domain:aerosociety.com
Plus full democratic voting rights and there's a big enough bloc to enforce shit over a decent tenure.
Even Hamas would be able to likely keep operating as a guerilla movement and any attempts to oppress the Palestinian Arab population as a result of Hamas agitation would be looked at even more disfavorably than the status quo.
AI-generated media is, I think, necessarily generic. Generating proper art is antithetical to how AIs function. People seek novelty, and LLMs learn through repetition, so novelty is precisely what they fail to learn. AIs are also downstream of human experience, and they cannot ever be otherwise, so attempting to solve this problem is like trying to turn hyper-processed foods back into healthy ingredients. An experience is more real than the memory of said experience, and for the same reason, AI generated content is necessarily lacking to anyone with taste (those who can taste the difference between home-made food and microwaved supermarket food)
The motte is Marxists caring about culture, which obviously they have done throughout history. The Soviet Union is just one famous example.
Yes, Soviet Union cared about culture a lot, by promoting classical literature, art, music, opera and ballet to the masses (even when the masses were not interested and would prefer pop music, comic books and cowboy and gangster movies). Marxist-Leninist line always was that feudal and capitalist culture is great and belongs to working class, what was wrong with it was that the oppressors kept it only for themselves.
I would not generalise that modern, mainline feminists consider their critique to be a refinement of Marxism. I think that most academic feminists, if questioned, will grant that there is some Marxist influence on their thought - but that most will not see that thought as decisive, and most do not think of themselves as working in a Marxist school, or as part of the Marxist tradition.
That would require pretty low self-awareness. For example if you take either the pro- or anti-porn or prostitution feministss, they will both frame women as victims of capitalist exploitation. Arguably Marxism is the glue that holds all the factions you mentioned together.
Aren't we living under the conditions of an Israeli victory now. They can act as they will and annex what they want. Most of the West Bank is functionally integrated into Israel already and the only reason they don't annex it is so they don't need to give the Palestinian population there citizenship.
I made my way through Gravity's Rainbow
You're a stronger man than me. I thought "what in the actual fuck did I just read" and closed the book about five pages in.
Sure and that's reasonable. But the situation in the West Bank is also completely unique and completely untenable long term. If Israel could agree on some sort of border it would work better. But they want the land and not the people and most of the West Bank is essentially fully integrated into Israel ignoring the blobs of Palestinian towns throughout. If Israel drew a line and declared one part Palestine and one part Israel I think they'd get reasonable far many countries have disputed borders. But the West Bank is a millstone around their neck because they want the land but not the people and the occupation prevents them from being a normal country.
Within the next two generations, Israel will be significantly larger than today, both in population and land area.
Israeli population growth shows no sign of abating, and, while the world is transfixed to Gaza, ancient biblical land of Bashan is now in the play.
Judea and Samaria and faith accompli, Bashan (and Gilead, when something happens in Jordan) are the next steps. Handmaid Tale fandom could rejoice, their fantasy could soon become real.
It’s more about the situation in which 3 would occur, namely near-total loss of US support, an increasingly Muslim Europe, China and Russia signing onto sanctions to appease Muslim allies like Pakistan and Iran, and then relatively quickly almost the whole world is against them, the US for residual world peace reasons forces them into this quasi peace, and then maybe Turkey or another coalition of Arab nations decide that it’s just time for the killing blow, there’s a mass Palestinian uprising of the kind that didn’t occur on October 7th etc…
They managed to create a permanent peace with Syria and Egypt even with the Golan heights and no peace agreement and the West Bank has towns under full Palestinian control. I think a State of Palestine would be a lot less likely to just start a war then stateless terrorist groups.
In case of Russia, they don't. That's why they introduced a new "self-employed" status a few years ago with much lower taxes on income to incentivize people to report their cake baking and pipe fixing and dunce tutoring. (It's different with the farmers since they don't really sell grain to individuals and mill that buy it from them provide the record of buying it.) But the self-employed are small fish and it's not worth it to personally hunt down every single one of them.
The next set of carrot and stick that will be used to ensure compliance is probably government-run crypto. It's easy to inject it into the economy: social security of every kind. All transactions using them will be 100% transparent to the government.
