this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
135 points (98.6% liked)

Slop.

472 readers
299 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 

live-slug-reaction catgirl-flop

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net 102 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

"before he saw the rise of liberalism" lol, some people really think liberalism was invented in the 1900's

[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 54 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] ryepunk@hexbear.net 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This right here. It's some end of history bullshit of liberals patting themselves on the back right before the shit they threw in the fan starts to fly back in their own faces. Oh liberalism solved all the problems and everything is going to get better now? What's all the stuff you rammed under the rug before I walked in?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] happybadger@hexbear.net 59 points 2 months ago

I'm a simple yeoman factory owner with my multinational homestead.

[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 57 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Every home doubles as a small factory, that way everyone is a Capitalist and a Worker

[–] Broodyr@hexbear.net 48 points 2 months ago (3 children)

there was a bit more context to be fair, they were saying that because robots will "do everything" in the near future ("if not already today"), and somehow (through the power of friendship and liberalism?) everyone would have their own robot that works for them, thus everyone would be owning class centrist

[–] x87_floatingpoint@hexbear.net 44 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And who builds the robots? Who maintains the robots? Who mines the resources that are necessary for the production of robots?

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 36 points 2 months ago

Ah see, it’s robots all the way down.

[–] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That only works under fully automated space communism. Otherwise, the capitalists own all the robots, and thus everything else. How do they expect us all to buy robots when they're taking all our jobs? Why would the capitalists share all their wealth when we're less productive? That's basically communism. Except liberals think we can get there purely through vibes and technological progress without changing the oppressive systems we live under.

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

That fantasy has always irked me somewhat. I do love the idea of automation having solved the need for work (though we are almost there already, the amount of people needed to make anything is so low. But we gotta consume instead and we gotta give money to the pigs), but when it's talking of robots it always makes me think of how the word originally meant "slave". Ugh.

[–] Fishroot@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago

Great Leap Foward

[–] TechnoUnionTypeBeat@hexbear.net 50 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It's incredible to see sometimes because if you read between the drier lines about linen and such, Marx had such an accurate view on society that persists even now over a century later

I forgot which piece it was but there's a piece where he talks about the worker being asked to reduce all their non-essential expenses and just become automatons who sleep, eat, and work, and it is nearly identical to modern Bloomberg and FT articles about how workers should get rid of Netflix and other entertainment expenses instead of getting higher wages

[–] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Sure I steal the value of your labor and my vast wealth has doubled over the pandemic to be the equivalent to hundreds of thousands of you, but have you considered no more coffee in the morning? Stoping one of your few simple pleasures in this hell-world that you manage to enjoy before walking into the place you despise to do work you're alienated from for people you hate? I promise it'll solve all your money problems. And if you can't manage that, then clearly all of your problems are your fault and not mine.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fox@hexbear.net 40 points 2 months ago

Yet another take on Marx from someone who's never read Marx

[–] corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"A world where everyone is a capitalist" AND YOU DONT SEE A FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THAT? lenin-rage

[–] Robert_Kennedy_Jr@hexbear.net 24 points 2 months ago

Marx obviously didn't forsee the block chain and everyone owning Bitcoin berdly-smug

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 34 points 2 months ago

I kind of respect doing this bit, but for liberalism, with marx.

[–] BioWarfarePosadist@hexbear.net 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The idea is for everyone to be a worker-owner and to make one indistinguishable from the other.

God, has anybody ever heard of Hegelian dialectics?

[–] ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

fun fact, he finished it (The Phenomenology of Spirit) the day that the french entered and looted his Town (Jena) right before the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt that would happend the next morning and then send his only manuscript in the middle of this Mayham , where he also saw napoleon riding around.

"I saw the Emperor – this world-soul [Weltseele] – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it."

[–] adultswim_antifa@hexbear.net 32 points 2 months ago

Wealth inequality is at or near the highest level in US history. Globally, 85% of all wealth is owned by 10% and the bottom 50% own less than 1%. Everyone has been becoming a worker or lumpen as wealth concentrates in the hands of fewer and fewer capitalists.

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Genuinely curious what quirk of fate caused this person to develop an understanding of the world along these lines. This isn't standard western brainworms.

