Is it a statement on how pets are animals turned into agency-less commodities, just like meat?

It bugs me just saying “the Chinese” did it. It was the Chinese company Ex-Robot.

The Confederacy was simply a plantocracy near oligarchy, not to mention slavery which is incompatible with capitalism(already explained in another comment, but a brief breeze over it- slave masters act as entities of the state by the very nature of them having a monopoly on regulation of other humans)

This is extremely “wasn’t real capitalism,” and I could use this argument to say that the United States still isn’t capitalist, as slave labor remains a cornerstone of multiple state economies and present in most of them, to say nothing of international trade.

No, the Confederacy was not some maximalist libertarian fantasy land (check the company towns of the Gilded Age for something closer to that), but that is not all that capitalism is, for a slew of reasons not the least of which being that capitalism is not a philosophical framework, it’s an objective mode of production, and secondly capitalism is what invented and executed the establishment of chattel slavery to begin with!

As for the KKK, much of what it and other racist organizations of its era did was try to “protect white jobs”, and lobbied heavily for state intervention to that effect-

Again, you’re appealing to a maximalist libertarian fantasy, not looking at it from the standpoint of private ownership and commodity production. I’m not trying to pin the KKK on libertarianism, obviously their approaches to fucking over minorities are pretty different.

Fundamentally though, the KKK viewed their goals of white-protestant supremacy as greater than an economic system, and were more than happy to destroy private property and private individuals- or use private property when it benefited them.

“They killed people, which isn’t part of capitalism” and “They destroyed other people’s stuff, which isn’t part of capitalism” are just silly statements. See what I already said.

The KKK weren’t trying to go back to feudalism, to classical slavery, to ancient agrarianism, or to hunter-gatherer society, and they weren’t trying to invent some new mode of production like, say, utopian socialists liked to write about. They were quite happy with the existing mode of production and (as you narrated) smashed labor organization against the capitalists. The fact that that they didn’t follow John Locke’s writings like the Holy Bible and indeed the fact that they insisted on the domination of white capitalists do not contradict that.

Capitalism doesn’t require private profit from the means of production, it requires private control of it- and if it can be seized if not following exactly what the state wants, that’s not private control.

Then capitalism has never existed. In all liberal-inspired (what a normal person would call “liberal”) societies, asset forfeiture has existed as one of the penalties of breaking the laws that everyone lives under. In some cases, that law is even that you can’t own something, the classic joke example being a nuclear bomb, but much lower-grade military equipment is another set of easy examples. Turns out if what you own doesn’t fall exactly within what the state permits, it can be taken from you and more besides for the state’s trouble.

From a Marxist perspective (if you’ll allow me), a capitalist society is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, that is to say the capitalist class collectively steers the state, which means outliers even among the capitalist class can be punished if the majority want that to pass. That doesn’t change the essential nature of society as operating practically along the lines of private ownership – even if capitalists are not individually gods of their domain – and commodity production.

That’s what unions are to some people. To other people unions are a convenient organization of people with similar and/or parallel goals on a specific matter(and not necessarily others) so that by collaborating they can achieve their individual goals.

I don’t care what’s in your heart, what I care about is what actually transpires, and what actually transpires in a union is collective bargaining. You might be surprised to find that the Marxist position is one of supporting what some people refer to as “enlightened self-interest,” i.e. “what is best for me is collaboration for these specific reasons” rather than psychically subsuming yourself to the collective at your own expense and with no benefit. That’s part of why I think the “individualist/collectivist” framework is silly, and probably the product of liberals who were so atomized that they didn’t have the right tools in their mind to conceptualize of something other than atomization except as some monstrosity of being enslaved to society itself. Just my personal theory, though.

No, that’s not true. Capitalism doesn’t ascribe the distribution or organization of labor, just that it is privately controlled. A society of independent agrarian farmers could still be capitalist,

You know that capitalism is named after capital, right? Yeoman subsistence is not capitalism, there is no commodity production, no vector for capital.

or a commune of people who voluntarily donate their labor to each other.

It’s not something that Locke wrote down as a necessary element, but beyond whatever libertarian utopia you might imagine, what capitalism has actually done all over the world is create those classes and make production increasingly centralized and socialized (!! in the sense of involving many hands to make a single commodity !!). This gravity towards monopoly through the couple of centuries capitalism has existed is undeniable. We might imagine it otherwise, but we have no reason to believe that it is particularly capable of behaving differently, much less ever will.

Yeah no doubt, though I think it is a little perverse to use “capitalist” to refer to owners/employers when they themselves are often not ideological capitalists, although it is still a correct use of the word I think it leads to intentional confusion(though not by you, just in general).

