Last night, musician Grimes posted a nonsensical “proposition for the communists” on TikTok. In it, she rambled on about how the widespread implementation of artificial intelligence can be utilized to quickly get the world to a state of communism, where “no one has to work,” corruption ceases to exist, and equality reigns.
One of the largest problems with Grimes’ proposition is that she begins with a gross mischaracterization of what communism is, labeling it as a political ideal with the end goal that no one ever has to work. Even in the most basic definitions of communism, never does it say that people “won’t work.” It actually says that people will be adequately compensated for their work and skills. She caps off the video by saying that “enforced farming is really not a vibe.” We get it Grimes, in a community-focused future, you do not see yourself actually working and helping those around you—especially if that means touching dirt. You plan on living on Mars while your man Musk presses all the buttons, Metropolis city master-style.
Grimes also seems to have forgotten one of the key tenets of communism: workers control the means of production. In her farming example, in a true communist space, the farmers themselves have control over their work and labor. It absolutely does not mean farmers are cast aside so that we all have to depend on the owners of AI technology (the Musks, the Bezoses, etc.) to survive.
The thought of Elon Musk or any other elite crony leading the oppressed working class to liberation when they’ve profited off of their exploited labor to get where they are is laughable at least, and concerning at most. When it comes to the corruption and exploitation Grimes claims to want to fix, the call is coming from inside the Tesla-funded house. Karl Marx is probably rolling over in his grave at the thought of the billionaires running the world through AI and labeling it “communism.”
Before she was the bride of Elon Musk, Grimes prided herself on her “anti-capitalist” and “anti-imperialist” views. She even quoted Joseph Stalin in her senior yearbook photo. However, shortly after she begun her relationship with Musk, her politics began to shift, and she found herself defending ever move of her neo-colonial Space Force baby daddy. We unsure if this is her way of inching back into communism-focused spaces again, but thinly veiled corporate control over all means of production is not communism, so uh, let’s leave the proletariat revolution to the actual working class.
413 Comments
Grimes doesn’t know what communism is, and I don’t know what a Grimes is.
you’re both living charmed lives for very different reasons
Not knowing about a major economic system of the world is not a charmed life, imo.And everyone should at least read up on Communism, too.
Problem is, just “reading up” on communism might not (probably won’t/doesn’t) tell the whole story behind communism. Tenants of communism sound really nice on the surface until you dig deeper and see it in practice. Someone once told me I had a problem with sharing because I didn’t believe in socialism. That was when I realized you can’t argue with a quote on the back of a box and expect to win.
reply fial
Hard pass.
Just to clarify, I was making a joke—a very sweaty, tortured joke, but a joke nonetheless.I was calling Grimes the “major economic system of the world”, and underscoring that funny funny with the line about reading up on Communism.Why am I explaining my terrible joke to you? Well, I received this reply in the greys:Problem is, just “reading up” on communism might not (probably won’t/doesn’t) tell the whole story behind communism. Tenants of communism sound really nice on the surface until you dig deeper and see it in practice. Someone once told me I had a problem with sharing because I didn’t believe in socialism. That was when I realized you can’t argue with a quote on the back of a box and expect to win.As for the content of the reply, well, I’m a big ol’ Democratic Socialist, so, you know… But I do want to name my next (hopefully taxpayer-funded) band The Tenants of Communism. And I will eat any cereal that discusses socialism on the back of the box. Bernie Bunches of Others’ Money?
He’s a very bitter and now dead man.
She’s a Tumblr seapunk content creator, as described in this incomprehensible AV Club classic:https://www.avclub.com/the-tumblr-trap-is-internet-culture-turning-musicians-1798230540That’s the first time I heard of Grimes, and the article was so stupid I refuse to learn anything else about her.
I stopped reading at “seapunk”.
Thats not it
Her 2012 album was praised to high heaven. 9.x on Pitchfork I’m pretty sure. So I tried it out a few months ago.Sophomoric, and I never use that word. Uninspiring. Contrived and lazily gimmicky. Blecch
He was a one-off character in the Simpsons, known for his deep hatred of Homer.
She knows exactly what communism is. Unfortunately, the world is full of slack-jawed yokels who can’t wait to form flash mobs to attack anyone promoting kindness and understanding.
Has anyone read Elon Musks moms wikipedia? She grew up in a family that travelled the desert in a tiny plane searching for the lost city of Kalahari. I feel all this is an elaborate villainous scheme for his mom to become the ruler of the Kalahari city which is actually on the moon, and Grimes will be sacrificed with the baby who holds the codes in its name.
Uncharted 5?
He has a mother?
She looks exactly like a supervillain.
Someone should tell her that Heinlein and Ellison stories are not, in fact, “feel good” stories.
I would like to know more
I’m sure Elon Musk, who is no doubt very well read when it comes to science fiction would be able t-AHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry. I couldn’t keep a straight face.
Most Heinlein stories have a generally happy ending. Starship Troopers is about the only one I think of that ends somewhat pessimistically.
Ah yes, communism is when the AI does stuff, and the more stuff the AI does, the more communist it is. (Also gotta point out AI is still pretty labor intensive, that’s why Google has you do the work through Captcha)
The thought of Elon Musk or any other elite crony leading the oppressed working class to liberation when they’ve profited off of their exploited labor to get where they are is laughable at least, and concerning at most.Crony just means friend, even when used pejoratively. I think you mean something more like asshat or, if you’re trying to maintain a certain level of formality, fuckwit.
lol, ya and “discriminate” just means to make a differentiation between things. That doesn’t change the fact that it carries a boatload of negative connotations. Same with “crony.” It mostly certainly does not *just* mean friend. Words evolve without our permission.
Last night, musician Grimes posted a nonsensical “proposition for the communists” on TikTok. In it, she rambled on about how the widespread implementation of artificial intelligence can be utilized to quickly get the world to a state of communism, where “no one has to work,” corruption ceases to exist, and equality reigns.See this here, folks? This is priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime rich, white, nominally-attractive girl gibberish. And Grimes is the poster child.You’re born privileged enough to never have to worry about anything, a the top dead centre of society, and no one will ever tell you you’re talkin’ shit. You’ve never had to learn anything, because stuff just happens for you – and no one expects you actually do anything. Anyone who does push back against you has to deal with a legion of various hangers-on who will rush to your aid. ‘Course, I’m all for her believing this, because, if the revolution ever does come, the look on her face when she’s shipped off to the gulag will be priceless.
Grimes seems like an idiot and her husband is not much better except as opposed to just posting nonsense he actually makes his nonsense reality with his wealth and power. Your comment comes across as just wanting to attack women and seems bigoted and misogynistic.
Your comment came across as proving my point. Thank you.
How?
Anyone who does push back against you has to deal with a legion of various hangers-on who will rush to your aid.
How does this response make sense to what I said? Anyone?
I literally said there’d be people rushing to her defence for absolutely no reason, and by golly gosh jee, there you were.
I don’t know about brontosaurian, but my utopia (barf, sorry) includes sticking up for everyone, regardless of privilege, wealth or status.This kind of reminds me of the, “I don’t want free college if Barron Trump gets it too!” argument, or the kind-of flip-side version of, “I already paid my student loans, so everyone else should have to pay theirs, too!” Not perfect comparisons, but somewhat similar, imo.A true progressive society, in my view, means equality for all from this point forward, even those who have gotten a nice heapin’ helpin’ of equality and then some already, as well as those who have had to struggle under the previous society’s rules, and especially those who are currently struggling the most.Annnnnd, just saw your reply about not being shamed for classism. Well, here ya go: SHAME! SHAME!
I called her an idiot, which I stand by because she really seems to be lately. I also think your take sounds misogynistic and awful, which I also stand by. I didn’t defend her in anyway.
To me the comment read less as “women get away with X ” and more as “people born into means and whose lives are generally devoid of adversity think their opinions are inherently informed, valuable, and worthy of sharing with the public, and in this particular case, that person happens to be a woman”. Sure, if that was the point the comment could have been phrased better, but I am going to give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
No you’re good lol. Cough Williams doesn’t strike me as being very bright, just highly contrarian, misogynistic and transphobic.
yeah, that.
Yeah, that’s what I thought, too.
TBH though I think there’s a valid point around attractive people getting away with posting stupid shit. OP might have gendered unnecessarily, but it didn’t come off as particularly misogynist to me.
Grimes still identifies as a woman (unless she’s come out and identified as some pseudo-sci-fi-ish bullshit in the past five minutes because the PR team Musk insists she use said it’d get some good tweetage). Kinda unavoidable to talk about, and it IS a phenomenon that is pretty much exclusive to rich white women. Strange how no one’s trying to shame me for classism, which I think is more telling…and worrying.
It’d be worrying if you weren’t on AVClub, where the deepest thinkers on the internet come to talk about how Abigail Disney is a warrior for the downtrodden or how Stephen Colbert’s killer ‘orange man bad’ rant moved them to tears.
Hey! I resemble that comment!Just kidding; I’m not deep.
Does this make sense?
Huh, I’d say attractive white men benefit from it too. Although attractiveness seems to be less of a prerequisite than for women. (I have no idea where nonbinary folk would fall on this.)Why is it bad that no one’s calling you out for mentioning the well-established existence of privilege?
The part where “attractive white men” differ is that they don’t get random strangers coming out of the woodwork to defend them for no reason.For example, saying that criticism of her is misogynist is part of that defense that isn’t pertinent to dudes.And yes, I recognize that Elon Musk has his own sycophants. Thats different because they aren’t defending him just because he’s an attractive dude. There’s a different calculus involved there.Is the differing motivation an important distinction to make? Maybe, maybe not. But it does exist and I think it’s entirely relevant to point out these social dynamics.
Honestly? I think people are less likely to cite the attractiveness. But I think it’s still a factor.
eh, i beg to differ.. look at brad pitt and johnny depp. both of which have allegations of abuse against them, yet miraculously we seem to have forgotten about – which i think is the result of lots of people defending them simply because they are attractive rich white men.
because modern society worships the rich, which is a delusion that could and feel free to correct me if i’m wrong, contribute to the demise.
She’s attractive? I mean she’s fine dresses odd which is interesting. Her music isn’t my taste, but seems well regarded?
She hits some of the standard criteria for attractiveness (young, thin, etc…also a female on the internet). And yeah ha, also the rest of that.
It isn’t bigoted or misogynistic to point out that grimes is an arrogant, elitist, classist, ignorant cunt who has zero idea what she’s talking about and is also married to an elitist, classist, ignorant egomaniacal cunt. It’s just stating the obvious.
Was he really supposed to also write “EVERYBODY! EVERYBODY! THIS ALSO APPLIES TO MEN!!”
Her “idiot husband” made his wealth and power by turning his “nonsense”(massive rockets, electric cars) into reality. Not many people can say that.
lmao the only thing that even mentioned gender was ‘nominally-attractive-girl’ which was more part of the privileged comment than a remark on gender. what the hell was misogynistic at all? or bigoted for that matter?
They’re not married.
Uh, in what world is Grimes “nominally attractive”? Also she makes music basically by herself, nothing “happened” for her, grow up.
You’re born privileged enough to never have to worry about anything
I bet she was plenty worried when her raft ran ashore when she decided she wanted to play Huck Finn!https://pitchfork.com/news/45488-the-tale-of-grimes-insane-2009-houseboat-adventure-the-best-thing-youll-read-all-day/
This is about the most peak Rich White Hipster thing ever.
no one will ever tell you you’re talkin’ shitThis is certainly most women’s experience of the internet.
There’s incredible laziness in tying communism, an ideology that has become inextricably fused with the concept of restorative justice in the past decade, to a fascist carceral system that never represented its values.