[–] Broodyr@hexbear.net 27 points 2 months ago (3 children)

based on the reply chain, he's some kind of libertarian - pro-elon/bezos (ethical billionaires), but anti-kings/warlords/dictators (unethical billionaires). super heavy on the "great men with great ideas", and capitalism/workers being the enabler for making their ideas happen. he was also posting this in r/neoliberal, if that helps (it doesn't)

bonus round:

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago

Very silly.

[–] GoodGuyWithACat@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

I've never seen bootlicker as great as that.

[–] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

Ya this sounds very Randian.

[–] x87_floatingpoint@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Considering that other bit of context, my guess would be privileged tech person, someone who only sees that things are good for them and assumes that this can work for everyone in the world

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 19 points 2 months ago

Unfortunately an increasingly common type of person.

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Isn't liberalism from the 1700's?

[–] Broodyr@hexbear.net 23 points 2 months ago

no liberalism was created when this guy was born, along with the rest of the universe

[–] TheDeed@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago

No sweaty Clinton invented it in the 1990s

[–] ThermonuclearEgg@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm guessing OOP is America-brained enough to think "liberalism" means neoliberal with liberalism characteristics

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] viva_la_juche@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago

Not everyone wants (or needs) to dropship bullshit from China or do crypto scams which is what these dipshits always have in mind

[–] newacctidk@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If everyone is a capitalist, then capitalism does not exist. That is so fucking basic. Someone has to own the means of production and extract labor value from others, without that then there is no capitalism

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What if we all own our own means of production and also exploit value from each other both-sides smuglord

[–] TheFinalCapitalist@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

Everyone stands in a circle, swinging a hammer to produce one value, and in between each swing you pick pocket 1 value from the person on your right. I have solved the contradiction

[–] crime@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Marx's antics playing the stock market would blow this dweeb's mind

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Tomboymoder@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago

how are people this stupid

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago

Marxist-Cutcoism

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

I swear I read this exact take like ten years ago. Some idiot thinks that a future where everyone is a business entrepreneur is possible let alone probable.

It's like imagining a theocracy where everyone is a high priest. Who the hell is attending the churches?

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago

Marx living in the 19th century is a psyop to hide that he actually is a classical writer.

[–] x87_floatingpoint@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

By the way, cool profile picture, I'm a big fan of Snorlax!

[–] Broodyr@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

thx! i like your extra wide vaporeon. i'm a bit of a poser when it comes to pokemon tho. it took me a couple searches and way too long to remember yours' name just now - mudkip came to mind first lol. i've always rly liked snorlax and poliwhirl though (and more recently, azumarill clodsire-pog)

[–] x87_floatingpoint@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm a little surprised that someone doesn't remember the Eeveelutions, I thought Eevee and its evolved forms (Vaporeon, Flareon, Jolteon, Espeon, Umbreon, Leafeon, Glaceon, Sylveon) would be Pokémon that every PokéFan knows, like Pikachu. But it's fine! I forget a lot of things, too

Mudkip was my partner in Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, so ever since, I like Mudkip!
And Snorlax is relatable cuz I'm also fat and tired

May I ask, what is your relation to Pokémon? Do you play the games? Watch the anime? Do you just like to look at pretty pictures of Pokémon (I used to do that a lot before I found the anime)?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sleeplessone@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's been awhile since I read the 'festo, but doesn't Marx explicitly call out petty booj "socialists" whose idea of socialism is when everyone become a booj?

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

Yeah, Marx has a whole section dedicated to them in the Manifesto

...this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

A, somewhat, recent article from Red Sails, The Case for Socialized Ownership explains this critique of petit bourgeoisie socialism. As production under capitalism is already becoming more and more socialized, the answer is to fully socialize the means of production through collective ownership, instead of making everyone 'business owners'. Quoting Engels,

With social production conditioned by modern large-scale industry, it is possible to assure each person “the full proceeds of his labour,” so far as this phrase has any meaning at all. And it has a meaning only if it is extended to mean not that each individual worker becomes the possessor of “the full proceeds of his labour,” but that the whole of society, consisting entirely of workers, becomes the possessor of the total proceeds of its labour, which it partly distributes among its members for consumption, partly uses for replacing and increasing the means of production, and partly stores up as a reserve fund for production and consumption

[–] GoodGuyWithACat@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ubisoft Marx is the real timeline.

load more comments
view more: next ›