loaExMachina [any]

I am a person online.

  • 2 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 27th, 2022

help-circle


  • loaExMachina [any]@hexbear.nettoGames@hexbear.netWhere Winds Meet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    In other words, C-M-C is performed by the working classes to fulfill their needs whereas M-C-M is performed by the bourgeois to accumulate capital

    So you agree meme So you agree, these chains are representing the same society from two different points of view !

    The second and third panels accurately describe Marx’s analysis of C-M-C and M-C-M.

    Except here, M-C-M is described as occurring “Over the sea”, it implies that they represent different systems. The only difference between these two systems is the state that “regulates capital”. Implying capital is still a thing. Implying the M-C-M cycle also takes place. In the “good” system, and the first explanation of it was misleading and led nowhere. This is still a system where work is a commodity.


  • loaExMachina [any]@hexbear.nettoGames@hexbear.netWhere Winds Meet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    Ah yes, obviously a woman in feudal times attire gasing at a peasant from her window is the best person to explain socialism.

    And also, it is good and normal in a socialist society that rice and medecine are nothing but commodities to be bought and sold.

    And what a great understanding of capitalism! So true, the order of the commodity-money-commodity is essential, and is actually a thing, it’s not like a person selling a commodity implies another having the money to buy it; these C-M-C and M-C-M chains are totally not describing the same society from different points of view!

    This “comic” isn’t a chain of missing the point of Marxism and then also missing its own point. It is normal that it doesn’t mention class struggle, plus value or even address the question of who owns the means of production. It assumes that in both societies the working class is represented by a peasant who owns his field and its product, which isn’t the situation of most either under capitalism or under socialism. After having brilliantly explained nothing, it just slaps a benevolent state on top to garanty that “don’t worry, the system that is identical to the bad one in every way is good”. And then it basically says “the game is free because we’re the good guys”.

    Such an efficient use of water and energy, I’m sure actual artists who put thought and efforts into the type of game you have in mind would be glad to have you as their defendor!

    And in case that wasn’t clear, I was being sarcastic.






  • That was “libertarian” or “libertaire”. “Liberal” was already a bourgeois ideology at the time of the 1789 French revolution. It was a more egalitarian idea than the pre-existing status quo, since it involved abolishing feudalism and noble privileges, but it also came with a defense to the right of property and free market. I think the difference between the USian use of the word and the use in most if the rest of the world is that Americans kept the quotation of novelty and progressism that were attached to the word at the time of it’s independence, rather than the specific type of economic policies it was associated to.









  • So, this is an add for OpenHarmony (a project by OpenAtom with ties to Huawei), with an clickbait title. All of the critics made about Linux are things we’ve already heard from Windows and OSX, or even FreeBSD users, and I am not convinced by the solution they offer. “Offering native ports” is supposedly their biggest perk, but it is possible to make games run natively on Linux, the existence of Proton just makes it not entirely necessary. None of what they describe really seems that new.



  • Don&Xi in “The Castle of Light”:
    Both Donald Trump and Xi Jinpin hire the same architect for their respective projects, and due to a series of misunderstandings, the architect believes it’s one and only project, and tries his best to reconcile their contradictions. Trump wants a new Trump tower, a vanity project of ozymandian proportions, or in his words: “Huge. Tremedous. Bigger than anything you’ve ever seen, ever.” He wants it to dwarf all else, cast a shadow on the town at day shine like the sun at night. He sets no limit on budget, energy consumption or ecological impact, even offering to get rid of an regulations it might impede on. Only one constraint: It cannot, must not cast a shadow on his golf field at any time of the day.

    Xi Jinpin wants to build a huge block of social housing to solve homelessness. And he wants it built on top of the hated golf course. And to fit his secundary goal of reducing carbon emissions.

    The architect, best of his trade, takes this as a single challenge. He ends up making a building that is somehow located right over the golf course, but never casts a shadow, being made half of glass and spinning on a rail so that the concrete “foot” of the building is always in the direction opposite of the sun. The rotation is powered by subterranean rivers. Lenses and mirrors are used to further reduce the shadow. At first, Don is amazed while Xi is angry that so much resources went into what should’ve just been a bunch of concrete towers. But then Trump hates it because it’s filled with poor people. He doesn’t even want to play golf under it anymore because he hates having poor people above him, staring through the huge windows, the golf course ends up repurposed as common gardens. The building, while able in theory to “shine like the sun at night”, doesn’t; because the inhabitants prefer to turn off the lights like normal people. And of course, Trump has to foot most the bill since Xi had set a precise budget and said he’d pay no more while Trump said he’d pay extra to any extent necessary.
    Xi is at this point very amused.
    Until the castle of light becomes an anarchist commune.

    < To be continued]