Funny I tie communism with the mass graves that inevitably follow its victories. Stalin, Mao, Khmar Rouge, etc, etc, etc.
I think that Grimes is somewhat more than nominally attractive. But I have a thing for weird, unattainable women.
I also like that Azalea Banks, of all people, apparently had a threesome/sex party with those two and said on Twitter that Grimes “smells like a bag of nickels.” I’m not too sure what Banks herself smells like, since she’s another totally talented, totally crazy musician, but that is a really good line.
“smells like a bag of nickels.” Damn. Now I gotta go start another fucking band.
Totally dude, I can’t wait to ship people off to gulags, that’s so based. Why has the online communist community been overtaken by the absolute worst examples of cringey edgelords?
This is priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime rich, white gibberish.Fixed and improved that for you by removing the misogyny and unnecessary commentary about her physical appearance
When the revolution comes we won’t be killing people for being stupid.
Oh, this piece of shit is still posting here. And getting popular.
There seems to be a tad more trolls or just assholes popping up lately it seems.
Tell me about it. There’s this pissant cunt called “brontosaurian” who thinks his misinterpretation of my posts thinks that they’re my actual intent.
I wasn’t speaking to you. Goodbye
Guybrush! How the hell are you? Feeling better from the last time you tried to troll me?
Hey, I’m doing fine, thanks for asking. I’m glad you’re enjoying your stay here, spouting your bullshit to people eagerly swallowing it like good boys they are.
I actually don’t care about how you’re doing. I just know that me looking your way means so much to you. And I want you to know I really, truly appreciate you not charging me rent in your head. It’ll come in handy if this COVID thing ever clears up and I need a large, empty space in which to hold a function or something.
Yeah, no, I figured out you don’t really care, it doesn’t take a lot to figure out that your idea of a good bit is basically the good old “let’s shake hands – oh no, I’m putting my hand away” or, you know, the 90’s mainstay “it’s good to see you… NOT”. And, of course, you followed it by the tired “rent free” bit. Funny stuff, my guy. Hope you had a good laugh at my expense in your hollow, hollow head.We get it, you think you’re cool cause you’re a bully. You and your ilk who has populated this site recently all seem to have very similar patterns of behavior, the way you argue your points, the way you think you “destroy” your opponents by being performatively dismissive. And this performance tells me all I need to know about how much you really care about your little wins here. I mean, sure, you obliterated me. I’m trembling in my tiny shorts here. Please give me your approval, I crave it! I can even suck your dick if you say I’m a good boy. See, how powerful you are? Mighty, mighty man….NOT.
See, I made a funny too.
First off: your passive-aggression isn’t better. Just makes you look weak.Oh, and I see you’re from the neckbeard school of “I wrote a lot of words to prove I’m smarter; also to prove I don’t care”. Also… Hope you had a good laugh at my expense in your hollow, hollow head.Y’know, your mocking of my insults would probably go down better if you didn’t immediately steal them. And I’ll pass on the fellatio; I wouldn’t want brontosaurian to get jealous. He seems like the kinda guy who has access to his stepdad’s guns.
I always get a kick out of people hoping for revolution assuming they will survive said revolution. The Terror, The Night of the Long Knives and the Purges argue otherwise.
She used to be homeless. She had to get food from trash cans. She slept on couches and in closets. It’s not shocking that she has compassion for other human beings. You don’t have to like her, obviously, but your comment is confusing. Are you mad because she’s rich? Because she’s female? Because she thinks humans shouldn’t have to work so hard to survive? Like, are you for rich people? Against rich people? Against people in general? What’s the complaint?
Nobody knows what Communism actually is
Oh that’s easy. In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it’s the other way around. (old Soviet joke)
I’ve got another one – what did capitalism do in 2 years that Communism didn’t? Make Communism look good.
*if you’re retarded
Alight, settle down Yakov.
Reminds me of how Engels once explained that Marx, contemptuous of how others whose views he loathed had started referring to themselves as Marxists, declared to Engels “[C]e qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste” (“what is certain is that [if they are Marxists], [then] I myself am not a Marxist”).
I speed-read “Engles” as “Eagles” and was for a moment picture Glenn Frey holding forth on the proletariat controlling the means of production. . .
Well, I’m working in a factoryHoping my work is satisfactory I’ve got seven bourgeois on my mind. They all wanna own me None wanna loan me Money for a business I can call mine. Take It easy, take it easy Don’t let the sound of your own labor Alienate you, baby.
Welcome to the Hotel Sovietskaya.
E A G L E S EAGLES! I’m from Philly
“Take It Easy” is about how great things will be for the workers under communism…
Ha! I did, too!
And meanwhile, I spent forty seconds wondering why Bill Engvall even has any opinion whatsoever on this topic.
Take it to the limit or you don’t get paid on time.
Lol I read it as Eagles. Makes sense.
Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
Curious, why is the quote in French?
It’s so simple. Communism looks like Ivan Drago and capitalism looks like Rocky in American-flag shorts.
What kind of shorts is Ivan wearing?
I struggled through bits and pieces of Marx’s Grundrisse back in college, and I agree. He’s harder to slog through than Hegel.I’d love to see some day a good explanation for why Marx developed so many followers. Even his stuff aimed at popular consumption like his Communist Manifesto doesn’t exactly jump off the page like I think a good manifesto should, and there are plenty of other sloganeers for mass uprising out there.
Someone might try to argue that the density and unapproachability are the reverse mojo for Marx, except there are tons of 19th Century Germans who are also dense and unapproachable.
I struggle the same way I do to get the appeal of some religious cult leaders where plenty of others fail to gather a flock with equally sweaty rhetoric. Why this guy above all others?
Even his stuff aimed at popular consumption like his Communist Manifesto doesn’t exactly jump off the page like I think a good manifesto should, and there are plenty of other sloganeers for mass uprising out there. It’s a pyramid kinda thing. Dude at the top disseminates ideas (often delivered loftily, or with a ton of jargon), the ones directly beneath (perhaps the sloganeers you mention) that person break it down and pass it on, the ones after THAT distill it further, and the rabble ends up with…something…maybe possibly approximating the original message. Like a fucked-up game of telephone.Without making a comparison to politics or subject matter, you can see a similar trajectory with Jordan Peterson, though he plays a more active role in it. Peterson -> Shapiro -> Rogan -> 8kun.
“Peterson -> Shapiro -> Rogan -> 8kun.”So somehow a grifter marketing himself by flattering the egos of young educated men with unfulfilling lives is creating a weird boomer imageboard filled with child porn? Kind of a jump, but okay.
“I’d love to see some day a good explanation for why Marx developed so many followers.”His stuff is pretty hard to read for me as well, but I think it’s more a function of language being a little bit different since the 1800’s. (IMO the Manifesto’s pretty direct in it’s language, it was a pamphlet for a broad audience) Marx’s ideas provided a good explanation of what was happening in terms of late 19th and early 20th century society and reflected the experiences of workers, who are the majority in any society. Also there were authors who were really good at distilling his ideas for easier reading – Lenin’s ”State and Revolution” is a pretty good example of that.
The timing was right. Something had to change, and here was a possible roadmap.
As someone who’s STRUGGLED with reading Marx, I’d say that his influence grew thanks to better communicators who were able to grok what he was getting at, then turn it around, expand on it in a compelling way, and turn it into something people could act upon. Lenin’s State and Revolution come to mind, along with Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare. In fact, I’d go so far as to say Guevara was one of the best revolutionary communicators. Just my $0.02, comrade.
well in practical terms he wrote a relatively accessible economic history predicting that a clash between capital and labor was inevitable right before a significant portion of the european continent went through a massive clash between capital and labor.
I’m not sure predicting economic conflict in the 19th Century, where there was already widespread labor activity, makes one Nostradamus. And I think Marx’s analysis of the conflict, which focuses on class rather than wealth, has only looked more suspect as time goes on. In Marx’s reasoning, a millionaire NBA player or Google engineer has more in common with mine workers than he does with the owner of a company, since the mine worker, NBA players, and Google engineer are all labor, and do not own the business. By the same token, Marx would put a bakery owner in the same category as Jeff Bezos — ownership class — though Bezos’s interests probably align a lot better will other wealthy people, many of whom Marx would characterize as labor.Looking at wealth is probably a better way of meaningfully identifying who has power in a capitalist society.
the revolutions of 1848 remain the most widespread revolutionary wave in the recorded history of the european continent. the communist manifesto was hitting shelves and the public consciousness while people were building barricades in front of the very coffee shops they’d have been reading it in. that’s a wee bit more of an impact that merely ‘predicting there might be some labor conflict.’
i’d also talk to some small business owners before you start assuming whether they see themselves as a Bezos or an NBA player. which one is an overpayed entertainer that works for them and which one is a genius businessman who made every dime he has and nobody ever helped him none!
A bakery owner who bakes, though, is a worker in control of the means of production. It’s only when they become purely ownership that they would jump to the Bezos category.
Honestly? These days Marxists are just as privileged as the people they hate. They just happen to have chosen the wrong college major, and they’re trying to forcibly redistribute the paychecks of their former peers who now have good jobs.
Because he’s not, really.First, his ideas aren’t all that original. The idea of everyone just kinda sharing stuff and nobody being the master is a pretty common one reaching all the way to at least the Renaissance. All he did was add some pseudo-scientific economic theory to it.Second, the impenetrability is a feature. It allows anyone to paint whatever they personally happen to want onto his statements. Which is how both agrarian communism and industrial communism can exist and call themselves communist even though they are diametrically opposing views.
I disagree. I don’t agree with the ideology, but this (from the Communist Manifesto) is terrific writing:“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”
“The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.”“I don’t like the sound of this.” – Gunther Voss, local chain manufacturer.
Make America Great Again?
I did my First Communism at St. Edna’s Catholic Church. I was seven. My family was proud as I choked down the Engelsarist.
Much like pornography, many people tout their ability to spot it without being able to define it.
Is it a fancy pudding?
It’s provocative,
it gets the people going!
Just like capitalism, it’s a great idea for how to run a society, but neither one works because actual human beings are involved.
Not really.The difference between capitalism and communism is that capitalism is a economic theory describing the state of how things are, while communism was intended to describe a utopian future.Capitalism is actually possible, “true” communism isn’t.
I think the problem with unfettered capitalism is less that it overestimates how good people are and more it overestimates how karmic the world is. Like, it basically assumes that people are selfish but it’s in their self-interest to do good for others, an idea I think is seriously undermined by all the people who’ve benefitted tremendously from treating people like shit.
Proponents of capitalism don’t think it’s necessarily in people’s self-interest to do good for others. Instead, they think that the sort of things one does to compete in a capitalist economy tend, overall, to make society better. Let’s say, for example, you own a car company. In a capitalist economy, you’re competing against other car companies. To win that competition, there’s pressure on you to lower your prices. There’s also pressure to innovate, so that you have technology, safety features, etc. your competitors don’t. And to innovate, you need to compete for skilled employees, which means you’ll need to pay them better than other car companies will. In all these cases, you aren’t acting to better anyone else, but only acting so that your car company can succeed. But the results — more affordable cars, better cars, better paid skilled workers — benefit society.
Sure, but that’s idiotic too. People aren’t perfect prophets for what will make a car “better” as they are riddled with irrational prejudices and beliefs. And the natural tendency towards monopoly will guarantee that cars will only get worse.
It also assumes people are perfectly good at identifying their self-interest and they obviously aren’t.
Human Nature + Central Government. What could go wrong?