But they haven't yet been able to expel the population and I don't know if they realistically can. So far they've just been settling the gaps and ignoring the Palestinian settlements but this doesn't seem stable.
I think Israel will change behavior if that happens and act / beg for scenario 3, but as I said, there are many routes by which that leads to scenario 2 anyway.
I don't think 3 has any chance of turning into 2. Even with the 1948 borders the Israeli military would still massively outclass the Palestinian one.
My understanding, roughly, is that classical Marxism, to the extent that it acknowledges patriarchy as a concept at all, holds that patriarchy and gender-based oppression are downstream of economic class. The father and husband holds power in a way derivative of his position in the economic system. As such any attempt to solve the patriarchy problem or liberate women that does not engage with capitalism is doomed to fail. The liberation of women is, insofar as it goes, a good thing, and a component of the overall class struggle, but it is subordinate to that struggle and must not be separated out from it.
Today I don't think there is an ideologically coherent 'mainline Feminism'. I think that feminism today is an extraordinarily contested label that is riven by internal strife, and as such it is very hard to generalise about a doctrinaire feminist position on anything. There are some obvious fault lines (pro-porn vs anti-porn, pro-trans vs anti-trans, pro-choice vs pro-life, and in general radical/separatist vs accomodationalist/assimilationist), but they are often mixed up and not immensely predictive of any individual's position. If I were to generalise, I would say that what makes a person or position 'feminist' today is 1) it is primarily interested in the position of women in society, and 2) it holds that women, as group or class, are in some way disadvantaged, and some sort of collective action is necessary to ameliorate those disadvantages.
Within that broad heading, there are both Marxist and non-Marxist feminists, and the line can be blurry. Moreover, because Marx is such a massively influential figure in the history of sociology, philosophy, etc., if you search for traces of Marxism in almost any school of social analysis, you're going to find some. I think it's fair to say that it is reasonably common to find bits or pieces from the wider Marxist tradition in most feminist schools of thought today - but which pieces, and how consequential they are, will vary widely.
I would not generalise that modern, mainline feminists consider their critique to be a refinement of Marxism. I think that most academic feminists, if questioned, will grant that there is some Marxist influence on their thought - but that most will not see that thought as decisive, and most do not think of themselves as working in a Marxist school, or as part of the Marxist tradition. I'd guess that just as classical Marxists think of the class structure of society and the economic mode of production as the umbrella issues, and everything else as derivative, academic feminists today tend to take gender as the umbrella issue, and see economics as downstream of that. For them Marx is an important historical figure working in a related field, whose insights are sometimes but not universally applicable to their own analyses.
It was in that spirit, that the ardent young Marxist, Éva Izsák, could be persuaded that it was her duty to kill herself for the sake of the cause.
Grim story. Now, let me add the necessary context to understand it, and it would be time and place where it happened.
It was late 1944 in Nazi occupied Hungary.
In this context, choosing to join underground resistance group was choosing to die for the cause, soon and often in rather unpleasant way, and it was clear to everyone.
Nothing "marxist" or "materialist" about this particular case, staunch Christian anticommunist Polish resistance would also execute their members at the slight suspicion they are compromised and endanger the group as a whole. These are rules of actual guerilla resistance against serious and determined enemy.
the jews are quickly coming to see themselves more as liberals than as jews.
very much the opposite in my social circle. (I'm jewish). There's a lot of "we still don't like Trump, but the left hates Israel, so we'll put up with him" - pithily captured as "Jews went to bed October 6th as Democrats - but woke up Republican"
Within the next two generations israel needs to either resolve the problem fully, somehow, or find a new partner or they lose.
This isn't the first time I've had this discussion on here, but I think you're not just right, you're understating the problem they face. Who is going to be the next imperial patron for Israel? They can't exist without one without a severe reduction in social complexity, and I don't see Russia (currently engaging in deep military co-operation with their greatest adversary) stepping up to the plate. China has absolutely no need to sponsor Israel and they're not going to be vulnerable to the same strategies that worked on America and the broader west. Who's left? India?
