|
lmao
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
post the pitches
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:post the pitches
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
"Sorry, we limit that sort of arrangement to the foreign policy section."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
Still mad about the cultural revolution - nazi equation so I can only rant more, I hope this historical stuff is interesting enough. The best-known narrative about it focuses on what happened at the highest levels of government: Mao and Jiang Qing and Liu Shaoqi etc. It's presented as Mao's coup enabled by carefully sown mass hysteria that led to the deaths of millions and given a really pompous name. But presenting the whole thing like that is something fit for those who subscribe to the outside agitator theory of mass uprising in general. Importantly, the state apparatus didn't really engage in anything special during the era apart from purges, for the general masses it actually became *considerably less* violent and oppressive. For example, the students that were pushed into the countryside as punishment were punished for being associated with a movement that literally stole weapons from the army and began shooting people on the streets. Sure, it wasn't based on the notion of individual guilt, but otherwise they got off comparatively scot free for larping armed revolution at various levels of practical participation. The cultural revolution movement was simmering deep down in Chinese society and burst out when state repression against such stirrings was lifted and in fact the army would defend activists against violence. (See, Mao had formal leadership of the party and the support of the military while the other faction had the support of most of the rest of the state apparatus.) The post-war, Soviet-imported system sucked in many ways: the communes established during the GLF were sort of infrastructure-wise and politically barren in similar ways as the kolkhozes in the USSR, and the industry had been built on the basis of scientific expert management, Soviet-recycled Taylorism. Old war heroes ran the show, and expected deference based on credentials earned decades ago. As such, the cultural revolution movement represented social equality against social stratification on a bunch of levels: the empowerment of the young as opposed to the old, workers as opposed to management, the rural population as opposed to the urban population, women as opposed to men. Millions of people were mobilized to attempt to improve society on all levels, if looking at it from a socialist perspective where this stuff is good to the point of being worth some sacrifices. It's natural that if people are allowed to get out of home to do what they want, they will spend less time doing what is economically prudent. You could make a comparison with the nazis in that they also created legal exceptions for the violence for people they supported against people they didn't, but it would be a liberal as hell condemnation of mass violence in general regardless of intent, perpetrators and victims. The movement turning out uncontrollably violent was not intended at all by those who set it loose, they wanted to use their organized violence apparatus with simple mass support. But grudges over violence typical of the society (e.g. beatings by teachers, parents, husbands...) combined with fetishization of war heroes led the youth on that path. It's not unlike if, in the USA, president Bernie went and told Black and Indigenous people to go wild and harshly criticise society, bring out its bad guys and roll out new systems of doing things, that he trusts them to do the right thing and that the cops and army would not lift a finger against anyone but right-wing militias. You bet uncontrollable mass violence would erupt, and that it would also hit people who didn't deserve it. But would that make president Bernie's policy wrong, or equivalent to loving pogroms? Lastly, yes, China was food insecure and doing anything that really messed with agricultural productivity was lethally dangerous. Sort of like DPRK today, China had historically been maxed out population-wise and had terrible periodic famines. The chaos and war had eased the population pressure, but once the PRC had been established, the population began explosive growth at the same time as the West put it on embargo that was explicitly aimed at keeping the agriculture underdeveloped and the people hungry. Then, right before the GPCR, the Sino-Soviet split happened as well! (It was not an arbitrary decision that China soon developed the two-child policy, and later, the one-child policy.) But even with the difficult situation, is it a literal holocaust if people dare to demand social justice and organize work in experimental ways in line with that vision, rather than postponing it for however long it takes until either terms of trade become favorable or peasants have a million more tractors?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 07:30
|
|
|
Look man i was just making a joke. However those are really good effort posts and I learned some stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:24
|
|
|
poo poo I need to read some prc history
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:37
|
|
|
I've always been interested in the sino-soviet split. The two largest communist countries in the world, both with sanctions from the rest of the world, and they can't work together? Isn't that what communism is loving about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:38
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:I've always been interested in the sino-soviet split. The two largest communist countries in the world, both with sanctions from the rest of the world, and they can't work together? Isn't that what communism is loving about. it's super interesting i still don't know who was right
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:48
|
|
|
