megalodong posted:

Are there any good online socialist/communist discussion places?

/r/communism is controlled by tankies, so is communism101.

/r/socialism seems ok at times but then it devolves into holier-than-thou arguments from people who think voting is treason because it legitimizes the state and trade unions are fraternizing with the enemy.

R. Guyovich posted:

Hey thread, any discussion forums where my specific brand of leftism is the norm? Wouldn't want someone making fun of me for thinking the US military is socialist.

R. Guyovich posted:

Hey thread, any discussion forums where my specific brand of leftism is the norm? Wouldn't want someone making fun of me for thinking the US military is socialist.

rudatron posted:

primitivism is funny. it's actually a modern, fully fledged ideology, in that it locates social dysfunction in industrial society -- in the (secular) the structure of society. it's not simply a lack of piety, false religious dogma, or any of the other ways pre-modern societies conceptualize social dysfunction. Because you don't get modern philosophy without modern society.

In other words, you don't get primitivism without industrialization, and real-world primitives aren't primitivist.

Dreddout posted:

Sure, but a lot of primitivists, like Kaczynski, agree with you on that.

Most primitivists fall into two groups, I'd define the first as naive and the second as pessimistic

1. The naive group consider the primitive existence preferable. They want the tribal existence of humanity (or their vision of it) back. This is what most people who self describe as "anarcho-primitivist" believe. This is the Twitter contingent of primitivists.

2. The pure primitivists, view themselves as civilizational Cassandras. They are convinced that modern industrial society is simply doomed, whether they like it or not. Typically they cite catastrophic climate change as what will irrevocably shunt humanity back too the Stone Age. They usually reject "anarcho" as an adjective, preferring to simply be "primitivists" these dudes tendto go nuts, just like Kaczynski

Essentially the goal of the primitvist ideology is to destroy the very idea of itself.

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/979799649803558914
https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/979800988877049856

Dreddout posted:

Sure, but a lot of primitivists, like Kaczynski, agree with you on that.

Most primitivists fall into two groups, I'd define the first as naive and the second as pessimistic

1. The naive group consider the primitive existence preferable. They want the tribal existence of humanity (or their vision of it) back. This is what most people who self describe as "anarcho-primitivist" believe. This is the Twitter contingent of primitivists.

2. The pure primitivists, view themselves as civilizational Cassandras. They are convinced that modern industrial society is simply doomed, whether they like it or not. Typically they cite catastrophic climate change as what will irrevocably shunt humanity back too the Stone Age. They usually reject "anarcho" as an adjective, preferring to simply be "primitivists" these dudes tendto go nuts, just like Kaczynski

Essentially the goal of the primitvist ideology is to destroy the very idea of itself.

Weeping Wound posted:

what explains the anprim that had a huge hardon for Tesla and wouldn't shut up about free electricity ever

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

twitter was a mistake

quote:

In contrast to these earlier accounts, we have to see the state as an ensemble of contradictory institutions themselves traversed, and produced, by fierce struggles between and within classes. Approaching the state as a social relation, rather than as a thing, and seeing states as themselves embedded in contradictory, even antagonistic relations with each other, helps us refine the concept of imperialism. Imperialism, to anticipate the argument, has to be broadly understood as a relationship of domination between states, rather than as a synonym for capitalist expansion.

To be sure, we must continue to oppose both imperialism and capitalism, but it is precisely by insisting on their specificities, rather than conflating them into an undifferentiated whole, that we can better organize our struggles to overturn them.

quote:

Although U.S. imperialism is rarely absent, conflicts in the Global South cannot be explained solely in terms of Yankee machinations. Inter-imperialist conflicts in the Global South have their own dynamic, even if they often unfold within a wider set of imperialist relations. These conflicts show that contrary to most assumptions, imperialism is not only an attribute of dominant states, but potentially, of all states.

Recognizing this fact shapes how we think about anti-imperialism. Limiting imperialism only to the “West,” or even just the United States, tends to obscure the imperialism of those states often combatting that imperialism. Of course, there are enormous differences between, for example, U.S. and Russian imperialism, which become especially important when considering the struggles on the ground today, but the fact remains that for those who call themselves socialists, the ultimate objective must remain the abolition of both, not the defense of one against the other.

This point must be emphasized, since there is a tendency among some on the left today to defend whatever regime opposes the United States, whether it be Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Russia. The underlying concerns animating this response are often very real: a desire to block the violence of U.S. imperialism, a genuine commitment to peace in war-torn regions, or an urgent need to counter most of the domestic left, which still tends to implicitly or explicitly support U.S. imperialism. Nevertheless, whatever its motivations, this kind of anti-imperialism runs the risk of substituting antagonistic relations between the classes comprising a state with the antagonistic relations between nation-states. With classes homogenized, and class struggle downplayed, or even erased, the subject of liberation becomes the nation-state itself, not the working classes. At its extreme, this kind of thinking can lead to supporting authoritarian states founded on the destruction of the left and the repression of workers’ self-activity because they are said to be embarking on an autonomous, anti-imperialist path of development in the face of “Western” imperialist depredations.

Karl Barks posted:

i've always had issues with anti-imperialism in it's current form, and this essay elucidates a lot of what i've been thinking in a much better way than i ever could:
https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/02/01/the-specificity-of-imperialism/

Impermanent posted:

hmm. i disagree.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

rudatron posted:

Take the iraq invasion - it cannot be explained as merely an extension of the drive to find new markets

R. Guyovich posted:

lenin himself discusses the formation of transnational capitalist cartels in "imperialism," which does indeed split the world between exploiter and exploited nations, creating a new level of relationships defined by inter-state action. the article throws around a lot of impressive terminology but fundamentally misunderstands the theory and the position it's opposing — a several-thousand-word version of the "anti-imperialists just hate america" canard

Karl Barks posted:

Edit: which honestly is true? You don't hate america dude???

Karl Barks posted:

I don't really think this is what the essay was about and I'm not sure where you got the idea the author thinks anti imperialists hate america

Edit: which honestly is true? You don't hate america dude???

Aeolius posted: