fart simpson posted:

does anyone have the old op’s reading list still? that was a good list and i was slowly working through some of it

DirtyRobot posted:

Yeah, probably.

There are other podcasts that do overviews with framing themselves as a "companion" like the Harvey does:

The Fundamentals of Marxism: Intro to Political Economy

The Fundamentals of Marxism: Dialectics, Historical Materialism, and Class Struggle

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

I think it's readable stand-alone, definitely (and pretty good, too), but I wouldn't really call it an updated Capital -- he drills down on some stuff and skips over other stuff, and generally he makes pretty good choices, but you're still reading Harvey thinking about Marx rather than Marx thinking about capitalism. That said it's not like you won't get a much better understanding of capital out of it and if you like Harvey's writing I say go for it.

Also I say try Capital and just skip over the boring parts. Once you get that bolts of cloth can be turned into a jacket with labor you can just skim like fifty pages.

smarxist posted:

for reading i recommend just reading The Man Himself, Marx is so fun, he's really witty and sarcastic at times, but sincere and he gets so passionate and disgusted with humanity, especially when he's writing on the capitalists and the immiseration of mankind

read the manifesto

then check out the economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844

chairface posted:

so what was education in the USSR like? Was "dropping out of high school" a thing? What were the post-secondary options? Was post-secondary placement based more on test scores or personal connections or what? Did university students prank the commissar-dean by rebuilding his lada on the roof? Was there a frat/party culture at university at all? Student athletics surely existed but what sports and to what degree did society care?

Truga posted:

animist posted:

hippies are the embodiment of a petit bourgeois understanding of social change. like anarchists

vyelkin posted:

also trotsky had the brilliant idea of "no war, no peace" which was basically neither sign a peace deal nor keep fighting and the germans said lol okay and just kept advancing into russia with no organized resistance until the bolsheviks figured out how stupid trotsky's idea was

The Voice of Labor posted:

john lennon felled by an assassin's bullet. judi bari, attempted assassination. I'm sure there are a bunch of other earth first and wto protestors who got suicided. all hippies and anarchists. this thread, allowed to live.

spooks don't give a gently caress about idealogies beyond knowing that they don't like it. I would also suggest that what determines a threat is how broad it's reach is.

food not bombs is allowed to exist because no one wants to eat beans. riot ribs is immediately cointelpro'ed because if you're giving out ribs and hamburgers and other desirable food stuffs, that represents a threat.

so yeah, this lovely thread is allowed to live because any hint of inquiry into a better world or how to go about realizing it is dogpiled for two pages

gradenko_2000 posted:

oh my loving god

https://twitter.com/jacobin/status/1399063857394556933

AnimeIsTrash posted:

F Stop Fitzgerald posted:

https://twitter.com/MissPavIichenko/status/1399364001893601286

The Voice of Labor posted:

coincidentally, I'm sure, none is also the number of socialist movements that are active and which wield political power.

mao smoked like 8 packs of cigarettes a day, and these were old school chinese cigarettes, loving hypocrite was running on a constant daily nicotine rush the likes of which is unimaginable today. the soviet union's only interest in stamping out alcohol consumption was to leave more vodka for inner party debaucheries. hypocrites, frauds, all of them. they knew power flows from the neck of a bottle or a pipe and they wanted to hoard it for themselves, like dragons, like capitalists.

hippy drugs of choice are psychedelics and weed which are extra powermoderator dumb things to be down on. like, "what's the biggest obstacle in the way of creating and maintaining a socialist state? drugs that radically increase people's sense of empathy!"

tokin opposition posted:

Lenin smoked weed

indigi posted:

why do you think he had all those strokes? don't buy the NORML propaganda

yr new gurlfrand! posted:

i was gonna eliminate class before I got high

Cerebral Bore posted:

at some point i thought that anarchism could be cool but then i realized that the anarchist explanation for why they haven't ever really succeeded in overthrowing capitalism always boiled down to "well we tried but then we got crushed by those evil capitalists/communists/whateverists" and upon about half a second of further thought i realized that maybe this implies some kind of fundamental impossibility of their position and that's when i decided that this whole anarchism business is actually very silly

indigi posted:

maybe because people feel like it doesn’t adequately address race and gender issues

indigi posted:

in general yes but a lot of loud ones with big followings and podcasts do ignore them or outright mock people for caring about them

indigi posted:

it’s come up for as long as there have been Marxists. contemporaries criticized Marx and Engels for it, Lenin wrote about it, it’s not new and it’s a persistent problem among (mostly race/gender/orientation-privileged) marxists

indigi posted:

img_Lenin-Its-Not-My-Job-to-Educate-You.png

Yossarian-22 posted:

While I'm sympathetic to the idea of international/permanent revolution I find it funny how Trotskyists get hung up on Stalin's death toll the way liberals do. They honestly think an international revolution wouldn't result in rivers of blood? Own up to your drat ideology

It's fine and all to get hung up on socialist states "degenerating" into state capitalism or what have you but I think it's embarrassing that some people try to sell Trotsky to libs as a Gandhi like figure who wasn't every bit as ruthless. The Bolsheviks were going to take power away from the Soviets after the Russian Civil War regardless of who was in charge, and there probably would have been a programme of ruthless industrialization under Trotsky as well. For whatever Stalin's faults were they amounted to nothing compared to the material reality of Russia during his rule

dead gay comedy forums posted:

yeah, unfortunately it seems to be something of a problem among some audiences, like some corners of twitter

like, posting as entertaining pseudo-intellectual sport is all well and good (and even better when funny), but let's break kayfabe for a bit: if someone's internet hot take on Trotsky or Stalin or Bakunin (or whatever dead person you prefer that fits the category) is a ideological battleground of utmost importance that makes completely impossible to cooperate with the other person because you must be completely right at all loving times, well, holy poo poo. Meanwhile, people organizing on fast-food or supermarket chains could not give absolutely any less of a poo poo about the minutiae of dialectical analysis between different intellectual factions from the early twentieth century

it is like one of our guys was talking about during the preparation for anti-bolso protests here: gtfo with "a government that's pawn to international capital", put the loving price of gas that's making poor people resort to scavenging firewood to cook on the release, or maybe electricity that's about to take another loving hike and sell the main national public company along that, loving everyone in the process. reach out with solid, actual, direct concerns that matter now, that resonate

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

in real life the people you gotta be wary of are American Maoists

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Serious question: Why all the hate for Deng? Given the outcome, it looks like he was right.

Ferrinus posted:

“HAD Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?”

Larry Parrish posted:

you must remember that most people online in the left are dipshits with too much time on their hands and basically arriving at their positions at random so they can argue with other morons who will never go outside.

having a strong opinion on deng in the first place generally makes someone one of that class as well

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykCv7IHUc8

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Instead of being sad about China I would be happy about the DPRK.

dead gay comedy forums posted:

I do get your point but, still, with that av of yours this is gold hahaha

mcclay posted:

what the gently caress are the actual tenets of xi jinping thought?

is it just mostly excuses for social-imperialism or does it have something substantive in it

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://twitter.com/YXiusheng/status/1408236401536258048?s=20

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/asatarbair/status/1408952378691256320
https://twitter.com/asatarbair/status/1409366711950733312
https://twitter.com/asatarbair/status/1409343128776056842
https://twitter.com/asatarbair/status/1409342594140708865

okay step 1 is we get this fuckin' guy an account

gradenko_2000 posted:

Tom Paine was all right