It's over?

always was.

medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.21.22277864v1
got the link
Findings: We identified widespread surface contamination (66 positive out of 73 samples) in occupied patient rooms (MPXV DNA Ct values 24·7-38·6), on healthcare worker personal protective equipment after use, and in doffing areas (Ct 26·3-34·3). Five out of fifteen air samples taken were positive. Significantly, three of four air samples collected during a bed linen change in one patient’s room were positive (Ct 32·7-35·8). Replication-competent virus was identified in two of four samples selected for viral isolation, including from air samples collected during the bed linen change.

not peer reviewed yet apparently but looks to me like monkeypox is airborne

the evolution of soyjack posting on far right twitter into whatever in the name of god its current form is needs to be studied for generations as a cautionary tail of social feedback loops

Look here soyjack

it needs to be erased from collective memory

never forget the soyjack race war of 2021? 2020?

literally incomprehensible to parse

Tbfh

Wait i vaguely remember this

Didn't far-right mfs get mad bc black people started using wojaks

Why so

I can promise you the latest iteration is so insanely esoteric it is nuts literally Schizo cave paintings tier

While I think its a classic and great primer for budding leftists, the people in my life who cant go a sentence without telling someone they read it are far more inclined to watch some freshman’s video essay on how capitalism ruins the dating scene than they are to critically engage with theory/history any further.

It’s become a book for someone who wants to know just enough to feel justified in being a hyperbolic narcissist

Link

Nah i agree w that a lot of people take the wrong message from it and get very annoying about it

twitter.com/Otosan69100504 click the media tab and scroll through this guy's account

what could this possibly be alluding to

ctfu

i think capitalist realism is more interesting in a "death of the author" meta fashion than it is as something to taken as "theory" or social commentary itself. it's captivating from the perspective of reading how the monolith of capitalism was so pervasive and challenging that it poses itself as this crushingly nihilistic social challenge to Fischer, and likewise that many other people likely experience the same alienation and associated depression. Past that I wouldn't read it as some enlightening theory or something

It's a good introduction for new leftists i'd say

It doesn't contribute much new, but it's basically a grear summary of concepts that already existed

The problem in thinking with third worldists who say that all first workers are labor aristocracy, and that social democracy in the west is especially dependent on this, is the idea that the only way to increas the share of western workers get is to offset this by decreasing the share that workers in colonized countries get. It ignores the obvious fact that social democracy in the west mostly depends on redistributing wealth within the country itself, which is why social democracy leads to less inequality within those countries. It totally ignores class contradictions within these countries, why would the ruling class oppose these reforms if it didn't cut into their wealth?

If western social democracy actually was only possible by increasing superprofits from the third world, then that would lead to some bizarre conclusions of what stances communists should take in the west. We would have to oppose any and all social programs in the west and advocate for dismantling them, because since these benefits are the result of higher superexploitation of workers in the third world, it would alleviate their exploitation.

It sounds so obvious, but I've heard so many people say this, even those who don't necessarily self-identify as third worldists and it really makes no sense.

With thay being said I think most rebuttals to these third worldist theories often fall short a lot of times since they try to deny the existence of a labor aristocracy altogether.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

A lot of these people point to this essay of Lenin, but he never argues that the whole of the working class in imperialist countries are part of the labor aristocracy. Idk why but these days I see most people either completely reject the idea of a labor aristocracy, or say that all workers in imperialist countries are part of the labor aristocracy. Obviously it can be true that workers benefit from things like unequal exchange, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit more from ending their own exploitation than they would lose from getting rid of imperialism.