@exiliaex by defining a proleyariat and a bad proletariat, you do the same thing as selling a cereal and a cereal without asbestos - the descriptor on the second redefines the first

@exiliaex https://xkcd.com/641/ in this case the analogy is inverted but w/e

@errante lmao no

@errante is there such a thing as a rotten fruit or vegetable? is there still purpose in categorizing apples together even if some apples are rotten? i think so. the proletariat isnt 'the good guys' its just a class descriptor.

@errante the lumpen aren't the bad guys, they just aren't, functionally, to capital-society, the same kind of position. as a class, their interests tend to culminate differently. i personally tend to lean towards the lumpen side of this, if we're using a marxist formulation, but i don't think a marxist formulation is the only useful one here (and plenty of marxists *don't* think lumpen are "counter-revolutionary, just so you know)

@errante anyways, it's fine if you don't like the marxist angle, i think it has usefulness. and i think you do yourself a disservice by disregarding it in the way that you do, without apprehending its actual place historically. but you certainly don't have to engage with it if you don't want to, but i'd really like to ask you to please refrain from pretending like just because i use a marxist-discourse that means i believe everything the last marxist you listened to believes. because i'm not a marxist.

@exiliaex oh im.not saying youre a maexist. youre reading into a subtext that doesnt exist

@exiliaex the fsct that they accept the lumpen as existin gin the firsy place is the problem

also the lumpen are absolutely the bad guys because anyone counter revolutionary is a bad guy to a marxist. thats why they throw the term at peoole they dislike

@errante but not all marxists define the lumpen as counter revolutionary.

@exiliaex thwy still define em as an underclass! they still define em seperately to some notion of prole where no such clear line can be drawn

@errante because their relation to production in relation to the capital and value valorization process is different!

@exiliaex im goong to kill myself i hate talking to polecoomers go talk to my gf she loves polecon @driftwood

@errante @driftwood its important to understand polecon so our politics dont replicate polecon!!!! the separation between lumpen and proles is a separation that only exists due to value-production and its need to self-valorize!!! this is why i like using a marxist discourse! this is its use!!!

@exiliaex @driftwood uou sound like a poleconer and i hate them sorry

@errante @driftwood i haven't said almost anything wrt political economy in so long. can you find me a post of mine that does so?

@exiliaex @driftwood > because their relation to production in relation to the capital and value valorization process is different!

@errante @driftwood yeah, i was trying to show you the usefulness a marxist angle could have in analyzing the motions of the proccesses and forces around us. you brought up lumpen as a way to discredit marxism. i didn't bring them up.

@errante @driftwood anyways, you don't follow me and you don't care so i don't care about this conversation anymore. have nice day.

@exiliaex @driftwood i do care 😔 just i am a famed anti-intellectual in political terms

@errante @driftwood i mean, you quite literally don't care about my actual opinion, this entire thread has been you offended that i might sorta come off like a group you don't like because i sometimes use some of the same terms and comment on some of the same discourses. its a little annoying.

@exiliaex @driftwood do you think i was offended? shit lol i need tl change how i come across

@errante @exiliaex eris says im a polecon-er and that's true to the extent i have done volume 1 and really like heinrich, but i've been very distracted off the topic generally lately, so i don't think i have a much cogent anything to discuss on it lol

im glad to see you're actually hanging out more in fedi doe, s' neat

@driftwood @exiliaex but we met talking about polecon D:

@errante @exiliaex i just mean that it's a wide wide topic that i used to be more willing to talk about because i was routinely reading up on it, mostly marx and commentaries on him; and planning to branch out into so many other adjacent areas of philosophy but that, yknow, if i haven't picked up anything on the realm of it in like a year by now? im not going to be able to really follow a conversation on it, even just because of my bad memory

i remember being awestruck by the simple yet seemingly unescapable explanation for how commodity production necessarily begets money, and im sure if i go back and go over it again ill be just as convinced, but i couldn't explain it to someone now without opening myself to a lot of (legitimate!) hard questions asking me to elaborate that i would struggle to answer

@errante @exiliaex as i have adapted the expression for myself, to say that i am an X-er mostly just signals "i find it a really interesting topic", so in that sense, sure, i still am someone into polecon