Christian brainworms i think

real

its the constant, casual allosexuality and alloromanticism creeping into every crevice of human life that rly fucks with me

the constant reminders of 'your friends will never consider you important as someone they're smashing privates (or hoping to) with', 'society won't consider you an adult until you get a partner', and 'some [a lot ] of people are nice just for sex' stuff that gets to me

and how all this means that basically every media has romance and sex--if it doesn't the fans will turn every platonic interaction into a sexualromantic thing because "people just don't [hug/cuddle/be a decent human being] unless they want sex or romance"

And even if there is sex or romance, fans will turn all the platonic relationships sexual anyway because "they have better chemistry" or "it's obvious Sam really wants to sex/romance Frodo; there's no other reason he'd go so far for him"

just,

As one of the "sex repulsed ace" folks who gets shot at / tokenised / ignored / etc by all sides

Allosexuality deeply normalised and world is scream. Can't use goddamn pleading emotes anymore because the goddamn allosexuals stole the goddamn emote to mean "bottom" and have turned anxious behaviours, nervousness, etc, into sexualised "bottom behaviour" to contrast "top behaviour" (fucking hell my fellow queers have recreated masculine and feminine gender roles down to their association with sexual behaviour! Infuriating!).

Also its fucking creepy that "pickup line" "stutter/blush/etc" "kissing / etc" being taken as "consent" is BACK but now its fine bc its gay? Like god i don't want my anxieties taken as "i just secretly want the hornies??"

Oh and the jokes from other queers about turning everyone gay etcetc and i'm like "fuck you i don't wanna be gay i hate this whole sex and romance thing"

So yeah notta fun month here ! ! !

Is there any way to perfect the tech that ISNT something out of a dystopian scifi?

Nope. The entirety of academic science is predicated on the dystopian scifi of modernity. E.g. the species of mouse that has been selectively bred to remain genetically identical (so it can be used as a scientific unit for experimentation) for more than a century, has been copyrighted, and is used in basically all testing. It's been squished, starved (lab animals are generally kept in a state of hunger to make them more easily controlled), diseased, burnt, drowned, cut open (while alive), shocked, etcetc. Similar treatment of many other animals (and humans in the global south, and people of colour and disabled people and women etcetc in the global north).

Our (Capitalist-European) ways of knowing are based on this brute force torture-science where we tear stuff apart to find out "what it is" (and more importantly, can it be made profitable or is it useless?) as soon as possible, and then we declare the results of this torture-science universally applicable, e.g. we declared animals stupid because we ran tests on animals we've captured, starved to ensure food motivation and locked up in cages for ease of access and tested on things humans find relevant (e.g. testing facial recognition on apes using human faces instead of ape faces; shockingly gorillas are better at telling gorillas apart than telling humans apart).

Like, it rly has to be remembered the basis of Academic European Science is rich fucks doing experiments for fun, using "raw materials" (living or otherwise) available to them as a result of their immense privilege. As their wealth was already based on e.g. literal chattel slavery they had no qualms doing literal torture on subhumans for fun and "progress", no qualms tearing up ecosystems to "study plants and animals" (bc of this, Academic science is still basically baffled by a lotta how plants and animals actually work in nature). They therefore had less than no qualms doing any of this to "improve the human condition (i.e. to make more shit for companies to sell)".

Capital was willing to work 2 year olds to death in lace mills for pretty dresses; it has less than no qualms about torturing apes or mice to death to ensure quality hair products or slightly longer human lifespans (for the rich, in the global north). Socialism (as it exists after imperialism dies, not as it exists while competing with imperialism) will likely have to (be forced to by the poorest) reconsider a lotta the stuff we in the imperial core take as necessities of life.

If the sun destroys capitalism by frying all our technologies i will immediately convert to a sun cultist

Sorta. It's very materialist. It treats economics as the foundation of historical development. Interest groups attract people based primarily on material concerns. Classes hence struggle against each other (afaik without scripting) and create alliances with other classes and do revolutions. What its really missing imo is the environmental aspect to be truly 'marxist' tho (the 19th century is when concerns about "what happens when we run out of fertiliser/trees/fish/etc" started really growing as a result of unprecedented extractivism, and these are recurring concerns in Capital)

I wonder if it is because with the game becoming less popular again

A lotta the reason people keep talking about marxism in vicky3 is because the devs of vicky3 outright said they uesed some of Marx's economic theories because it makes for good game design.

