/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 7965
22 kB, 1200 × 640
Agricultural societies provides humans with large amount of food that they can store. Since they are able to do that they can produce more offspring. As more and more humans come into existence a strict hierarchy is necessary to control the people. As humans place more and more social chains on other humans it causes many problems within the societies.

As agricultural societies produces more and more food it allows other humans to pursue other activities. These pursuits consists of many things but they all contribute to increasing the complexity of societies. As societies become more and more complex it means more and more social chains are introduced thus causing the humans to lose more freedoms.

I think from this we can see that large scale agriculture societies are the seed that will produce the many illness that we now face in modern society today. I think that for the price of abundant foods is not worth having if humans loses more freedom.

Agricultural Societies may not seem evil if you look at the immediate benefits but if you look at the big picture you will see that Agricultural Societies results in Overpopulation, Environmental Degradation, and Advances in Dangerous Technologies.

That's the price for abundant foods. Humans were too short sighted to see the disaster awaiting them when they decided to go for the easy route of Agriculture over hunter gatherer.
>>
No. 7966
65 kB, 900 × 750
Evolve or die, hunter-gatherer societies got curbstomped by agricultural societies.

They were simply a stepping stone in the great march for survival.
>>
No. 7968
>As more and more humans come into existence a strict hierarchy is necessary to control the people

strict hierarchy can be seen in different less populace societies.

>As agricultural societies produces more and more food it allows other humans to pursue other activities

wrong, what about labor division and organization of labor in general? seems more plausible to me than the overall production volume which was only possible by labor division and technological enhancement in the first place

>As societies become more and more complex it means more and more social chains are introduced thus causing the humans to lose more freedoms.

It can also open up new freedoms. Less complex societies don't automatically give you more freedom. In feudalism you were tied to your lord and weren't allowed to move. The cities back then barely any work so you were free to die of hunger because just making your own business wasn't possible there might be some exceptions tho

>Agricultural Societies results in Overpopulation, Environmental Degradation, and Advances in Dangerous Technologies.

What you want to attack with your thread is industrialized capitalist societies and you very much sound like Ted C. within an seconds

>Humans were too short sighted to see the disaster awaiting them when they decided to go for the easy route of Agriculture over hunter gatherer.

Humans never thought about it and we don't know how shitty hunter communities have been. You lack first hand experience that cannot be covered with history books that stem from selective writing.

I can say is I'm glad I belong to the percentage of people who have a warm flat, food and some friends today. My hope is in contingency because dooming the presence per se is making things easy yourself.

What comes after capitalist organization of globally connected humankind? It's not only WHAT your approach basically but HOW.
>>
No. 7969 Kontra
>>7968
>Ted C.

Now that I see portugal has posted ofc I meant Ted K.
>>
No. 7973
635 kB, 3000 × 1688
The exact opposite is true. People didn't turn to agriculture to have more food - they did it out of desperation, after decimating the ecosystems they lived in.

Modern anthropological studies have also shown that hunter-gatherers have more leisure and cultural time, and less work, than agarian societies.

Leaving the deserts and forests was a mistake.
>>
No. 7980
Thinking that urban civilization begins with agricultural surplus is just really really bad anthropology, typical of economisms that both (marxist) left and capitalist right fell victim of in the past. Observing contemporary societies you'll see quite the opposite: they induce big agricultural surpluses, often through artificial means such as subsidies that will forever be needed for the surplus to work, so that they can have a more urban society, and they do so precisely because they were taught by enlightened grand economic theories (classical economic theories and marxism) that this is how it happened and this is what they should pursue. So they get to this contradictory situation where they insist that the theory points to urbanization being the cause of agricultural surplus, but go on to devise policies where agricultural surplus is produced by a bunch of urban bureaucrats and academics just for the sake of it.

