Oc7o8er - October

"Once commodity production becomes the universal economic mode, all of man’s activities come to center around it.

Its main feature—the paramount role of exchange value—reaches beyond the merely economic realm and penetrates the whole of human existence. What this does to the relationship between human beings was strikingly brought home to me by a statement I read in a daily paper some time ago:

Joseph Brayshaw, former president of the British National Council of Family Relations, commented on a recent visit to the United States. He said the “fantastic material prosperity” of the United States has fostered the assumption that things are expendable “and I had the uneasy feeling that something of this attitude of mind might have tinged the American outlook on personal relations. If they go wrong, you can always find a more up-to-date model in a new wife or husband. I wondered whether, all unconsciously, people as well as things were coming to be regarded as expendable.”

The comparison of husbands and wives with old and new models, while shocking, is not the only reason why Mr. Brayshaw’s statement is significant. Opponents of socialism often claim that in a socialist society—for reasons within its very structure—the human being will not be recognized as an end in himself but will be used as a tool, and thus will become expendable. While I cannot go into this argument here, I will say that the statement seems to be hypocritical, because—if Mr. Brayshaw is right—we are already, under capitalism, living in a society that has produced human relations which make man an object, and thus expendable.

Exchange value enters not only the relationship between man and man, destroying the possibility for genuine friendship and fellowship. I believe that exchange value, which has long ceased to be merely an economic category, invades almost all realms of our lives: our art and education, our community living, our political struggles."

~ An excerpt from Alienation in American Society by Fritz Pappenheim

There is absolutely a point to be made about mainstream social media here.

Social media is designed to be used in a certain way. As someone who used to be on Tumblr but took a years-long break, it strikes me how this site has shifted to be more like the other social media 'frontrunners'. But that's not to say I don't think we can learn to use these platforms in a way that they weren't designed to be used. I think it's possible to cut through the popularity contest aspects and work toward real transformation and open dialogues with other people. It's hella difficult because it's basically designed to make us do the exact opposite, but at the end of the day, it's a tool like any other. And so long as we can stand even hanging out in places like these, why not utilize them to the best of our ability? I used to be very solitary on websites like these, kinda the definition of a lurker. I'm trying to break out of that bubble a little bit, and do more interacting. It's kind of awkward, and feels weird sometimes but it's also liberating to be somewhere so crowded and feel less alone than I ever have?

So let me get this straight: People are treating this site like Instagram because they associate their opinion with a post's success rather than the discussion that surrounds it, the people that add to it, and the communitarian effort towards transformation and collective discussion?

Sounds like there is a point to be made about mainstream social media here

[Quote in image]: “Any theory you got, practice it. And when you practice it, you make some mistakes. When you make a mistake, you correct that theory … A lot of us read and read and read, but we don’t get any practice.” -Fred Hampton

“Dialogue, as essential communication, must underlie any cooperation. In the theory of dialogical action, there is no place for conquering the people on behalf of the revolutionary cause, but only for gaining their adherence. Dialogue does not impose, does not manipulate, does not domesticate, does not “sloganize.” This does not mean, however, that the theory of dialogical action leads nowhere; nor does it mean that the dialogical human does not have a clear idea of what she wants, or of the objectives to which she is committed. ....

Thus cooperation leads dialogical Subjects to focus their attention on the reality which mediates them and which—posed as a problem—challenges them. The response to that challenge is the action of dialogical Subjects upon reality in order to transform it. Let me reemphasize that posing reality as a problem does not mean sloganizing: it means critical analysis of a problematic reality.”

— Paulo Freire