Pennpapersylvania, its an idylic woodland where people play tabletop rpgs in an appropriately ambient setting

Where I've lived, mostly people who can afford to pay do so, and those that can't but still need to get somewhere, try not to pay.

Currently I don't pay, partly because its very expensive (1/2 an hours work), but also because I work for a private company who had significant public funds invested and assistance given in order to exist in that location. So everyone has already paid for my employer in that sense - I don't see why I shouldn't also be subsidised, with the same logic that business tax returns will eventually make up for the public investment. Also, my public transit runs promotions for various other recreational events where people who are going get free transport, so again I assume that there's no reason this shouldn't also apply to myself, to go to work.

Really, I have the position that I (and others) already pay enough in tax to competantly run public utilities, its the people at the top & private sector that are making it difficult to function by their theft and enclosures, so they can sort that out before I'd think about paying. It annoys me that companies don't pay for transport for workers - they used to when they were more desperate & conditions were different, like with worker's buses etc. Now everyone is expected to have a car & pay extortionate fees and taxes for that too, to get to work so the owners can make money from them.

I don't necessarily disagree with your first paragraph, but isn't it more that materialism denies unevidenced or particular interpretations of 'metaphysical' forces? Like the kind of acedemic theological ridiculousness of contemporary theories like the hidden hand deity, or the dualistic clock mechanism analogy of the physical world?

I mean by this, that its more anti-obscurantist, and pro-investigation. By which I mean, that those theologies/philosophies were presenting god-of-the-gaps type approaches. If you take deific (or demonic or whatever) influence/action to simply mean 'force' or 'causality', which I think is accurate, the issue isn't so much with label given to the force/action, but rather its explanatory power, and whether it is possible or not to know more, investigate further.

To explain what I mean, in the modern day we take the same approach, at least in terms of things we don't fully understand or want someone to learn as an axiom, like 'Brownian Motion' - what else is Brown in this except a minor 'wind deity' or 'wind spirit', just as to some of our anscestors Thor was a thunder and lightning deity (as in, a teaching label to help grasp a phenomena, its associated phenomena, and how to approach it)? And spooky action at a distance, or god of the gaps, hasn't gone anywhere either (at least until further investigation occurs), in for example the recent 'quantum physics' movement, and elsewhere. Our modern academies all subscribe, at least in public, to a 'let there be light' creation myth in the 'big bang' theory.

In this sense, materialist analysis isn't I don't think 'unreligious' (you can find a similar approach laid out in Sanskrit 'religious' texts for example), or even non-metaphysical, but rather contrary to obscurantist dogma. The problem isn't necessarily calling greed after a particular demonic entity, but rather how useful that label (and associated teachings) is in understanding what greed is as a phenomena. Spirits, qi, magic, and so on are just helpful (ideally but not always) labels for the often confusing, poorly understood phenomena that make up the world and particularly our place in it.

Like if a Christian were to say 'there is one God, and He has a plan according to which history occurs', is it especially different in meaning to saying 'there is a universe, and it operates deterministically, like a machine'? Of course maybe the former is not so good because it can lead to interpretations that are difficult to reconcile with observed reality, but it can also lead to an interpretation that is the same as the latter - the gaps and forces involved are either labeled 'God' or 'undiscovered/unknown processes'. Of course, one gives faith (something that is as important as knowledge) and humanises (makes relatable, more comprehensible by association) the processes, while the other doesn't, which I think can lead to nihilistic interpretations. So its sort of swings and roundabouts in that sense. The issue I think is whether either lead to 'don't investigate further, no progression required' or alternatively 'find out more about God's plan or the machine' so to speak.

I suppose I'm not sure that the description actually breaks down with the introduction of a particular label, as you say. It certainly can do, but it can also serve as a short-hand, and as a reminder of related concepts, and as a teaching method.

Personally, I consider communism, or 'public ownership doctrine' (and leftism more generally) to be as much a religion as any other, although one I certainly subsribe to. I think 'way' (path) as used to translate various East Asian practices is a better word, but the word religion itself seems to me to mean the same thing, rewalking (and re-interpreting/updating) an established path. I don't think it really matters what labels are used - God, Force, etc as long as they put you on the correct path as it were, so I don't really view 'dialectical materialism' as opposed to or different from religious thought (in general, not in particular), or separate a 'philosophy' from a 'religion' as such.

