if anything currently existing marxism is a consequence of policies analogous to zero interest rates in terms of being parasitic on academia for decades and then exploding on the internet via unemployed grad students making content, while anarchists did the work of sustaining spaces outside academia
lmfao
lmao get their asses
containment procedures for SCP-SHARON – make sure she has an endless supply of books, can have snacks and can chat with her internet friends
hell yeah
damn can anyone else hear symphony no 92 playing?
this wasn't always the case. part of the postmodernist turn was people emphasizing and championing trangression as a good in and of itself
(apologies for the naked cloudflare worker link, currently in the process of trying to migrate my site but was busy today and a bunch of what i wrote is probably out of date)
"Formal order, to be more explicit, is always and to some considerable degree parasitic on informal processes, which the formal scheme does not recognize, without which it could not exist, and which it alone cannot create or maintain" - james c scott, seeing like a state
as i see it
1) there's challenges in building an egalitarian society and conservative intellectuals have the most incentive to find those challenges
2) education has only recently been widely accessible
in particular its important to stress the complexity limits on top-down incentives that institutions impose means they frequently fail in achieving desired outcomes, which to go back to the OP, results in a net loss for basically everyone involved while also fostering resistance
it's certainly true that institutions that are either directly coercive or backed by coercion think about incentives to control people but that no more means that thinking about incentives is bad than the fact they use mathematics means that mathematics is bad
to consider "incentives" in the most general sense of "things that persuade people to do things" as bad you throw out ever formally considering how people might act in the world which is just absurd
i once held similar beliefs but i think that you can still believe that it is possible to model what people value and look at how they might react to situations while also acknowledging limitations in that modelling
unfortunately the only people properly thinking about "madman disrupts world oil supply, throws everything into crisis" were people writing airport thrillers and action video games
helped that it was a (mostly) mutually beneficial multi-generational project
wonder how hard it would be to make a custom feed that emphasizes conversations people you follow are having with each other (probably one of the best parts of social media for me!)
yea
positive sum interactions with minorities does seem to be effective at reducing prejudice! but you can't scale it in the same way that you can with a popular podcast and there's legit concerns about creating nazi bars and the like
i suspect that the process of dechudding people looks less like any popular influencer or streamer eating into rogan or whoevers audience and far more like people joining leftist IRL spaces for whatever reason and shifting their opinion based on social pressures / exposure
like imagine a counterfactual where social media never takes off but jacobin still has a million subscribers by the late 2010s. you'd get center-left publications like Crooked Timber engaging with them
part of this is everyone being on the same small number of platforms unlike the days of the blogosphere where ppl could just be ignored, but its also a consequence of the left becoming something that these people have to acknowledge
right, i may have overstated the case in my reply because its bsky, a more considered response would factor in the "psychic wages of whiteness". nonetheless
Rainbow capitalism is back? Perhaps a good sign?
"No battle-Tarutino, Borodino, or Austerlitz-takes place as those who planned it anticipated. That is an essential condition."
this sort of thing is why i see public choice as fundamental to any anarchist theory of capitalism and why i don't really care about its origins, that's something for intellectual historians to take note of i want to change the world
one of the best books on capitalism i've read is political capitalism by holcombe (a mises institute guy and so it has some blindspots) which makes the point about how transaction costs mean that the ruling class has an easier time acting in concert than the masses bc its smaller
