WIthoutFurtherDelay

I looked up Marcuse and on a really primitive reading of his Wikipedia article, while I disagree with his negative views of the USSR, his views seem to be way more in line with reality than Ted's

It’s not pathologizing, quite the opposite, OP is saying that the industry is necessary because a normal human behavior exists that the constant drive for commodity production interrupts

Capitalism doesn’t cause differences, it makes behavior that isn’t strictly in line with the norm much more dangerous to the person having it.

I find it fascinating how the Unabomber and, to an extent, anyone who advocates weird, “every society not built on killing and eating is bad” worldviews, they can see this concept of surrogate goals but immediately jump to invalidating them. What makes the desire to become the best rock thrower in the world any more valid than the desire to survive? More people certainly want the latter, but in the absence of a god or higher power to give us some sort of direction, these surrogate goals are as equally valid as any human endeavor ever ventured upon.

What I suggest seems superficially preposterous, I mean, anyone can tell that not starving is more important than becoming the best rock thrower. But that’s the thing- we only think that because the majority of people do not want to starve. Both the desire to throw rocks and the desire to eat are rooted in our biology, one is just more popular and therefore well supported (and, to be clear, should be supported, I think not starving is more important than rock throwing too)

In fact, most of this is pretty much just nonsense. Most “surrogate” desires never reach the level of toxicity or self harm that exists today in corporate culture or even religion.

Also art is not a fake desire ffs

I would go as far as suggesting that these supposedly fake desires only exist or become truly fake when people are forced to submit to them. When someone is pursuing a “surrogate” or supposedly fake desire without being forced to by conditions or the current mode of production, they’re usually pretty content with it, or experience it as an enjoyable vibe rather than a painful goal, therefore something that can be truly satisfied, like eating or sleep. See art communities for this. There are examples of toxic behavior and attitudes in art communities but they always seem to coincide with a desire to commodify one’s art or as a side effect or the idea of productivity.

I’m used to everything pro-Ukraine on this instance being downvoted to hell. Everyone who supports Russia is being downvoted instead. What is going on?

The state.

I just finished reading it, and I think I can say my feelings on it with more certainty.

It is absolutely a bad refutation when misused. It is a refutation of specific, radlib strains of left-adjacent thought, not of anarchism itself. The only reason I specify anarchism is because “anti-authoritarianism” is completely and utterly meaningless, a vague gesture on removing an entire facet of natural human behavior, while anarchism is a committed opposition to a specific form of political organization.

The fact that the pamphlet often is useful as a refutation of self-described “anarchists” isn’t because it is an effective tool for debunking anarchism, but because the majority of self-described anarchists have put zero effort into analyzing things and actually have no concrete political beliefs.

I think, counter-intuitively, the solution might be to focus on anarchist tendencies more. By temporarily adopting a “Utopian” mindset, tempered and viciously sharpened with a constant awareness of materialism and the concrete reality of class, we could create a new breed of anarchism that’s more resistant to liberal intrusions, and more willing to work with actually existing socialism, while still maintaining it’s utopian moral principle.

I’m not suggesting this because I agree with utopian or anarchist beliefs, but because I think that the fundamental desires that feed into the inclination towards anarchism are valid, and will still lead to correct conclusions if tempered with a connection to materialism. Instead of denying their initial goals, we should instead point out to anarchists what actually achieves them

Half of this comment probably sounds completely insane. I am tired.

Apparently “on authority” is kind of a bad refutation of anarchism, which makes it very funny that people resort to dismissing it instead of pointing out it’s flaws.

IQ is basically an ableist conspiracy theory (or so I’ve heard), but otherwise I agree

Yet another example of how providing things to the working class will get them on your side much easier than yelling at them to have the right takes.

I wish I could add or contribute to the issue you’re dealing with, but you and your party seem much more experienced than I am at managing these things.