Joan of Arcades 🏳️‍⚧️🐧

@redkagami.bsky.social

1082 Followers 360 Following

→ living among the ruins of Yugoslav Socialism → 33yo, transfeminine, kinda fruity (she/her) → Online Communist & Philosophy Poster → likes games, old media, GNU/Linux → theist, Christian Universalist ✝ → Luddite enjoyer 🤖 💥 🔫 💗 @cirikino.bsky.social 💗

The existence of Tom Holland and Tom Hollander implies the existence of a Tom Hollandest

The Communist Manifesto by music_kid67
Fandoms: History - Fandom

Tags:
Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, Hurt No Comfort, History, Everyone is Gay, Found Family

So many people don’t know what the Communist manifesto is or they didn’t learn ab it in school so I’m putting it on ao3 so it’s accessible to a lot of people

Why Not Socialism?
by G.A. Cohen

Micah's review
Aug 02, 2018

I'm a socialist and I gave this book to my Republican friend and it convinced him to become a socialist too, which just shows how STUPID republicans are, because this was a TERRIBLE book that NO reasonable person would ever be convinced by

Bernstein’s socialism is to be realised with the aid of these two instruments: labour unions – or as Bernstein himself characterises them, economic democracy – and co-operatives. The first will suppress industrial profit; the second will do away with commercial profit.

Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.

The uninterrupted victory of democracy, which to our revisionism as well as to bourgeois liberalism, appears as a great fundamental law of human history and, especially, modern history is shown upon closer examination to be a phantom. No absolute and general relation can be constructed between capitalist development and democracy. The political form of a given country is always the result of the composite of all the existing political factors, domestic as well as foreign. It admits within its limits all variations of the scale from absolute monarchy to the democratic republic.

We must abandon, therefore, all hope of establishing democracy as a general law of historical development even within the framework of modern society. Turning to the present phase of bourgeois society, we observe here, too, political factors which, instead of assuring the realisation of Bernstein’s schema, led rather to the abandonment by bourgeois society of the democratic conquests won up to now.

Democratic institutions – and this is of the greatest significance – have completely exhausted their function as aids in the development of bourgeois society. In so far as they were necessary to bring about the fusion of small States and the creation of large modern States (Germany, Italy), they are no longer indispensable at present. Economic development has meanwhile effected an internal organic cicatrisation.

Linux is becoming too mainstream. Fucking normies... Gonna have to switch to FreeBSD now. reeeeeeeeee

[Ricegnat] My GF (ghost friend) caught me jerking off and now she's bouncing on it CRAZY STYLE (Dokibird & Mint Fantome)

Another term which is badly handled is Wissenschaft, that is, ‘science’, as with the Latin scientia. As is well known, the German word retains the original extension, whereas in English since the nineteenth century it has narrowed to refer to what are therefore pleonastically called the natural sciences. All this is fairly easy to explain and bear in mind. But the new translation makes a real mess of the term, rendering it as ‘scholarship’, ‘systematic scholarship’, ‘systematic knowledge’, ‘science’, ‘science and scholarship’ and at one point ‘science and systematic scholarship’ (!). An endnote ‘explains’: ‘The word rendered as “scholarly” is “wissenschaftlich.” It can mean “scientific,” that is, “having to do with natural science,” and also “systematic,” in the sense of truly rigorous and properly self-reflective with regard to scholarly method.’ (793) This is not right: wissenschaftlich in Marx’s texts does not mean ‘having to do with natural science’; for that he uses naturwissenschaftlich. And ‘scholarship’ seems too weak. It would have been so much easier and neater just to stick to ‘science’. I suspect that the editors/translator are just uneasy with Marx’s claim to be wissenschaftlich!

[Trier, August 10, 1841]

My little wild boar,
How glad I am that you are happy, and that my letter made you cheerful, and that you are longing for me, and that you are living in wallpapered rooms, and that you drank champagne in Cologne, and that there are Hegel clubs there, and that you have been dreaming, and that, in short, you are mine, my own sweetheart, my dear wild boar. But for all that there is one thing I miss: you could have praised me a little for my Greek, and you could have devoted a little laudatory article to my erudition. But that is just like you, you Hegeling gentlemen, 212 you don't recognise anything, be it the height of excellence, if it is not exactly according to your view, and so I must be modest and rest on my own laurels. Yes, sweetheart, I have still to rest, alas, and indeed on a feather bed and pillows, and even this little letter is being sent out into the world from my little bed.