I don't know if the above makes sense - as before, I'm not disagreeing so much with what you wrote, just that I'm not sure it in presenting Marxist philosophy as an opposite to religion in general (rather than in particular, contemporaneously) is the case. I think the opposition that 'leftists' have toward other religions, is the same that any new religion has to older ones, in order to progress it must throw out the useless parts, and keep the useful parts, of the old religion, which means there will always be a conflict.

I took it to mean manichean type doctrine, but I might be wrong. For example, Augustine (possibly the preminent early theologian of Christianity) was originally a Manichean - it was very widespread and popular, influencing thought and understanding to this day, being a sythesis of 'western' and 'eastern' (and no doubt 'northern', i.e. turkic/siberian too) thought of various kinds.

I don't think that is what religions are, although certainly hierarchies and inequality can be justified on religious grounds - but then so can the opposite.

Religion, theist or not, is just a philosophical analysis of our world and how it works, with resulting prescriptions and advice about how to best interact with the world.

Its not really a matter of proof or disproof. Atheistic cults come and go, in accordance with the perspective of the adherants due to their circumstances, just as theistic ones do.

When a monotheist says there is one god, they are rejecting (or sythesising) other civilisational role models and teachings, and promoting unity of perspective, and claiming that the universe has a singular fundamental nature. When an atheist responds that there is no god, they are rejecting that perspective, probably because it doesn't suit their cicrumstances or interests, they are reacting against the proposed unity of perspective and the role model/teacher described.

Since religion is just a lens to comprehend, I don't think it really matters if somebody is a theist or not (we are all religious, since its how people conceptualise the world), unless particular aspects of that belief cause harm for themselves or others.

I haven't - although I think having read the intro that I've seen it quoted without attribution. I will read it!

Its reminiscent of a lecture I watched about the British Empire in India (I forget the name, but can probably find it again if you're interested), where the lecturer drew a parallel between the colonial concept of 'empty land' (like in Australia, ignoring the people who were living there, or indeed the US), and a similar concept used to justify conquest of obviously more populous and urbanised places like India, one example being with this kind of accusation about women - that the people there were 'savages and weren't treating their women properly' (betraying of course the accuser's view of women, as property without agency), and that a 'white coloniser' would have a better idea about how to 'treat women' (property, like land) than the native inhabitants. I suppose related to the liberal and religious concept of the civilising 'burden' of the coloniser. But we have seen this used very recently, with Afghanistan.

In any case, thanks for the link!

yes, and i think the state response is predictable - round up as many as you can on spurious identifiers (sumptuary laws like these rainbow jewelry), interrogate them and get them on record, and try to judge who is or isn't a threat to state security, or who can be useful or 'turned'.

I think Vijay Prashad wrote something about Russia like its viewed in the West as either the Vatican or hell... not hell, he uses a different word, its a much better phrase than I'm able to remember. But the point being that dichotomy between the source of moral authority, or the opposite (I guess alluding to Moscow as the fourth Rome).

On this particular topic, my own view is that Russia is restricting the rights/priviledges of what they term the 'international' LGBTQ movement, because I think the west uses wealthy urbanite associations of that kind in Russia (particularly St Petersberg/Moscow) for spying activities. At the same time, Putin has said (though ofc its necessary to examine what is done, not just what is said) that the LGBTQ community is part of Russian society, and shouldn't be attacked or victimised - this is probably because as a legalist ruler he wants to be in compliance with various legal obligations, and also doesn't want internal conflict. I think he isn't particularly opposed to the restrictions, because of the support it wins from the Orthodox church.

I wonder also with this particular topic, how much of the impetus for these kind of anti-progressive movements is to do with political kompromat. Certainly I don't think most of the elite, like aristos or capitalists for example, really care about sexual preferences, but rather its a useful political tool if the masses (are persuaded to) consider it immoral. Like with the 'Lavender Scare' in the US, but then I've also seen a CIA testimony saying that they (I paraphrase) 'like homosexuals because they're useful' referring I think to the usefulness of having something over someone. I suppose I mean, I wonder how much (alongside other factors) the passage of anti or pro LGBTQ laws is to do with wanting a political weapon, or alternatively as a kind of disarmemant treaty among the ruling classes.

