Maybe I'll get a twitter account and shitpost with Mister Land too, I'm not a gommie but I'm quite madly obsessed with Bataille and Trakl and worse, it will be fun.
Zizek and His Limits
Ryder Edwards
Jayden Clark
Forgot shitposting flag, but everything is shitposting anyway mein Gott. Anyway on alienation as process you should really read Anti-Oedipus, I agree with noone anyway but I think you've misrepresented Zizek's view on it, like I said it may all be lexicographic magic but you should read them, and Lyotard of course. Also I shill Asada a lot and you like the void too, so here's an article
newleftreview.org
Liam Baker
Wyatt Edwards
Alexander Price
If this is your particular misunderstanding you could have just as easily made the same accusation against Marx (Gotha Program). Yes, there are many instances of polemic appeals to (economic) 'justice' and 'equality' in TaNS but by no means should you read more into it than what it is meant as: an appeal to the common reader.
This is nonsense. You literally can't do this. Either the law of value is operative and determinant, or not. Labor vouchers aren't "imposing" the law of value.
This isn't a question of normativity. This is a question whether you accept the validity of the claims by Marx or don't and act upon them accordingly or don't. You either make direct and visible under socialism the real process that in a mystified and indirect way used to determine value under capitalism (labor time) – which is also the first step of overcoming the value form altogether – with vouchers, or your remain in the (to a different degree) mystified and indirect frameworks of your "alternatives" (gift economy, crypto, barter, simulated/pseudo-markets, imposed price controls, etc.) which fail on the long run, anyway.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Alexander Thomas
Why are radlibs obsessed with this term?
Owen Diaz
OP thanks for the article. Re: reinterpreting Shakespeare–what is it we're reinterpreting, though? Is it all just shifting sands above the material conditions (economic factors)? . If so, why bother reading anything by anyone else of the time, e g. the great playwright, tavern brawler, heretic and tobacco-user, Christopher Marlowe?
Graham Harman is mentioned in passing. He's really a (speculative) "realist", rather than an idealist. Pic related from an article by Harman on JSTOR . (free to read when you sign up for an account, or if you sign in with Google.) jstor.org
Hudson Myers
Julian Hill
Look at cockshotts blog posts on the law of value user, he openly admits that you would have to impose some artificial discipline on labor in a specific way such as judging labor against the minimum required for a given task so that the law of value will be preserved.
Cooper Stewart
Well Shakespeare is the most prominent example of it but its true for all literature really. The same basic story is the same, it calls out to us and when we accept it as relevant to us in particular we interpret it in a way that we need to for our own situation.
Harman, iirc, believes in object oriented ontology, and while interesting, I dont think the solution to humans loosing our privileged place of subjectivity is done by extending being to objects.