“Ideological capitalist” is some bizarre joke invented by economists and their ilk. I only care for what the capitalist does, and if he pursues making money through commodity production, reinvests some of that money into developing or broadening his production, and begins again, that’s capital and he’s the one manipulating it. I personally think that has about as much of a claim to the title of “ideological capitalist” too, as compared to someone who just wants the world to run on private ownership, because we call those “libertarians” already (or, if you insist, “ancaps”).

Anyway, I don’t want to quibble over words, I can use the ones you prefer, just my two cents.

I don’t think business owners are that generally competent to have orchestrated the total destruction of black and jewish owned businesses, I think the Nazis and KKK were both more than motivated enough to do that themselves, but I agree there definitely were some to supported it when they saw it happening and benefited from it.

As far as I’m concerned, business owners across the west supporting Nazi Germany financially (often for deliberate ideological reasons, hi Ford!, though not always) means they can take credit for what the Nazis did with that benefit. Business owners typically don’t directly manage the execution of serious violence (except Coca Cola), but they’ve been paying, for example, the American government to go and topple this government or that for a very long time (“Banana republic”). When I look at Hitler running on a platform of eradicating the Jews and the Bolsheviks and capitalists give him money, and then he does what he said he would, how should I interpret that? Should I say those companies were anything less than deliberate benefactors to what he perpetrated?

It’s silly to act like individual values are some sacred, unassailable thing gifted to everyone’s soul by the heavens, rather than something that came from a combination of inborn human traits and memories*, i.e. they are something that is contingent, changing, and in no way above being questioned.

It’s also silly to act like it makes sense to just have a blanket acceptance of something if it’s an “individual value” even though, when we look at the world, individual values can sometimes be extremely fucked up and we shouldn’t allow people who would enact those values to abuse with impunity.

*“memories” is simplistic, but I don’t think it is catastrophically so.

So many explicitly racist movements have also been explicitly [anti-]capitalist

Name some, including the substance of them being anti-capitalist. The KKK aren’t anti-capitalist. The Nazis aren’t anti-capitalist. The Confederates weren’t anti-capitalist. Mind you, all of these groups and other racist movements oppose some version of “globalization,” something the developed capitalist forces push, but they are not thereby rejecting all of capitalism, because the system that they call for is still capitalist, just degenerated to earlier forms, the national or local depending on which movement it is.

Racism is a tool of tribalism and collectivism. Capitalism is an individualistic system.

I think individualist/collectivist is a much less helpful way of analyzing ideologies than a lot of liberals think it is, but that’s partly because it question-begs the supremacy of liberal ideology, which means I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement.

Anyway, pretending they were useful terms, I still think this is a bad argument. When you live within a capitalist society and aren’t looking to overthrow it, it is a coherent idea to create collectives within a system that is philosophically oriented around the individual power of property-owners, that’s what labor unions are. Most fascist movements are theoretically a racial version of this, white people (or whoever) collaborating to fuck over minorities to save themselves that much competition. That’s what Krystalnacht was, for instance, a white-German community effort to drive out the competition represented to them by Jews.

The unavoidable fact of capitalism is that it relies on pushing most of society into the same general social class (workers, as contrasted with owners; employees vs employers) and likewise makes production a massive group effort, though that group effort is dictated by an individual or an oligarchy who own the instruments used in that production. You can try to appeal to these workers who make up most of society on an atomized, liberal basis, sure, but it’s no less coherent to draw lines of common interest between them, most often something like race or religion that is convenient to capitalists, because the capitalists can say “look, I’m white (or whatever) too, I’m on your side!” even if they truly aren’t because they are only seeking their own profits.

This is about a third of an explanation of the material basis for fascism. Probably the most critical element is that capitalist expansion hits some limitation, be it international competition or just all of the market already being claimed. The reason, the real motivation, for the racial terrorism I described above despite merely deflecting worker ire, is that by “clear cutting” more space open for your market share by slaughtering competitors, people sitting on land you want, etc., you can gain more room to grow, although this too only lets you grow temporarily until you bump into your new limits, so you need to keep killing inconvenient people to keep growing, and that’s more or less how the Nazis worked, both internally by picking out minority after minority, and externally with their continuous invasions and “lebensraum” and so on.

Classical slavery was practiced for a time in Europe as well, and chattel slavery was not exclusive to European diaspora; It was also practiced by Imperial Japan on Koreans and Chinese, for instance.

agitprop does tend to get miscategorized, but “capitalism didn’t solve white poverty,” as-rendered there, registers to me as a grim punchline.

If racism just sprang from the ground or from defects in people’s souls, that would make sense. Racism is a superstructural tool of capitalism. It’s a little more obvious how the two are in union when you look at things like the Transatlantic slave trade, but keeping black people as an underclass serves in capital’s interest to this day.

It didn’t just bolster the rationale for enslaving black people, it largely executed the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Those boats weren’t publicaly owned, and neither were the captured slaves, the slavers were entrepreneurs and their employees doing business.

“Black capitalism” is historically the approach of some African American* communities and individuals to resist racial oppression by embracing capitalism and out-competing whites in it, essentially. This met its most famous manifestation in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which developed a wealthy black capitalist class, but neighboring white towns got mad at this and basically leveled a good portion of the town and killed many people. For reasons beyond me, some liberals hold up Tulsa as some wonderful thing and proof that black people should just be more engaged in capitalism, and they ignore how the experiment ended.

The most famous “black capitalism” proponent is the Jamaican-born American Marcus Garvey, who some Rastafarians worship as a prophet. To poison the well immediately, he was supported by the KKK in his projects to send African Americans “back to” Africa, because their ideologies and aims of ethnonationalism broadly aligned.

*It’s mostly an American thing, but it’s not exclusively an American thing by any means

Brains are part of the world, and so are human behaviors. So long as racism exists, race as a sociological category is undeniably real.

I couldn’t possibly know your motivations, nor the author’s, I just find your choice to whitewash racism disreputable. Maybe you just have such a burning hatred for EA that you think that it’s expedient to run cover for racists – I think you wouldn’t be alone in that mindset, though not in good company either – but I think it’s silly to waste time on such speculation into the internal state of some random account. All I am concerned with is the result.

It sure seems to me like you’re trying to find a way of talking around the racist harassment campaign like the author in the OOP does. Really makes you think.

So what you’re saying is you’re victim blaming the people the director here is expressing sympathy for?

There is a huge harassment campaign based around flagrant racism, and there are probably some racists who are more excited to attack ubisoft because it’s a shitty company in general, but that’s just icing on the cake when the main content is racism and someone who doesn’t have a horse in that race isn’t going to be involved in the same way.

What does this even mean? What victims? Clearly you don’t mean the victims of harassment campaigns.

The monetization director should never say anything ever and should be beaten with a stick if he tries, but the standpoint the article is writing from is clear:

the unveiling of Assassin’s Creed Shadows, which quickly gained controversy for numerous allegations that Ubisoft was mispresenting Japanese heritage through unpopular artistic design choices.

“unpopular artistic design choice”, hm? What does that mean?

Neither the author’s writing nor the quote from the director actually name it specifically, but we can infer that it’s probably talking about Yasuke, which means that unfortunately this ghoul director is probably completely right and this author is no better than a concern troll.

I was lazy picking Wikipedia when everyone knows it’s got an American brainrot problem. That’s entirely my fault.

It is true that “conservative opposition to liberalism” is a thing that has exist and currently exists, but the issue is that “conservative” is a relative term, it refers not to an absolute ideological tendency (like liberalism does) but to the necessarily relative value of seeking to conserve the current order of things. This is relative because the order of things can be different, and that changes the question of if you want to conserve it (conservative), go back to some past state, real or imagined (reactionary), or advance to some future state of greater development (progressive).

So when liberal revolutionaries set the west on fire, conservatives were in conflict with them because the conservatives were trying to preserve the feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order that the liberals opposed. Now that the liberals in the west are no longer revolutionaries but overwhelmingly the establishment and without any serious contest, the acting of promoting liberalism over other ideologies is conservative and the old position of promoting a feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order is reactionary. The rise of neoliberalism, in particular, represents the overwhelming historical victory of liberalism over both reactionary and progressive forces (“There is no alternative,” the perfect conservative slogan).

Of course, a political ideology can be a mix of conservative and reactionary or conservative and progressive (I’ll let you decide on reactionary/progressive), and I’d say that former pair is pretty important for understanding the ideology of the Republicans, but don’t let that exaggerate in your mind the piddling degree to which the latter pair applies to Democrats.

Is that a better explanation? Whether this is how you personally want to use the words or not, this will help you understand how socialists use them.

Generally, the people posting this sort of thing also support land back or some variant of it, and will be on the side of the indigenous population in any dispute with western colonizers.

Nearly everyone would like a roof, heat/cooling (climate dependent), beds of some kind, etc. I don’t give a shit about seasonal decorations for a portion of the population until everyone who wants those gets them.

The Hillsborough disaster?