All I know is it inevitably ends in tears (and blood – lots of blood).
i think it has something to do with richard marx
Real communism is the friends we made along the way.
ask some Cuban refugees
I’m getting some serious Theresa Duncan vibes here. She was a brilliant creator but spiraled into a mutual psychosis with her partner Jeremy Blake, and both spiraled.
Ever play Cyberpunk 2077?Grimes is far from a decent actor…
She’s an artist, not an actor. It’s not like she developed the monstrosity. They never should have released an unfinished product.
Looking forward to them both going Full Quaid and to start mentioning “starwhackers”…but in their case they mean alien assassins out for anyone concentrating on Earth’s space program.
She’s been reading Iain M Banks.
I guess she saw that famously pro communist film Wall-E and thought the society on the spaceship was a proletariat utopia. She seems like that kid in the punk clique that DESPERATELY wants to seem both intellectual and edgy but is considered neither.My senior quote was from Tom Goes to the Mayor. No Regrets.
She’s dumb. There’s going to be a lot of digital ink spilt over this, a lot of takes (many of which will probably be right, and even more will probably be wrong), but ultimately, she’s dumb. She is a dumb person who does not know what the fuck they’re talking about. Are you a fervent anti-capitalist? A free market fanatic? Eagerly awaiting our robot overlords? Ready to lead the resistance against Skynet? Whatever your position is, you’ll find no ammo here. Her opinion is too uninformed to have any consequence on any “debate” about economic systems or artificial intelligence. This is just noise, basically an animal bleating at its handlers for attention and food pellets.
It’s almost like celebs who don’t know what they’re talking about should REALLY shut the fuck up about it. Or, y’know, learn.
I’m getting the sense that if this were the case, she and her husband would disappear.
I mean, with the leisure time that celebrity money affords, none of them really have an excuse not to learn
Or, well, if she wanted to make some kind of elaborate, incomprehensible concept album out of this shit, that might at least be kind of fun.
Celebs likely won’t shut up, so I’d prefer they be ignored by news outlets. That’s the important part, since dumb loud people will always been dumb and loud.
It’s almost like celebs commentators who don’t know what they’re talking about should REALLY shut the fuck up about it. Or, y’know, learn.
Or people can just learn to enjoy the work of artists without needing them to be authorities on anything. Visions is the best album of the 2010s and she’s also dating a supervillain who contradicts everything she claims to be about. The world is nuts.
“Learn” would be amazing, wouldn’t it? It’s a shame the devices people use to post their opinions and feeeeelings aren’t connected to any resources of knowledge.
In related news, there is still no more Last Man Standing incoming.
I blame the media and public school system.
Mmmmmm, pellets…
This is a beautiful comment.
she seems to be proof someone can be classist without even knowing why, how, or what it means.her comment reads like someone who dropped out of school in the 5th grade but doesn’t have the humility about her intellect that most people in similar circumstances carry with them.
“someone who dropped out of school in the 5th grade but doesn’t have the humility about her intellect that most people in similar circumstances carry with them”
In the Trump and post-Trump era I cannot say that I’ve seen even a whiff of this supposed humility.
Sadly I disagree. Her comment reads like she’s gotten a modern college “education”…
I don’t think think a truly dumb person could have put out “Visions.” That album’s terrific. Obviously, she’s got something going on somewhere. But I’m thinking we need to start thinking of intelligence as less holistic: people can be smart about some things and dumb about others. Really, that’s how most people are. I’m not sure that artists don’t have something important to tell us about the way we live, from time to time. But even if you really loved “the Joshua Tree,” it doesn’t mean that Bono’s an expert in foreign relations and equitable economics, which is what the spent a good part of the nineties pretending he was. There are lots of boring academics that nobody’s ever heard of that can tell you a whole lot more about that sort of thing, if you’re willing to spend ten hours or so reading their books.
But I’m thinking we need to start thinking of intelligence as less holistic: people can be smart about some things and dumb about others. Really, that’s how most people are. You ain’t wrong.Though I’d say that a mark of intelligence would be…like…not popping off about blatantly wrong shit without having looked it up (using the same damned device).
No one’s completely immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect!
I just finished reading Lisa Brennan-Jobs’ memoir Small Fry, and while I don’t want to come off as gloating about someone dying of cancer, it’s… ironic? that Steve Jobs spent his entire adult life being a “clean food” freak, shaming anyone around him who ate meat or even just vegetables cooked in butter, and yet he still got cancer. Which he arguably died of sooner than he might have because he tried to treat it with “nutrition” instead of, you know, actual cancer treatments. It’s almost like being a computer genius doesn’t make you smart at everything else, such as oncology.
Well, he wasn’t happy with the colours and symmetry of the cytotoxics on offer …
It’s this weird thing when a famous person thinks their fame makes them an authority on literally everything.
My take on this is that she’s read Iain M. Banks’ The Culture series about a anarcho-marxist utopian society and they went *swish* completely over her head. Which is likely becuase her husband is apparently a big fan of the books and tries to regularly use them as a reference when explaining his ideology but it’s obvious that they just went *swish* completely over his head. Bezos is also a fan.
I’d never heard of The Culture before reading your comment, so I just did a lil’ Googlin’. And of course, now I’m an expert.Seriously, though, what do you think went over their heads?
Sure, compare a woman to a bleating animal, get 79 upvotes… What the fuck, AV Club? All that for having a dumb take on something? Oh no, a woman said a stupid thing. Must mean she deserves to have her entire being insulted. Fuck off, Brick HardMeat. What a shitty username.
I just took it from 81 to 82 upvotes.
Plus me makes 83!
Did you cum while doing it?
No. But I did after reading your last response. Thanks!
84 now because it’s not that she’s a woman it’s because she’s dumb that she’s being compared to an animal.
I judge everyone by the same standards, regardless of gender. I’ve written far, far worse things about stupid men making dumb comments. Your comment for example. You’re looking to manufacture some kind of narrative where you’re coming to the rescue of the target of a misogynistic attack. But since there was no misogyny in what I wrote – unless any critique of any woman under any circumstance is always misogynistic, which is logically stupid and also treats women like children, which is in itself misogynistic – it suggests you’re compensating for some deep personal shortcoming to make real, positive impact on the world in you own real life. The long list of cowardly moments and missed opportunities to be heroic, and the sum total blandness of your existence, pushes you to seek out conflict where there is none, so you can vanquish it and feel like you matter when ultimately you don’t. You’re a failure of a human being and the world has already forgotten you exist. What you wrote here on this comment thread, and will not doubt continue to scratch out, has the same relevance as a loose chicken hunting a flea on a keyboard. Does this make you feel better?
Why would I want to defend the wife of the richest person in the world from a tiny shit like yourself?
This is some damn good bait here. I’m sure you’ll have a plentiful catch.
She wasn’t being insulted due to her gender, but because what she said was moronic. I don’t think the comparison was misogynistic, and was actually apt in that it conveyed how her words make as much sense as what comes out of a sheep’s mouth. In summary, yes, she got insulted because she had a dumb take. I see no problem here.While we’re at it, fuck Elon Musk, the nasty prick, for his dumb take on everything.
Elon? What u doing here?
Not an MST3K fan? What a shitty take! 😉
Is this a dating site now? Are you here to pick up?? Man, I thought it was a lifestyle blog.
Her husband is a flipping moron also.
Not only is she really dumb and ignorant of the topic, she’s also quite literally THE most economically privileged woman on the planet, and it’s outrageous that she would even open her mouth on this subject, especially when her husband has spent his entire career trying to privatize every industry that should be public.
It’s just so basically wrong on so many levels, there’s just nothing to grab onto. However, there’s a lot of irony going on here in the AV Club comments. Not exactly a hotbed socio-economic thinkers here.
Goddamn, that last sentence.
So a dummy used a dumb platform to say something dumb? Shocker.
~ The AV Club
That’s not what a shocker is
It’s the rare comment that actually makes me laugh out loud. Well done
I’m old enough to remember when kids knew what a shocker was, and that it wasn’t something to be bandied about lightly.
A Shocker is just a defibrillator for a bikini biscuit.
Maybe it’s all aesthetic and she’s not really a thinker?
Whats funny is this is not a new concept and there is a lot of people who think the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
Ah yes, my favourite form of “futurism”, the one defined by promising vague solutions to issues you don’t properly understand (or want to), safe in the knowledge that you can just keep on kicking the can down the road and assuring people (sorry, investors) that “the future” is right around the corner.
Right. Like when inventors promised “motor-carriages” that could travel more than twice as fast as my horse-drawn buggy! They claimed I’d be able to travel from New Mexico to Arizona in less than a day! Insanity. “Future,” pah! Get off my lawn!
You know, if humanity keeps this up, I might start to think that people aren’t that smart.
Maybe not, but the AIs programmed by us will be twice as not that smart, if not more.
Or at the very least, not that smart faster.
Spider told me the pig is really excellent, so I’m not gonna eat it. The pig I mean.
disagree with Grimes’s politics all you want (I sure do, and I’d sure be mad about it if I gave a shit what she thought or said) but my god this is some of the ugliest, most misogynistic bullshit I’ve ever read. I can’t believe a man didn’t write it lol.there’s a way to be critical of a person’s politics without pulling out the guns of the patriarchy Gabrielle.
Let’s go with “She came from means, matched up with a Bond villain, and is now soft selling his weird ‘libertarian’ wet dream of being the first oligarch to found his own planet (on the backs of whatever sad proles he wrangles into the scheme), by way of attaching the concept to a bad approximation of a political ideology that does, in fact, have an actual definition.”Too wordy?
“Ugh, you still used feminine pronouns, so you’re still being sexist.”- teegemagic, probably.
yep, definitely 100% what I said great reading Cough!
there’s very little chance they got through that, and virtually no chance it was absorbed
The thing that most stuck out about Grimes’ argument was the robot workers thing. Isn’t her husband—not that she has to answer for his shit or be in lockstep with his shit—actively trying to bring on the robot-worker invasion?Or did I just attribute that to him because he, you know, totally seems like the type?EDIT: I m dum. Nowhere did Grimes talk about robot workers. I took that from a bad reading of the article and another user’s comment. Apologies!
Plus, I guarantee Musk has run the numbers (by which I mean, of course, he yelled at someone to do it for him, then took credit), and figured out it’s cheaper and easier to just continue abusing human workers.Robots don’t work so well in tents that are open to California air…
Ahhh, good ol’ Elon. But he called his charging port a butthole! LOL! Derp!
She used to be homeless, but okay. She’s not a libertarian regardless of Musk’s political views. It seems to me that if someone who has the best interests of the working class in mind and also has the ear of one of the richest men on the planet is wishing good things for the world, the world can only benefit from her having philanthropic tendencies, but go off.
Really not seeing what you are seeing here.
I’m mostly reacting to the emphasis and tone in discussing her marriage to Elon Musk, the “baby daddy” really stuck out to me as a cruel observation. Like is Grimes not capable of her own heel turn without having to adopt the politics of her spouse? idk it feels icky.
Women suddenly changing their views drastically after marrying/starting to date the wrong guy is a thing that really does happen a lot, though. And he arguments are so dumb and read so much like an incoherent mix between what she claimed to believe before and the type of shit Elon Musk likes to say that it’s not hard to imagine that this is how he sells her his ideas. I’m not sure if it’s much better if she’s the one selling them to herself.
Women can’t be misogynistic; it’s unpossible.
the simpsons bit makes me think you’re joking, which I hope is the case.
What Simpsons bit?
