This weirdly alleviated the social anx that I awoke with. The concept seems so natural and obvious but is foreshadowed by how my subjectivity situates me within the big other (which feels at times like the vast endless monolithic other). Thankyou
I think what todd says is therapeutic and more helpful than psychology. As far as i understand this school of thought and despite my newbie status. I remember reading camus and getting hit in the solar plexus with regards to an existential perspective on human loneliness. Michel Houellebecq s musings on modern alienation is really depressing but todds perspective on it is more sensible and uplifting.
Todd mentioned that non-belonging is related to but not exactly the idea of split subject, would've been nice some extrapolation on that, to me at least it seems a much less problematic base for universality than this non-belonging that always includes the struggle for belonging / doesn't really do away with belonging. Great event, I'm subscribed!
@@litcrit6704 it’s a joke-that Todd’s library is very large. It isn’t reading itself which is emasculating, it’s that his library size implies a well-read mind.
i can't believe milner would make such an incorrect generalization about the relation of communism to peasants. communism survived and eventually won in china due to support in the countryside after the massacre and defeat in the urban-industrial areas
Communism is not as generally thought a worker's or peasant's movement, it is that only namely. In reality it's vice versa a movement of the peasants/workers by the cadre of not-succeeded-to-belong and then not-even-willing-to-belong 'intelligentsija', often belonging to the over-excess of the educated of the society, the drop-outs for the different reasons, not the most brilliant ones. The movement of the peasants/workers meaning the constant mobilization and transforming of them by those cadres, in the name of them, yet only namely. The purpose of the communists is not so much to change the society, but the people. They want to create a new kind of man, to create them to be the images of them in a way, just without any intelligence of them, or any other intelligence, for that matter, the own intelligence the least. Its only a myth the communist cadres know what they are doing and where they are heading to. In reality they don't know nothing about the goal they are pictureing to their object of mobilization and transforming, the masses. They are fundamentally reactionary only, and one of the main necessities for the communists in power is to cover and camouflage that by all the means they have. That produces all that kitsch and all the tasteless and child esque ridiculities there is to the outside observer's eye, and mind, to try to make sense of the nonsensity which is trying to appear as the highest and the last, and then as the everlasting, sense there is.
Well China subscribed to big “C” communism, they are by definition state-party capitalist-their economy is paternalistic and infantilizing far more than it is egalitarian or emancipatory in nature. China is a market economy with high levels of central planning-Xi is ruler for life potentially (with his removal of term limits) and has taken the country back from Deng’s liberalism into a heavily top down, conservative direction under a surveillance state style dictatorship which: neuters the independence of alternative politics parties, silences any party dissent, censors the internet and media, and entirely controls the state sponsored union allowing no autonomous bodies to emerge within the working world. Xi may not be engaging in such brute colonialism or imperialism abroad like other western countries have done, but the CCP has no democratic accountability to its people and systems which allow no light to reach in are not what I would name “communist”-they are Stalinist in nature, nationalistic cult of personality systems, rather than liberatory movements I’d say.
In China is impossible to change the Comunist Party, but they can change the polítics, in USA they can change the partys but the politics stays the same. 2 bad choices
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
This weirdly alleviated the social anx that I awoke with. The concept seems so natural and obvious but is foreshadowed by how my subjectivity situates me within the big other (which feels at times like the vast endless monolithic other). Thankyou
I think what todd says is therapeutic and more helpful than psychology. As far as i understand this school of thought and despite my newbie status. I remember reading camus and getting hit in the solar plexus with regards to an existential perspective on human loneliness. Michel Houellebecq s musings on modern alienation is really depressing but todds perspective on it is more sensible and uplifting.
Todd mentioned that non-belonging is related to but not exactly the idea of split subject, would've been nice some extrapolation on that, to me at least it seems a much less problematic base for universality than this non-belonging that always includes the struggle for belonging / doesn't really do away with belonging. Great event, I'm subscribed!
I understood not belonging as an existential experience of not fully fitting into the social (symbolic) order... and not a member of state
Todd’s library is absolutely emasculating..
fucks me up too
How does reading emasculate you?
@@litcrit6704 it’s a joke-that Todd’s library is very large. It isn’t reading itself which is emasculating, it’s that his library size implies a well-read mind.
@@nightoftheworld Sorry! I misread that comment! With youtube comments you always end up assuming the worst in people.
@@litcrit6704 yes always easy to misread on here, no inflections either for sarcasm etc. thanks for defending reading tho hah
i can't believe milner would make such an incorrect generalization about the relation of communism to peasants. communism survived and eventually won in china due to support in the countryside after the massacre and defeat in the urban-industrial areas
Communism is not as generally thought a worker's or peasant's movement, it is that only namely. In reality it's vice versa a movement of the peasants/workers by the cadre of not-succeeded-to-belong and then not-even-willing-to-belong 'intelligentsija', often belonging to the over-excess of the educated of the society, the drop-outs for the different reasons, not the most brilliant ones. The movement of the peasants/workers meaning the constant mobilization and transforming of them by those cadres, in the name of them, yet only namely. The purpose of the communists is not so much to change the society, but the people. They want to create a new kind of man, to create them to be the images of them in a way, just without any intelligence of them, or any other intelligence, for that matter, the own intelligence the least. Its only a myth the communist cadres know what they are doing and where they are heading to. In reality they don't know nothing about the goal they are pictureing to their object of mobilization and transforming, the masses. They are fundamentally reactionary only, and one of the main necessities for the communists in power is to cover and camouflage that by all the means they have. That produces all that kitsch and all the tasteless and child esque ridiculities there is to the outside observer's eye, and mind, to try to make sense of the nonsensity which is trying to appear as the highest and the last, and then as the everlasting, sense there is.
@@HelsinkiFINketeli_berlin_com lol. what do you smoke?
@@telemahos2 I smoke Pall Mall Red rolled into Rizla Bamboo paper.
Well China subscribed to big “C” communism, they are by definition state-party capitalist-their economy is paternalistic and infantilizing far more than it is egalitarian or emancipatory in nature.
China is a market economy with high levels of central planning-Xi is ruler for life potentially (with his removal of term limits) and has taken the country back from Deng’s liberalism into a heavily top down, conservative direction under a surveillance state style dictatorship which: neuters the independence of alternative politics parties, silences any party dissent, censors the internet and media, and entirely controls the state sponsored union allowing no autonomous bodies to emerge within the working world.
Xi may not be engaging in such brute colonialism or imperialism abroad like other western countries have done, but the CCP has no democratic accountability to its people and systems which allow no light to reach in are not what I would name “communist”-they are Stalinist in nature, nationalistic cult of personality systems, rather than liberatory movements I’d say.
In China is impossible to change the Comunist Party, but they can change the polítics, in USA they can change the partys but the politics stays the same. 2 bad choices