super interesting

wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(1997_film)

IMDB user reviews: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119794/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

i feel bad for ppl having consumption as an hobby. what a life.

it’s so beautiful, thank you for sharing it.

but i don’t see it related to the post at all… OP’s post feels like serfdom apology? it’s super weird honestly. It’s not freedom if it’s not a choice.

My reading of Tagore’s poem is like: different choices and conditions develop two different worldviews, two solitudes that they could not “explain to each other”. But they still loved each other. And - in my reading - the bird in the cage in the end doesn’t have “the strength to soar”. I feel there is some social commentary behind, probably about colonialism and some “comfort”. But I really don’t know.

Thank you again for sharing. Long ago I read Charulata, and it was so powerful and beautiful. I should definitely read more by Tagore.

Reality doesn’t seem to matter anymore. When libs are fixated on correcting you, you have no hope of redemption. They need to feel superior and use their “correct” language to emphasize their superiority, regardless of whether what they’re emphasizing is entirely fabricated.

My opinion: people need to chill. and also to understand that English is used by different people in various contexts. Not everybody grasps the subtleties of the language. For instance, if discussing something like “a product highly recommended for our discreet female audience” or stating “no problems have been encountered in the department for female prisoners” is considered appropriate, somebody might feel that writing “To look at a female’s behind” (as seen in the original r/therewasanattempt post) is also acceptable. And it’s no big deal.

Also, it’s a typical Anglo-Saxon harry potteresque magical thinking, and obsession, with language, magic words and formulations. Censoring words just make them stronger. Stop being fucking puritains stupid ameriremoved. Scarlet letters never work. Changing words doesn’t change the world, activism about language is just slacktivism to feel smug and superior, and ultimately keeping the status quo as it is.

lol, i see vast agreement in the answer you got. but you need to be a bit more careful and thoughtful. your ideas so far are a confused potpourri. you need to read what marxist theory and communism are, more than a few slogans. and this can be done just alone, with a book. perhaps start here: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/marx-a-very-short-introduction-9780198821076 (Marx: A Very Short Introduction - Peter Singer)

i think they must be very young, no need to be hostile :)

i find this whole discussion kinda cute to be honest…

all fine, you might be more Weberian than Marxist. Try to read about Max Weber. But he wasn’t a communist. at all.

Communism is usually associated with historical materialism, the theory that everyone here is trying to explain to you. However, there have been other forms of socialism before and after Marx. You might find interesting Henri de Saint-Simon and his theories, Paul Lafargue, or for another, more recent example of non-Marxist socialist, Karl Polanyi.

If you don’t believe in Marxism, that’s okay. But you need to study it first, and based on your original post, it might require some more time, patience, and reading.

yes, all of this is the product of labour. and HOW it has been produced matters.

so you are not a marxist, bye lol :)

i’m joking. but you really need to read about marxism.

What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

It’s the very basics of our theory. and it’s basically what i told you before.

ofc, you can believe in socialism without being a marxist. You might be interested in reading Polanyi for example.

yes, we believe capital is relational ofc, and historical situated. there is nothing natural or normal about it. it’s a phase, a period, an arrangement. But culture is a product of the relationships of production, that’s our epistemology. Humans do stuff, how “we create” our world (so, our labor) is what really matters. I hope it’s clear now.

“but I just don’t see what part of it requires belief in an objective world of matter.”

that’s not what materialism means, at least in marxist therm. materialism means humans facts are dependent on space and time, so to say. so, the relationships of productions, are historically connoted and situated in space. that’s why we are materialists. historical materialists.

we reject idealism: we don’t believe that culture is the engine of history, for example. we reject all forms of idealism, we reject the “idea” of state (for example), the state for us is a product of the relationships of production . we believe material relationships of production are the engine of history.

that’s a very synthetic answer. but the point is: materialism is not primarily concerned with physical objects or “things.” Instead, it centers on the intricate interplay of historical and spatial contexts in shaping human realities.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1996.00165.x super interesting paper, i’m not even joking

that’s my opinion as well.

Lol “dunking on America”. Nobody hates America more than Americans…

hmm not sure

for sure my hate for the USA is sincere, pure and strong. And i’m not American (thanks god!)

I don’t know if I should thank god for not being from the US, or to be upset with god that I have to deal with so many fucking US idiots all the time. Their entitlement and arrogance know no borders, just like their imperialism.

Removed by mod

touch grass pls