Also something something reality has a marxist bias.

Khrushchev? What good has Khrushchev ever done?

-Deng, 1980

In addition to what others have said, remember that the US (and its client-states such as Canada, Britain, France, Sweden, Japan, etc) which have 'democracy' and 'welfare' have these things because and so long as the global south is under their boot. The majority of intense class struggle, the actual "propertyless-except-for-their-labour-power" proletariat, the majority of environmental degredation and all the repressive measures needed to maintain "order" in spite of this naked exploitation have largely been exported to the neocolonies, where such rights and democracies are more obviously nonexistant or fraudulent.

And even in these states, in times of crisis the mask of democracy falls off immediately (e.g. responses to anti-ww1 protests, responses to anti-vietnam war protests in the 70s, responses to environmental protests in the 60s, or responses to indigenous land rights struggles basically all the time.) The freedom of speech is also only freedom from government persecution for free speech. It is not protection from private persecution for speech.

Note that e.g. Walmart, Amazon, Google, and other entities, despite being larger than some nations, are private, are autocracies run by a CEO appointed by money through its physical representatives, the shareholders. There is nothing to stop an employer from firing you from excercising 'free speech' to criticise their practices (if one is even lucky enough to live somewhere where the employer requires a reason to fire someone). As, on the average, all of these CEOs, shareholders, owners, etc share class interests, and the managers, supervisors, etc have delusions of sharing class interests, this works out to a fairly extensive network for suppression of dissent.

Much as the feudal king didn't have to raise the national levies for every uppity peasant, the bourgeois has no need to raise the national armies in response to every uppity citizen-worker. The feudal king would leave such small matters to local lords, priests, or voluntary action of middling landowners; the bourgeois leaves such small matters to the petite-bourgeois, managers, and the 'middle class' generally.

In general wrt 'convincing libs', in my context (imperial core, cannot speak for non-core folks' experiences) I focus more on showing them that our country is evil, that our system is evil than trying to show that e.g. China is good. The fact of the matter is that no matter how good China is, it falls short of the imaginary-utopian America/Canada/France/'The West' the average lib has in their head. No actual real state with flaws will ever measure up to their imaginary utopia; it needs to be shown to be false first.

Marx isn't anti-religion because "lol man in the sky silly". Marx is anti-religion because it is the product of an inverted world, a class society. Marx believes that, if class society is abolished, if the topsy-turvy (this is the word he uses in e.g. "On 'The Jewish Question'" or the rest of "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law") world is turned upright, religion will wither away into nothing. Marx believes this is only possible when all the social relations that underlie society are laid bare in an understandable form (i.e. with communism), and that it will not disappear until the topsy-turvy material world disappears.

As Marx states in the former essay, Marx doesn't believe religion can be abolished by decree (and he points out that state secularism is often just reskinned Christianity). In both essays, Marx actually details how the state itself, money itself, are religions; for Marx religion is the work of human mind alienated from humans and dominating them.

In the full quote (which emizeko posted) Marx outright refers to religion as the general theory of this world (i.e. the topsy-turvy world), as an encyclopaedic compendium. Elsewhere (either in Contribution to the Critique or in On the Jewish Question) Marx refers to religion as a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind. Based on Marx's usage of various bible quotes and themes in his work (even Capital), it seems likely that he treated religion as he would e.g. liberal economists or members of parliament (i.e. with critical analysis and an eye towards useful stuff for his own critique)

Trade. Specifically, trade overseas (sea transport is much faster than land transport to the point of qualitative difference) allowed by long-distance ships. This seems to have had dramatic effects from very early on centred around the Mediterranean (e.g. Bronze age, Hellenic world, Rome, etc for more detail see Broodbank's The Making of the Middle Sea). The secret to merchants' capital and hence merchants' power is found in ch5 of Kapital:

The form of circulation within which money is transformed into capital contradicts all the previously developed laws bearing on the nature of commodities, value, money and even circulation itself. What distinguishes this form from that of the simple circulation of commodities is the inverted order of succession of the two antithetical processes, sale and purchase. How can this purely formal distinction change the nature of these processes, as if by magic?