Rural societies are rural because their values make them value and work like that. You don't change something that is working, if a rural society manages to get repeated agricultural surpluses, they'll be even more confident on their rural ways, they'll expand over wild lands or make wars over disputed lands, they'll definitely not abandon it and create cities. Rural people will only support a parallel urban society if such society works well with what they already have. It doesn't need to happen, it's not a deterministic causality where if you'll have one you'll have the other, and indeed many times it didn't happen. You don't generalize in a grand historic-economic formula the narrative of how all of the societies transitioned from rural to urban. The fact that more than one transitioned is probably mere coincidence, and if you really want to know how it happened you'll have to study it individually.

In other cases some people might want to keep a highly urban society, like the ottoman with Istambul, just because the city(ies) that they conquered was/were so famous for being big and rich that they feel like their success can only be measured if they make such city big and rich too. So they might end up indebted keeping such big city without it having much purpose in the end. I'm not saying that this was the ottoman case, what I'm saying is that in this whole surplus debate the very theory proves itself wrong when put in practice, because countries want to keep high rural surplus and big cities as if this was sign of an achievement, and don't realize that they're spending a lot of resources to keep these things going.

Contemporary nations pay a lot in subsidies for their farmers to have big surpluses, some do it for internal consumption, some do it to keep positive trade balance, others do it merely because the farmers lobby to do so and in the end they have little use to the surplus. The reasons vary, but like I said it is clear that their very practices prove their theories wrong, we ended up not only with urban people inducing agricultural surpluses because they think agricultural surpluses induces urban people, but we ended up with agricultural surpluses permanently dependent urban subsidies, also non-sustainable.

Also, freedom is not the end goal of humans, only the end goal of anglos, like Nietzche said in pic related more or less. Freedom as a right and happiness as a goal are inventions of only a certain part of british society of the Enlightened period. It neither describes some fundamental aspect of human nature, nor the desire of many people.
>>
No. 7981
74 kB, 622 × 242
>>7980
forgot pic
>>
No. 7993
>>7973
it was a mistake for the strong, the weak and unadaptive majority couldnt survive and kept searching better conditions and safety.
Also remember there were still hunter gatherer tribes in 1700's they were fallen due to lack of efficient technological improvment.

So I hate to say this unless the word accept upon staying primitive (and who is going to control deblogalized primal world and with what force?) there will be some power emerge and impose it's rule created for majority yet weak ones.
>>
No. 7996
>>7993
>Also remember there were still hunter gatherer tribes in 1700's they were fallen due to lack of efficient technological improvment.
There are still hunter gatherer tribes in Polynesia or Amazon forests.
>>
No. 8001
>>7965
>easy route of Agriculture

It's not easy at all. Both, hunter gatherers and nomads, took an easier but also less successful route.
>>
No. 8002 Kontra
This guy is spamming it on every chan but whatever
>>
No. 8004
>>7996
>>7996
I referred the ones who forced to be serfs and whatnot.
>>
No. 8005
Assuming the premise of more food means more people, it doesn't follow that idle people will necessarily lead to
>Overpopulation, Environmental Degradation, and Advances in Dangerous Technologies
Those things seem to come from the move away from Agriculture and into an Industrial society as >>7968 mentioned. But even that move, into industry and capitalism, came from men pursuing something, not being satisfied with what was and trying up to create more. A warmer home, easier transport, better distractions. That is the march forward. The same thing that led to agriculture replacing hunter gathering, led to industry replacing agriculture:human nature. This whole cycle of development is hard wired and inevitable. If it all crashes setting humanity back 500 years, and the only book to survive is Ted's manifesto, we'll still do it all again. We couldn't stay gathering berries any more than we were satisfied plowing fields.
>>
No. 8037
118 kB, 324 × 366
>>7965
>As more and more humans come into existence a strict hierarchy is necessary to control the people.
assertion without proofz.

>As societies become more and more complex it means more and more social chains are introduced thus causing the humans to lose more freedoms.
assertion without proofz.

>Overpopulation
assertion without proofz.



