Little question, there's a paragraph in section 4 where he briefly says that New England is more dense than India, even though India is more dense in the way we usually mean the term because of the development of 'means of communication.' Is this basically just a way of talking about density in terms of socialized production? That's how I took it, at least, because it seems like the way he talks about it he means to point out that the economy of New England is more interconnected, even if it has fewer people. Am I way off?
Doubledee
joined 3 years ago
It's actually not that hard, it just looks intimidating. I think the graphics make a huge difference, it's a lot more intuitive now than it ever was pre-steam.
But I think some of that is semantic gatekeeping. In the US things are often cast as more liberal or more conservative but this serves to contain acceptable political ideas inside a relatively narrow window. If socialists are just "more liberal" than democratic politicians then the distinction between them (namely that socialists are ideologically opposed to the goals of DNC politicians) then their actual opposition us hidden behind a smokescreen, where we just want a stronger version of what they claim to want.
It is to their advantage for people to believe these are the available options, the only things people can seriously want for society.
It's also totally not strategically important at all guys, we fought to the last minute to hold a completely pointless objective. This is all part of the plan guys.
Is there any plan in the works to take this stuff back? Like, they spent months hyping the spring offensive (do they still have any of that territory? I thought I read Russia was retaking it) but I'm not hearing anything about their plans to regain the initiative. If their position is only going to degrade from here they might want to consider negotiations.
I guess they didn't need to make the main protagonist a white dude
Max is more a point of view character than a hero per se. It's really Furiosa's story, he has an arc but he's more there to witness their struggle than to upstage anyone. In my opinion at least.
The Young Capitalist in question:
In [bad country] the people have to vote for the regime even when it is abetting genocide or they risk being punished by the state.
I'll never forget being taken to the office at the grocery store and told I wasn't stocking the shelves good enough to get a $0.25 raise, and they would only give me an extra dime per hour. I was barely above minimum wage. And these people said we were a family which is why we didn't need a union. Literally nickel and diming me, telling me to my face that my work didn't deserve like a dollar a shift more than they would do by default.
They're bad. It's literally the flailing attempt of evangelicalism to rebrand and save their declining numbers through advertising. Just rich Christians thinking they can boost numbers by acting like they think good things instead of all the bad things that their churches actually say and do.
More like He Gets Sus indeed.
My understanding is that it's a question of which variable you're tweaking. If you're making the work day longer you're getting more absolute surplus, you're changing the amount by adding a flat amount of labor power over time.
By contrast relative surplus comes from making labor power cheaper and increasing the proportion of the day that is surplus value without extending the time a person works.
I think.
My understanding is the personnel the US deployed were in a support role so a tech guy could conceivably be part of it. Intelligence sharing and stuff, you know, telling the IOF where all the UN refugee camps are so they can hit them with white phosphorus.