|
Libs should never be trusted while socdems can be held at arms length Also death to Twitter, death to reddit
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:
It's a fine article people are intentionally misreading to fuel their dumb grudges against Jacobin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:Liberals are correct that it's Good and Actually Very Logical to not have children if you can't support them, the reason they don't fight back against the system that makes it that way is because they're liberals and they belong to that system. My issue with the article is that it's part of a larger shift of contrarian pushback by cryptofash "anti-woke" folks like Ckilpatrick, Anna Khachiyan, etc on the sentiment that it's not very tenable to have children in the current material circumstances for a lot of people. If coming to the really lovely (and a lot of times devastating) conclusion that you can't reasonably have a child is prevailing sentiment in the "blue haired SJW" sect, they'll find some god awful way to poo poo on it. The article itself is a bunch of wank, the headline and tossing out terms like "anti-natalist" is the message, it's coming from people who are privileged enough to want to be able to start families and have the means to do so but don't want to feel put off by their peers who can't and are vocal about it, and I'm not cutting the author any slack because he's a proven piece of poo poo. Like I said lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
I dunno if you've noticed but uncharitable interpretations of your political enemies' lovely ramblings is part of being on the left 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's impossible to prefigure the revolution, and you're going to end up repeating the same mistakes of the past because like past revolutionaries we will be operating on bad information. Perhaps our available intel in the hypermodern information age will be better, but mistakes will be made - because in the revolutionary moment you'll be engaged in revolutionary war against all the reactionary forces. That's a fact of the matter whether you like it or not, and telling people to shut up about it only makes it seem like you're being disingenuous about your own motivations and intentions. "Preparing for the revolution means to the sectarians, convincing themselves of the superiority of socialism. They propose turning their backs on the “old” trade unions, i.e., to tens of millions of organized workers – as if the masses could somehow live outside of the conditions of the actual class struggle! They remain indifferent to the inner struggle within reformist organizations – as if one could win the masses without intervening in their daily strife! They refuse to draw a distinction between the bourgeois democracy and fascism – as if the masses could help but feel the difference on every hand! Sectarians are capable of differentiating between but two colors: red and black. So as not to tempt themselves, they simplify reality."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:I dunno if you've noticed but uncharitable interpretations of your political enemies' lovely ramblings is part of being on the left viewing the most successful leftist publication in America for generations as your intractable enemy is the problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Okay I read it, I don't get why people are upset. I'm just going to go ahead and safely assume it's because everyone hates kilpatrick
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
I explicated my reasons for taking issue with this particular article, Jacobin is overall okay most of the time when they're not hefting up their giant blind spot to american imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Okay I read it, I don't get why people are upset. I'm just going to go ahead and safely assume it's because everyone hates kilpatrick this is true ShriekingMarxist posted:I explicated my reasons for taking issue with this particular article, Jacobin is overall okay most of the time when they're not hefting up their giant blind spot to american imperialism. this is not true
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
The fact everyone is always larping as a 20th century extremist these days always reminds me of the 18th Brumaire quote:When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time – that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society – in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it. The other created inside France the only conditions under which free competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide, as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate up-to-date environment on the European continent. Once the new social formation was established, the antediluvian colossi disappeared and with them also the resurrected Romanism – the Brutuses, the Gracchi, the publicolas, the tribunes, the senators, and Caesar himself. Bourgeois society in its sober reality bred its own true interpreters and spokesmen in the Says, Cousins, Royer-Collards, Benjamin Constants, and Guizots; its real military leaders sat behind the office desk and the hog-headed Louis XVIII was its political chief. Entirely absorbed in the production of wealth and in peaceful competitive struggle, it no longer remembered that the ghosts of the Roman period had watched over its cradle. Of course Marx went on to say quote:The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content – here the content goes beyond the phrase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Is there a specific part you take issue with or just do you feel it's not tenable or moral to have children in general? Your post alluded to the meta conversation around kilpatrick and Anna which I'm not tuned into, is that the main issue?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
i was a real poor kid too but most of my Childhood Traumas revolve being left home alone while my parents went to score drugs and not really being poor in of itself. it did give me the undying hatred for the rich though
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
I have a lot of personal reasons that I get upset at people deciding to have kids they can't feasibly raise properly whether its due to means, emotional immaturity/trauma, or w/e, I come from an extremely poor background of gently caress ups and have spent a lifetime processing my childhood. So my snap reaction to the headline and the pushback on (what I perceive to be) a healthy aversion to having children that are unable to be cared for annoyed me. This isn't the first instance I've seen, and it probably won't be the last, and it just smacks of people trying to have a contrarian opinion because MSM has gotten hip to the fact that a disproportionate amount of millennials are making a sound decision with regards to their capacity to nurture a child. Also, this discourse ropes a lot of trads and leftcaths, and all of them are loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:I have a lot of personal reasons that I get upset at people deciding to have kids they can't feasibly raise properly whether its due to means, emotional immaturity/trauma, or w/e, I come from an extremely poor background of gently caress ups and have spent a lifetime processing my childhood. So my snap reaction to the headline and the pushback on (what I perceive to be) a healthy aversion to having children that are unable to be cared for annoyed me. This isn't the first instance I've seen, and it probably won't be the last, and it just smacks of people trying to have a contrarian opinion because MSM has gotten hip to the fact that a disproportionate amount of millennials are making a sound decision with regards to their capacity to nurture a child. Also, this discourse ropes a lot of trads and leftcaths, and all of them are loving awful. I took the article to be about how people don't have the means to have a child and be able to provide for them because of capitalism, which appears to be the exact thing you don't like. I don't think kilpatrick is saying you should have kids regardless of material conditions, he's saying the state (or whoever) should be able to provide for people who want to have kids. The headline was probably designed to be provocative but I mean, that's sort of the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
i think its a pretty human feeling to want to have children and whether someone does or not is none of my business but trying to moralize to people that having children is evil or wrong seems pretty disconnected from the desires and aspirations of most working people and is also bad because the problem has never been that people have too many kids but that capitalism makes having kids or any other human process a nightmare for everyone but the rich
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
im gay
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Reddit and Twitter are terrible, but as far as socialist forums online, the only difference from what I've seen here and places like r/Socialism is that people cry on Reddit about saying "ableist" stuff like "stupid" and "dumb" and banning catgirl pictures. There's all the same groups and group dynamics of course too, braindead Marcyite tankies, butthurt anarchists fighting with tankies, lots of students who are edgy socialists because they hate their conservative parents, it's all the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:I have a lot of personal reasons that I get upset at people deciding to have kids they can't feasibly raise properly whether its due to means, emotional immaturity/trauma, or w/e, I come from an extremely poor background of gently caress ups and have spent a lifetime processing my childhood. So my snap reaction to the headline and the pushback on (what I perceive to be) a healthy aversion to having children that are unable to be cared for annoyed me. This isn't the first instance I've seen, and it probably won't be the last, and it just smacks of people trying to have a contrarian opinion because MSM has gotten hip to the fact that a disproportionate amount of millennials are making a sound decision with regards to their capacity to nurture a child. Also, this discourse ropes a lot of trads and leftcaths, and all of them are loving awful. So yeah you didn't actually read the article
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
cspam is the online posting warrior aristocracy a once proud but now decaying kingdom.. surrounded by those without honor
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:So yeah you didn't actually read the article I did and found a lot about the tone, angle and context to dislike even if most of it was white noise "duh" rhetoric  I am sorry you cannot accept this and we'll have to settle our differences in the Blood Dome
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:I did and found a lot about the tone, angle and context to dislike even if most of it was white noise "duh" rhetoric Yeah if you approach something with bad faith it's hard to get passed it
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Are you approaching it in good faith or just incomplete knowledge of other factors that can alter interpretation 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Trillburne/status/1037847311819272193
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Gross. Also can we go back to re-litigating the USSR? I have a lot of thoughts about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:Are you approaching it in good faith or just incomplete knowledge of other factors that can alter interpretation Im omnipotent and omnipresent. I approach everything with perfect logic and reason, and a full and complete knowledge of all relevant and irrelevant facts. I am alpha and omega, the first and the last.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
whenever i read an article i think about what it probably said and how i can relate my self to it then work back from there
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
im the tankies responding to this unironically
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:"Preparing for the revolution means to the sectarians, convincing themselves of the superiority of socialism. They propose turning their backs on the “old” trade unions, i.e., to tens of millions of organized workers – as if the masses could somehow live outside of the conditions of the actual class struggle! They remain indifferent to the inner struggle within reformist organizations – as if one could win the masses without intervening in their daily strife! They refuse to draw a distinction between the bourgeois democracy and fascism – as if the masses could help but feel the difference on every hand! Sectarians are capable of differentiating between but two colors: red and black. So as not to tempt themselves, they simplify reality." It's funny that the guy begging for us to observe decorum in the leftist comedy thread, quotes Trotsky while accusing everyone else of being incapable of capturing the working class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:viewing the most successful leftist publication in America for generations as your intractable enemy is the problem the democratic party is more popular than the dsa and they pay lip service to the working class, so why view them as your enemy??????
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
THS posted:whenever i read an article i think about what it probably said and how i can relate my self to it then work back from there I think about how it will align within the array of various Twitter grudges I have memorized and prepare the tweet storm
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
I think it's better than not to have Jacobin around, but they do publish some dogshit and they're not getting my subscription money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I think it's better than not to have Jacobin around, but they do publish some dogshit and they're not getting my subscription money. i need more Syria interventionism in my leftist revolution
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the democratic party is more popular than the dsa and they pay lip service to the working class, so why view them as your enemy?????? Because one is mostly right and good and the other is mostly not
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
When I read an article I just take it literally at face value and don't investigate anything beyond the literal words, that's why I know Turnmp is going to build a wall 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:i need more Syria interventionism in my leftist revolution we should intervene in Syria, on our leftist comrades side
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
jacobin has put some insanely bad foreign policy takes up to be fair and some good ones?? but why even put the bad ones up
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:we should intervene in Syria, on our leftist comrades side I like how out of all of us bullshit incredibly online leftists only one had the gumption to go to the front line's of a people's revolution, and he's basically demonized amongst even more broke brained online lefties lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:I like how out of all of us bullshit incredibly online leftists only one had the gumption to go to the front line's of a people's revolution, and he's basically demonized amongst even more broke brained online lefties lol wait who joined hezbollah
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
it's always a joy when PPG's posts come up in my timeline, even though his account will always be private so I forget what its name is until he posts again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's funny that the guy begging for us to observe decorum in the leftist comedy thread, quotes Trotsky while accusing everyone else of being incapable of capturing the working class. "Naïve and quite inexperienced people imagine that the permissibility of compromise in general is sufficient to obliterate any distinction between opportunism, against which we are waging, and must wage, an unremitting struggle, and revolutionary Marxism, or communism. But if such people do not yet know that in nature and in society all distinctions are fluid and up to a certain point conventional, nothing can help them but lengthy training, education, enlightenment, and political and everyday experience. In the practical questions that arise in the politics of any particular or specific historical moment, it is important to single out those which display the principal type of intolerable and treacherous compromises, such as embody an opportunism that is fatal to the revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to explain them and combat them." "To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:38
|
|