(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
my dad posted:oh look captain papist of the royal army of rapists has an opinion on national self determination Yes, it's bad 
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
Rodney The Yam II posted:It's both the problem and incredible but in the end its right
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 23:36
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:she was a strong supporter of the revolution who was critical of certain specific decisions made by the bolsheviks (not the soviet government, which didn't exist) in a way that wasn't any more negative than the actual debates inside the party. she thought encouraging peasants to immediately seize agricultural land as their own was a mistake because it would have been better to immediately turn large and medium farms over to state control, because what she saw happening was the creation of a new class of land owning semi-wealthy peasant that would be opposed to further socialist reorganization, and that in practice already well to do peasants or village strongmen would appropriate more or better land than others. i think these are both technically correct, but also compromises the bolsheviks had to make in the middle of civil war and devastation. they couldn't do collectivization until they'd actually established control of the country, and part of establishing the control was giving various regional communists the surety that this wouldn't be a russian chauvinist country. the experiences of actual collectivization (should've followed the bukharin plan or done whatever it was the CPC did) and the eventual breakup along these ethnic lines showed that these compromises bit them in the rear end pretty hard though
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 23:51
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Yes, it's bad really should have just left that king square blank for how long king potions and herbs is going to hold the throne
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 23:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:really should have just left that king square blank for how long king potions and herbs is going to hold the throne  
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i think these are both technically correct, but also compromises the bolsheviks had to make in the middle of civil war and devastation. they couldn't do collectivization until they'd actually established control of the country, and part of establishing the control was giving various regional communists the surety that this wouldn't be a russian chauvinist country. the experiences of actual collectivization (should've followed the bukharin plan or done whatever it was the CPC did) and the eventual breakup along these ethnic lines showed that these compromises bit them in the rear end pretty hard though The split was eventually along SSR lines and the politicians that eventually climbed to the top of post-Soviet states tend toward a particular flavor of ethno-shitbag, yes, yes, but didn't the various original SSRs (leaving out the Baltics) also vote heavily for preservation of the USSR, with the motive force for its dissolution instead being Great Russians getting their way? I'm not sure you can draw a clear line through from Lenin's self-determination policy to the present day, especially since the west needed to paradrop political emigres back in following the metropole's abandonment of the SSRs to get them to where they are now..
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
Iirc Gorby, Yeltsin, and company thought that Russia shouldn't have to pay for the poor periphery and they'd become a rich capitalist European state (with themselves at the head) if they could just cut that rabble loose. Which rightly goes in the giant folder called "Russian ruling class wants to be (accepted as) European, sabotages their country in those hopes"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 00:32
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:aligning differing interpretations of reality is literally the dialectic, is it not? the 38th anniversary of the People Power "revolution" is coming up in two days as with what happens every year, liberal pundits will claim that the left was not present at the mass congregation to protect army mutineers along EDSA highway that lead to Marcos Sr's ouster leftists will present historical evidence that they were there, and the pundits will claim that they were only there on the last day, leftists will present more evidence that they were there since the first day of the gathering, and the pundits will claim that, sure, okay, maybe leftists were there, but there were only there as individuals, and not as an organized group leftists will present more evidence that leftists were there as a party, with placards and banners and such, along with a documented announcement from the party that they would be joining the EDSA gathering, and the pundits will claim that, well, the left boycotted the 1986 snap elections three weeks before the incident (true), so it still doesn't count I bring this all up because the argument is a political one: the liberals don't think the left, today, should get a claim to the pro-democracy legacy of People Power, that they don't get to steer the direction of the opposition movement, that liberals were at the forefront of People Power, so only they get to have a say about it and it's rather irritating because nobody wants to have the argument. It gets sublimated into a debate over the literal physical presence of leftists at EDSA because nobody actually wants to say what they really mean
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 02:32