“me fail english, that’s umpossible” didn’t you say umpossible in that comment?
lol, I love imagining you reading the article, putting on a little “i’m so mad!” face, checking the byline, finding out it’s not a white guy, and writing this stupid-ass, inane comment anyway.
okay so non-white guys get immunity to write shitty things on the internet about women say less!
Sometimes women do stupid things and are deserving of criticism. Again, I understand that this is the internet in 2021 so your job is to find some weird identity-based shield to defend Grimes (of all people), but unless you can come up with something that is misogynistic about this aside from the fact that it’s critical of a woman, maybe shut up.
i’m looking for the part where I said women are not deserving of criticism, but i also understand a lot about your perspective based on what you’re saying about me and my comment, so I’m big time good not trying to demonstrate to you (of all people) what’s misogynistic about this article.
I’m glad you’re big time good with it (I hope you aren’t the mid-30s white person from the suburbs I assume you are if you’re saying things like ‘big time good’). And obviously you didn’t say that part (you aren’t supposed to say it out loud), but you also said it was misogynistic without saying why, and I’ve re-read the article and it doesn’t seem particularly misogynistic, just critical. But, again, it’s 2021 and you’re a dumb person on the internet, so it is what it is.
you can assume anything you want about me i’m only going to reply to tell you how dumb your comments are. i explained in this thread why i thought the critical (fair) take was misogynistic (not fair). i’m not getting paid to teach you how to do close reading and i certainly have been called far worse by far better
So you are a mid 30s white person. Me too!
i’m looking for the part where I said women are not deserving of criticism, but i also understand a lot about your perspective based on what you’re saying about me and my comment, so I’m big time good not trying to demonstrate to you (of all people) what’s misogynistic about this article.
Lucky I’m a non-white guy, eh?
Nah, they would’ve have a good eight, ten paragraphs good to go about misogyny and the male gaze and the patriarchy, then realised who wrote it and furiously deleted it. And then wrote that comment above even angrier because of that.
Hey now, I believe Grimes is just as stupid and awful as any man.
yeah i mean same that’s my whole point
…my god this is some of the ugliest, most misogynistic bullshit I’ve ever read. Avoid Hemingway. And Nabokov. And Miller. And Kerouac. And Twain. And Ellis. And Updi – what exactly have you read?
yeah yr right i should have specified that i meant here on this website or at least left a disclaimer for commenters who haven’t checked out hyperbole yet. my b
For guidance in these troubled times, let us turn to our Steve Martin regarding another rhetorical device: “Oh, irony! Oh no, we don’t get that here. See, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony’s not really a high priority. We haven’t had any irony here since about ‘83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.”
What bothers me the most is how this clearly wasn’t proof-read. Not even once.
Totally, except for the utter lack of anything sexist or misogynistic. If this is the most misogynistic thing you’ve ever read… I guess I envy you?
After reading your absolutely horseshit comments from the other day, I just have to ask, how the fuck did you get a teaching degree with your inability to use critical thinking?
thanks for being a fan!
to be fair it seemed like your run of the mill Rose Twitter tweetstorm cringe fest, with just the usual amounts of misogyny that goes with that
Does anyone else notice how, when you click on a link to a comment in your Profile, it just goes to the article you commented on and not the comment itself?
Yep, it’s a handy new feature. Granted, for most threads these days there’s only five comments to sort through.
Indeed I have.
Yep. I’ve just been recently having that problem myself.
Yup. I assume it’s something to do with their endless scrolling bullshit – which absolutely NO website should have. Ever. I assume when you click the comment it tries to take you to the comment, but condensed comments override it once you get to the page.
Yeah, it’s bullshit. Are the Kinja devs trying to make sure the current owners (deservedly) lose money when they eventually sell?
It’s too discourage communication between us plebes or well thought out rebuttals to propaganda trash tabloids that all of our “news” outlets have become.
Maybe the author should hesitate before accusing anyone else of misunderstanding Communism. She doesn’t seem to actually understand it herself.She writes that Communism “actually says that people will be adequately compensated for their work and skills.” That’s not correct. Indeed, one of the most well-known sayings of Marx was, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In other words, one is expected to work and use one’s skills without expectation of additional financial reward. Instead, goods and services are allocated according to need. A needy, skillless person would get more than someone whose skills are highly useful.The author also seems to think that in a Communist system, the workers who work at a particular workplace own that workplace. She writes , “[I]n a true communist space, the farmers themselves have control over their work and labor.” But that’s not true. In a Communist system, in theory, a farm is owned by society collectively (i.e. everyone, whether they work at the farm or have nothing to do with it). In practice, that means that the government controls these facilities and allocates the wealth obtained from them, since the government is supposed to be the representation of the people’s collective will.
Nope. She’s about spot-on. One of the foundational principles of Marxism is the proletariat owning/controlling the means of production. This means that any surplus value they generate from their labor is either returned to them or directly reinvested into production rather than handed up to, say, some CEO.As far as who “owns” the means of production, it kinda depends on the flavor of Marxism one espouses. For example, in anarcho-syndicalism, the people who work on the farm “own” the farm. It’s pretty reductive to put it this way, but there’s no government above them. Marx was pretty hazy on the details of governmental implementation, probably because according to him, there’s no such thing as a “Communist state.” The Communist end product is a classless, stateless society where resources aren’t allowed to pile up in someone’s bank account. It’s what Marx was driving at when he said “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.” Basically, it is how a society gets to Communism that people get hung up on.And while I’m “Well, aktually-ing,” I should mention that a lot of people (some of whom are further back in this thread) get Marx’s ideas on private property wrong. If I remember correctly, it’s because most of our understanding of “private property” comes from our basis in English common law where you have public property (the commons in a village where everyone can graze their milk cow), private property, and moveable property (anything you own that you can move). Marx re-defines those terms for his purposes and adds “personal property.” The meaning of public property remains pretty much the same, but he uses private property to mean things like factories and rental properties, which are used by capital to generate capital off of the surplus value of the labor the proletariat provides. “Personal property” means not just your moveable stuff, but the stuff that you own that you use, i.e.: your toothbrush, your car, your clothes, the house you live in, your yard, your hentai collection, etc.So when Marx says the proletariat should seize the means of production, he means the workers should take over the Tesla plant and benefit directly from their labor, and not that the unwashed masses will come to your house, kick you out on the street, and take your stuff.I’ve probably left a bunch of stuff out and I’m more than willing to stand corrected. But uh, yeah, that’s pretty much the basic basics.
This is a really good explanation! Thanks for posting it.
“…not that the unwashed masses will come to your house, kick you out on the street, and take your stuff.”Tell that to my Hungarian relatives ~70 years ago.
There are two twin problems with Marx’s analysis though.First, not all surplus value is due to labor. A farmer who buys a tractor and can plow 5 fields instead of 1 isnt generating surplus value from an increase in labor. He’s generating it from his capital investment (the tractor).The other problem is that there is no practical difference between private and “personal” property. Your house is also often used to run your business. Buying a car can be seen either as a personal expense or as a capital investment in productivity.
These are good points. However, to your first point (and not to sound snarky), unless the tractor operates itself, either the farmer or someone they employ will have to operate it. Yes, the labor’s gotten easier/faster/more efficient, but someone is still laboring here and creating even more surplus value because they reinvested in their farm by buying or otherwise acquiring a tractor.And yes, there is a practical difference between private and personal property. Your house, for example. You may also run a business out of it, but you do live there. And just to be clear, owning a business doesn’t necessarily make you a capitalist. A business where you and a partner make something to sell in your garage is pretty much the same as some of the worker cooperatives around the world. The difference is scale.This begs the question of just who is a “capitalist?” This is still being debated, particularly given how our economies have changed over the last 150 years or so. Some are pretty clear. Jeff Bezos is a capitalist. Why? For all the money he makes, how many hours does he pick orders in one of his warehouses? None, you say? Does he make any of the products he sells? Nope. Does he share the profits equally with all the workers Amazon employs? Not at all; he wouldn’t be a billionaire if he did. That’s what makes him a capitalist.On the other hand, let’s say you own a franchise for a chain restaurant. You’ve made capital investments to either build or adapt a building for the restaurant. You’ve bought the ovens, the tables, the silverware (likely from the franchiser). Now, do you help out, working hands-on with the line cooks? How do you split the profits? How do you pay workers? There’s a lot of room in there to argue that you aren’t a capitalist. After all, despite the money you’ve invested, you’re still beholden to a franchiser who profits from your work, even though they don’t do anything other than allow you to brand your restaurant a certain way. Then again, if you’re not pulling shifts in your restaurant and splitting the profits equally with your workers, then you’re profiting from the surplus value of their labor and could therefore be a capitalist. Cue “You might be a capitalist if…”
But you’ve actually got another good point in here. Economic and political ideologies and theories in reality are best used as guides and not necessarily hard and fast rules. As we both know, reality tends to be a bit mushier than that.
The problem is that you are basically attempting to define things through a difference in “scale” without a meaningful definition of where that scale kicks in. Which is why it is a poor definition.To reiterate, the couple making something to sell in their garage are not necessarily capitalists, it would depend on whether their participation in the business is partially through capital or solely through their personal labor. But their friend who lends them $500 in exchange for a cut of the profits, is. Because unlike the bad definitions promulgated by Marx’s utopian vision of Communism, the definition everyone else uses is a simple reflection of actual reality. I.e., anyone who provides capital in exchange for a share of a business is a capitalist. If they also provide labor, that changes nothing.To go back to the Jeff Bezos example, there was a point at which Bezos did exactly what you describe. He filled the orders personally. But he was ALWAYS a capitalist. That didn’t change just because they started making money. And it can’t, because it would become a meaningless definition to society to label people as labor or capital just because the business makes more or less money.
Underrated comment, beware untrained marxists on the AV Club.
Communism is just a red herring.
Flames! Flames on the side of my face.
“According to the timestamps on her original Myspace page, Boucher began writing music under the name Grimes in 2007. Her performer name was chosen because at the time, MySpace allowed artists to list three musical genres. She listed grime for all three, before knowing what grime music was.” – quote from the Guardian article on her Wikipedia page
I got a Scott Grimes notification for this?
This is one of my favourite tropes ever. “You don’t know what communism actually is!”Thanks for the lulz.
I enjoyed Grimes’ music a lot more when I thought she was weird and mysterious instead of knowing she’s just rich and stupid.
Ridiculous take. She wants to use her voice, money, and success for a good cause and that makes you hate her? Gross.
Thanks for those definitions; this sounds like a really cool system. Has it ever worked once in a free country?
Man Musk?
Gotta love when the bourgeoisie tells the proletariat how to do a “communism”. Especially when it’s dirt stupid.
Marx and Engles weren’t proletariat. Marxism and communism has always been about the bourgeoisie telling the backward, ignorant proletariat what is good for them. Which doesn’t make Grimes right about what communism is.
Considering the USSR went from a semi-feudal society to one with free healthcare, guaranteed housing and employment, I’d rather live there than be poor in the US. Also, China’s responsible for the majority of poverty reduction over the last few decades, so they might’ve been right about it being good for working people.
I disagree, but I’ll bring your response out of the greys.
Ah yes, much cushier to have constant fear of the gulag over being poor in the US, where you’re STILL better off than more than half the planet. What a nuclear take.
Yeah they’d jail you for not sharing your toothbrush and had the highest incarceration rate in the world, along with one of the worst infant mortality rates in the developed world.Ah scratch that last part, that’s the US actually.
Ah yes, because the USSR was well known for truthful reporting, and we’re certain ALL the numbers they put out were completely accurate. My favorite part of living in the US is the mandatory worship of government officials. Maybe the mass starvation? Decades in prison camps with no trial? Oh wait, that’s your dream world USSR. Fucking Tankie scum.
