>>9
NTA
Contra rotting: following Bataille's conception of the useless (as I've understood it from your post(s)) and subversion of the rational logic of production, doesn't rotting fall back into it? If you're not participating then it would be rational to rot but doing the opposite, doing everything in your power to flourish and do most of the things that are expected of you but then not utilizing your resources (cultivated without even being aware of it) for anything, pulling the rug at the last minute, turning around and doing, or leaving undone, something so useless nobody didn't even not expect it--wouddn't that be the move of the truly sovereign? As a long term NEET I'm just so tired of passive and broken people pulling everyone else down with them by spouting this rhetoric of rotting. If rotting is all this life can offer someone then they must be one incompetent sovereign, i.e. submissive and not an active strategist, and maybe wage labor is better suited to someone like that than NEET life. As for me, fuck labor.

>>9

just asking you to consider rotting as active strategy rather than passive submission

You're right to point out that NEETs aren't passive and there's a range of stances people take in relation to power, resistance takes the cake but we forget about refusal, feigning compliance and slacking off. I would only say two things. Firstly, should we really see rotting as a good strategy? Second, submission is hardly passive. When you submit to an authority, you carry out behaviors to demonstrate compliance, so that's not passivity.

I hardly think that Marx hates labor

What I was trying to get at is that Marx seems to hate the environment. I think he's ambivalent and contradictory. On the one hand, he valorizes labor because labor will free us from the terrible constraints the environment imposes on humans. We can evolve from primitive tribes to a world of free individuals through labor. On the one hand, he hates capitalism for its cruelty, on the other hand Marx the theorist looks at capitalism with the eyes of a Darwinist, its a dying system that's preventing us from evolving further and there's no reason to feel morally incensed by it. Marx is a contradictory person but the consequence of his thought is a hatred of the non-human environment, or at least that's a potential in his work anyway. Also, I'm not a Marxist and don't care about dialectics.

you are still thinking in a dialectical Marxist framework where "consumerist values" must be directly opposed by their dialectical opposite and then subsumed

Well we agree here. I don't think you can push back against power like this without entrenching it. The world is too contaminated.

read some bataille

I haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't really like what I've seen from Bataille and his followers but I can't really judge without reading him.

>>11
Why should I look at class like a Marxist? Bourdieu is useful because he helps explore the cultural side of class, something Marxists are notoriously incompetent at. I don't like the Marxist definition because "mode of production" is a foolish idea.

>>13
I thought n0 is a zionist atheist?