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i think these are both technically correct, but also compromises the bolsheviks had to make in the middle of civil war and devastation. they couldn't do collectivization until they'd actually established control of the country, and part of establishing the control was giving various regional communists the surety that this wouldn't be a russian chauvinist country. the experiences of actual collectivization (should've followed the bukharin plan or done whatever it was the CPC did) and the eventual breakup along these ethnic lines showed that these compromises bit them in the rear end pretty hard though if you read what she wrote she actually literally says the same thing about collectivization, she thought it was a mistake but acknowledges that there may have been no alternative, especially since the Bolsheviks needed populist measures that would get the peasantry on their side fast. she says it was probably the right call but it's going to bite them in the rear end in more or less exactly the way it did. Mandoric posted:The split was eventually along SSR lines and the politicians that eventually climbed to the top of post-Soviet states tend toward a particular flavor of ethno-shitbag, yes, yes, but didn't the various original SSRs (leaving out the Baltics) also vote heavily for preservation of the USSR, with the motive force for its dissolution instead being Great Russians getting their way? I'm not sure you can draw a clear line through from Lenin's self-determination policy to the present day, especially since the west needed to paradrop political emigres back in following the metropole's abandonment of the SSRs to get them to where they are now.. i should note that she didn't just mean the areas that ended up being the USSR and obviously she couldn't have known how the integration of the various populations into thinking of themselves as soviets first and whatever nationality second was going to go, she didn't think they should have let finland go, signed brest-litovsk (which she knew was a tough and close call at the time) and given up poland, etc. Keep the whole empire, establish socialist government, then see how autonomous regions should be. and yeah in the SSRs that held elections, the margins in favor of maintaining the soviet system and union were almost always overwhelming. At minimum Belorussia and the Central Asian states would all have stayed in the Union. In a purely technical sense, Transnistria did
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
my dad posted:oh look captain papist of the royal army of rapists has an opinion on national self determination lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 12:16
|
|
|
I decided to stop being scared of words and started reading Capital. The specific edition I found had a lengthy introduction that repeatedly and heavily recommended me to start by reading Section II instead of I, while also skipping V. I'm following through with that recommendation and I'm a fair way into Section II now, but any idea why that's recommended?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 17:18
|
|
|
I bounced off capital a few times. I succeeded when I skipped the introductions and gave up the idea I was going to “get it” all at once. reading capital is a mindset imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
by section two do you mean chapter 2: exchange or part 2: the transformation of money into capital either way that is a very odd and imo poor suggestion e: also is it ernst mandels long rear end introduction? because i just completely skipped that and marx's introductions to the various editions e2: honestly if there's one chapter you can skip or heavily skim its chapter 3, provided you remember how a=b=c thus a=c works from 6th grade math Raskolnikov38 has issued a correction as of 17:33 on Feb 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
Halser posted:I decided to stop being scared of words and started reading Capital. The specific edition I found had a lengthy introduction that repeatedly and heavily recommended me to start by reading Section II instead of I, while also skipping V. Great stuff. BTW, since we are fellow Brazilians, shoot me a pm as well whenever you want to ask questions and such. There are also great recent versions of Capital in our language that have been receiving high praise as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Mandel Brotset posted:I bounced off capital a few times. I succeeded when I skipped the introductions and gave up the idea I was going to “get it” all at once. reading capital is a mindset imo mmmm you gave me an idea. Let me see if I can find the study program for Marxist Econ I/II from uni to share with you guys
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Transformation of money into capital. The short preface that recommends this is by Louis Althusser, though there's some other introductions by brazillian professors in the PDF I got. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1969/preface-capital.htm I kinda wanted to skip the long introductions, but at the same time I thought I might as well be patient about reading through it, so I don't burn out. The stuff I've read in part 2 so far isn't anything new to me, but it's good to see those ideas being explained in a more robust way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Halser posted:I decided to stop being scared of words and started reading Capital. The specific edition I found had a lengthy introduction that repeatedly and heavily recommended me to start by reading Section II instead of I, while also skipping V. I don't know what Section II is. If you want to get your blood pumping, read Chapter 10 first. That's the one that talks about the working class in England. iirc that was a contender for the first chapter, but marx wanted to treat capital as a serious treatise, so the first chapters are dry, dense, and academic. After chapter 10, read the first three chapters. Take a break for a couple days. Read the first three chapters again. Don't feel bad if you still don't get it. Press on through the rest of the book. He will revisit the themes and terms from chs 1-3 time and again, and each time it will become clearer. After you finish book, go back and read chapters 1-3 again. Compare how you feel now with how you felt when you first opened the book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:I don't know what Section II is. If you want to get your blood pumping, read Chapter 10 first. That's the one that talks about the working class in England. iirc that was a contender for the first chapter, but marx wanted to treat capital as a serious treatise, so the first chapters are dry, dense, and academic. yeah, I mistranslated the naming conventions since I'm reading a brazillian version. I don't mind it being dry so far, it's actually clarifying in a way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
also dont beat yourself up about bouncing off Capital, its a poorly written book that's over 150 years old lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:also dont beat yourself up about bouncing off Capital, its a poorly written book that's over 150 years old lol not the Brazilian Portuguese version, though! they did a great thing in using the new translation to modernize the language, consulting with some of the best Marxists in the country. really good stuff
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:not the Brazilian Portuguese version, though! they should translate back to English
