial/zoomer ought to only apply to Americans because non-Americans would have very different shared cultural experiences, which means the demarcation year for each generation would be different. For example, the Chinese equivalent of a boomer would start in 1949 instead of 1945 because 1949 was when the PRC was officially declared and the Chinese Civil War was more or less over. When you experienced the Cultural Revolution would also be a demarcation point as well as 1976, the year when the Cultural Revolution ended.
