“Machines were the weapons deployed by the capitalists to quell the revolt of specialized labor”

I’ve said it before, all ceos could be replaced by mascots and it would have no negative effect on the productive capabilities of our society. On the contrary things might actually improve for once in my life

If he dedicated the rest of his wealth to fighting antisemitism, if he lent his incredible fame to reversing the horrible legacy of racist, chauvinist violence, if he really gave a shit and fixed himself and worked his ass off for years, then maybe, some people might begin to forgive him.

But dong a bunch of Nazi shit and then saying you’re not a Nazi, is Nazi shit. This is meaningless and pathetic, cowardly behavior.

Ukrainian children yearn for the mines

My grandfather used to say the same thing about asbestos before he died of lung cancer /s

Surfs up

I’m not a homophobe, I just hate lead plumbing

All the time. Friere’s analysis, a Marxist analysis, when done correctly, and Friere was a master, takes into consideration not just a philosophical field of objects, forms or essences, but Marxism is a comprehensive theory of change and of relationships between two opposing forces, by putting human activity at the center of his analysis.

Friere was on some shit the Greeks didn’t even have. Socrates Dialogues are “dialectical” but just surface level. The closest thing that existed in their time is Hermetic mysticism, a monist tradition from ancient Egypt that influenced the Islamic golden Age, Alchemy, Isaac Newton, Spinoza and Hegel, where the theories got their final polish before Marx quite literally flipped the table on it, transforming it from a mystical idealist philosophy, into a new materialist philosophy of change and revolution.

Yeah its funny though I thought it was more or less a direct quote, so thanks for calling it out. It is different enough to make me reconsider some of what I said

Its from pedagogy of the oppressed

But even when the contradiction is resolved authentically by a new situation established by the liberated laborers, the former oppressors do not feel liberated. On the contrary, they genuinely consider themselves to be oppressed. Conditioned by the experience of oppressing others, any situation other than their former seems to them like oppression. Formerly, they could eat, dress, wear shoes, be educated, travel, and hear Beethoven; while millions did not eat, had no clothes or shoes, neither studied nor traveled, much less listened to Beethoven. Any restriction on this way of life, in the name of the rights of the community, appears to the former oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights—although they had no respect for the millions who suffered and died of hunger, pain, sorrow, and despair. For the oppressors, “human beings” refers only to themselves; other people are “things.” For the oppressors, there exists only one right: their right to live in peace, over against the right, not always even recognized, but simply conceded, of the oppressed to survival. And they make this concession only because the existence of the oppressed is necessary to their own existence.

Keep in mind, this comes after a long section explaining that “it is the historic mission of the oppressed to restore the humanity of the oppressors,” so he’s not just chastising people for being bad here, he’s explaining (in part) why the oppressor can never free the oppressed; the oppressed liberates them both and creates a new kind of person.

Sorry for my paraphrase, I haven’t read it for a little over a year, although I think about it a lot

(I made an edit where I fixed a typo that like completely changed the meaning in the last paragraph)

Paulo Friere coined the phrase “to the oppressor, equality feels like oppression.” But at some point in the last 10 or 20 years, “oppressor” has changed to “privileged,” and while I understand the sentiment I’m afraid it leads to some misconceptions about privilege and oppression. Friere carefully constructed a long and detailed basis for his statement, carefully explaining the dynamics of oppressor/oppressed dynamics, but he was speaking pretty specifically about peasants in neo colonies in the global south, like Brazil.

I think you will definitely find many people of privilege among the oppressor class(es), and privilege functions within society to justify different kinds of oppression. But you’ll also find people of privilege set against injustice in every way they possibly can. Because of the way privilege is bestowed upon some people but not others, contrary to how oppression is more like an organized effort by some political interest, be it national, economic, etc., to keep many people poor and wretched so that only the few can prosper. The privilege, IMO is a function of the oppression. I guess I think privilege is a personal thing whereas oppression is a much wider problem, as many individuals come together in order to dominate an other. The social factors that might drive this are all too abundant.

I see the “privilege” quote everywhere, but I never see the “oppressor” quote brought up, even though I’m pretty sure its the source. It gives me sort of an icky feeling too, like it may be saying something much different than the original. Our ruling classes love to tweak little details like this, and really its usually to claim the work of some oppressed workers as their own.

But in order for change to occur, privileged people would have to come over to, and fight for, the side of change. This would not affect their status as privileged, but it would affect whether or not they were an oppressor.

Edit: further down I discover it isn’t an exact quote with one word changed, the phrasing Friere uses is much different even if the meaning is the same or at least very similar. Kind of undermines my premise here but these are still worthy topics of discussion. But I’ll try to be less of a goober about it

Sorry I deleted that comment, I didn’t like my tone.

Personally I’m not a prison abolitionist. I’d like to see an end to it, ideally, but realistically that would be an amount of practical work beyond just simple reforms, the whole of society would have to be changed. I’m into that, which is why I don’t ideally dismiss it.

I treated it better elsewhere, here I just said “you can’t snap your fingers” but what I mean is prisons and police they actually are the answer to a lot of problems in society. I agree with you, I would like to see much more reform programs rather than the USA prison system that “needs” prisons, which isn’t to say every prison is a social necessity, more like there are political and economic incentive structures that make meaningful progressive change extremely difficult. But my father was a prison guard, and we don’t agree much on politics, especially when it comes to carcerial justice, but that man had seen some absolute monsterous behavior from people who are basically unreformable by any modern standard – and as much as I wish that wasn’t the case and I wish they had been given the opportunity for a better life where maybe they wouldn’t have lost every bit of their humanity, that doesn’t change reality.

However I do think that a society that proliferates carcerial justice the way that we do in the USA, which is all my experience is about, I dont know about Aussie prisons, is not one that is able to restore or even preserve the humanity of all its citizens. A society that makes monsters needs a place to put them; however a place to put monsters creates a demand for monstrousness that must be met. This is what I think it is possible and realistic to abolish.

Thanks for the response, I did take it personally but thanks for clarifying your position

deleted by creator

I’m not false equivocating in order to take the fight off of fascism, both things are true. My point is we don’t fight fascism by allowing courts to make performative gestures outlawing performative gestures, its done by organizing against the worst tendencies of capital. By all means ban Nazi salutes it won’t affect anyone I associate with, and if it did I would no longer.

Lots of people seem to think having a slight criticism is the same as trying to bad faith rhetorically muddy the waters to give space for fascism. But no, that’s what liberalism does, consistently.

Why are you so rude and mean? I actually have an interest in philosophy, which you apparently do too? But I don’t use it to like make people feel stupid. I’m nobody. I’m just like a guy with a job and a family that reads hard books. I’m proud of what little intellectual accomplishment I’ve made, and I encourage others to study. But dude I don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan! I’ll read books by people who have read it, but not Alain de Botton because he is a turd, but despite a good measure of intellectual curiosity, more than most in my life at least, it isn’t something that will come up for me. I’m glad you got so much out of it. made it into your whole identity maybe, but it hasn’t come up for me in the way that will lead me to read it, at least not yet! All I can say if on my very long reading list, it isn’t on there and I don’t see that changing this year.

This book is so important and crucial to your point yet you can’t point to a single line or paragraph to support your non existent arguments, which amount to “ur dum”. Why not demonstrate how great a book it is by quoting a passage that is relevant? L

I’ve read more than 6 philosophy books in the last 6 months. You are strawmanning me, because I’m not who you have delusionally convinced yourself that I am. Its completely unnecessary and not at all about the topic at hand.

Alain de Botton omg and you thought I was funny.

Anyway you completely missed my point wrt false equivalence since both things are true. Its called nuance, dingus. I believe in the continual progress of human spirit, similar to Hegel’s formulation of freedom, but I’m a materialist and Marxist, not right wing liberal like Hobbes. Because believe it or not society has progressed since the 1680s when the ascendent English bourgeoisie seized control of the British empire and needed rational justification for their rule – which Thomas Hobbes Leviathan is. Its a piece of political philosophy, and certainly worth studying. I haven’t read it and might not, but I know others that have. I get the gist I don’t need Alain de Buttman’s watered down baby philosophy for online babies, please and thank you.

I’ve read thousands of pages of philosophy. You’ve watched thousands of hours of vaush and destiny. We are not the same. Come back when you’re capable of making a point or having an adult discussion. I’ll be here.

Actually if you could point to the place in the book where he argues definitively for carcerial justice over other forms, effectively addressing arguments that have come since from intellectuals like Michel Foucault and Angela Davis, as well as the abolition movement more broadly, that would be super helpful to a big dumb idiot like me a hurr durr

My dad was a prison guard, I’ve thought about some of these dynamics a lot over the years.

Well I say it elsewhere, but we need to really start to rethink carcerial justice as a solution to social problems. It doesn’t help, it just compounds the contradictions that lead to problems like crime, fascism in the first place.

I understand we can’t just snap our fingers to make it go away. But The first step is discussion.

I mean free speech is a deeply contradictory concept, which i largely support, however, people having the “right” to harm others as fascists mean to do is not a human right but a right of domination, which I am actively and deeply set against. And prison justice is just a “right” to harm others, only one that we are conditioned to live with.

It does create an opportunity for a little irony, which I can’t pass up.

But part of my criticism is not just “Nazis exist in prison” but “carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywhere but the fringes of the prison abolition movement.

And things like prisons and police, the existence of many kinds of crime, particularly property crimes, need to be considered historically contingent, so that no matter how much we want to just delete all prisons they do serve as a solution to contradictions that arise within our society. So that the struggle to abolish carcerial punishment has to be simultaneously replaced with something better. Which is just and worth fighting for.

Getting rid of heil Hitler hand gestures in public might prevent the public proliferation of “signs” of fascism, the actual causes of it are institutional and function in cooperation with systems of institutional racism, Etc., and until those tendencies are abolished, and that is the worst expressions of class domination within capitalism, fascism will always be a problem to contend with.

In other words, we have fascism because we have prisons. Or rather, the underlying logic of fascism is just the underlying logic that justifies carcerial justice, taken to its natural conclusions.

So its not just irony, its like a double irony

Sending people to jail is a great way to make sure they don’t spend time embroiled in Nazi ideology on every level. Probably the best way to make sure someone never comes in contact with a single particle of Nazism, is to send them to prison.

(Can you tell I’m american?)