Get mad. Why should I believe Western reports about the USSR? Do you think Western governments wouldn’t lie?My ideal state would provide universal healthcare, affordable housing and education – how are those bad? Are you somehow less free because you actually get something out of the government? The only thing I’ve got from mine was 3200 bucks.
Wow, look who crawled up Putin’s ass?
If you think the “good” of the USSR outweighs the bad in America, then you need professional help. It was a nightmare, that’s why the only people wishing they still had it are privileged white kids in the US, because they didn’t experience it first hand. A few benefits don’t outweigh the mountainous oppression those people faced daily. Unless you’re willing to just turn over everything and be fully subservient to some shitbag leader because they gave you free tylenol and ambulance rides? But like I said: I’m not a tankie, so I’m functioning as intended, mentally speaking.
Coercion to pay for something doesn’t amount to freedom. I don’t believe the state should EXIST period, because that’s the only way to be free at all.
Only white kids who never lived there like the USSR? https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/24/75-of-russians-say-soviet-era-was-greatest-time-in-countrys-history-poll-a69735Also what’s up with the whole ‘totalitarian leader’s thing? People voted in elections for their representatives.
No, they didn’t.The USSR was not an elective democracy. That is very much not how communism works in any country that has implemented it. The authoritarianism is built into the concept of Marxist-Leninism. Mostly because the bolsheviks didn’t want to deal with challenges from other non-communist leftists. And everybody just followed that model.
No, democratic participation through voting is in their constitution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_UnionChina has a bit of a more open system with multiple minority parties in government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_ChinaSimilar to western democracies, people had their pick of candidates on the government’s terms (Republicans and Democrats agree on capitalist economic policy but diverge in the details) – do you think Biden won because he was the best candidate?
Lol, very article you posted makes it clear that there wasn’t actually any democratic voting in the one party system of the USSR.And look, say what you will about the US, but we do actually get to vote. You think Trump would have a chance otherwise? Sure as fuck no establishment Republican in 2016 would have allowed him to run if they had a choice in tbe matter. We get the people we vote for, for better or worse.
You’re so so so so so stupid
1600 people are not representative of 144.4 million people and polls are historically unreliable at best.People “vote” in Russia now. Ask Navalny how that’s going.
Your opinion is uninformed and doesn’t matter
Canada 🇨🇦 is closer if that’s what you’re into
Remember how the CPAC this year had a golden statue of Trump that some of them prayed at?Worship of party leaders is already the platform of one of America’s political parties…so I wouldn’t hold it up as an example of how America is doing better than Soviet Russia.
To be fair, that last one happens a lot in America. Just not systematically.
You’re an extremely unintelligent person.
As long as I have peace, land, bread, vodka and vodka-soaked bread, I’m good.I’m the words of Lenin: I Am The Walrus.
The fact that you think people in the United States are “Better off than more than half the planet” proves how well the United States propaganda machine has fed you their bullshit agenda that getting to vote and riot in the streets means your society is the penultimate infallible one and that people are “free” in that society. It’s not a free society, and the people do not live as free peoples. American society is corrupt and rotten, the people are selfish, ignorant, and poor as shit. All the roads are falling apart, millions are homeless, millions are starving in the streets, millions are addicted to drugs, and millions suffer from debt they’ll never pay off. Now tell me, how is the United States “Better off than more half the world” again? Oh right, you think that GDP actually fucking matters, I bet.
Yeah, it’s not like America has the highest percentage of it’s population in jail of any country on the entire planet or anything! No gulags, just concentration camps and prisons!
So you’re ignoring the 1.5 million in the Uyghur camps, right? And the massive amount of Laogai camps, which also aren’t included in the official numbers? Sure, if you’re working strictly on CCP propaganda, then you’re right.
Yes, China is terrible too. Congratulations?
Gulag ≠ communism. 🙄
From what I’ve read, hasn’t a good portion (if not most) of the reduction of poverty in China occurred as a result of the Central Government opening up markets and generally transforming the economy into a more capitalist system? “Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics” is the phrase that I’ve heard used.
75 million people died in China for its current state. many starved.. I lived there for over 3 years and it is totally oppressive. Russia is not much better where i worked for 5 years. people were executed and imprisoned for nothing and forced to work in horrible situations. i think the point of this story is maybe people should not make public remarks on things that they are not well versed in. I actually saw Grimes play in Beijing. She told us on her rider she has a clause that she must have puppies to play with backstage. I was so mad because what happens to these puppies after her show is over. china does not have the best track record with the treatment of animals and i was concerned for their welfare. she seems so clueless and attention seeking. and so dumb!
China is about as communist as a teacup poodle is an actual teacup.And they only did that whole poverty reduction AFTER they ditched communism.
Not much of a ‘gotcha’ as you’d think. People in China wouldn’t say they have a Communist society either, nor would they say they had one – it’s a common misconception that you can just implement communism without significant development in a society’s ability to produce stuff, and according to Marx that requires transitioning from a feudal economy to a capitalist one, and then to socialism, and then communism. The whole strategy of their economic liberalization is for development – capitalism is really good at making a lot of stuff, but the issue with that is that the economy shits the bed every few years and it also needs to grow infinitely to combat a declining rate of profit in mature industries. Overall the socialist project takes a long time to achieve ,and the big distinguishing feature of China in this regard is that it has a capitalist economy on its own terms in that the nation isn’t led by capitalists but by socialists that plan economic development.
Lol. No.China isn’t socialist. It’s just straight up Capitalist. They might still give lip service to the idea that they are eventually intending to usher in the putative communist utopia at some future date, but its fairly clear, and has been clear for a while now, that they just chucked that nonsense and went with regular old capitalism. Just a non-Liberal version of it with no democracy and none of the cult of individualism that is pervasive in Western capitalist democracies.And it works for them, where actually trying to develop communism very much did NOT.
This person you’re arguing with is deeply, profoundly stupid. I’ve no desire to wade into the argument, but good god! What a damn dummy that fool is! Snooder87, you’re doing the lord’s work (no snark; I’m being genuine).
I agree with you mostly, but I just want to point out that their attempts to establish communism did not work for a number of reasons, the most prominent being Mao and his ego.
Admittedly the guaranteed housing and employment was in a Siberian Salt Mine and having travelled across both nations from coast to coast, I’d still rather be poor in the US. It’s got nicer weather and food.
Of course China only started lifting people out of poverty when they started abandoning the Maoist bullshit and adopted capitalism. I mean “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”. Which is capitalism.
Um, no. It’s a bit more involved than that. For one thing, significant portions of the Chinese population is still under the poverty line.
The USSR went from a semi-feudal society to a brutal single party dictatorship that cost millions of people their lives and still jails or kills dissidents to this day. China’s poverty reduction started in the 80s when they ditched any pretense of communism and moved to non-democratic capitalism.
Mmmmm… tasty boot
A recent study showed soviet development didnt gain much from the change in management from the tsars https://www.jstor.org/stable/3131928?seq=1
Ehhh. I push back against the mindless denigration of communism as much as any leftist, but this is a stretch. Also, those poverty reduction stats are interesting to contrast with income inequality.
The US has issues to be sure. But consider. In the USSR and its colonies in Eastern Europe people wilingly risked getting shot or imprisioned trying to get *out*. For all the faults of the US, people are still risking their lives to get *in*.
Yeah, and the flaws of dictatorships are because they’re dictatorships and not because they have at times embraced any tenets of communism. Communism itself by definition only benefits workers and the greater good. No one has ever been able to explain to me what would be wrong with everyone working together to take care of each other and advance together.
It’s Grime stupid. It’s a little different
It’s standard-issue fuckwit slumming-it, just with ideologies instead of, say, working-class bars or having one-night stands with blue-collar workers.It’s no different to the legions of trust fund hipsters appropriating the aesthetics and fashion of (what they believe is) the working classes – beards, work shirts with rolled sleeves, jeans, workboots – just with ideology instead. Just as the hipster sees, say, how respected skilled manual labourers are, so to has Grimes seen this whole socialist thing gain traction on the twitter and decided she wants in on that. For these people, who’ve always been able to do what they want, without any negative consequences, it’s no different to buying a Lamborghini and running it into a postal van at 193MPH, or drunkenly assault their Filipino maid. It’s just a cool thing they feel they’re entitled to use however they see fit. No one’s ever stopped them before.
She’s basically saying she would give up wealth or money of any kind so we could all be wealthy in our abundant resources and you think it’s “dirt stupid” for her to use her money and influence for a good cause. What happened to being able to use your money however you want? And the trickle down of the uber rich making charitable decisions? That’s bad now?
I think it’s under-reported that Grimes and Musk are effectively part of a religious cult, for which “AI will save/destroy us” gobbledegook of this sort is liturgical speaking.
“workers own the means of production” that’s rich. A couple problems with that. In Communism the state owns everything on your behalf, so they can say “workers own it”, but it doesn’t mean you as a worker own anything, what it means is that the collectivist authoritarian govt will seize the means of production, and likely run you out of your job in the process.There is no private property in Communism, and work is not optional, you are forced to labor by the govt, and given only enough to survive.And before anyone says “real Communism hasn’t been tried yet” that’s because it’s a nonsense pipe dream, central planners are dipshits, everyone has a different life experience and should have the individual liberty to make choices and take action on their own terms.There is no one size fits all ideology.Thats why centrism is the sane position.Everything should be handled case by case, on first principles, without ideological preconceptions, because that’s how reality works.
I promised myself that I would come out of my business program still a progressive, but now I’m not so sure. I’m still a social progressive, but it doesn’t take much proper financial/economic education to make you realize that people on the left really don’t know what they’re talking about. They want communism/socialism but don’t realize that their vegan gluten-free diets wouldn’t be supported, and that they’d have no cash in hand to pay for that jazzy trip to New Orleans.
Most modern leftists are not calling for authoritarian communism. Those are tankies. The average “antifa” member is a leftist anarchist, IE: “companies should operate like REI and the government probably shouldn’t exist.”
They aren’t calling for authoritarian communism so far as they’re aware. But in practice, to order society and peoples’ actions sufficiently to implement anything like communism requires a great deal of control over their choices — and punishments for the recalcitrant.Maybe someone somewhere will prove me wrong someday, but until then, I don’t believe that communism and anything like “liberty” can coexist. Communism necessitates authoritarianism and everything that goes along with it.
I’m pretty sure that anyone who uses “vegan gluten-free diets” to characterize the left was never a progressive. I call bullshit, Hannity.
“The state” doesn’t own anything in communism. That’s not communism unless you’re using “state” as a synonym for “collective,” or “group of humans,” or something similar. You’re talking about some sort of authoritarian government, which sounds more like right wing fascism than communism.
Honestly, there’s a germ of an idea in what she’s saying that could possibly make sense if you were being super generous. The problem is, she’s misusing terms left and right (yes, Communism, but also, I think her concept of AI is a bit fucked).
I’ve had my interactions with some of the Lefter-than-thou crowd who have argued (in all seriousness) that the ideal Leftist world would entail a complete return to agrarian life (I think this is the idea Grimes is attempting to address). That is, of course, insane, and would require most of the world’s population dying off and forcing everyone else to be farmers against their will.
So, again, being super generous, it does seem like she’s attempting to wrestle with an idea that she’s likely heard and found (rightly) disagreeable. But she’s not doing it well at all.
But also, she doesn’t know what Communism is, so it’s probably best to just ignore her.
