|
this good
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
is this horseshoe nonsense really what passes as marxist memes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:is this horseshoe nonsense really what passes as marxist memes? https://twitter.com/HealthUntoDeath/status/809699818788495360
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
You know that bit in They Live where one of the human traitors says "What's the threat? We all sell out every day." Carpenter & whatshisname added that bit to the script when a real-life industry shitbag said those exact words in response to their explanation of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:You know that bit in They Live where one of the human traitors says "What's the threat? We all sell out every day." It was a really good movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It was a really good movie. I'm glad for you that you've finally seen it. RIP Rowdy Roddy Piper e:https://twitter.com/MLRevolutionary/status/810178969433702401 Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Speaking of movies, is Neruda good or bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/donald-trumps-shiny-marxism.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
yeah whatever happens in the next years, there's a 99% chance that is not 'america is made great again' there is going to be a lot of anger, directed in every direction the people who voted for trump are in for a loving shock the people who voted against trump are going to stay in panic mode
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:the people who voted for trump are in for a loving shock I agree with the rest of the post, but really? I don't really know if they will equate the system not working to Trump. I'm sure the gop could do a hard spin blaming the dems (or a million other targets) for their failure to live up to Trump's promises. If politics of the digital age has taught me one thing, it's that humans have the memory of goldfish for problems that don't concern them on a material level. Also a lot of Trump's base seem to have elected Trump in an effort to drag down those they see as responsible for their problem (IE: The coastal elite, establishment politicians, liberals) to their level. I live in Oklahoma, and work in a poor part of town at a grocery store. From the bits and pieces of politics I pick up from Trump supporters (Discussed in a non-political environment, among their friends) they usually say they don't think Trumps honest, they just like him better than Clinton. A lot of trump voters just wan't Trump to tear their enemies down, they don't necessarily think he will make life better for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
but here's the thing: trump's cabinet picks have been standard GOP the entire way down, the Trump administration is effectively identical to what a Cruz administration would look like, but with Trump at the top that's 'draining the swamp'? Like I said, they're in for a shock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:but here's the thing: trump's cabinet picks have been standard GOP the entire way down, the Trump administration is effectively identical to what a Cruz administration would look like, but with Trump at the top This assumes most of them know, or care about Trumps cabinet picks. Like the hardcore MAGA dude is gonna be disappointed sure, but Joe Sixpack? He's gonna shrug his shoulders carry on voting straight ticket Republican.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
they'll quickly start caring as a soon as any of his picks actually start going anything, like, anything remotely close to what they've promised to do it is going to be hilarious, but in the depressing way zen death robot posted:They've been HYPERCHARGED GOP picks actually
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
wouldn't exactly call bannon standard gop, or mattis(who again was hired just for his "mad dog" nickname and trump was actually disappointed that he wasn't insane) trump's picks are basically pure rear end in a top hat whimsy, they just also happen to align with the GOP in most cases because the GOP are awful people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
I'm still shocked at how blatant the cabinet picks are tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
It's ironically enough the worst group of Trump supporters - the neonazis, the Prison Planet people, the Jew globalist paranoiacs - who are most likely to be disappointed by this presidency yet who are the least decisive at the ballot box.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Potentially relevant: https://trumpgrets.tumblr.com/ Independently of anything on that site, though, my take is the opposite of what a lot are saying here. The hardcore #MAGA Trumpos are like a cult devoted to his style and as long as he keeps that up he has them. The ones that voted for him out of either party loyalty or because they hated Clinton are the most likely to waver when they see what's coming down the pipe. Actually, possibly even more relevant: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump quote:“I found with Trump, he says a lot of stuff,” she said. “I just think all politicians promise you everything and then we’ll see. It’s like when you get married — ‘Oh, honey, I won’t do this, oh, honey, I won’t do that.’”