They deployed more explosive power relative to the size of their target than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Having better weapons makes you the bad guy? When the Americans fought Nazi Germany, the Americans had way more bombs and planes than the Germans did. Does that mean the Americans were big meanies, or does it mean the Nazis shouldn't have picked a fight they couldn't win?
Palestine supporters do this all the time, and it's never persuasive. Israel fires more bombs, Israel kills more people, as if these are bad things to do in a war. Winning is evil? When they get attacked, the Israelis should chivalrously lower their military power to be equal to their opponents? It strikes as sour grapes; 'They're only winning because they have more weapons!' See: don't pick fights you can't win.
Every time someone says that the Israelis have killed more Palestinians than vice-versa or set off more bombs or whatever, my only thought it that they clearly haven't done enough because the Palestinians haven't stopped fighting yet! How can you set the bar for too many casualties in a war below the number required to win? You can hardly ask the Israelis to stop fighting and wait for the Palestinians to catch up in the kill count.
I in no way meant to imply that life as a minority was a land of milk and honey for the jews in the arab world - but when they have spent over a thousand years suffering those abuses and managed to maintain their own cultural and ethnic identity during that time, you're being a bit misleading when you say that those abuses are why there aren't any jews left in the rest of the region.
It's still not really walkable -- although I think now there's literally condo towers right on top of it, so I guess if you were in one of those it would work. Otherwise it's several blocks from anywhere people really live. (and of course those towers are not great for going places other than Costco -- or the hockey arena I guess)
I'm saying that it's a mistake to identify the critical theory of wokism with the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. The major figures of the Frankfurt School would reject wokism--ideologically and aesthetically, and in particular its focus on consumerist identity.
Would it also be a mistake to identify the socialist theory of Trotsky with the Socialist theory of Stalin? (Or that of Kamenev and Stalin, or Zinoviev and Stalin, or Bukharin and Stalin, or...)
...I submit that Marxism is best understood as a bundle of critiques of society emerging from a particular worldview. Beyond those worldview-clustered critiques, Marxism contains no actual, gears-level insight or plan for fixing society beyond "amass absolute power and use it tear down this society and build a much better one in its place". If you are tracking ideological descent, you should track it through the worldview, the critique cluster, and the prescription of amassing and wielding absolute power. These are the constants of Marxist thought.
The non-gears-level theoretical confections layered atop by Marx and his feuding successors are best understood as superstructure, epiphenomena. Lenin gutted much of Marx's own theoretical constructs to carry out the Russian Revolution, and no one cared because he maintained the constants of perspective, critique, and seizure of power, and he won. The Russian Revolutionaries who followed him themselves contained great diversity of thought and and many beautiful theoretical elaborations, until Stalin culled them all by hueing to the constants of Perspective, Critique, and seizure of power, and no one cared because he also won. Mao likewise diverged greatly from Marx, Lenin and Stalin, and yet he stuck to the basics, and he also won and so was recognized, at least initially, as a Real Marxist.
Consider the idea that Marxism does not actually contain actionable insight into the human condition or the proper ordering of a peaceful, prosperous society. Because of this lack, people attempting even minimally to engage with the human condition or build such a society in the real world quickly find themselves having to make shit up. Then if their improvisations work, they must have Really Understood Marx, and if they fail, clearly they were heterodox and benighted, at least by everyone within reach of the winner.
You may be correct that all the Frankfurt School and modern Social Justice share is a rhetorical commitment to communism, and you may be correct that in both cases, that commitment is fake. When in the history of the ideology has it been otherwise?
How do you rate scenario 2 as more likely than scenario 1???
Israel needs western support to exist. Europe is going to become very muslim (and also very failed) in the next 100 years. In the US support for israel rests on three pillars: jews, defense contractors and red heifer evangelicals. The evangelicals are dying, the jews are quickly coming to see themselves more as liberals than as jews. On the other hand jews map to white and palestinians map to brown in the woke mind.
Within the next two generations israel needs to either resolve the problem fully, somehow, or find a new partner or they lose.
Or the line right now on Left sides seems to be that Israel armed/supported the parties inside Palestine that are currently being purged so that makes them a sixth column of the evil Zionists and therefore free game, or something.
More options
Context Copy link