> I went on reddit for some reason recently and got into an argument with a Maoist. I soon revealed I had not done sufficient investigation and was mostly just curious for them to justify their differences in ideology. I repeated a trite talking point that “PPW is not universal” that I have heard many times and listed the vague arguments against its universality which I had heard. I was recommended this book amongst other things. > > I read it in its entirety. It’s a theoretical debate for 2019. It opens with a Filipino communist arguing against universality, and that section left me confused. Then a Nordic guy rebuts him and had me thinking Gonzalo may have been right. Another guy comes at him with all the arguments I have heard before, sounding condescending, but rightfully so. I was pretty much convinced but wanted to keep an open mind to why the Maoists liked this. Then a new theory group finishes out with a strong sounding argument for the PCP position. > > This question requires further investigation for me to develop an “all sided” perspective, and I can’t vouch for Gonzalo, but I don’t have reason to trust Bad Empanada or any rando on the internet. I must go through more source material when my ADHD compels me. > > What I have taken away from the reading is the Protracted People’s War can and should probably be applied in varied situations. It is essentially years of guerrilla warfare against the capitalist state until victory is won over the exploiters. There is no other kind of successful revolution. Our strategy in the west is shit – trying to slowly protest and accumulate support. You cannot win war without practice, and no revolution happens overnight. We will not be ready if a revolutionary situation were to happen tomorrow. The Bolsheviks illegally fought their ruling class for years. European parties were most successful when forced to militarize by fascism, but stupidly disarmed. > > PPW does not mean surrounded the cities by the country side. PPW is the universal Marxist element (in the works of Mao), but particularities of every situation must be studied. The IRA fought the British using urban warfare and were relatively successful before right opportunism led to compromise. More advanced theory could help a new BLA or Weathermen be successful in the US. Our ruling class is going and fascist militias are ramping up violence no matter what and we need a more systematic approach than little SRA chapters or whatever. > > No, I’m not going to call myself a Maoist or whatever. There are shitty Maoists and Gonzalo did bad stuff, but the same is true of every leftist group. What matters is what works in practice, and legalist accumulationism is not working. We need to maintain ruthless criticism of all that exists and do investigations instead of resorting to dogma. Everyone has a different perspective, and we all need to realize we won’t convince everyone, so we should keep criticizing and refining. We should not seek “leftist unity” for the sake of tailing the least common denominator. We should seek the best methods (using Marxist analysis) and get people to join us in what works. No, I don’t understand all this or have all the answers, but I recommend people check out the essays. Criticize them too, as a matter of fact.
I am absolutely shit at songwriting (due to inexperience)
Ditto. That’s why I just want to use good quotes.
I’m a zoomer and I’ve probably got ADHD, and I’ve read my share of theory, but I understand why it’s hard for some people. Would it be a good idea to intertwine music with political education? I like genres that try to fill my insatiable appetite for stimulation like nu-metal, hyper-pop and phonk. I feel like a lot of overtly political music can come off as cheesy and not one’s kind of music, so it might appeal to some people to incorporate other genres. Might it keep people’s attention more to say have nightcore Engels? What if we just put some bass and distorted guitar under an audiobook. If people don’t have the attention span for that maybe a phonk beat for a banger quote?
Would anyone else be interested in working on this or see value in it? I currently lack the hardware and skill, but I could learn.
Maybe with some Marxism, I know Dialectical Behavioral Therapy is a thing. Either way, mental illness is my current fixation, and I’ll read anything half decent on the topic. Maybe not too long idk (I’m not planning to go through the DSM). Free pdfs or audiobooks appreciated.
All I remember is he comes after Freud, some of his followers are annoying, there’s a Marxist podcast that likes him called ‘the return of the repressed,’ and I don’t think Lukacs liked him.
It’s basically just ask lemmygrad but specifically for a smaller category of vague questions. Does it serve enough of a purpose or should remove it like the various precursors to Shit Reactionaries say (note this comm is newer than AL).
“You’ll have to be a miserable people one day so don’t get used to freedom.” That’s exactly why I don’t want to be on my phone.
What I mean is “reading and drawing and exploring outside and playing games are much more fun than whatever fake stimulation you get from a screen.”
I feel like it would be better to explain why too much time on tech is bad and encourage them to spend their time doing physical things or reading rather than acting like they “don’t deserve” it.
Time outs, revoking privileges (screen time, dessert, eating out, whatever) with warnings if they persist in doing something bad.
I went to a generic nursery recently and it’s depressing how few natives they have. You have to seek out the singular table.
Yet another fascism-y thing the US did before the people who call themselves fascist.
Insane sect that theocratically runs a state, relatively harmless cult disconnected from the real world, crazy cult that tried to take over the US government and other stuff (I know Evans is a fed, but I think I liked the behind the bastards Scientology series).
For breakfast I have a little bit of granola and fruit and lots of nuts. For lunch I have a carrot, more nuts, banana or orange, and pb+j or bagel. For dinner I have various things, commonly stir fried veggies with tofu.