Since Santa Claus visits mainly rich white families we can conclude, that poor black families have done more bad things. /s
>>
No. 8046
>>8005
>But even that move, into industry and capitalism, came from men pursuing something, not being satisfied with what was and trying up to create more

This sounds like classic capitalist enlightenment narration

Following Marxist theories that is just the logic of their system. More goods more profit = more investments which results in new or more goods

>>7980
>Thinking that urban civilization begins with agricultural surplus is just really really bad anthropology, typical of economisms that both (marxist) left and capitalist right fell victim of in the past

Really Marx came up with the primitive accumulation theory which says that people were dumped from the farmlands because there were not needed anymore and went to the cities if they did not died of poverty/hunger before making a life there. So there was no surplus crops to feed the surplus populace until a certain point after the primitive accumulation when they realized they need their proletariat to reproduce at least to have the machines and production running.

I don't know but usually urbanization is wired with industrialization here in schools history not with agrarian surplus and it is not an economic phenomenon entirely but also one of society, a change in the mode of production factory work
>>
No. 8048
>>8046
>a change in the mode of production factory work
Tbh, the way that the industrialisation is taught bothers me. It's always taught like the Factory System was the endpoint when it was actually overturned in the mid 19th century and replaced with the American/Armory System and it's this overturn of the Industrial Revolution that really set off modern industrial activity by allowing for mass production of identical pieces rather than mass production of largely similar pieces.
>>
No. 8066
>>8037
>>8037
>Since Santa Claus visits mainly rich white families
le assertion without proofs xD
>>
No. 8075
>>8048
>that really set off modern industrial activity by allowing for mass production of identical pieces

I don't understand what the american mode of production really is in the 19th century.
I can only think of Taylor (1880s I think) and later Ford which both came into account roughly around 1900 if you want to set a time frame.

> It's always taught like the Factory System was the endpoint when it was actually overturned in the mid 19th century

Yet I would not say it was the endpoint but factories were rather the beginning of industrialization small manufactures and primitive accumulation as a starting frame together with the development of technology. I don't know when it got overturned really but at least with Ford the old way of production was changed.
>>
No. 8084
223 kB, 1920 × 971
278 kB, 1200 × 900
>>8075
Ford is predated by Harper's Ferry Armory and Springfield Armory by half a century. Interchangeable parts being mass produced started with production of arms for the United States government and was brought to Europe via the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock who bought the machines from the United States in the early 1850s. From there it spread to various London manufacturers and eventually to Birmingham where the cottage arms industry reformed into Birmingham Small Arms Company who created their own Armory at Small Heath based on the American System in 1861. Eventually, everybody figured out that you could use it for more than making guns, and that BSA is the same one that made everything from bicycles through to motorcycles at Small Heath well into the 20th century. How it worked was each person had their machine that they worked exclusively and then it vomited those identical parts into an assembly room where a (for the time) ungodly amount of guns could be assembled without needing a gunsmith to fit the parts and then passed through to finishing for weatherproofing. Springfield Armory alone produced about 800,000 M1861 rifles between 1861 and 1865.

Here's a visual example from the Civil War. The first one is an M1855 produced at the Harper's Ferry Armory. When Virginia seceded, they took the machinery and gave it to two armories further south where it'd be safer than on the border with the North. The first gun has a innovation called the Tape Primer. It was hopeless and they scrapped the idea after the M1855. The machinery though was still geared to make M1855s when the Rebels seized it and so lots of the early war guns made in Richmond still have the big raised section of the lockplate where the tape primer would sit, even though it's not actually on that make of gun.
>>
No. 8086
>>8046
Industrialization is a half urban half rural phenomenon, since industries depend on raw materials created in the countryside. What I was saying is that classical economic theory and marxist theory are both two sides of the same coin and largely wrong in their assumption that some kind of surplus in something leads people to use the surplus resources to create something else. If something is doing so right that it is creating surpluses, chances are that you're not going to want to abandon this activity. There is no one-scale-fits all, no grand historical narrative like marxists like to try to build. Urbanization happened in different places for different reasons, material dialectics is at best capable of explaining process of urbanization and industrialization in north europe during the enlightened period, but even there will be people contesting this.

Muslims created the biggest cities of the medieval world, but they were neither rural nor urban people, the people who created those cities were seminomads from the eurasian steppes or the deserts of north africa and middle east. The reason why they created such big cities despite being barely used to sedentary lifestyle has more to do with their religious motivations than any kind of economic surplus.

