Again, word salad.

The contradiction is between the increasing interconnection of production and distribution, and the concentration of the profits of this system into fewer and fewer hands.

In what way is the interconnection of production and distribution increasing? Why is that contradictory with the concentration of profits into fewer and fewer hands? Our systems of production and distribution have been getting increasingly complex since the middle ages and yet the concentration of wealth has certainly ebbed and flowed in time. In what way are you suggesting one affects the other?

The old system of imperialism is dying away,

This is not a profound statement. It has literally always been the case since society has existed. The system of imperialism in the city states of antiquity died and gave way to the imperialism of the classical empires, which gave way to the imperialism of the feudal monarchies, and then the nation states, and the colonial empires, and so on to the capitalist economic imperialism of today.

while the interconnected, post-imperialist world is rising

Post-imperial? I doubt that and you have provided no evidence that that would be the case. It seems to me that the economic imperialism of the Western nation states is in transition to some kind of fascist corporate techno-feudalist imperialism.

And again, how does this relate to the distribution of wealth and systems of production of distribution? It’s not big and it’s not clever to say they are related because the fact that everything is related everything else is basically axiomatic of the system of analysis. You have to point out how.

On Contradiction isn’t word salad

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

It doesn’t give answers, but it helps us find them.

Which answers, exactly? Because the answer always seems to be the downfall of capitalism and to be replaced by socialism and then communism. And when that continues to not happen, the response always seems to be “but it totes will, eventually.” That isn’t analysis, that’s a teleological belief.

I also don’t know what you mean by “dialectical materialism kool-aid”

It seems to me that dialectical materialism is a tool for post hoc analysis of society that is useful for constructing narratives and not much else. I can’t see that it is in any way useful for generating falsifiable predictions. Yet people call off-the-dome predictions “scientific” just because they have identified the two things that are in contradiction ™.

If you don’t use diamat, then the names won’t make much sense to you. E.g. I had to present a math paper where the person destructed a graph into “blocks”, and called that destructure a “blockade”.

Yes words have different meanings in different contexts. “Blockade” has a common meaning and a different meaning in graph theory. But if you used it in its graph theory meaning unbidden in an online discussion thread that wasn’t already about graph theory, and without introducing the context of graph theory into the conversation first, then I would say you are using the word incorrectly.

I am familiar with On Contradiction, and I think it is a load of word salad.

As best as I can tell, people who have drank the dialectical materialism kool-aid fetishise the word ‘contradiction’ and use it in place of any number of more correct words and terms.

Imperialists and their subjects have contrary interests. Definitionally opposed interests, even. Things being opposed doesn’t make them contradictory the way everyone uses the word.

You can legitimately say that US imperialism is the biggest problem in the world. You can’t say the US imperialism is the biggest contradiction in the world because that doesn’t make any god damned sense in English.

A contradiction to what? You can’t just say something is a contradiction unless it’s contradicting something else.

I treat myself pretty badly, so this isn’t great news.

Yikes.

Have you heard of the doctrine of universal reconciliation?

Are you British? And/or have you listened to any British people speak for any length of time?

Then you’ll have heard jokes and phrases repeated (knowingly or unknowingly) from Only Fools and Horses.

Do you want to know what the British think of our European neighbours?

Then you’ll want to watch 'Allo 'Allo!

What’s wrong with Serenity?

The English sailor being a fictional not-William Adams, for those curious.

I joined the anarchist revolution to lead, not to read. Wait, hang on…

The third one was mostly ruined by the fact that Sofia Coppola couldn’t act. The scenes between her and Andy Garcia were verging on painful to watch. But yes, the bits of the film that were about Michael were good, actually.

In fairness, they’re hardly the only country doing nothing to hold paedophiles accountable.

Unless telling Andrew, the nonce formerly addressed as prince, that he can’t be called a prince any more counts.

One makes hideous sounds when I try to play it as a musical instrument, and the other I can play reasonably competently.

The branding of ploughman’s lunch was invented in the 60s but that same Wikipedia page states it had been a common meal for rural labourers for centuries.

I love that at some point the SG-1 writers must have asked themselves “what if a Goa’uld had rizz?” And thus Ba’al was born.

I feel like you have to have contempt for Indiana Jones to allow Indiana Jones 4 to happen.

I mean, looking back at his filmography, he arguably never could. (Zardoz is good, though.)