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:also dont beat yourself up about bouncing off Capital, its a poorly written book that's over 150 years old lol mfers just dont know to read multiple nested independent clauses that may or may not be someone marx is quoting rather than something marx is saying, most likely a mixture of both (and you wont know which)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:mfers just dont know to read multiple nested independent clauses that may or may not be someone marx is quoting rather than something marx is saying, most likely a mixture of both (and you wont know which) Thanks, German language!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:mfers just dont know to read multiple nested independent clauses that may or may not be someone marx is quoting rather than something marx is saying, most likely a mixture of both (and you wont know which) I know which.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
a bunch of years back once I realized I put a whole paragraph and did a full comment on a footnote I suddenly understood the peril of that reading
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:Thanks, German language! it rules so hard, learning german hosed up my academic writing for years
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
Let me get straight to the point: Raise your hand if you've killed the cop in your head. Good.  Now, raise your hand if you've killed or are killing the German in your head. Many of you are asking "w-what...?", "lol are you serious?", etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
althusser has done some good work but i don't really trust him about the communist classics because a lot of his efforts seem to revolve around finding ways to uphold lenin but denounce stalin while not technically being a trot. so, contra his advice, i would just read capital all the way through he's right that chapter one contains a lot more weird/subtle stuff than it looks at first glance, but that's why it's rewarding to come back to later on. it's still good to straightaway get some stuff about value down, then go to money, then go to profits, etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Halser posted:I decided to stop being scared of words and started reading Capital.  there's people out there who've spent more time arguing that people shouldn't read Capital than it would take to read Capital and i don't get it at all. it's such a cool book. it's a critique of political economy, it's got poo poo-talking of economists and philosophers, it's got literary references and random phrases in german (for precision) or french (for flair), and footnotes you can get lost in. honestly, i had a ball with it. and it didn't just teach me about how the world works — it taught me how to criticize. dialectical materialism, even in the form present in Capital, which is applied rather than laid out in schema, really gives you a hell of a way to beat the poo poo out of ideas and see what's left standing. i guess books that challenge me are the ones most likely to keep me on task. folks like dark souls, so why not marx?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:00
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:mmmm Last reply as there's good discussions going on. No poo poo a western educated economist would fail a Marxist economics course. You kept this back for a while, and it has a giant loving impact on all discourse. It's why you didn't get my references to western economic education. It's cool you got educated in marx and all, but that poo poo was really bad faith. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:folks like dark souls, so why not marx? i hate dark souls
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
reading capital isn't easy but it's easily the most important book for understanding a materialist view on economics and like the basic material reality of the world i dont remember which sections are which aside from chapter 10, which is always a good starting point if you find yourself unable to easily make it through the starting stuff. make sure to go back and reread commodity fetishism as well. when you're finished with it, if you feel like you've got a good understanding of dialectical materialism then you can look at some lenin stuff, or if you feel you need more instruction on the base philosophy of marxism and materialism i'm sure people here could recommend which of engels or marx's other stuff is most useful Flournival Dixon has issued a correction as of 20:29 on Feb 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Last reply as there's good discussions going on. "of course learning a new thing is hard, have you seen all the holes the worms in my brain made?!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Last reply as there's good discussions going on. Stupid bitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
bills for gods sake read capital, if you want to learn about marxism read capital people will stop being mean to you if you read the loving book and come back with actual questions or comments about the thing itself
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Last reply as there's good discussions going on. they trained you wrong, as a joke
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:48
|
|
|
Flournival Dixon posted:bills for gods sake read capital, if you want to learn about marxism read capital His problem isn't that he doesn't know the right information, it's that the entire way he processes the information and uses it is hosed. If he read Capital he'd be making up nonsense counterexamples every other paragraph while absorbing nothing, and close the book completely assured that he'd understood and conquered a failed ideology. e: what 3 said
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
keep the chain probe going ffs
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:His problem isn't that he doesn't know the right information, it's that the entire way he processes the information and uses it is hosed. If he read Capital he'd be making up nonsense counterexamples every other paragraph while absorbing nothing, and close the book completely assured that he'd understood and conquered a failed ideology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Last reply as there's good discussions going on. the weirdest thing about your posts is that they read like an illiterate is dictating them to a speech to text program. im forced to read them in a panhandle accent which forces me to imagine dewey crowe is saying them. in fact you remind me a lot of dewey crowe
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 21:08
|
|