Greeks kept their polis just for the sake of it, they were used to this lifestyle, this is how they organized their societies and politics, so they had no reason to adopt any other kind of settings, although it could be argued in mere economic terms that it would have been more profitable for them to abandon their cities and adopt a more rural lifestyle, since they didn't have the agricultural surpluses that Egypt had, for example.

There are some theories that say that catholic celibacy was one of the reasons why late medieval euro cities grew so much, because you had these tons of monks and friars (also some nuns) who were highly mobile and not obliged to dedicate themselves to any family or feud, so they moved from city to city where they could study with different people. Which caused the exchange of ideas among euros to increase a lot.

I could just go on, my point here is that there is no grand theory of how people go from farm to cities, like traditional economic theories (including marxism) try to insist.
>>
No. 8091
14 kB, 350 × 200
>>8046
>This sounds like classic capitalist enlightenment narration
I fear they have been indoctrinating me since childhood.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NOX0_FUGM6k
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0ibjXCnxY
>>
No. 8100
>>8075
>I don't understand what the american mode of production really is in the 19th century

Samuel Colt is a prime example. In the 1850s he had established the 10 hours work days, mandatory lunch breaks, assembly lines where interchangable parts were assembled into interchangable end products, club rooms where his workers could pursue social activities, a planned village with flats for his workers and engineers.
>>
No. 8107
>>8100
Colt's factory was a thing of beauty. It was actually one of the main facilities that sold Whitworth and the other Brits who were inspecting US arms manufacturers when they were considering buying the machinery for RSAF. High quality goods too, Colt was contracted to make M1861s during the Civil War and they were prized weapons known as the 'Colt Special' and were so well made in fact that the little improvements that Colt worked into the design were actually standardised in the main production model of the M1863 which is a shameless ripoff of his M1861 contract batch.

Economically speaking, the best theory I've seen for its rise is that the US had the opposite problem to Europe. Lots of natural wealth but a relatively small population. They could afford the extra waste that automation brought but the saved manpower was far more valuable. It was slower to be taken up in Europe because things like machined stocks rather than crafted stocks were wasting wood that they didn't have the same access to. Like many things, it's debated in professional circles but the papers I've read on the topic were convincing to me at least.
>>
No. 8111
>>8084
But Taylor and Ford made a science out of it, at least Taylor before the 19th was ending and it was still implemented way into 20th century if not even today plain rationalization

So I get this for guns and eventually they produced other stuff with smart labor division which was based on interchangeability and assembly lines but the real breakthrough in Europe for this was after WW1
As >>8100 mentions this sounds like what is known as Fordism. So it was not systematically employed like it was during the 1920s+ in Europe up until the 1980s.
So Fordism had it's predecessor in the USA armory production but you cannot say it was widely spread and had already supersede classic factory work with existential insecurity which was also based on labor division and interchangeability? I though that is what is known as alienation, don't work on the whole product any more and less/no more handcraft but the transition is made around 1900

>>8086
>I could just go on, my point here is that there is no grand theory of how people go from farm to cities, like traditional economic theories (including marxism) try to insist.

I never said I believe in marx' historic dialectic. One thing you learn while studying history is that you can only choose and be selective about your approach since history quite multi factored.
Nevertheless it's one of many different explanation factors for industrialization or rather capitalism, Marx is not the only one who looked at that history but his work is still impressive and useful today in Europe where it all emerged. The Great Divergence. Tho I think that was not exclusively to Europe in the end and even the explanations for that divergence are many. You said monks, I say long-distance trade, definitely a factor to consider when you talk about networks and Europe wasn't the only place with such networks.
>>
No. 8114
315 kB, 850 × 1290
364 kB, 850 × 1274
384 kB, 850 × 1278
>>8111
You don't make nearly a million identical guns with interchangeable parts in 4 years and some change without it being worked down to a science. The only time they even had to change up anything was to make it safer. They had it so worked out that they were able to outproduce over thirty other firearms companies combined from their single factory. You don't really see that kind of production of arms again in the US until maybe WWII (lots of the stuff in WWI was older stock or purchased from other countries).

