Buried left to Marx at Highgate cemetery. Well worth the visit if you can (book recommendations - (1) Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Claudia Jones (2) Claudia Jones: Beyond Containment: Autobiographical Reflections, Essays, and Poems)
Che is the male Khaled.
Arguably one of the best wartime political theorists of the 20th century; fastest human development seen at the time, while defeating the Nazis and helping (not initiating, lasting progression comes from within not outside) kickstart Global South decolonisation that is ongoing. Even allowed for western workers to gain leverage for socdem concessions.
Feels like only a matter of time. I wonder what moment would be so seminal that even the most ardent Western Exceptionalists can’t ignore.
For further reading/listening:
From Jim Crow to superpredators and the prison industry complex to NAFTA and immigrant persecution to ethnic cleansing and genocide. The “hagiography” writes itself.
All labour should be socialised. Laundry, dishes, writing, art - it doesn’t matter what.
If one wants to create art, let them have at it.
The argument made here that we should gatekeep skilled labour by fighting against mechanisation or automation is reactionary and regressive.
Attempting to draw an arbitary line for the artisan by distinguishing their creativity from other’s is not possible without alluding to idealism and mysticism. It is made more obvious when examples of creativity, including in other fields and industry where automation has happened, is recalled.
Division of labour through gender means women disproportionately end up doing unpaid labour including laundry and dishes. The emancipation will include the socialisation of these roles and thereby abolishment of gender. It is irrespective of your personal ability as a man to do the same work.
If this socialisation was helped by automation would you then be saying we should destroy the machines to help preserve the employment of those that do this work for a living? Of course not but you want to apply that standard to artisans by drawing arbitary lines by apparently appealing to the mysticism of creativity.
There’s a clearly a recognition of this inferred from the quote. However, that is then juxstaposed with the fact that the labour of artisans should not be socialised. So the writer wants to preserve gatekeeping of the ability to make art in order for some artisans can remain being paid for it.
This reeks of bourgoisie “feminism”. The emancipation here is for individual liberty at the expense of class consciousness. The individual wants socialisation of domesticated labour not for universal emancipation but so they could gatekeep who gets to do art. It is individualism for reactionary ideals. Patriarchy is a structural concern, it is not a synonym for misogyny.
It’s ok if your excuse is that you are uneducated about this. We are all learning.
There’s no need to have a “cold” perspective to be marxist. Nothing human should be alien. Capital has countless references to nature.
The importance here is not to mystify here to metaphysical nonsense. We should not resort to idealism of where human creativity comes from.
Art is clearly subjective and it is the relationship between the viewer and the art that defines it as art; whether it is exchanged for money or not.
However, what is effectively being requested here is to gatekeep who gets to make that art (only those skilled enough) and that art should be paid for; the defense of proprietorship. It is this that is reactionary while appealing to ludditism.
This reply is probably not directed at you but for anyone who is lurking.
Metaphysical nonsense.
Dishes and laundry aren’t the same as art. One is manual labor that just has to be done and has tangible utility. The other is creative work that has value to a large part because a human made it.
Tangible? How did you decide to draw that arbitary line? Is it tangible if you can touch it? How about writing code? Is the artisan’s output not tangible? Is creativity not found in other industries? Is the baker not creative?
Your argument against this is essentially the sophistication involved by devaluing those who do manual labour. You’re arguing for the path toward labour aristocracy/petite-bourgoisie to be unobstructed. This is a very reactionary take.
Noone is stopping anybody’s “want” to do art and writing. You just want to just tie that to the above.
Where’s the “inherent patriarchy” in the image?
Who does the unpaid labour here? Why is that normalised? Why use that as a juxtaposition here?
Did you just run out of arguments?
No. I’m a marxist. What’s your excuse?
Finally, why shouldn’t writers or or makers of art be paid a living for writing or making art?
That’s a problem under capitalism; the allocation of resources. As a commodity if it is provided more efficiently and cheaper by a machine, should we be regressive and hold back that process so that artists can be paid? Should the weaver still be employed at the invention of the loom?
These are bourgoise ideals defended due to artisans fearing their own proleterisation. Why isn’t the quote in defense of AI doing all four things - the dishes and the laundry, and the art and the writing? Why not socialise the unpaid labour? There’s an inherent patriarchy here as well.
Noone is stopping one from writing or making art; the implication here is one should be paid a living for it. The issue here is captialism not the technology. Artisans having reactionary takes is not new.
See my comment above:
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7915209/6395016
I would also look at: (1) Torkil Lauesen’s (a swedish marxist) book: The Long Transition Towards Socialism and the End of Capitalism (2) Kyle Ferrana’s Why the World Needs China
It is not just the West. India is an excellent example of failure at attempts of social democracy.
Inherent to social democracy is that there is no significant dictatorship against capital and therefore any progression in achieving a good standard of living will either not happen or if it does happen will require surplus value extracted elsewhere to slow down the reduction in the rate of profit. And to protect itself capital will resort to fascism.
Despite the above there is sort of an exception to the above in our timelime and it started after the October Revolution and started getting significantly slowed down/reversed around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union; it is effectively what we consider why the West is “developed” (mainly the threat of domestic worker revolutions and to invest in “human capital” to faster climb the tech ladder due to USSR accelerated development in attempts again to maintain profit):
You are right; I was not expecting that. I wonder why?
Even if it has been debunked…
It is at this point, if you had any sincerity as a human being at this stage in your development, would have been to stop and have some introspection into how you got it wrong. You instead doubled down because you already have decided who should be considered less than human.
And think about your scale of morality here; you consider assholery in calling out your racism not your defense of genocide. If you ask those who fight against their own ethnic cleansing not to fight and buy into the narratives of those commiting the genocide then you are the on the side of the world that represents mass cultural sociopathy and exploitation.
Where to is the problem. I don’t think the Hague is big enough to hold them all.
Someone should downgrade Moody for “first time”.
Wave media are Chinese liberals and this is par for the course. Hence, Dugin. (I still watch a lot of their videos and Read the China Academy; the beauty of the chinese DOTP is that even a majority of their liberals are tamed)
No other criminal could ever compete with USAmerican racketeering.
Trump should read Capital to get a better approach on how to achieve this (!)