Some weird, German communist, hello. Obsessed with philosophy (German Idealism and its subsequent evolutions) and history (mainly everything since the French Revolution), as well as the Fediverse. Secondarily obsessed with video games as a cultural medium. Also somewhat able to program, but not that good.

  • 30 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 1st, 2025

help-circle

  • I mean - kind of? I do agree a lot of “reaction” content is bottom-of-the barrel shit, but it’s not like this one is just making funny faces and going “woaaah, nonono, they didn’t!!” or something. He does use the video as a jumping off point for his own commentary, providing his own perspectives (those segments are also edited with cuts, showing this wasn’t just turning their webcam on and rambling without any evaluation later). Just roughly looking through the preview thumbnails hovering over the video progress bar, easily more than 50% is talking about topics in the reacted video without even the reacted-to footage on screen.






  • Hab das mal sehr grob überflogen, die interessanten/relevanten Anteile beginnen ab Seite 35. In der Tat ein eher oberflächliches Verständnis von Marx u. Engels in der Begründung, wie im Artikel erwähnt wurden anscheinend “www.staatslexikon-online” [sic] und das Kommunistische Manifest herangezogen, um das relevante - die grundlegende Unvereinbarkeit von Marx und GG - zu begründen.

    Andere Sachen beim Überfliegen, wie in wie Weit sich nicht ausreichend von alten Publikationen distanziert wurde, kann ich nicht beurteilen.

    Aber das Verständnis von Marx und Engels Werken, wie hier formuliert, ist meines Erachtens tatsächlich so oberflächlich, dass es an sich nicht zu einer blanko-Einstufung der Verfassunsfeindlichkeit taugen sollte. Gerade der späte Marx und Engels haben da durchaus differenziertere Beiträge geleistet. Es wirkt auf mich so, wie die Denker und Prinzipien der Französischen Revolution als grundlegend und gänzlich unvereinbar einzustufen, mit Bezug auf einzelne von Aussagen von Robespierre und die Terrorherrschaft während der Revolution.






























  • Humans just can’t seem to stop being dicks

    It’s interesting, because the work itself seems to have the exact opposite thesis: Humans on average aren’t dicks, but inequality and the interests of a few elites with essentially personality disorders the way he frames it, amplify our worst tendencies. For many thousands of years of pre-history, archaeological evidence and anthropological observations clearly show humanity in much more egalitarian societies. The example he uses is of the Khoisan people:

    All Goliaths, however, contain the seeds of their own demise, he says: “They are cursed and this is because of inequality.” Inequality does not arise because all people are greedy. They are not, he says. The Khoisan peoples in southern Africa, for example, shared and preserved common lands for thousands of years despite the temptation to grab more.

    Instead, it is the few people high in the dark triad who fall into races for resources, arms and status, he says. “Then as elites extract more wealth from the people and the land, they make societies more fragile, leading to infighting, corruption, immiseration of the masses, less healthy people, overexpansion, environmental degradation and poor decision making by a small oligarchy. The hollowed-out shell of a society is eventually cracked asunder by shocks such as disease, war or climate change.”

    In general, it’s not a very controversial take, that the current (i.e. of the past ~5k years) inequality did not arise as a natural state but became only possible through surplus.