like, for all china's insistence that the ussr was too coexistent with the capitalist empires, they definitely played a more international role in third world revolutions. i wonder how the "cold" war would have gone had china been on similar economic footing to the ussr post-wwii. would the rest of the caribbean look like cuba? would the decolonization of africa have looked differently? anyone have reading on what china did for indonesia in the 60s?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
Looks like China is pretty Co existent with the other capitalist countries now doesn't it lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:59
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Looks like China is pretty Co existent with the other capitalist countries now doesn't it lol DENGISM
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Looks like China is pretty Co existent with the other capitalist countries now doesn't it lol https://twitter.com/belle_delweed/status/1221535774119776258
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
kibbutzim are socialists; my ch'erenvolk democracy by donald hughes
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 09:07
|
|
|
uphold uncop thought with cspam characteristics
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
Grevling posted:She's really speaking to She wouldnt be speaking to anyone if someone hadnt linked that thing. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 09:34
|
|
|
Very cool of them to acknowledge their dumb as dogshit foreign policy articles in a jokey way that absolves them of blame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 09:36
|
|
|
facobin
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 09:59
|
|
|
TBH I should take a break from posting, I'm just seeking excuses to rant about things that interest me by now.i say swears online posted:like, for all china's insistence that the ussr was too coexistent with the capitalist empires, they definitely played a more international role in third world revolutions. i wonder how the "cold" war would have gone had china been on similar economic footing to the ussr post-wwii. would the rest of the caribbean look like cuba? would the decolonization of africa have looked differently? The accusation was actually that the USSR was coexistent with capitalist empires because it had been becoming yet another capitalist empire itself. The role it played in third world revolutions was explained as its brand of imperialism, the Chinese theorized Cuba as a semi-colony of the USSR, a dependent country based on sugar exports just like it had been prior to its revolution, except with a more favorable deal and thus even greater incentive to produce more sugar. Castro is considered to represent the right wing and Che the the left wing (or center, since he conciliated with the right) on the soviet economic advisor question, but things were not unlike how USA had the Chicago Boys ready to help out in Chile. The trick the Chinese used to theorize USSR as straight-up becoming capitalist was basically the same as what leftcoms use: conceiving capital as an abstract process that is not defined by who manages it, but whose managers are defined by the practical existence of that process and a group of designated managers for it. The bourgeoisie of the USSR was a different one from western empires just as that was different from the time of Marx's writing, and as colonial bourgeoisies were different from all of them. In the West, the classical bourgeoisie (when a capitalist was a single bourgeois person performing managerial tasks) had transformed into a monopoly bourgeoisie that had amalgamated into just a small amount of concrete capitals. So a capitalist was a large amount of bourgeoisie amalgamated into a legal person, on one hand the stockholders and on the other the upper rungs of the managerial technocracy. In the East, independent capital had been destroyed, but the state managerial apparatus had transformed into a state monopoly bourgeoisie by the fact of subordinating politics to economic growth, which is basically just increasing economic surplus defined in terms of money, which is a form of value. The concept of such a bourgeoisie is a bit tricky since the capitalist is highly abstract and and its nature may fluctuate with political decisions, but on aggregate the capitalists are composed of the managerial technocracy combined with the political technocracy. In edgier moments, the system they form has been described as a variant of fascism because it's the melding of the state and capital into an all-around rule by a united bourgeoisie, under which all legal political power is gated behind its active approval. In dependent countries, foreign capitals smash any domestic capitals that aren't either very large, subordinate to foreign operations, or in a niche where there isn't enough profit to be had to ever develop into a political power player. So there develop two big bourgeoisies. First, a bureaucratic bourgeoisie, which is a state bourgeoisie whose hold on the economy, rather than being monopolistic, is very tenuous if it doesn't suck up to foreign interests. Second, a comprador bourgeoisie, who produce for foreign corporations and consumers without competing directly on the same fields.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Thank you for the posts, uncop
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
quote:The only grand and omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the only one which we may respect, will be that of the collective and public spirit of a society founded on equality and solidarity and the mutual human respect of all its members. Yes. this is an authority which is not at all divine, wholly human, but before which we shall bow willingly, certain that, far from enslaving them, it will emancipate men. It will be a thousand times more powerful, be sure of it than all your divine, theological metaphysical, political, and judicial authorities, established by the Church and by the State, more powerful than your criminal codes, your jailers, and your executioners. Bakunin advocating in favor of targeted online harassment and cancel culture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 09:18
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Thank you for the posts, uncop this, 100% unironically
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 09:45
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Thank you for the posts, uncop really helpful posts
