I agree its fucking weird, but that’s not what commodity fetishism is
I agree its fucking weird, but that’s not what commodity fetishism is
Red Scare isn’t even a leftist podcast lmao. But yeah, I believe it.
I think people greatly inflate the relationship between Rojava/YPG and the US to come to this conclusion. The US has effectively abandoned the kurds at this point and maintain that the PKK (the group Ocalan created) are terrorists. (Read some of Ocalan’s writings, maybe you won’t like all of it, but he isn’t an American op lmao.) I don’t know what the feds would gain from PissPigGranddad convincing a bunch of online leftists into tacit support for American presence in Syria. I get it helps with the anti-assad/anti-russia push, but the anti-russia stance is ingrained in the American psyche without any additional propaganda needed. Also, no one gives a shit what leftists oppose/support in the USA. The Iraq war protests failed to do anything, and we have never seen a push against war like that since.
Anyone associated with Bellingcat is fed-friendly tho. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Thiel money has made its way through the leftist podcast scene, but at times this feels like when libs were foaming at the mouth because so and so donated $20 to Trump or some shit.
At the end of the day podcasts, like all other forms of media, are simply part of the spectacle. The capitalist machine consumes all.
Is it ever used unironically? I just can’t imagine anyone who isn’t twitch-youtube poisoned would ever say these words. But I thought the same about tankie, and we at a minimum of one federal election from a democrat using it.
“Why do you have a tattoo of a table?”
“A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noonda y, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, everyda y thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table turning” ever was.”
:what: