gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1024481843834499072

"Communism killed lots of people, which is why I don't like it"

Infernot posted:

I love it when people use "u$", "Amerika", and their derivatives unironically. It's like when people have pepe avatars but for the left.

Infernot posted:

I love it when people use "u$", "Amerika", and their derivatives unironically. It's like when people have pepe avatars but for the left.

Doc Neutral posted:

United $napes of Amerikkka

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ&t=32s

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Those people are also better posters than you.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ&t=32s

GalacticAcid posted:

if SA resembles any left wing project it’s chile since cybernetics was basically just a nationwide irl report button and everyone bragged about the superior modding before getting wiped out by no-rules right wing competitors

Crusader posted:

quote:

To explore the ideology that underlies the appeal of these demagogues, rhetoric scholar Michael J. Lee analyzes populism as a movement that, above all, defines the national community by both “shared characteristics” and a common “enemy,” much like the Nazis excluded certain groups by race. Just as American prairie populists of the 1890s once demonized banking, so their contemporary counterparts are “systemic revolutionaries battling present perversions on behalf of past principles.” Finally, populist movements exhibit, Lee argues, a desire for “apocalyptic confrontation . . . as the vehicle to revolutionary change” through “a mythic battle” (2006, 357–64).

With a similar emphasis on inclusion and exclusion, political scientist Jan-Werner Müller argues that “the tell-tale sign of populism” is leaders who “claim that they, and only they, represent the people.” That claim is “always distinctly moral” with the result that populists, once in office, purport to act in the name of the “real people” and “will not recognize anything such as a legitimate opposition” (Müller 2016). Somewhat more succinctly, Cas Mudde defines current populism as “an ideology that separates society into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ and ‘the corrupt elite,’ and that holds that politics should be an expression of ‘the general will’ of the people” (2016). Taking that division further, Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris argue that populism “emphasizes faith in the wisdom and virtue of ordinary people (the silent majority) over the ‘corrupt’ establishment,” while defining those ordinary people through “nativism or xenophobic nationalism, which assumes that the ‘people’ are a uniform whole” (2016, 6–7).

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1024481843834499072

"Communism killed lots of people, which is why I don't like it"

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1024481843834499072

"Communism killed lots of people, which is why I don't like it"

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

well i guess we've reached maoist-anakin-yglesiast thought

Peanut President posted:

I thought the Prequels were good though?

Serf posted:

the maoists are correct, yes

rudatron posted:

lf irony poisoning is pure 'trigger the libs' taken to its logical conclusion

quote:

There is no need to shoot just Britney Spears and shooting her won't address the issue, when it's a whole class of people responsible for imperialist entertainment.

rudatron posted:

lf irony poisoning is pure 'trigger the libs' taken to its logical conclusion

Bryter posted:

Actually Matt I think you'll find that Different Chinese Regions Had Different Caloric Intakes And That's OK

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/zylogram/status/1024735252663685121?s=19

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

https://twitter.com/pvpieddie/status/1023884453901492225?s=19

NNick posted:

So I'm reading through Capital and I think I am going to finish Volume 1 this time. I am going to use Harvey's lectures as well.

I am into chapter 3 (circulation of money) and I am starting to see clearly how Marx builds his arguments on using dialectic logic. The thing is, I've never read Hegel. I also don't care enough to study him in-depth. I was wondering if there was a good article or short book which summarizes dialectic logic, particularly related to Marx's analysis.