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
Uncop got some reading on the cultural revolution you suggest? I am intrigued by the ideas you're presenting since my previous experience with positive takes on the cultural revolution was more along the lines of "yes they sent a shitton of poorly trained people to provide medical care to the country but getting somebody out there who could provide regular shots was still a huge leap in medical access"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
I would also like to say the uncop posts are good, even though I only read the first one and skipped the second one to post htis
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Benagain posted:Uncop got some reading on the cultural revolution you suggest? I am intrigued by the ideas you're presenting since my previous experience with positive takes on the cultural revolution was more along the lines of "yes they sent a shitton of poorly trained people to provide medical care to the country but getting somebody out there who could provide regular shots was still a huge leap in medical access" The Cultural Revolution at the Margins by Yiching Wu is a serious academic look at the events from a perspective that avoids falling into either the CCP disaster narrative or the western disaster-coup narrative. Rethinking Socialism by Deng-Yuan Hsu and Pao-Yu Ching is a shorter piece that's not a history of the CR but explains why it was meaningful, helps understand it in context. Evaluating the Cultural Revolution in China and its Legacy for the Future at mlmrsg.com is an interesting piece where amateur communists try to pick at what there is to learn from the events, positive and negative. It contains an interesting telling of the history that doesn't give a proportional picture of what happened on aggregate but touches on all the big campaigns and historical twists in probably as short amount of time as is realistically possible. I've also seen The Unknown Cultural Recolution by Dongping Han recommended a lot, but I haven't read it and as far as I know, it isn't meant to give a general understanding but describe how it affected one specific rural location that serves as a positive example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Bakunin advocating in favor of targeted online harassment and cancel culture. targeted online harassment is the modern propaganda of the deed, it's anti-thetical to democratic centralism and ML ideology. once again, anarchists are prescient 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
propaganda of the deed at zillow.com
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
that pao yu ching is sick.. she just published a new booklet "from victory to defeat" which is along the same lines, but written an even more explicitly mythbusting QA format. for good reading on the gpcr i would also recommend mobo gao's writings, especially "the battle for china's past"; i also found badiou's "the communist hypothesis" chapters on the gpcr surprisingly informative and insightful
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Can someone explain what is Situationism
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Situationism was a theory created by anarchist avant-gardists, about how the alienation produced by capitalism had extended itself, in sufficiently advanced capitalist societies (mostly the us, uk, and france), to any and all aspects of society, in a way that was totalizing and invisible. THey were fairly anti-ussr and burned themselves out after about a decade or so, but made a pretty important contribution to modern marxism in the idea of "the spectacle," or the complete accession of everything in society to commodity fetishism and the commodity form. Usually when people refer to "spectacle" today they're talking about mass media, because it was regarded by the situationists as the most important aspect of capitalism's influence on basic aspects of human life like the way we understand information. The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord is definitely the most important written work from situationism and was one of the major catalysts for the 1968 student riots in Paris. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm It could be argued that situationism was extremely influential on what people call "late stage capitalism" or neoliberalism, if only on an aesthetic level; that capitalism reified (a word invented by guy debord iirc) its concepts about flexibility, synthesization, and change to make capitalism more "friendly" and pliable for a global marketplace. The actual extent of these changes is beyond my knowledge level, but it was certainly extremely influential in architecture, and along with Deleuze's writings formed the philosophical basis of its shift from functionalism to form-ism, which is something only dumbasses like me care about but I study architecture so it's in my general wheelhouse
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Also, i think guy debord was more or less the only major french intellectual who didn't argue that age of consent laws should be abolished. So he has that going for him
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
one of their big things was détournement (spreading radical messages by appropriating hegemonic cultural artefacts), which is conceptually interesting but unfortunately produced adbusters
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
exmarx posted:one of their big things was détournement (spreading radical messages by appropriating hegemonic cultural artefacts), which is conceptually interesting but unfortunately produced adbusters 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
i seriously considered buying a pair when i was like 16 lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
strange feelings re Daisy posted:Just mentioning adbusters always makes me think of those loving sneakers ahahaha. would, unironically
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
exmarx posted:i seriously considered buying a pair when i was like 16 lol Peanut President posted:would, unironically lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 14:58
|
|