Nietzsche was an idealist, he can explain the logic of resentment in the ideological world, but you miss the material cause, which is not merely biology, which hasn't changed too much in the last hundred years, but rather increasing atomization by capitalism
-
-
Replying to @RealEnverHoxha
Marx was more adept at arithmetic, but Nietzsche dates better.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
And there you go again, comparing thinkers like Hollywood directors instead of looking at the real world and their insights about it. In terms of nagles insights, you have to put them into the context of increasing social isolation and loneliness http://spectrerouge.com/index.php/2017/10/11/revolt-of-the-lonely-masses/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RealEnverHoxha
In the "real world" the value of a subnormal human individual is dropping off a cliff.
2 replies 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @RealEnverHoxha
... It's no longer politically feasible to "exploit" the ill-constituted at an intensity that makes economic sense (so they're a dead-weight social loss).
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
I would question that, considering the amount that still have jobs. Those that don't still serve the purpose of capitalism by driving down wages. Capitalism, after all, loves surplus population.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RealEnverHoxha
"Population" is an egalitarian myth. There are human resources, and there's dead weight.
2 replies 4 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @RealEnverHoxha
... "If you're breathing Capital has a use for you" is a dying Marxist myth. (The Chinese junked it in 1979.)
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @RealEnverHoxha
... I mean, carry on, but you know it's bullshit. Marx already did (as evidenced by his "average socially-necessary labor-time" circumlocution.)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
Use whatever shorthand you want, having a larger population means more "human resources" as you call it, Marx was right about socially necessary labor time, as he was about the need for large concentrations of people for industry and capitalist production
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Or you can just select for high-quality labor through international arbitrage (as Capital does). Then you get a Chinese "economic miracle" and other things, elsewhere.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness
Chinese labor is not of a higher quality than labor elsewhere, it is simply cheaper. American factories often had higher productivity
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.