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Clinton woulda picked people influenced by large corporations. Trump just picked their CEO's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
wrapped in dialetic it's cathetic rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
So since I've been hanging with anti-imperialist people recently I've also been trying to read other Left views on Syria because I hate having a set opinion on anything. This interview is really critical of basically the anti-interventionist Left, but more interestingly seems to paint the leftist Syrian opposition as some sort of country wide Occupy. It's really bizarre to me how it celebrates the achievements in democracy and inclusion of local councils and the like while also acknowledging that they are completely unable to defend their gains. The failure to support these achievements is laid at the feet of the international left for its lack of solidarity. The subject, Leila al-Shami, is specifically critical of the YPG for being more authoritarian than the anti-regime left, even though the YPG is an actual fighting force and doesn't have to rely on Salafists. I realize the YPG territory in Rojava is thanks in large part to US intervention, but it's affiliates in Turkey have shown they can continue the struggle even under harsh repression. Here are some of the quotes that are interesting to me. quote:We also see that, when there were ceasefires, people came out onto their streets in large numbers, chanting for the Free Army and waving revolutionary flags, not the black banners of the jihadists. People are still very much committed to the democratic ideals of the revolution. quote:There are many groups in Syria and individuals still committed to the original values of the revolution. It’s our responsibility to find out who those groups are and promote their voices. A major problem is that everyone’s talking about Syria, and no one is actually talking to Syrians. We need to be getting the voices of these groups out there and showing that these groups exist and that they are worthy of support. We can also give much more material support to those groups, whether that’s about sending financial support to groups, or e.g. translating the statements that they put out to different languages to challenge the dominant narratives. The main problem is that a lot of these groups are largely invisible. We need to make sure that they get much more visibility. At the moment they feel that everyone has abandoned them. quote:People on the left have provided support for Rojava, which is vital. There are revolutionary groups on the ground that have achieved absolutely remarkable things, in terms of establishing direct democracy on the community level, in terms of having a large participation of women in that movement. So there are many things to support, but also many issues. The PYD has an authoritarian aspect to its programme. It is preventing other opposition groups from operating, and arresting political opponents. So it does have to be critical solidarity – the same kind of solidarity has to be shown to grassroots movements and struggles elsewhere in Syria. You have the local councils which were established all around the country self organising. Whilst they have often not included women in their government structures, in other ways they are more progressive than the Kurdish experiment, because they are not party-political, they are not beholding to one political or religious ideology. They are practical and focusing on the business of providing for communities. I realize that this is intended for external consumption, but I think from a leftist strategy view point I think its worth examining. The focus of the anti-regime left in Syria seems to be on building democratic and inclusive structures, at the expense of literally anything else. In a war zone with massive losses of human life and the best fighters on all sides mostly being religious militias this seems insane to me. Like Occupy, the process itself seems to be the goal, which leads to an inability to actually achieve much. Why do you care if you already have a multiparty democracy in a local village council if all the party leaders are going to be shot or disappeared when the village is on the frontlines in a few months. I'm not touching on some of the assertions of the geopolitical situation in this interview, as I don't really agree with them and don't think they're as interesting to talk about btw. Sorry for the serious post. Disclaimer: I haven't faced an ounce of the terrible poo poo anyone in Syria has. TLDR basically leftists have be able to defend themselves and their movements
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
took this in SF a while back
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:took this in SF a while back Nice selfie
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:Sorry for the serious post. Disclaimer: I haven't faced an ounce of the terrible poo poo anyone in Syria has. The political realization achieved by the YPD actually makes their territories more defensible, because it gives people something to fight for beyond their immediate survival. Rojava was rolled back by by the relentless onslaught of ISIS due to being faced with overwhelming firepower, not because of village elections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The political realization achieved by the YPD actually makes their territories more defensible, because it gives people something to fight for beyond their immediate survival. Rojava was rolled back by by the relentless onslaught of ISIS due to being faced with overwhelming firepower, not because of village elections. Yeah, YPG showed they could realize your politics on the ground in terrible circumstances and it strengthened their position. I guess I'm trying to figure out the difference between how the YPG built power and how the Left in opposition to the regime completely floundered despite the somewhat economic bent of the initial conflict. I realize geopolitics plays a role, but even if the YPG gets crushed by outside powers its still going to take overwhelming firepower. As far as I can tell, the rebels became increasingly religiously oriented as groups like Salafists showed they were the most effective fighters. Leftists certainly got killed and imprisoned on the rebel side, but there never seemed to be a unified Leftist resistance there to the increasing prominence of groups like Al-Nusra.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