Catholic Dictionary

Find accurate definitions of over 5,000 Catholic terms and phrases (including abbreviations). Based on Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Random Term from the Dictionary:

SCHISMATIC

According to Church law, a schismatic is a person who, after receiving baptism and while keeping the name of Christian, pertinaciously refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with those who are subject to him. The two factors, submission to the Pope and association with persons subject to him, are to be taken disjunctively. Either resisting papal authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship induces schism, even without further affiliation with another religious body. Like heresy, schism is formal and culpable only when the obligations are fully realized.

The Christian message could be summed up in a single sentence of Paul's, that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Corinthians 5.19). But this sentence would not make much sense without assuming the fallenness of the world, and hence the need for such reconciliation. Someone has said that the ‘good news’ of the Christian gospel is original sin; that is not a term I use, but it would not be far wrong to say that the good news is the fallenness of God's creation. It is certainly the presupposition of the central message of the gospel, but it is also good news in itself, given that we already know something of what the world is like. At least it is better news than the two main alternatives: that the universe is an accident; or that it is God's Unfallen creation, just what God intended, even — in the immortal words of that ultimate pessimist Leibniz — ‘the best of all possible worlds’. It is quite clear in the New Testament that God is not the ruler of the world (that phrase is reserved for the powers of evil), and that his will is not done on earth. It is astounding that some people interpret the Lord's Prayer as expressing resignation to what will happen anyway by the words ‘Thy will be done’. Nothing could be further from the truth, as is shown by the preceding words ‘Thy kingdom come’ and the qualifying words ‘on earth as it is in Heaven’. Clearly God's kingdom is not yet here, his will is done in Heaven but not yet on earth. It is a prayer for revolution, not resignation. That something in fact happens is not the slightest reason to think that it is God's will. Indeed, Jesus often speaks just as if God the Father were all-knowing and all-loving, but not all-ruling: he knows and cares for every sparrow that falls — but the sparrows go on falling just the same.

tl;dr nobody on the Left should care if you're an atheist or not, but "reddit atheism" usually refers to a particular online-pilled standpoint that resulted from poor sociology, poor philosophy and really poor politics, somewhat understandable for a 14yo but obviously embarrassing for an adult

'Nobody should care if your world-view is subject to arbitrary superstition' is already pretty weird tbh.

I care what and how my fellow electors think. I don't see that I have much of a choice.

Democratic Socialism: fucking libraries and fire departments, dude

Communism: Food lines and oligarchs.

Is the division between philosophy and sacred studies really so airtight as it seems? Yes and no, or rather no and yes. “No,” in the following way: the study of nature (and particularly the study of eloquence) is absolutely necessary for understanding Sacred Scripture–the very Scripture that permits and commands the use of philosophy for Melanchthon–for without some knowledge of languages, grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, one can neither accurately understand nor expound the teaching of Scripture. In fact, this is what Melanchthon says Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 when he instructed the Corinthians to “exercise the gift of tongues.”[47] And so philosophy is useful for understanding the content of Scripture that is already “there” in the text: Melanchthon takes it to be obvious that with the right tools a text can be understood, but also that those tools are requisite for such understanding.

i remember i used to think homophobia wasn't real and it was all a joke until some people actually told me its real i was so shocked

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one o my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

Hasan hates anyone in the elected Left because they actually can't just critique power but attempt to weld it. Piker just hates Dems, Wynn on the other hand has transitioned to Woke II understanding the importance of winning and welding power. It's not enough to critique we must actively build