Its probably related to the elections to a degree... but Kid Starver has the same foriegn policy as the tories (not a surprise, given his background). Which isn't too unusual, since the Labour party is often the party of war - usually if they want Labour in (and they clearly do) its to fight a war.

On an anecdotal level, I've attended a lot of job fairs, and I'd say that starting around Covid times, there has been a military recruitment stand at all of them, which is new (at least from my experience).

I asked a colleague (hospitality sector) when the Russia war kicked off, if he'd sign up to fight in the event of an invasion, and he said yes. Then I asked what if it was just London being attacked, and he looked disgusted and said no (this was in the North).

Ok, thanks.

Do the small bourgeoisie like immigration in the US? They tend to be against it in my country, especially in less urban areas, because they can rely on local (often familial) networks and being the only game in town for their labor, and need less of it in any case.

Given what you've mentioned, where does the outrage (I saw reported - maybe its untrue) come from when border states started moving migrants to cities? Just that it was messing with the 'usual' system of filtration or those states usual 'sourcing' of migrant workers, or they were the wrong kind of labor?

I've seen that Biden is, apparantly, wanting to 'toughen' the border (conditionally on passing other foriegn policy related budgets), is the 'crisis' simply a matter of those states wanting in on the public money tree that the Biden admin and backers have been enjoying with Ukraine?

Also, do you know or suspect if the 'crisis' relates in any way to the spats with Mexico (I think they recently nationalised an oil processing facility, and there's been talk of re-writing the trade agreement), or in any way to the infamous intelligence agency directed drug trafficking business across the border?

I wonder also about the demographics of those moving north, usually its the case that people who migrate internationally (as opposed to internally displaced) are relatively well-off (in their home countries), because the very poorest can't afford to move. Are they mostly from South/Central America, or is cheap air travel also adding people from other places (I've seen some claims of this, but I'm not sure whether to believe them)? Are the people coming from the South useful at all to the Dem's usual backers?

Thanks for responding, I don't mean to flood you with questions it just seems like a fairly big deal and the reporting and analysis around the issue just frames it in terms of a political dispute without mentioning why. Like, I understand the (low level) border conflict between Canada/US, because its about fishing. But this, I have no idea...

Yes, the current border fight - I don't mean like a physical struggle, but a political one.

I guess I'm asking, who profits? and whose profits are being impacted, by this current struggle? To try to understand the interests involved.

Seemingly both parties backers (and factions in those parties backers) have good reason to have immigration, and also have those immigrants desperate and exploitable. Of course there will be those who don't have an interest in immigration too, some because of ideology, but also and primarily because of economics. Seemingly, the new Confederacy is on the face of it, appealing to those interests - who are they?

Thanks!

So I take it you're saying that those states who want to make it harder are interested in illegal status migrants?

I hear a lot that the Dems or Biden admin (and therefore, presumably, the various capitalist interest groups they represent) haven't actually changed anything about the border issue - is this true? If it is, it seems like the Dem capitalists also want illegal status migrants for their own industries/sectors, so therefore what is the fight about?

And for example, California (which I think has a big agricultural sector) hasn't joined the new Confederacy, is that because its going with the party line, or is it that its a richer state so can afford to subsidise that sector more and still compete, i.e. not be reliant on undocumented or illegal status migration?

I understand the process of exploitation you describe, it happens where I live too, but I was wondering more about the sectors, factions etc involved and what they're trying to achieve, if you see what I mean?

edit: to clarify, would it be accurate to say (from what I've inferred from your reply) that the poorer states that are concerned more with labor intensive industry are joining this coalition, and that the purpose is to make it harder to attain 'legal status'? Or is it more complicated than that (obviously there are labor intensive industries in big cities and other state too)? What is the unions position on migration, or are they not involved? You mentioned the agricultural sector, what's the positioning of other ones like construction and hospitality, if you happen to know?