Collectivism always fails because we are individuals in physical reality and “the collective” is an abstract fiction that isn’t real. It is an Illusion, just as the colors on your screen right now aren’t real, they are an illusion created by individual red green and blue subpixels, and that’s the only wavelengths you’re actually seeing. It may look like people are this hegemonic entity, but in actuality it’s just a bunch of people making choices to suit their personal motivations, and these just happen to plug together nicely.However the same illusion is achieved no matter what choices are made, so long as there is freedom to chose, so it’s easy to see how one could see that and think they can induce the effect of the “collective” by gvt mandate, but that’s also ignorant of the fact that when you take the individual agency away, that entire system breaks. It’s only because people have individual agency that the illusion of a collective emerges organically, as people order themselves such that their goals are being met, but with a forced order in a micromanaged system, people won’t comply as expected, and eventually the system collapses, and people rebel.It happens every time, the initial offerings of collective systems is always the same, and the result is always the same. There are no incorruptible leaders, and no perfection in ton down governance.
Hmmmm that makes sense. It’s the sort of thing that can gain traction on the internet and trick you into thinking it’s a well-known part of the mainstream political discourse, but then you log off and realize it’s just this little fringe thing. Which is my main issue with internet politics in general.
I don’t think you understood what she was saying entirely. She used farming as one example of low and unpaid work that isn’t going to be necessary anymore. It’s mostly unnecessary now. Factory farms have largely transitioned to automation. Human labor jobs aren’t going to exist forever. She’s looking at the possibilities of a freer world in which we don’t force each other into these classist “have and have not” roles anymore. Some of what she is saying WOULD include tenets of communism, like workers controlling production because we wouldn’t really need to depend on 9-5 jobs if we all had our needs met by technological advances. Eventually all we’ll have to do is maintain the tech that maintains the tech. She’s positing utopian ideals. She’s an artist and a bohemian. Why wouldn’t she like the idea of a paradise in which humans are allowed to truly follow their passions and spend time doing what they want to do? I don’t know about you, but I would love to play video games with my kids all day instead of doing pointless menial labor all because some suits insisted on slowing down automation for no reason other than inflicting pain and suffering on the masses. The idea that we have to do drudge work that machines could be doing for us in order to “earn” survival has never made sense. Technological advances are literally designed to make life easier and more enjoyable. We all suffer and toil no matter what. She’s just saying everyone should have nice things, not just herself and Elon.
I might be out of the loop. Did Elon Musk marry a Simpson’s character?
No, but Grimes married Hank Scorpio.
No but he thinks he did.
So the fact that Grimes is dumb does not surprise me in the least, but the fact that AV Club is now stanning for communism is just a little bit off-putting.I get it, being a socialist is trendy and all these days, but defending the ideology of the Soviets, Castro, Ceaușescu, the current Chinese government, etc. is huge stretch.
People don’t know what socialism is, and I blame Bernie for that. There are actual socialist governments out there (generally not doing well) but the American left decided to use the word to describe publicly funded social services.
Exactly, it’s just an edgy label political kids like to use these days so they can rebel against their card-carrying Democratic parents.
Publicly funded social services are a part of socialism though. They’re a part of the core ideology being based, you know, around providing for the needs of the people rather than being based on making profits for a company.
And given the mess of inequality that is modern capitalism, I wouldn’t be too keen to point to that as an example of system that is inherently better than socialism.
They’re part of socialism sure, but a lot of leftists think they’re the only part of socialism. Ask them about the actual political and economic structure they’re pushing for and they can’t tell you anything else about it. What they actually want is the current capitalistic system with no extra tax burdens, but with more free stuff.
…Yeah, I’m gonna have to disagree with you on that one. I don’t think you can look at the pushes to actually get billionaires taxed, mega-corporations broken up and a raise to minimum wage to try and make it liveable and say all these people want is ‘the current capitalistic system with no extra tax burdens, but with more free stuff.’People are arguing that the current system isn’t working, with the increasing concentration of wealth amongst a small group of people. To say people just want ‘capitalism, but more free stuff’ is willfully ignoring the substance of what leftists are say.
But everything you just mentioned IS “capitalism, but more free stuff”. All democratic socialist societies are still fundamentally capitalist.I’m not saying it’s bad, but its important to recognize what capitalism actually is versus what communism actually is.Communism means no more private property. None. Your house? No longer belongs to you. You can use it, if you need to, but if someone else needs it more, they get it and you get out on the street. There is no cut-off for “well we only apply this to the rich and their luxuries.” It applies to everyone and everything. It also, theoretically, means no more government, no more nation states, etc. But practically it means an authoritarian government and heavy handed state control in order to wipe out “counter revolutionaries” so that eventually we will all bask in the putative utopia where all are equal, everyone works, and nobody owns anything.
Wasn’t talking about communism though, the comment I was responding to was specifically about socialism. (And the idea that socialism inherently leads to communism is not one that all socialists agree on.)All the examples I listed were based around the redistribution of wealth to support broader society, which is a core part of socialism…not ‘capitalism with more free stuff.’
It’s impressive that near everything you mentioned is either wrong or outright lie. Social democracies are fundamentally capitalist, democratic socialists are fundamentals socialist. The abolition of private property does not equate to begin doxxed from one’s home at the whims of the state. It also doesn’t necessarily mean the abolition of the state whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that you have 2 contradictory views of communism that you’re espousing at the same time. If there was no state, there would be no centralized body to remove you from a house (this is anarcho-communism) and if the state was for whatever reason purging you from your home (which isn’t apart of any theory but that would be authoritarian-state communism).There are many communist propogents for democratic socialist states (not authoritarian socialist states that you’ve confused yourself with). Additionaly the abolition of private property refers to housing not to one’s own personal instruments. Nobody would have to work (unless you’re again referring to an authoritarian state), and depending on the economic model in place you would own your own business (or at least a stake in it) and your own wares.
Look, I’m not a communist/socialist (leftism is not, for the most part, my cup of tea), but it would seem that you’ve misunderstood the “no private property” bit. Yes, communists and socialists want to abolish private property – but they don’t want to do away with PERSONAL property (i.e. your house, car, clothes, and other possessions).At least, that’s the impression that I’ve gotten.
Actual communists don’t consider your house private property; it’s personal property. Private property is property used by an owner to extract profit (surplus value), typically from the labor of workers, like an Amazon warehouse or Tesla factory and its machines.
Democratic socialist countries aren’t capitalist. What you mean is that so-called socialist countries are largely social democratic, which can does co-exist with capitalism. Also that’s a pretty facile description of communism. And I’m definitely no Communist.
Citation needed.
Well, considering Americans use the word “liberal” as the complete opposite of its actual political meaning…yeah. I’m not holding out much hope.
Uh huh. Sure thing.
Scandinavian countries and Canada generally seem to be thriving. How are they not doing well? If democratic socialism isn’t socialism, how do you define socialism? And what are the pros and cons? I’m asking for clarity.
All of those people/regimes significantly perverted the meaning and intent of the ideology, though.
My understanding is that communism is widely understood to be a more extreme form of socialism. It’s one thing to support government control of major industries, redistribution of wealth, etc., but to be supportive of regimes that starved millions to death in the name of “progress”, have/had secret police forces, have committed numerous war crimes and human rights atrocities, etc. is something else.And for all the whataboutskis going to say “but America does bad things too”, you’re absolutely right. We have a long and painful history. But even if you ignore the good things America has done (vaccines, food aid, winning two World Wars, PEPFAR, whatever) we at least have a system that allows us to institute change and do better.
I thiiiiiink socialism is the broad category and communism is one form of it. One of the issues with communism is that, as it’s understood academically, it can’t be instated without a revolution that would inevitably turn violent.
There is nothing inherently violent about a proletarian revolution.
Speaking as a non-American, and the fight you’re still having to try and get universal health-care, I’d challenge the idea that you have a system in place that allows you to institute change and do better.
I’m not saying socialism is going to suddenly fix everything, but looking at the huge wealth inequality we’re left with under capitalism, and the ongoing consolidation of all the huge corporations, I really wouldn’t argue that it is the better system.
Speaking as a non-American, and the fight you’re still having to try and
get universal health-care, I’d challenge the idea that you have a
system in place that allows you to institute change and do better.
We got the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and now something like 20 million more people have some form of decent health insurance. Is that as good as universal healthcare? Heavens no, but it’s a sign that progress can be made. This is also the country that started out with slavery and women not being allowed to vote, and since we have democratic elections, protections for free speech, and the ability to amend our constitution, we were able to get those things fixed once future generations came through and (rightfully) raised hell about it.
I’m not trying to be all “USA Number One!!!” here, but we’re at least better than Stalin and Mao starving millions of people to death or purging political opponents via a secret police force.
and it’s important to note that the ACA is a federal law trying to get individual states to play along, and some like California and Connecticut did work with the ACA while other states like Texas and Alabama try to sue the law into oblivion and it’s important to remember why that all happened.
And one of your two major political parties has spent the last ten years trying to dismantle the ACA. And this was a the policy that was meant to be the compromise.
Seriously the fight that United States is having to have to try and get some form of Universal Healthcare isn’t the shining example of your democracy working that you think it is.As for voting rights, look what is going on now with all the voter restrictions Republicans are trying to introduce. It’s faint praise if your comparison for the United States doing well is to compare it with Stalin and Mao and say ‘at least we’re not as bad as those guys.’
It’s a bit weird that you point to 100s of years of history to show the US is good actually, while saying, “Stalin existed, therefore communism is bad!” I’m not a communist by any stretch, but this line of reasoning makes no sense. By that reasoning, the existence of Andrew Jackson would negate the value of the United States’s political system.
The history of the US is one of slow, but incremental progress where previously marginalized groups fought to make the country a better place. The entire history of the Soviet Union, whether it’s Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. has been one of brutal repression. This is the country that agricultural famines because leadership didn’t want to change course and look bad, that allowed millions of Russians to die in WWII due to shitty tactics, covered up Chernobyl, etc.
Andrew Jackson was undoubtedly a genocidal shithead who deserves scorn and derision for all time. But we’ve also had Washington, Lincoln, Grant, Roosevelt, and even guys like Truman and LBJ who have objectively made the country a better place.
I’ve made it very clear that I’m not some nationalistic scumbag who thinks America can do wrong. My point is that communism (as opposed to socialism) is such a shitty ideology that even the US, for all of our many flaws, is better than it.
Is that true? Krushchev was unquestionably less repressive than Stalin.The US happily allowed the tobacco industry to addict its own population. The millions who died aren’t as dramatic as famine, but are you really trying to say that greed is a better motive than pride? We let our companies run amok all over the world (take a glance at the Union Carbide incident which is still poisoning people decades later). We let coal miners die of black lung and, NOW, have allowed black lung to return via deregulating the coal industry. And saying, presidents made the country a “better” place is kind of a silly bromide if they made the world a worse place. A political system that’s only good for one country and can only exist on the corpses of millions isn’t a good political system.
The same Truman who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Washington who purged Native American tribes and was the wealthiest slave-owner in America? Single actors, even ones as big as Stalin and Mao, don’t fundamentally taint an ideology. That’s like saying that those actions I cited means that American democracy is a corrupt, evil ideology by its very nature.
Stalin and Mao’s actions, in that regard, are not indicative of Communist ideology. I’m sure you won’t believe that though. If the abolition of slavery absolves the American system, would the success of glasnost and perestroika change your mind on communism? Curious where the line is.
We abolished slavery by fighting a Civil War over it, and then by disenfranchising the former Confederacy for long enough to pass the 14th Amendment. I’m not opposed to any of that, but it’s a little weird to attribute that as a success of democracy, rather than a success that can be achieved during a staggering breakdown of democracy.
“[W]inning two World Wars”.There were other countries involved in that, you know.