>classic factory work [..] which was also based on labor division and interchangeability?

Nah, the Factory System utilised division of labour but used machinery in the hands of skilled or semi-skilled workers to improve rate of manufacture. The American System is based on a different premise, that the machine replaces the specialist. Let's use firearms assembly as an excellent measure of how different the requirement for skilled labour is. Under the Factory System, you have machinery letting workers produce parts at a greater rate than in a Workshop system and independently of each other, but still those parts are not interchangeable which is a massive pain for guns because it means field repairs need a gunsmith or a replacement gun. They're very similar parts, but to mate the lock, barrel and stock required a gunsmith who could fit them together because they weren't all identical and measurements were always a bit off. Under the American System, the parts flowed into a room where it was put them together and tighten the screws basically. If someone could use a screwdriver, they could build the gun. That's what made the American System so revolutionary, it took mechanisation of skilled labour and took it to the logical extreme of mechanising it to the point where you only needed someone to know how to use the machine, and not to understand what the machine was doing. It also meant that if the lock of a gun gave it up, you just needed the quartermaster to have some lackey unscrew the old one and slap a new one in there. It didn't take a genius to figure it out.

Also, here's a tour of RSAF in 1859. It'd been open for a few years at this point too, keep in mind. The second image especially is pretty eye-opening as to how advanced the new system was in Europe, and this was second hand technology too. The phenomenon got Ford's name because he's the best known example of it, but he's just using new technology in basically the same way, eliminating what little skilled labour was still needed. It's closer to the American System than the American System is to the Factory System. That's why I see the Industrial Revolution being taught as a transition from Workshop to Factory Systems to be a failing in explaining the situation because what we have now is not based on the Factory System but rather the American one and that's a stage that's more often than not ignored.
>>
No. 8126
>>8114
>without it being worked down to a science

Taylorism still might go farer then, there, efficiency is linked to light in a closed room and music for the typewriter women and so on.

>That's why I see the Industrial Revolution being taught as a transition from Workshop to Factory Systems to be a failing in explaining the situation because what we have now is not based on the Factory System but rather the American one and that's a stage that's more often than not ignored.

I think that transition is not wrong, I would rather think of the American system as advanced factory system. Today it is just known as Fordism. The Croat mentioned how the owner built shacks for his workers which is the social part in Fordism, it was not just a mode of production but also a social vision that basically is a pacification of the struggle between workers and owners by letting them have enough to consume. Fordism enabled mass consumption on a level that was not the case in the 19th century so that might be the difference to the American system which already included many things which later also appeared in what is known as Fordism, especially the stark division of labor and style of assemblage.

Industrialization is machine work or deployment of machines and the spread of factories and capitalist's real take off, the American system/Fordism is a mutation of all that, it's an enhancement of efficiency later connected with social pacification by enabling mass consumption which is associate with certain kind of wealth, which indeed differed from the first factory workers lifes and their social situation. Yet the base, factory work and accumulation has stayed the same until today even tho some new sectors have emerged which have proven themselves to be monetizable as well.

Also what we have now is a mixture of American system/Fordism and Neoliberal/New Economy
>>
No. 8138
>>8126
Those are fair points. It's probably just me being stuck on the minutia since I was doing semi-professional research on this topic a while back. It's also less that I don't see a transition from Workshop to factory but rather that the Industrial Revolution is often taught as though that was the transition that happened rather than Workshop->Factory->American, and I think that the last transition is easily the most important for understanding the rise of modern industrialism. If you want to read further on the earlier days of the system, I'd recommend finding something on Harper's Ferry. I think you'd find it interesting, especially if they include how the labour force moved around the Southern States following the machinery so you ended up with a bunch of them living in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
>>
No. 8175
5,3 MB, 640 × 360, 1:02
US doctors coined a phrase for this condition: “shit-life syndrome”. Poor working-age Americans of all races are locked in a cycle of poverty and neglect, amid wider affluence. They are ill educated and ill trained. The jobs available are drudge work paying the minimum wage, with minimal or no job security. They are trapped in poor neighbourhoods where the prospect of owning a home is a distant dream. There is little social housing, scant income support and contingent access to healthcare. Finding meaning in life is close to impossible; the struggle to survive commands all intellectual and emotional resources. Yet turn on the TV or visit a middle-class shopping mall and a very different and unattainable world presents itself. Knowing that you are valueless, you resort to drugs, antidepressants and booze. You eat junk food and watch your ill-treated body balloon. It is not just poverty, but growing relative poverty in an era of rising inequality, with all its psychological side-effects, that is the killer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/19/bad-news-is-were-dying-earlier-in-britain-down-to-shit-life-syndrome
>>
No. 8193
299 kB, 344 × 516
21 kB, 604 × 543
118 kB, 489 × 453
>>8175
The problem is also that everyone else is pulling up the ladders making advancement impossible without replacing retirees, who are now taking longer to retire, with fewer benefits, longer hours, companies now relying on unpaid interns including Ivanka Trump who is such same scum as her brothers and father
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2016/08/23/ivanka-trump-pays-interns-in-experiences-rather-than-money/#6630df32577d
literally told her unpaid intern to write an article about surviving as an unpaid intern. These people are complete scumbags and it's part of why the class gap has been widening and the middle class shrinking. Meanwhile they deliberately use things like the State Lottery to even further drain the finances of these people while feeding them a false and delusional hope.

Honestly alcohol and other drugs aren't even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is state sanctioned gambling. So long as the masses dream themselves the lucky powerball winner they will keep slaving away for fewer and fewer wages.

I personally hope for the threat of violence. I mean real, serious, hardcore political and class based violence once these retarded fucking hippies realizing protesting never changed anything, only either holding people by the balls financially or with force, preferably both. You don't ask nicely. You stick a gun in their face and demand it.

You know, unions actually be an all American thing of the working class
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8ulYIVcCeY
You will notice as unions got gutted particularly under that scumbag Reagan our problems only increased
>>
No. 8197
33 kB, 200 × 184
>>8193
>violence once these retarded fucking hippies realizing protesting never changed anything, only either holding people by the balls financially or with force, preferably both.
oh boyi, are you narrow minded.
>https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=korea+candlelight+protest
just a year ago. their now-ex big P is imprisoned.
you guys over the pond are just way too shattered; prolly even too large to unite. maybe you actually should/need to shatter into smaller political areas for something to change.
>>
No. 8205
>>8193
If Powerball is what is keeping the working masses of America castrated, then clearly this is a good thing.
>>
No. 8219
>>8205
What, how? How could this possibly be a good thing? It is one of the most major reasons behind why America is so shitty in certain regards and why Americans do nothing about it. You know that whole saying "every American thinks he's just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire"? Yeah now think that on steroids. It would be like creating a slave caste and enforcing it by tricking each slave into dreaming that one day they'll be the master and slaveowner. It is a system for cattle, not men.
>>
No. 8230
24 kB, 624 × 356
>>8193
>I personally hope for the threat of violence. I mean real, serious, hardcore political and class based violence once these retarded fucking hippies realizing protesting never changed anything, only either holding people by the balls financially or with force, preferably both. You don't ask nicely. You stick a gun in their face and demand it.

Gavin Long is that you???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4oTAoOpW48

Gavin "Kevin" Long legally changed his name to Cosmo Setepenra in 2015 -_-
>>
No. 8263
111 kB, 651 × 489
>>8230
I don't support race politics at all. I'm opposed to identity shit in its entirety. This is also because of the fact it is a well known tactic to divide and destroy any form of resistance to the regime.

>>8197
Protests are a show of force. When you have like 1.5 million people marching in the street that's 1.5 million able bodies, 1.5 million pocket books, 1.5 million angry voices, 1.5 million pairs of hands. It is entirely about the exertion of power and influence. This is something that certain groups like the FBI have downplayed, to the point where nobody remembers anything about the 50's and 60's except some vague thing about "I have a dream" and some hippies with signs. That isn't what happened. There's a very big reason why nobody discusses things like sit ins anymore, why nobody talks about boycotts or anything else. This is because those tactics are actually effective. The core objective is to use coercion so as to forcefully change the behavior in others. There is no such fucking thing as asking. There is only demanding. You will notice the difference in the power equation immediately. One asserts their own agency. The other is a sniveling little shrew requesting it of another, and thus reinforcing the illegitimate authority and position of that other.