I think it was Osama bin laden who said 'people follow the strong horse' or something like that, and I think there's an element of truth there, in that one of the most fundamental needs of people is the desire for security. Arguably, it's the first business of any Actually-Existing government, with the 'process' of decision-making being legalistic minutiae in comparison. In a more practical sense, channeling Hobbes here, you can ask a lot from people (resources, labor, etc.), if you've shown that you're capable and willing to protect them and their dependents. Asking for the 'international left' for more 'solidarity' (read: to come save them) is nothing more than a savior mythology, to make up for your own failings. More importantly, you're essentially declaring that you're incapable of providing security and, therefore, not actually an effective government, merely an 'idea' of governance (which are a dime a dozen).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
The issue being how you get people to actually fight and risk death. The way religious groups achieve this is through essentially self-deception, they tell each other than by dying, you don't 'really' die, that you'll live forever in some stupid fantasy candyland or whatever. Thing is, that doesn't come for free, that has a trade-off associated with it. The trade-off is that you're teaching people to accept irrationality, which naturally leads to poo poo like homophobia or whatever. The fear of death never really goes away, so you'll externalize it through attacking those you see as 'spiritually weak' or whatever, and they'll always be one group or another you can attack. It also teaches the armed forces that divine intervention is a real thing, which has been a big reason for ISIS' failure - they honestly believe in an apocalyptic vision that, if america intervenes and attacks this one city (whose name escapes me), god will intervene and they will win. Naturally, that won't actually happen, so ISIS, in spite of their fanatic devotion to their cause, has actually been steadily losing ground & people, because they can't not be on the offensive, they can't not be aggravating and alienating every single other world power that exists in this world. If they cease attacking, that prime motivating 'glue' that keeps the whole thing going (the belief in the global religious caliphate), falls apart completely. So naturally, that's out of the question for leftist groups. There's two other possibilities: 1 - you keep people fighting to protect something else that has worldly value (family, whatever), and emphasize that in the recruitment. 2 - you flip the logic of the situation, and kill them if they don't fight/retreat. Which works best is going to depend on context, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
It's Dabiq. I'm not too brushed up on my Syrian geography, but I think it's occupied by the Turks right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Just read the Manifesto for the first time, fuckin rad. Do I have to read Capital next? Any tips? How's the David Harvey lectures? Are they stand-alone or supplements?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Also, want to recommend Ten Days That Shook the World, an exciting first-hand account of the Bolshevik revolution by an American reporter. It's like you're there. Anyone have good criticisms of it? Someone suggested The Bolsheviks Come to Power as a more serious work on the same subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
its true... all of it
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/810633146756661249
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Just read the Manifesto for the first time, fuckin rad. Most lecture series of Marxism are usually stand alone, because they're presuming the audience isn't familiar with it (they're often not). If you want to know more about a certain subject, or idea in marxism, don't hesitate to ask this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Just read the Manifesto for the first time, fuckin rad. If you're gonna read Capital you should absolutely use the Harvey lectures. They are supplements and you can get it in a variety of formats (paperback, audiobook, youtube). The first few chapters can feel kinda overwhelming if you're just reading it on your own but Harvey does a really good job simplifying it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Harvey's lectures were designed for a course on Capital, so if you're really dedicated to reading it then they're must-watch just to contextualize it all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
They can translate pretty easily, the problem is the translators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
has anyone spent the time to go all the way through piketty's capital in the 21st century? I was thinking about picking it up and reading it over my christmas vacation
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Are there any good late-20th-century books on Marx that tried to fit his theories to the emerging global economy? I'd be surprised if there weren't, but all I know about are the Wolff lectures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Karl Barks posted:has anyone spent the time to go all the way through piketty's capital in the 21st century? I was thinking about picking it up and reading it over my christmas vacation I bought it a couple weeks ago on the recommendation of a friend, who says its pretty good. I also got The Economics of Inequality, which is shorter, so I'm working my way through it first and it's interesting thus far
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:23
|
|