They barely took part in the first one* and waited a good year and a bit before dipping their toes into the sequel but y’know whatevs. *Like literally came in for the last quarter as a substitute after the Russians benched themselves due to revolution. Didn’t even make any decent movies out of their brief time in it either!
And did VERY well for themselves out of it too. As in, Europe, China and Japan utterly knacker themselves for 4 years, USA rides in at the last moment and instantly becomes a superpower. So brave.
Yes, the Russians probably have some thoughts on the necessity of capitalism to win a world war.
In fact, some of the other countries started fighting well before the US came in from the bullpen.
One thing that people not familiar with Communist governments might not know is that they themselves consider/considered themselves to be only socialist despite the party name. Communism was always the end game 50 or 100 years away after the need for a government and money had ended. But they consider the state they are in right now to just be socialist.
Your understanding is wrong. Authoritarian state socialism is merely one of many forms and interpretations of socialism. Communism occurs in which property is publicly owned and the proletarians control the means of production. Authoritarian socialist states are communist states (Although there is scholarly debate questioning the idea if a true communist state has ever been created.). What you seem to be confusing is social democracy with democratic socialism. The former maintains a capitalistic system with some socialist policies (Ala. Sweden, Norway etc.), while the latter’s aim is to replace capitalism with socialism. Beneath these 2 ideas lie various forms of thought. Insinuating that all communists support prior authoritarian communist regimes, is like saying that all capitalists support authoritarian capitalists. I implore you to read up on the various different beliefs that fall underneath the communist moniker.
“Winning two world wars”
Hilarious. “Became the world’s biggest war profiteer” would fit just as easily. Perhaps some education on all utterly terrible shit the USA has wreaked on the world would be good for you.
Your understanding is flawed. That’s okay. You have a lifetime of propaganda propping you up. If you take the time out to read up on things, you’ll find that things are a leetle bit more complex than that.
Lot of governments that are more socialist than us are democracies too.
Well, yeah. That’s the point. One of the key weaknesses of Communist governments is that they’re so easy to pervert.
No. That’s the “No True Scotsman” fallacy in which people who do bad things in a name of a cause are said to not be true representitives of it. That fact is, ideologies need to be evaulated not on their theoretical ideals but what their followers do. A similar problem is with religions in which the bad things actual Christians, Muslims, and even Buddhists do are blamed on people who aren’t “true” members of these faiths when they very clearly are.⏎
That only works so far. At some point, the ideals are decoupled from the actions enough that it become a in-name-only thing. Like a Muslim arguing that his religion allows him to eat pork, fuck around and worship multiple gods, and still be a Muslim.No True Scotsmen doesn’t include people pretending to be Scotsmen.
Not quite, by Marx words the ideology (marxism) was supposed to be violent and murderous. And described the middle class that would ally with them as “useful idiots” that they would get rid of them after the power grab.
Guess what: that’s exactly what happened in all socialist countries …
Yep. Dictatorships are not communism because as soon as a country is owned and operated by a dictator and ownership of production is wrested from the hands of the workers, it’s not communism anymore. The world rarely gets true communism, if ever, because there are always greedy authoritarians who would rather pit us all against each other for their gain than have everyone work together for our collective gain.
Lol
I think, if this article is defending an ideology, that that’s unintended, and this was meant more as a “Look at this dumb out of touch person of insane wealth”.
the article’s definition of communism is quite rosy, especially if you’ve ever learned anything about any of the 20th century communist regimes or met people who grew up under them
It’s the article that’s stupid. Grimes is like, “Hey, I used to be homeless and now I have wealth, but I’m fine getting by on what I make from my music, I don’t need to remain wealthy, and I think everyone should be allowed to be equally comfortable and thriving.” It’s inexplicably dumb that anyone thinks it’s dumb for a wealthy celebrity to want to use her voice and spend her money on helping other people. Isn’t the money theirs to do with as they wish? If they want to make electric cars and smart home tech that makes everyone lives easier, are we opposed to having a robot fold our laundry? I’m not.
You reaslise the by stanning the ‘anything but communism’ manifesto you are endorsing Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and even Hitler who the Americans spent money on to fight Communism?
Right so, as a certified “communism nerd”, there’s a lot of misunderstandings about what socialism/communism are.Socialism refers to a system in which the “means of production” (resources, factories, whatever), are owned not by private individuals and shareholders, but by the workers who actually put in the labor to turn raw resources into actual valuable products. While socialism can come in many forms and is often associated with many other social policies designed to improve society for marginalized people, in fundamental terms, that’s what it means. Socialism can be implemented through all kinds of means (democratic, authoritarian, libertarian/anarchist), and is seen by many (but not all) adherents as a stepping stone to communism.“Small c” communism refers to a stateless, moneyless, classless society in which all resources are owned collectively and shared for the good of the entirety of society. Many (though not all) socialists see this is a desirable and inevitable “end goal” of socialism.Communism, in terms of the ideology (not the socioeconomic system), refers to ideologies that try to get society to reach a state of socioeconomic communism in the long run. The most well-known Communists are authoritarian Communists such as the USSR, China, Vietnam, etc. Communists usually base their ideology wholly or partially on “Marxism-Leninism”, the kind of Communism we’re most familiar with. The idea behind it is that a small vanguard of revolutionaries seize control of the state, and over time will be able to direct the state towards socialism, and later communism. However, this is only one of the many Communist ideologies. The biggest and perhaps most different example is anarchocommunisn. There are Communists who think that the state should be overthrown instead of seized. There are all kinds of other anarchist, authoritarian, democratic and libertarian Communist ideologies, but yeah. Marxism is the most prominent Communist ideologies, and where the whole “capitalism -> socialism -> communism” idea comes from, and while most Communists are influenced by Marx’s economic analysis to some degree or another, there are also many who reject much of what he wrote.Basically, Communism is a complicated ideology, that means all kinds of different things to different people, but communism itself is, in my opinion, honestly not a bad idea. The devil is in the details. I have not read as much “theory” as many other people interested in socialism/communism/etc, so there may be some errors, and this is an extremely broad/shallow explanation, but for ppl who don’t have a full understanding of what these terms specifically mean, I hope this helps to at least some degree.
AVClub and The Onion are too scared to piss off the Rose emoji twitter users who also stan champagne socialism and their idealized version of communism.
Acting as if authoritarian socialism is the only from of socialism demonstrates a profound lack of understanding that the communist umbrella contains a plethora of varying beliefs and ideologies.
Oh yay, more people that don’t know what communism actually is.Red Communism, in the vein of the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and really any other “communist” regime in modern history, is not communism. That’s fascism. Just like the “National Socialists” in Germany and George Orwell’s fictional “English Socialists” in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
People are perfectly comfortable defending a capitalist ideology. Is that shocking to you?
Socialism isn’t communism. Nor is it Communism (generally understood as Marxism-Leninism). The current Chinese regime is not Communist or communist. It’s always funny to hear Westerners constantly equate regimes with ideologies, except when it comes to their own dirty laundry. Then it’s all unrelated.
Whoa. That’s not what I got out of the article at all. The author seems really confused about ideology in general, so maybe that’s not too surprising, but I thought the tone of this piece smacked of hatred for anyone promoting communism or socialism, while also confusedly hating Grimes for wanting to use her wealth and influence to help the greater good. Should no one ever help anyone? What are the goals here?And I don’t think anyone was defending authoritarian and austere or fascist regimes that wholly failed (intentionally) to implement communism in their governance. Comparing Cuba to China is also like comparing apples to toasters. They might both be in the kitchen, but with entirely different functions and molecular properties.Grimes is promoting contemporary communism with a hefty dose of democratic socialism. She was a Bernie Sanders supporter. This is Scandinavian or Canadian style ideology, not some old Soviet phony “communism,” or dictatorships, which are not communism by definition. She’s for stuff like not having copays when you go see a doctor. She’s not for torturing the rebels and whatnot.
it’s a little bit understandable to have difficulty describing communism given that there has never been a successful communist experiment to my knowledge…it always turns out when you take the mask off it was a standard dictatorship, a borderline feudal oligarchy, a quasi-junta kleptocracy, or just capitalism all along (sound like any countries you know?). From my perspective I’d just describe it as authoritarian socialism. It’s socialism running into the Popper problem that (paraphrased) if you try to be all peace and love somebody is going to roll in and steal from you and then subjugate you. Socialist programs can be implemented easily and can be kept from abuse if regulated, but socialist GOVERNMENT as a whole is more difficult to implement.But one thing I’m pretty sure of…all those Russian novels were not about never having to work. They were often boujie people trying to live out their “work exalts” philosophy and finding out it’s miserable and dehumanizing, like Ted Cruz pretending he eats at Waffle House. I admire how somebody with panic attacks from playing Princess Peach is bold enough to be so wrong so publicly, but only that.
To be fair, Republicans don’t know what communism is either.
No need to drag the Church into it!
Sure we do. A stain on humanity, the denial of freedom and liberty, a disgusting ideology that inevitably degrades to gulag, torture and death squads. A boot eternally smashing a human face. Something that should be eradicated.
They always seem to think it means fascism, which is so hilariously/sadly ironic.
WAIT HOW CAN THE WOMAN WHO GOT HERSELF PREGNANT BY ELON MUSK BE AN IGNORANT FUCKING DIPSHIT?oh.
Laugh it up now, but what you’re all laughing at is Canada’s next Grime Minister.
So the takeaway is, stay out of Elon’s weed stash.
Techno-utopians FUCK OFF!
Fuck off Grimes.
First off, to everyone here saying Grimes is dumb, I’d like for you to all know that Grimes has stated she is on the autism spectrum. You should really research a person before making comments like that. People who are on the autism spectrum can have a difficult time understanding complex ideologies and tend to think of things in terms that have to follow a set of rules. As far as this article I’d like to correct that Grimes is not the bride of Elon, they are not married. As far as her comment I think it’s a nice but not well thought out idea that people dont have to perform back breaking manual labor if AI were to replace those jobs.
Every time I see the header image for this article I briefly think it’s Jillian Taylor from Ruby the Hatchet and I am always disappointed when I realize it’s not.
In short, someone write an article about Ruby the Hatchet instead.
isn’t this just “gay luxury space communism” that is demanded for all the time? to say nothing of the old “workers should celebrate automation because it means less work, not fear it for taking their jobs” canard.
She seems un-bright.
Ummm… I’m not sure if you realize that you don’t seem to know what communism is either. What you described is socialism. Communism is when the Government controls the means of production.
Grimes is a brilliant artist but she should do a Sade, and just appear when she has new music out.
Honestly, once I found out that she came from wealth originally and that’s what has facilitated her career as an artist, I smiled and moved on. I hadn’t really felt obliged to engage much with her outside of her music (which I enjoy! Art Angels is a fantastic CD, I have no qualms admitting it) but there’s just absolutely nothing going with her and she really doesn’t have a lot to offer here. I still feel sort of sorry that she’s anywhere near Elon’s orbit but at the same time, it actually completely makes sense that those two would be together.
This article is trash. It reads salty and misogynistic af over a joke Grimes made on an entertainment platform with the intent that the internet and the white intellectuals get all butt hurt and pop off. Anyways she has new music out, checking that out and never reading an AV club article again by mistake
I’ll admit I like her music, but I really think Grimes is just not very bright.