Hegel's Ladder, Volume I, An Apologetic Preface

We must hang on to the truth in Labarriere's view when we face Hoffmeister's gloomy warning that "all those who do not have a comprehensive and precise knowledge of German cultural history, especially from the Enlightenment onwards, lack the necessary prerequisites for the understanding of this work." I am well aware that I do not have, and could never achieve, the sort of comprehensive and precise knowledge of the cultural background that Hoffmeister and some of his successors among German Hegel scholars and editors possess. I envy them, because that kind of cultural grasp deepens one's understanding and enriches one's enjoyment. But to suppose that this is the essential thing is to deny that a "Science of experience" is possible, and to set one's feet on the downhill path towards the great bonfire of "deconstruction." Deconstruction is not a new concept in Hegel studies. Scholars have been practising it on the "Science of experience" since Haym's time ( 1857), if not earlier. It is a primrose path-and perhaps all "systems" must end up on the bonfire. But I have not willingly and consciously spent half of my life going downhill. My own endeavor here-in the "long commentary"-will be to interpret the text with as much relevant empirical knowledge as I can muster about Hegel's own thought-world, but to interpret it in terms of my own quite different cultural background. If Hegel did make something like a logical science out of his own experience, then it seems to me that this experiment ought to work; and if, or insofar as, it does, the reader will have some plausible evidence in support of the claim that Hegel's book is what it pretends to be.

I can run a detailed simulation of kidney function, exquisitely accurate down to the molecular level, on the very iMac I am using to write these words. But no sane person will think that my iMac might suddenly urinate on my desk upon running the simulation, no matter how accurate the latter is. After all, a simulation of kidney function is not kidney function; it’s a simulation thereof, incommensurable with the thing simulated. We all understand this difference without difficulty in the case of urine production. But when it comes to consciousness, some suddenly part with their capacity for critical reasoning: they think that a simulation of the patterns of information flow in a human brain might actually become conscious like the human brain. How peculiar.

I once saw Zizek give a lecture over 10 years ago and Peter Singer was in attendance and asked him a question at the end. In Zizek’s response he says “BTW I know you just wrote a book on Hegel. I’m never going to read it, I know it’s crap”. He goes on to explain how he thought Singer misreads all the metaphysics but was hilarious / shocking to see such a public insult

Promoting its developers was a trademark of EA's early days. Games were sold in square packages modeled after album covers (such as those for 1983's M.U.L.E. and Pinball Construction Set).[18] Hawkins thought the packaging would both save costs and convey an artistic feeling.[18] EA routinely referred to their developers as "artists" and gave them photo credits in their games and full-page magazine ads. Their first such ad, accompanied by the slogan "We see farther," was the first video game advertisement to feature software designers.[17] EA shared lavish profits with its developers, which added to its industry appeal.

You do not understand this, holy men? We shall explain to you. The terror of Tsarism was directed against the proletariat. The gendarmerie of Tsarism throttled the workers who were fighting for the Socialist order. Our Extraordinary Commissions shoot landlords, capitalists, and generals who are striving to restore the capitalist order. Do you grasp this ... distinction? Yes? For us Communists it is quite sufficient.
The revolution “logically” does not demand terrorism.

Just as “logically” it does not demand an armed insurrection. What a profound commonplace! But the revolution does require of the revolutionary class that it should attain its end by all methods at its disposal – if necessary, by an armed rising: if required, by terrorism. A revolutionary class which has conquered power with arms in its hands is bound to, and will, suppress, rifle in hand, all attempts to tear the power out of its hands. Where it has against it a hostile army, it will oppose to it its own army. Where it is confronted with armed conspiracy, attempt at murder, or rising, it will hurl at the heads of its enemies an unsparing penalty. Perhaps Kautsky has invented other methods? Or does he reduce the whole question to the degree of repression, and recommend in all circumstances imprisonment instead of execution?

Hegel scholarship

Although Harris came to Hegel late in his career, once he did "his attention to detail was exceptional": "Hegel’s Development: Toward the Sunlight 1770–1801 explored every text from Hegel’s early years, and showed both their internal logic but also how each one contributed to the need to push further. It has become the standard reference work on that period of Hegel’s life."[3] The same would be true of its sequel, Hegel’s Development: Night Thoughts (Jena 1801–1806).