But that is not all. This inversion has no existence for two of the three persons who transact business together. As a capitalist, I buy commodities from A and sell them again to B... [A&B] step forth only as buyers or sellers of commodities. I myself confront them each time as a mere owner of either money or commodities, as a buyer or a seller, and what is more, in both sets of transactions I confront A only as a buyer and B only as a seller. I confront the one only as money, the other only as commodities, but neither of them as capital or a capitalist, or a representative of anything more than money or commodities, or of anything which might produce any effect beyond that produced by money or commodities.(258)

Even in the relatively even playing field of the Mediterranean, this creates the ability of one party, the capitalist, to hold an overwhelming advantage of knowledge of (closer to) the entire process of exchange, instead of one part. In addition, this creates impetus to find new sources of valuable materials (a source of relative surplus value) spurring expansion. These twin impulses help drive and enable early European expansion. The next key to super-imperialism lies in the medieval monasteries.

Moving quickly (for more detail; Landes The Invention of Time and parts of Crosby The Measure of Reality), medieval monks became very fixated on routine, schedule, fixed times unchanged by the movement of the sun, etc. This made them efficient workers, and it spread into the cities. This conception of time (time composed of homogenous, discrete units instead of heterogenous, continous movement) is a necessary precondition for the existence of the capitalist mode of production, but here we are interested in its relationship to the construction of the modern escapement clock (as opposed to e.g. water clocks, sun-dials, etc).

Modern clocks (basically the kind where time is measured by discrete intervals of sounds; the tick) arise from this conception of time, as a way to create clocks that are more consistent. At first, a main goal of such clocks was to regulate monastery life better; it spread to cities and burghers from there. At this point, we are at the pendulum clocks, and these serve well for use on land. However, the clock has applications for navigation.

In sea navigation you wanna know how far North/South you are (latitude) and how far East/West (longitude). Latitude is much easier to find to an accurate degree than longitude, so it was a major limiting factor in naval navigation. The pendulum clock allowed for much more accurate longitudinal readings, but pendulums do not work at sea. Even more complicated, smaller, mechanical clocks were needed, and they were created. This allowed Europe to reinforce its naval navigation advantage regarding trade.

From 1492 and even earlier, the ships developed through mass trade in the mediterranean saw Europe become a global middleman, buying (or stealing) goods in places where they were common and selling them in places where they were rarer. This was ultimately the source of European wealth and power, as they enjoyed a collective near monopoly on (direct) intercontinental trade, flow of information and military movement.

Europe's dependence on those ships gave it impetus to develop more intricate clocks and ships, and the wealth flowing into Europe gave it the means. As Europe shifted more towards exporting manufactured goods, this created impetus for methods to rapidly produce tons of shit. As manufacture turned into industry (meaning; as the machine was invented and the human turned into a mere motive power and machine-minder), a more controllable motive power was needed, and coincidentally existed in large quantities in the centre of manufacture (Britain).

The information gap also makes resistance, or even intention to resist more difficult:

The circulation of commodities differs from the direct exchange of products not only in form, but in its essence. We have only to consider the course of events. The weaver has undoubtedly exchanged his linen for a Bible, his own commodity for someone else's. But this phenomenon is only true for him. The Biblepusher, who prefers a warming drink to cold sheets, had no intention of exchanging linen for his Bible; the weaver did not know that wheat had been exchanged for his linen. B's commodity replaces that of A, but A and B do not mutually exchange their commodities...We see here, on the one hand, how the exchange of commodities breaks through all the individual and local limitations of the direct exchange of products, and develops the metabolic process of human labour. On the other hand, there develops a whole network of social connections of natural origin, entirely beyond the control of the human agents. (208)

...

Since money does not reveal what has been transformed into it, everything, commodity or not, is convertible into money. Everything becomes saleable and purchaseable. Circulation becomes the great social retort into which everything is thrown, to come out again as the money crystal.(229)

Conditions of production (e.g. extraordinarily brutal slavery, unprecendented ecocide, etc) are similarly in "the hidden abode of production on whose threshold there hangs the notice 'No admittance except on business'"(279-80), so for example while someone might reject trading furs for alcohol if they knew the alcohol was made with horrific slave labour, the conditions of international trade kept most knowledge in European hands. Without being aware of the conditions of oppression, without lines of communication, without immediate knowledge of the Europeans' goals, etc, co-ordinated defence against Europe is difficult.

Engels translated his own name as Fred actually

We have evidence of this as early as the 1838-9 letters to his sister Marie (Engels was in the habit of using random bits of English even in his earliest letters).

And it becomes more prominent ofc once he moves to England and lives there. Marx himself used 'Fred' to refer to Engels often, including in this Dec. 6 1868 letter

Rent is expensive