Well, she’s not The Lone Ranger on that one
Friedrich Engels was a millionaire at a time when being a millionaire meant a vast amount of wealth. Communism’s biggest problem is that it fails to take into account the large percentage of people who would abuse the system, which has to be assumed based on human nature. Look at the so called communist states, none of the leaders live in the same style as the majority of the people, they live a much more wealthy lifestyle. So classlessness is impossible. So what do you use to decide who gets to be wealthy or not? At least capitalism has SOME meritocracy built in. Jeff bezos, for all his faults, has produced a whole new layer to the economy, almost singlehandedly. So he is compensated accordingly.The other issue with communism is that the end form more closely resembles anarchy, with no central government. This can be seen as analogous to when the nobles in england had as much or more power than the king. Led to low level constant warfare, with raids and all sorts of violence inflicted, simply to increase your family’s holdings. And that’s what would eventually happen between the various communes. One would start the process of taking over another because the 2nd has better resources available. And so on and so on, with no central authority to appeal to. Simply might is right.
Those who “abuse the system” do so more frequently when they believe it is unfair, and with Communism is elimination of meritocracy the natural differences in people’s abilities make them resentful to the forced equality. Even primitive societies have hierarchies of skill and ability. (I’ve lived with some in the Asia-Pacific.)Consequently, the authoritarian control escalates to prevent it.I think Grimes believes, naïvély, that everyone will be “on the same wavelength, dude,” and there will be some Uber consciousness of interpersonal understanding when we all get our “chips:” however, the potential for control, “Intra-cranial espionage”™ and the deliberate and blowback evolutionary directions we will take is just too terrifying for my to plant one of those in my skull, ever.If someone can hack a pipeline…
I miss when she was just fun “kooky artist” crazy and not “union-busting capitalism superfan” crazy.
TThis comment section is going to be LIT
Remember when she said that Tesla doesn’t stop its workers from unionizing, the workers simply just don’t want to? Don’t worry, she went and asked them herself! I mean there’s simply no way that they would lie to their bosses’ girl-toy right? Surely not.
https://www.businessinsider.com/grimes-elon-musk-never-stopped-tesla-workers-from-unionizing-2018-5?op=1
Communism is as retarded as she is though
I think what she means is that in the future when bots capably replace the labor force, they should be put to work & taxed in at least the 85% tax bracket, for bots labour only. Then , the surplus should be used to pay for all social issues, including a monthly supplement to all citizens. Science fiction? Prolly. She is an artist. Let’s save the hateful name calling for the politicians, and try to keep an open mind for the few- and-far- between , modern thought-provoking artists
She’s an artist?
An amazing artist. Incredible work ethic, and one of the most stunningly beautiful humans on the planet.
I love this comment. Couldn’t agree more. I’m glad to see a tiny bit of sanity among all the handwringing and caterwauling over an artist promoting a reduction of human suffering bolstered by technological advances. I wonder if people flipped out this much over cars being invented and getting us from point A to point B faster.
I have a proposition for Grimes & her douche nozzle romantic partner
I find it kind of wild how a lot of people are still doing
mental gymnastics to blame everything about her bad takes on Elon. I
mean don’t get me wrong I’m sure being with him has changed her
worldview but I can say with almost certainty that he’s not standing
just off screen with a gun to her head forcing her to say this dumb shit
on TikTok.
Yeah, she’s always just been a grifter.
Communism is ridiculously farfetched. It is a dreamers land, not fit for reality. Nothing about the concept is possible. There will always be people more fortunate, more prosperous, than others. Someone has to front the cost. Not to mention there are always the groups of people that will do nothing. The lazy people. Like those that live off welfare. Communism is a dream created by lazy sloths.
Sadly, we will always have halfwits among us trying to immanentize the eschaton.
Communism is “systemic” corruption.
Not so long ago, we (rightly) treated avowed Communists with the same disdain as neo-Nazis or anarchists. Somehow, shacking up with Elon is now seen as more problematic in this article than having name-dropped Stalin in her yearbook. If Grimes’ hot take on Space Communism is that it involves being under the boot of an autocrat, she’s a keener student of history than we give her credit for. Just substitute the NKVD with dope-smoking robots and the Soviet ruble with Dogecoin…
“In Soviet Union, baby gives stupid name to you!”
Corporate control over means of productions actually sounds more like Fascism rather than Communism.
ooklathemok3994 You replied, “Hard pass.” to one of my comments, but since Kinja won’t link to our actual comments anymore, I can’t find which one. I dig hearing your thoughts on things, so I’m wondering if I can reach out to you this way. Heh.What are you hard passing on?? I need to know!
Who wrote this clearly doesn’t know about current accelerationist views about communism. She is clearly confused about her political position but that tik tok was fine. Also, y’all bitches pretend to be feminists but as soon as a woman get married u just start to identify her just as an extension of her husband. This article is ugly.
Realiti is a pretty good song though, right?
“shortly after she begun her relationship with Musk, her politics began to shift”
Nope, she was pretty much always just a grifter.
Woman Willing To Have Relationship With Elon Musk Is Actually A Fucking IdiotFilm at 11
I used to unironically like Grimes (and still do love her music), but god if she isn’t the prime example of someone who only cares about the aesthetics of “communism” without actually understanding anything about what it is, how it relates to the economy, or the economy itself. She is quite literally the most privileged woman alive right now. It offends all of the senses that she would even dare to PRETEND to speak on the ails of the working class.
OMG PEOPLE PLEASE!! She is talking about taxing THE BOTS who will eventually replace manual labor, therefore generating a government surplus, NOT THE ACTUAL COMMUNISM that involves it’s living people, like in China or Russia. Large corporations using the roBOTS technology will still prolly save trillions in labor costs but they will also have to pay highest tax rate AUTOMATICALLY; thus generating a massive government SURPLUS; all of it eventually used pay for social services & monthly dividends.
Wow. This “article” is either unintentional or intentional misinformation. Billionaire wealth should not exist. Grimes is advocating for the same. Elon Musk is a billionaire insofar as his money is tied up in companies that produce things like electric cars, building solar stations to fuel those cars, reducing waste and saving human beings money by creating reusable space launch vehicles/rockets, launching starlink to bring the internet to places and humans that have never had it before, at speeds we have never had before (with a goal of making the internet free for everyone because they don’t just have some communist views, they also have socialist views which make for a more utopian style of communism, as I’m sure the author SHOULD be aware o_O), with new non-reflective coating for satellites that don’t cause light interference for astrologers, helping humans explore space and find new ways of sustaining life on this planet, digging tunnels and implementing magnetic hyper loop style travel underground to reduce the strain of traffic and automobile pollution on all of us and increase the speeds at which we’re able to travel, planting millions of trees, and launching one of the first electric trucks of its kind (which, ahem, would do a lot toward fighting global warming).You can hate on him anyway. He’s a billionaire. I get that, though I don’t see this level of media derision leveled at Trump (he gets a lot of censure from humans in general, but a lot of media softballs and pandering); who loves the idea of big oil endlessly polluting and destroying native lands, or Bezos; who I’m assuming has enough holdings in media to prevent most smear campaigns like this against him, or Branson; whose purple-lit airplane interiors may be pretty to some, but are no friend to the environment as far as I know (I’ve read that Musk is working toward ending our dependence on rocket fuel/airplane gas which is a horrible pollutant), or Gates; who spends more of his time/money developing products to prevent Africans from smelling excrement in large community toilets than funding actual plumbing for them or helping advance civilization (as far as I have read. Feel free to correct me, and this obviously doesn’t include the sudden deluge of articles about his divorce drama, just generally speaking), or Bloomberg who, let’s face it, has a hefty share of media locked down in his holdings. I’m not demonizing anyone either, but some of the media narrative seems skewed to help some of these guys more than others and we have to wonder why that is.Still, Musk is talkative (that annoys some people, but not me), he’s confident (which might read as arrogant?), he’s brash at times, he’s fine with marijuana (which is still like the devil to some of our olds, I understand), he doesn’t seem overly concerned with the opinions of his shareholders about his personal life (isn’t it a good thing to shun Wall Street?), and he doesn’t seem to mind making money to further his goals. Some of that sucks so feel free to criticize him. Grimes has said she gets the criticism of her for dating a billionaire, but here’s the thing: they are both advocates for universal healthcare because they were both raised in Canada and have seen it work for everyone. Even if Musk is a capitalist at present, they have that in common.If you’re reading this and you’re steeped in some sort of archaic belief that communism must be mired in worker bee drudgitude, I’m afraid you must not be very well-versed in the works of Camus, Sartre, or physicist/philosophers like Carl Sagan. Communism isn’t about collectively dragging each other down to the same level. It’s about equality for human beings. Contemporary communism would be more of an actual meritocracy than anything the United States has ever pretended to strive for. Instead of being slaves to corporations and greedy billionaires, yes author, we workers WOULD control the means of production. With AI and automation, the same holds true. What we consider “work” for human beings is going to have to evolve no matter what your gripes about that might be. I’m sorry if your ideal vision of a worker’s paradise includes people clocking in 6AM-6PM or the ole 9 to 5 in the black poisonous darkness of coal mines, or being socked in elbow-to-elbow in factory lines, but that kind of work is on its way out—maintaining and repairing smart tech is the future of work, and it requires less manpower—regardless of Miss Boucher’s personally held goals to ease human suffering.She’s not a crazy-pants cuckoo bird for being aware that automation is going to end the need for humans to haul big-rig loads, or drag packages hither and yon (we’re already starting to transition to drone assisted delivery). Some of our user friendly technology is going to be so user friendly that we won’t have to spend the majority of our lives missing out on time with our loved ones to slave away at drudge jobs for the uber rich. When that happens, should humans lie down and starve to death because they can no longer grab their bootstraps and find some pointless toiling to do? Or will we need something like UBI to sustain life for our species? And I’m not talking about the corporate idea of UBI, or taxing the middle class into oblivion to pay for it. Our industry and our spending would pay for it.Make up your mind as to whether or not you want capitalism to survive. Unfettered capitalism is not sustainable. SOME amount of communism and socialism restores balance. If we ever truly evolve, we shouldn’t even need money to survive. We created it. It’s a toxic game. Communism doesn’t include money at all. Grimes isn’t suggesting that she hold on to wealth while the rest of us have none. That’s a preposterous assumption based on the author’s clearly right-winged preconceived notions.Our worth has already been reduced to arbitrary numbers stored in the cloud and on plastic cards. Money doesn’t really exist. Someone has told you that you are a number and that someone else has a higher number, so they win the good life and maybe you win an apartment that’s not big enough for a fully functional kitchen, or the bathroom of your dreams. Over 11 million families are at risk of homelessness due to a job shortage. In the future, some of the only jobs we have will be maintaining the computers and smart tech that sustains us. Should we starve to death while using rocks for pillows in parking lots? Or should we not be a collective band of imbeciles?Austerity is BS. No one likes it. It makes us angry, bitter, and mean. Enjoying things makes people happy. Sharing is caring. Love and compassion feel good. Try some sometime. As a crazy experiment. You’ll either freak yourself out like your affronted reaction to Grimes wishing you nice things, or you’ll realize that not perpetuating uptight ignorant judgmental boomer norms will make you feel less like a teeth-gnashing punishment lunatic, and that might give you the warm fuzzies for a while; maybe make your grinchy heart grow three sizes that day.I’m Tamara Kane. I’m an artist, comedian, armchair philosopher, dying of cancer, and I love all humans; especially you. Buy my art or donate to my fundraiser so maybe I can afford a down payment on a house someday before the cancer comes out of remission so I can stop being skull-fracked by bank-owned corporate landlords in the hell that is being a renter and possibly be able to experience a bubble bath one more time in my life. Or offer me a job (I have one, but it’s usually a freelance affair) Or don’t and have a virtual thumbs up anyway. Thanks for reading this. You’re an excellent reader. I love you and Drew Carey.