Then you should really read up on some earlier communist literature to try and understand why the phrase “endorsement of neoliberal social relationships” in relationship to Star Trek is just plain stupid in any social framework, especially a post liberal left understanding.
I would try to address a substantive contribution to discussion.
I will not deconstruct your Gish gallop, straw man attacks, quote mining, ad-hominem attacks or assumptions, or other poisoning of the well.
Perhaps read again, from beginning to end, and then try to engage my remarks on their merits and in good faith, instead of building your own narrative after anchoring to few particular words.
you make assumptions about the structure and reason for relationships and work, on the relationship front, your statement makes absolutely no sense due to the very real lack of relationship between your point and political ideologies.
On the work front, you quite literally ignore any and all left philosophical musings that are post liberalism, as many if not all argue that work IS needed for a fulfilling life, Marx for example, argued the optimization, monotony, and exploitativness of the modern workplace has led to the alienation of labor, and a free society should allow people to work in many different fields of interest for, (you guessed it) greater fulfillment.
and THEN you went and tried to box this whole thing into an argument about class consciousness via cultural framing, and this is as wrong as you can be, this is why I recommended you read some more of the earlier literature, because it goes into things like the philosophical thought behind all this stuff, along with the analysis of material conditions and so on.
Sorry, but you have again provided a Gish gallop unrelated to the substance of my comment.
First you ranted about anarchism, money, and vanguardism, and now about labor alienation.
I specifically criticized the normalization of particular cultural constructs, such serial monogamy and career trajectory, that have become dominant under neoliberalism.
Did I assert an expectation for money to remain in the distant future?
Did I suggest that no one seeks meaning from productive activity?
No and no.
Did I ever “describe a post capital society as neoliberal”?
Big fat fucking “No!”
It is not worthwhile for me to unpack any more deeply.
Perhaps you enjoy pontification and pedantry, but you seem uninterested in discussing or engaging in good faith.
but you seem uninterested in discussing or engaging in good faith.
what exactly are you on about? you not understanding what liberalism, neoliberalism, class consciousness etc… actually mean is not me arguing in bad faith, I told you SEVERAL times that they clearly don’t mean what you think they mean and that you should read up on the subject mater.
and I’m sorry, but monogamy and career advancement isn’t an exclusive to neoliberalism (you really think that only happened post thatcher?)
and ironically in a communist system career advancement is still a thing.
you not understanding what liberalism, neoliberalism, class consciousness etc… actually mean is not me arguing in bad faith, I told you SEVERAL times that they clearly don’t mean what you think
it doesn’t matter what you think it means, in the same way you believing an elephant is something other than a large quadrupedal mammal with large ears and a long prehensile nose.
so if you are talking about elephants and then talking about the effectivity of their claws and the hunting territory they maintain via markings on trees, it could be one of many other animals, but not an elephant.
I don’t need to start guessing at whatever animal you have miss identified as an elephant, to tell you it isn’t an elephant.
concepts like long term monogamy or the idea of a career arn’t inherently part of Liberalism nor neoliberalism, and only the career part tangentially part of class consciousness
You affirmed a belief of my not knowing the meanings of certain terms.
If you gave such an assertion, and did so in good faith, then you should be able to give an explanation of how I am understanding the terms.
Arguably, you should have sought more information before anchoring to such an narrow conclusion.
What has been your motive in responding to my comment?
Is your motive closer to an interest in broadening perspective and comprehension, or is it rather closer to an impulse for fostering discord and division?
No part or facet of your response has any relation to the substance of my comment.
Then you should really read up on some earlier communist literature to try and understand why the phrase “endorsement of neoliberal social relationships” in relationship to Star Trek is just plain stupid in any social framework, especially a post liberal left understanding.
I would try to address a substantive contribution to discussion.
I will not deconstruct your Gish gallop, straw man attacks, quote mining, ad-hominem attacks or assumptions, or other poisoning of the well.
Perhaps read again, from beginning to end, and then try to engage my remarks on their merits and in good faith, instead of building your own narrative after anchoring to few particular words.
you make assumptions about the structure and reason for relationships and work, on the relationship front, your statement makes absolutely no sense due to the very real lack of relationship between your point and political ideologies.
On the work front, you quite literally ignore any and all left philosophical musings that are post liberalism, as many if not all argue that work IS needed for a fulfilling life, Marx for example, argued the optimization, monotony, and exploitativness of the modern workplace has led to the alienation of labor, and a free society should allow people to work in many different fields of interest for, (you guessed it) greater fulfillment.
and THEN you went and tried to box this whole thing into an argument about class consciousness via cultural framing, and this is as wrong as you can be, this is why I recommended you read some more of the earlier literature, because it goes into things like the philosophical thought behind all this stuff, along with the analysis of material conditions and so on.
Sorry, but you have again provided a Gish gallop unrelated to the substance of my comment.
First you ranted about anarchism, money, and vanguardism, and now about labor alienation.
I specifically criticized the normalization of particular cultural constructs, such serial monogamy and career trajectory, that have become dominant under neoliberalism.
Did I assert an expectation for money to remain in the distant future?
Did I suggest that no one seeks meaning from productive activity?
No and no.
Did I ever “describe a post capital society as neoliberal”?
Big fat fucking “No!”
It is not worthwhile for me to unpack any more deeply.
Perhaps you enjoy pontification and pedantry, but you seem uninterested in discussing or engaging in good faith.
what exactly are you on about? you not understanding what liberalism, neoliberalism, class consciousness etc… actually mean is not me arguing in bad faith, I told you SEVERAL times that they clearly don’t mean what you think they mean and that you should read up on the subject mater.
and I’m sorry, but monogamy and career advancement isn’t an exclusive to neoliberalism (you really think that only happened post thatcher?) and ironically in a communist system career advancement is still a thing.
What do I think they mean?
it doesn’t matter what you think it means, in the same way you believing an elephant is something other than a large quadrupedal mammal with large ears and a long prehensile nose. so if you are talking about elephants and then talking about the effectivity of their claws and the hunting territory they maintain via markings on trees, it could be one of many other animals, but not an elephant. I don’t need to start guessing at whatever animal you have miss identified as an elephant, to tell you it isn’t an elephant.
concepts like long term monogamy or the idea of a career arn’t inherently part of Liberalism nor neoliberalism, and only the career part tangentially part of class consciousness
You affirmed a belief of my not knowing the meanings of certain terms.
If you gave such an assertion, and did so in good faith, then you should be able to give an explanation of how I am understanding the terms.
Arguably, you should have sought more information before anchoring to such an narrow conclusion.
What has been your motive in responding to my comment?
Is your motive closer to an interest in broadening perspective and comprehension, or is it rather closer to an impulse for fostering discord and division?