(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Frijolero posted:I'm not an expert on Cuba, but I have an anecdotal theory on this. Jose posted:interesting opening sentence in this tweet
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Jose posted:interesting opening sentence in this tweet 'its territory taiwan' ? lol i think the roc is not gonna be happy about this
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:'its territory taiwan' ? owned lol sad about the ruling against gay marriage tho. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Zane posted:here's a helpful first principle to build your grandiose world historical theory upon: the state shouldn't brutalize people who peacefully assemble to talk about how they should organize their society. dare I say that certain particular models of societal organization shouldn't be allowed
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Zane posted:in a 'socialist society' the state is supposed to dissolve Sheng-Ji Yang posted:youre a dummy anarchist
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
China always bullying us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Lady Galaga posted:HK in a waterworld situation would actually be nice to commute around in, I would be living in some islands to the north and going to work in some sort of skyscraper Venice You'd be living in one of these 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:You'd be living in one of these that's for the peasants who don't know how to code
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:You'd be living in one of these The dot com version 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
tino posted:The dot com version the polycule
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
tino posted:The dot com version
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
uncop posted:Genius, let's build a theory of history from a premise that's the exact opposite of what's historically true. Dreddout posted:you're a dummy anarchist Engels, Anti-Duhring posted:the first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society--the taking possession of the means of production in the name of the state--is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished.” It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase “a free people’s state,” both as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand. Zane has issued a correction as of 19:23 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
tino posted:The dot com version France-wa looks simultaneously excited and terrified about his chances in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Jose posted:interesting opening sentence in this tweet "Our historical and cultural conditions"  I'm surprised they didn't pull the old "bourgeoisie degeneracy / moral failing" card out too
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:this is a better, more informative, and less condescending post than the one i got from our esteemed admin, thank you for this in Taiwan "he's a comrade" unambiguously means "he's gay"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Also, China was historically not homophobic until jesuits started appearing in the Qing dynasty's courts. It's a western import so lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:Also, China was historically not homophobic until jesuits started appearing in the Qing dynasty's courts. It's a western import so lol ...but homosexuality is an invention of the west! -Russia, China, The Middle East, Africa...
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
UltraRed posted:...but homosexuality is an invention of the west! Plenty of dumb and bad people believe that sure, but it's often a reaction to the West using bad faith attacks against its adversaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Also, gay marriage isn't the be-all and end-all of LGBT rights (as much as the US media loves to portray it that way). China legalized same-sex relations in the 90s and recognizes transgender people. Cuba legalized homosexuality in 1979, enshrined LGBT protections in their constitution, recognizes sex reassignment, and provides free PrEP to anybody. Neither country has legalized gay marriage however 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
It's primarily because of the legal rights you get as a married couple that you don't get otherwise. Hospital visitation, joint accounts, property inheritance on death, access to pensions, etc. It wouldn't be as much of a problem if there wasn't so much wrapped up in marriage legally, but there is. E: also lol "we aren't arresting you, that should be good enough" gently caress off Grapplejack has issued a correction as of 21:40 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Zane posted:you might have to refresh my memory but the marx i remember understands the state to be a derivative reflection of the economic class structure. political power is a reflection of economic social being; history is driven by the progress of social being through class struggle (the forces and relations of production). once the class struggle has reached a certain point the transition to socialism is subsequently inexorable. for you, however--by inference--the course of history seems premised upon the development of state power? and the inexorable course of history can then be willfully manipulated by whoever holds the reigns? if so: what is the historical guarantee, or even the historical imperative, that the state will ever be responsive to the--contradictory--progress of social being? the will of the state is everything, after all, and the world necessarily bends to its whims. Marx never put on paper a fully realized theory of the state so there's a variety of takes on what he actually meant, but I don't think there's any meaningful disagreement on states existing to guarantee the economic dictatorship of a ruling class, or ruling classes during a transitional period, over the rest of society. This dictatorship can either exist in a direct political form where the ruled have no autonomous power, or in an indirect form where so far as autonomous political class power is allowed to exist, if it threatens the fundamental economic powers of the ruling class, a direct political takeover can be done to push the reformers out of power. The world definitely does not bend to states' whims, a state is just a tool crafted accordingly with the interests of the local economic ruling class and when eventually the existing ruling class degenerates and another rises, it loses its material base of power, is soundly defeated and the new rulers recreate it in a new form that suits them. That is how class struggle manifests, in rising classes leveraging their increasing economic power to wrest as much political power from their predecessors as they can, however they can, and also how the economic system gets reflected in the political system. What makes the proletariat a special class in the eyes of Marx is that if they managed to build a socialist society, they could become the first self-sufficient class in history, one that does not need to produce a subordinate class to serve it or an upper class to tie society together, defend it or whatever practical reasons made the first subjects of the first weak states consent to their subordination. That means it would only need a state of its own to destroy its enemies and do some basic economic reorganization work, after which the proletarian state-form would lose its legitimacy in the eyes of this now declassed class it used to derive its power from and would have to crumble down like earlier state-forms, but without a new state-form being produced. There is no historical inexorability or guarantee for socialism or communism: class struggle can also result in the mutual destruction of classes such as during the fall of Rome or likely during a full-scale nuclear war or complete climate catastrophe. And the designation of the proletariat as the currently rising class was also just an informed prediction that could turn out to be false. If the next rising class isn't the proletariat, then there will be no socialism in the marxist sense, because other classes would prefer whatever suits them instead. In general, the role of the human will in history is summed up best by Mao: "It is up to us to organize the people. As for the reactionaries in China, it is up to us to organize the people to overthrow them. Everything reactionary is the same; if you don't hit it, it won't fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of itself." People cannot choose what is progressive and what is reactionary, but in order to win, they have to struggle with the faith that they are the ones representing historical progress, and the faction that turns out to win can only realize their progressive role by concretely taking down what they don't want and building what they want in its place. And that is the violent, coercive work of a state regardless of the specific form their state takes. AFAIK anarchist theory basically makes a special case for collective self-defense on part of the oppressed that enables them to not classify their initial task as violence and coercion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:this is a better, more informative, and less condescending post than the one i got from our esteemed admin, thank you for this turns out i don't know better than actual revolutionaries
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/derekrford/status/1162746017709793281
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
uncop posted:People cannot choose what is progressive and what is reactionary, but in order to win, they have to struggle with the faith that they are the ones representing historical progress, and the faction that turns out to win can only realize their progressive role by concretely taking down what they don't want and building what they want in its place. And that is the violent, coercive work of a state regardless of the specific form their state takes. AFAIK anarchist theory basically makes a special case for collective self-defense on part of the oppressed that enables them to not classify their initial task as violence and coercion. Zane has issued a correction as of 07:04 on Aug 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Dude I just wanna guillotine rich people and not have to worry about making rent or the planet dying, wtf does any of that even mean
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lrntex/status/1147756612263636993
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
China disappeared another person https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3023796/chinese-human-rights-lawyer-chen-qiushi-missing-after-return
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
Zane posted:for a faction to presume it embodies 'the people'--'the proletariat'--and in this capacity to identify itself still further with a providential, class structured, trajectory of world-historical progress, is second generation vanguardism. beneath this euphemistic language of 'progress' is now a war of all against all, a war of the state against society, of society against itself, in which the elect must be doctrinally correct, and the non-elect must be doctrinally annihilated. a speculative philosophy of history becomes a normative political project through which concrete particulars are not simply to be provisionally diagnosed (against one’s confirmation bias) but to be religiously determined (towards one’s confirmation bias). a specious and insubstantial social unity can be the only result. if the future is a horizon of uncertainty, and if there is as much possibility of going backwards as going forwards, it can only be reasonable to conclude that as much of society as possible must be consensually involved in the collective self-discovery of its own destiny. Close enough, when marxists refer to marxism as a "scientific ideology", it essentially means a scientifically informed faith, after all literal religion is just ideology within the marxist framework. In practicing revolutionary marxists' writings there's always an unease between the evidence-based and the faith-based side, and they often contradict each other, but both are held as if they were true regardless. As a common example, communism tends to be held as both an informed prediction (the scientific side) and an inevitability to throw oneself into making reality as soon as possible (the faith-based side). But after all is said and done, the only thing that counts as "backward" is failure, something that can't sustain itself and is defeated by a more vigorous competing system. There is no ethics or morality involved, if eating babies was the most effective economic model for the time, the baby-eater class would be the legitimate representative of historical progress over the class resisting their babies being eaten. As such, you're overfocusing on the situation when the faith-based side loses its connection to reality and completely takes over, because something that has lost its connection to reality cannot survive. An ideology has to agree with reality enough to facilitate practical success in line with or above that of competing ideologies. And regarding the war of all against all, the way I see it is that societies go through periods of stability and instability, and the main tendency of unstable, changing, societies is the existence of war and terror between various factions fighting for position. Consequently it must also be the main tendency of revolution, which would be emphasized by an analytic method like marxism that studies revolution with the single-minded focus of learning how to make it. uncop has issued a correction as of 07:09 on Aug 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
lmao wow incredibly deep and intellectual conversation happening in this thread, definitely do NOT stop y'all
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
Lmao I'm sorry that sincerity feels uncomfortable to some posters, but I get it, one might be hurt if they participate in a discussion where they'd stand out if they tried to defend themselves from being shown to be wrong and uncool by always maintaining a thick cushion of irony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
uncop posted:Lmao I'm sorry that sincerity feels uncomfortable to some posters, but I get it, one might be hurt if they participate in a discussion where they'd stand out if they tried to defend themselves from being shown to be wrong and uncool by always maintaining a thick cushion of irony. awkward...I wasn't talking to you
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
The Great Autismo! posted:awkward...I wasn't talking to you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:46
|
|
|
Branco is such an incompetent moron
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
Is he trying to say that they're both bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is he trying to say that they're both bad? No you see the antifa guy has crazy eyes, that's the only difference lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
uncop posted:Close enough, when marxists refer to marxism as a "scientific ideology", it essentially means a scientifically informed faith, after all literal religion is just ideology within the marxist framework. In practicing revolutionary marxists' writings there's always an unease between the evidence-based and the faith-based side, and they often contradict each other, but both are held as if they were true regardless. As a common example, communism tends to be held as both an informed prediction (the scientific side) and an inevitability to throw oneself into making reality as soon as possible (the faith-based side). So if I'm getting you right - - and correct me if I'm wrong - - , you're essentially saying that states like China legitimize themselves because their system seems to work for the average person for the time being. The moment it stagnates or degrades it starts to lose legitamicy in the eyes of the people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
then who were you talking to? uncop posted:Lmao I'm sorry that sincerity feels uncomfortable to some posters, but I get it, one might be hurt if they participate in a discussion where they'd stand out if they tried to defend themselves from being shown to be wrong and uncool by always maintaining a thick cushion of irony. who, or what post, is this directed towards?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:So if I'm getting you right - - and correct me if I'm wrong - - , you're essentially saying that states like China legitimize themselves because their system seems to work for the average person for the time being. The moment it stagnates or degrades it starts to lose legitamicy in the eyes of the people. that's how it works anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:So if I'm getting you right - - and correct me if I'm wrong - - , you're essentially saying that states like China legitimize themselves because their system seems to work for the average person for the time being. The moment it stagnates or degrades it starts to lose legitamicy in the eyes of the people. At least for China, yes. Mandate of Marx Heaven baby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 09:13
|
|