See this is why nobody gave a fuck about protests in this country because all it does is ultimately reinforces the power structure. It becomes a mass ritual of beseeching the king's favor. You do not get the Magna Carta signed that way. You threaten his lands, his titles, and his prestige, and if he balks without coming to the table you threaten him and his allies at knife point. That is the way things are. That is the way things always have been.
>>
No. 8281
12,4 MB, 640 × 360, 4:33
>>8175
50 year old black driver dead
40 something white cop gets 20 years for shooting him, transferred to Colorado prison

Acoustic guitar song about suffering and dying pointlessly playing on the radio
>>
No. 8282
>>8219
Simply put, I disagree with both the premise and the explanation.
I disagree that it is a question of the humble idiotic masses being held down by a perfidious plot from up above, and even more so with the explanation that state sanctioned gambling is the main force behind it.

Having said that, it's clear that if a lottery was what kept your humble masses in chains, then it's clearly for the better. If what held down the American people was an objectively bad "investment" option, and that if it truly was the main reason behind all the societal ills you proclaim then thank God for that. You wouldn't want people who trade their freedom for a lottery to have any sort of power over the lives of others.

In reality, I believe what you describe is a purposely more dark image of reality. I presume this is to serve some form of ideological purpose, and your further posts about revolution and protests seem to confirm this.
>>
No. 8320
>>8282
I'm not talking about them "having power over others" you idiot I'm explicitly talking about the way poor disenfranchised people in this country do nothing to better their situation or the situation of those around them because of mental tricks like this. This is why not only do they not advocate for better wages and working conditions but actively attack those who do so. It further helps sap the life out of people who otherwise would realize, this is not okay. It serves as an opiate. It is much the same type of thing as drinking beer or watching terrible TV but even worse, because while the aforementioned things numb you at least it doesn't fill you with a false hope. Nothing can change in this country until those kinds of false hopes and delusions are removed, otherwise the country decays even further every year. It is like how a junkie is never going to get better so long as they're wrapped up in self delusion and rationalization. You need to see there is a problem to fix it, and America is kind of a broken society right now.
>>
No. 8355
>>8320
>America is kind of a broken society right now.

Neoliberal ideology clearly states that there is no such thing as a society. Just individuals and the market. So I'd assume nobody gives a fuck.
Not even the people most affected by the breakdown.
>>
No. 8356
>>8355
>Neoliberal ideology clearly states that there is no such thing as a society. Just individuals and the market.

Indeed 20th century "individualism" meaning slavery.
>>
No. 8364
>>8320
So your point is even worse than what I had given you credit for. You seem to sincerely believe that lotteries are what's genuinely keeping the masses in this pacified state you claim. A state in which, according to you, the poor do nothing to improve their lives, or demand greater social justice.

I went and looked at amount of money spent on lottery tickets, and the US doesn't even break the top 5. It seems the biggest lotto gamblers are Italians, a country which really seems to have no problem in having a near opposite view on the topics you claim the American people have been enslaved by the powerball into hating. Even more shocking since the website I saw only accounted for raw money spent on the lotto, not adjusted for population or wealth.

Somehow you pinpoint state-ran lotteries as the great mindbreaker of the aspirations of all the working people of America.

>I'm explicitly talking about the way poor disenfranchised people in this country do nothing to better their situation or the situation of those around them because of mental tricks like this

This is a really telling sentence since I could not even conjure myself a better hyperbole for the internet revolutionary that is actually ridden with disdain for the common man.

I have read your description on how this gargantuous state lottery works as an opiate in ending the will to power of poor people, but I really want to know how you came to the conclusion that this was, as you put it, "the biggest problem".
>>
No. 8377
57 kB, 300 × 401
>>8364
i've interpreted his point about lottery as an example of many, many mind numbers / keep obedient tricks amounting to the state of total "fuck this. never gonna change. never gonna attempt." mindset.
and those who try an attempt are getting split up.
>dīvide et imperā

nobody is arguing against the premise "it's a total shitshow" - i think we all agree on that.
>>
No. 8416
>>8377
Pretty much this is my point. I am just pointing out how the lottery in particular gives every poor as fuck shlub the falsehope that someday he too will be rich and successful or whatever. Because I think for most people that really does seem to be their only way out. Like if you've been saddled with child support payments, car loans, credit debt, and all sorts of other chains it seems the one thing to keep them going in that shit life. People buy those tickets to imagine what they'd do with the money. It's an opiate of the masses, except the nice thing is actual opiates at least don't convince anybody things will change. It also creates this something-for-nothing mentality. I am saying that in general I think massive gambling operations are kind of a plague for more reasons than one, and a big one is convincing the average prole to accept shittier and shittier working conditions and fewer benefits every single year because "Hey You Never Know™"
>>
No. 8419
>>8416
Lottery alone is not what keeps them continuing their lives in chains. It's not the dream of suddenly becoming rich. It's a nice dream that can prevent from some statistical awareness.

But they probably just have responsibilities like children or just don't want to die of hunger or life on the streets in absolute poverty. Way better reason to keep in track than some stupid lottery dream.
You keep satisfaction low but quick and steady and discipline the mass by make them fear the social downfall these days. Steady lowlevel satisfaction with fear hoovering in the background like some sticky cloud.
>>
No. 8421
127 kB, 830 × 562
>>8419
>But they probably just have responsibilities like children or just don't want to die of hunger or life on the streets in absolute poverty. Way better reason to keep in track than some stupid lottery dream.

This man gets it. The current power structure simply needs to, at a bottomline, present itself as a better alternative to what a governmental collapse in the first world would entail. And I think it does this job very well, for all of its sins. In spite of living in a relatively shit country, a very corrupt and poor one, if I take an honest look at what successive Portuguese governments have done, I can't entirely complain. They have ensured that the citizens of this Republic have their basic human rights provided for, a bare minimum of wealth, and they provide safety. Even though I will be the first to talk at length about all sorts of macabre kleptocracy level fuckeries within the current state apparatus, the truth is I am lucky to have been born into this semi-first world shithole, in this particular period.
This alone is enough to keep myself from considering any sort of revolution or anti-government action. And I believe the same applies to reasonable people as well.
Additionally, as far as I am concerned, the stick of this stick and carrot game of governmental stability is what could realistically come out of a revolution and any of the current political forces that stand against the "system" taking power. It wouldn't get better in any realistic analysis. It would get worse, worse in ways I am unable to truly imagine since this "modern day slave society" has shielded me from the hardships and suffering that any other form of government in any other period would impose upon me. One may say that this modern man is nothing but cattle, but any sensible historical analysis will show you why he became cattle in the first place.
>>
No. 8440
>>8421
The current modes of governmentality mostly neoliberalism or authoritarianism are tricky. They kill of any alternative to the present. Nobody imagines an alternative besides the apocalypse and the regress into the middle ages or even further again.
I have it well here even tho my future is less safe and stable than my parents sometimes I think, my future degree is often based on project works in working life. I'm tempted to dwell into alternatives to spark the images and hopes again that it can be different without getting shittier.
The revolutionary subject of the 20th century often implied to annihilate the former and I have that in mind. Reforms can make it worse for people but revolutions will definitely won't go without disruption for certain circles of people and I'm not just talking about the former power apparatus. But then: today people loose or vegetate, struggle to survive, too. I'm lucky now but I have to die one day.
>>
No. 8467
it was armchair anthropology and it was on the EC
>>
No. 8468 Kontra
>>8467
>anthropology

vague term and pretty much a US thing. I argue with what has been written under the banner of continental and US theory sociological, philosophical and political + history

I don't get the armchair meme, everything on the internet is armchair in the end. Maybe live streams are an exception. Also don't forget writing is a praxis itself. But I'm probably just talking to the kohl burger.