Harris's next major project, a two-volume commentary on The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel's Ladder (vol. 1, The Pilgrimage of Reason, and vol. 2, The Odyssey of Spirit), was likewise received with critical acclaim. Introducing a collection of essays on the Phenomenology dedicated to H. S. Harris, Kenneth R. Westphal writes,

Hegel's Ladder is a landmark. Hegel's texts are notoriously rich, compressed, systematic, and rife with allusions. Harris identified a wealth of Hegel's profuse sources and shows why and how Hegel used them; his commentary demonstrates the decompression and detailed explication Hegel's text deserves and requires.[4]

The Gardiner recording, from 1982, is impressive for the technical prowess of all the performers, but there are a couple of nagging points for me that keeps this set from becoming my favorite. The foremost is the coldness of the performance - although it is technically perfect - the tempos, soloists, orchestra and chorus are all textbook examples of how clean and precise Messiah can sound; yet under Gardiner's direction there is no passion, substance, or meaning afforded to the text. Handel was not necessarily a devoutly religious man, although reputed to be a committed Lutheran, but he *was* an experienced theatrical composer, and the Messiah was arguably meant to be sung with drama - yet the conductor here chooses to avoid emotional readings of the text, instead opting for clean diction, precise pitches, mild dynamic changes, and fluid, stately tempos. Gardiner here serves the music with a sure master's hand, but in so doing, he slights the message of the text which is equally important. While the performance was beautiful to listen to, it made little emotional connection with me. And for me, music (and Messiah in particular) has the power to uplift the soul.

My other small quibble is the vocal quality of Charles Brett, the counter-tenor, whose tone is oddly dissimilar to the rest of the performance. It's lovely and precisely performed, but I found myself pulled out of the performance, and concentrating on his distinctive tonal quality, rather than the text or the music.
On the plus side however, is the gorgeous blend of the choir and orchestra, the wonderful, surprising use of a treble on "And Lo, There Were Shepherds", the commanding unity of the conductor and his forces, and the still impressive sonic presence of the recording, even after twenty-plus years. Overall, I recommend this recording for it's stellar qualities, even if I am left with the impression that despite the messianic message of the text, nobody here really believes what they are singing. ~ BDW

screenshot of Starcraft 1.16.1

But at least the battle lines are clear. Every Democrat is going to have to ask themselves: Do I support the moral realism of the mainstream Democrats, with their pragmatic reformist temper, or do I support the progressives, with their utopian belief in human perfectibility and their willingness to concentrate power in order to take aggressive action on behalf of social justice?

I was the kind of kid who had a Hubert Humphrey poster on my bedroom wall (I know, I know), so I’m on team moral realism. I’m a big fan of the virtue of humility and get a little nervous when I run across people who think they are so smart that they can redesign society from the ground up.

anyone who believes Graham Platner is credibly accused of rape, which is the entire liberal-left media and political class, by necessity also has to believe that Genocide Joe Biden is a rapist, as the evidence against him is at least as strong as and actually much stronger and corroborated than the evidence against Platner. But AOCIA and the entire liberal left media class endorsed Biden and said everyone must forget about the whole "believe women" thing.

Spinozism is, in the field of metaphysics, what Catholicism is in the field of hyperphysics—the most systematic version.
—Reinhold (1786–1787), IV, BKP, 137

I further observe, that if we go beyond the I am, we necessarily arrive at Spinozism (that, when fully thought out, the system of Leibniz is nothing other than Spinozism, is shown in a valuable essay by Salomon Maimon . . . ); and that there are only two completely consistent systems: the critical, which recognizes this boundary, and the Spinozistic, which oversteps it.
—Fichte (1964– ), I/2, GW 101

Now for a reply to your question as to whether I believe we cannot get to a personal being by means of the moral proof. . . . For you the question has surely long since been decided. For us as well the orthodox concepts of God are no more. My reply is that we get even further than a personal Being. I have in the interim become a Spinozist! Do not be astonished. You will soon hear how.
—Schelling, Letter to Hegel, February 4, 1795 in Hegel (1953), Briefe I, Letter 9