This is basically what I was trying to say. The reply I got was “you’re not a Marxist, you’re a nationalist. If you fight US imperialism “””other imperialisms””” will fill the gap.”
This is what you get when you constantly promote zizek.
Edit: there’s a reason why marxists don’t use hegel’s dialectics
I took it out of the meme to avoid seeming cluttered, but I must mention that they don’t just want USian corporations to have the monopoly. Renewables are at odds with capitalism and capitalists know oil is more lucrative than less labor intensive alternatives. Ted Reese makes a strong explanation for the lack of adoption of hemp and solar in SoE.
I took it out of the meme to avoid seeming cluttered, but I must mention that they don’t just want USian corporations to have the monopoly. Renewables are at odds with capitalism and capitalists know oil is more lucrative than less labor intensive alternatives. Ted Reese makes a strong explanation for the lack of adoption of hemp and solar in SoE.
I took it out of the meme to avoid seeming cluttered, but I must mention that they don’t just want USian corporations to have the monopoly. Renewables are at odds with capitalism and capitalists know oil is more lucrative than less labor intensive alternatives. Ted Reese makes a strong explanation for the lack of adoption of hemp and solar in SoE.
Just as the West failed to understand Russia, and was taken by surprise, so it is that the White House firmly ignores the Biblical ‘End of Times’ dimension to the Israeli ‘way of thinking about war’.
Tbf a lot of people just want a petty bourgeois vacation.
I’ve been on a socia media break, but I’ll post some memes.
Context: The first one, the character is avoiding going to his best friend’s house because he doesn’t want to see his wife who’s mutually in love with him. The second, Chernyshevsky randomly spends a super long amount of time talking about a type of person that he really likes which will have no bearing on the story.
This Existential Comics-like sketch popped into my brain while I was reading Capital. I'm not well-read enough to make their personalities and language very accurate, but I tried to get their ideas right.
> Engels, Marx, Hegel, Descartes, and Spinoza are sitting together at table. > > > Engels: Thank you for coming to this meeting of enlightenment dialecticians. Today the topic of discussion will be “free will.” Does anyone want to start? > > Descartes: Well, obviously we have free will because God is good, and he gave it to us. God created us and left us the world so that we could affect the world in ways that would decide whether we go to heaven. > > Hegel: I agree to an extent, our free wills move forward history by making rational arguments advancing the world spirit. That does not mean we are just souls doing whatever we want. We pick rational choices in line with the dominant thinking of our society. > > Marx: Religion may comfort people, but there is no god to give free will. Hegel’s sort of on track, but the limits on freedom are material not ideal. People have material conditions that greatly limit the choices they can make, but the masses ultimate move history forward, not simply ideas. > > Descartes: What do you mean there’s no God? I literally proved it in my fifth meditation! > > Marx: No, you didn’t, you idealist fool! There are no non-material things and nothing can be proved by pure reason. > > Spinoza: I agree with Marx. We are all part of the one material world. However, that has implications for your argument too Karl. Our minds are material too, and therefore our actions are a result not only of outside conditions, but also the material that makes up our minds is also a part of God. Thus, we are ourselves nature acting out deterministically, and free will is an illusion. > > Descartes: What God are you talking about?! > > Engels: Ignoring Descartes, You are not wrong, though the wills of humanity still move forward history toward communism regardless of if they are free. > > Spinoza: True enough. > > Hegel: What do you mean forward to communism? I live in the end of history. There is nothing beyond constitutional monarchy. > > Marx: You bourgeois idealist bastard! > > Marx gets out of his seat and goes to flip Hegel on his head. > > Engels: That’s enough everyone. He mutters under his breath. I should’ve picked a different topic. >
This Existential Comics-like sketch popped into my brain while I was reading Capital. I'm not well-read enough to make their personalities and language very accurate, but I tried to get their ideas right.
Engels, Marx, Hegel, Descartes, and Spinoza are sitting together at table.
Engels: Thank you for coming to this meeting of enlightenment dialecticians. Today the topic of discussion will be “free will.” Does anyone want to start?
Descartes: Well, obviously we have free will because God is good, and he gave it to us. God created us and left us the world so that we could affect the world in ways that would decide whether we go to heaven.
Hegel: I agree to an extent, our free wills move forward history by making rational arguments advancing the world spirit. That does not mean we are just souls doing whatever we want. We pick rational choices in line with the dominant thinking of our society.
Marx: Religion may comfort people, but there is no god to give free will. Hegel’s sort of on track, but the limits on freedom are material not ideal. People have material conditions that greatly limit the choices they can make, but the masses ultimate move history forward, not simply ideas.
Descartes: What do you mean there’s no God? I literally proved it in my fifth meditation!
Marx: No, you didn’t, you idealist fool! There are no non-material things and nothing can be proved by pure reason.
Spinoza: I agree with Marx. We are all part of the one material world. However, that has implications for your argument too Karl. Our minds are material too, and therefore our actions are a result not only of outside conditions, but also the material that makes up our minds is also a part of God. Thus, we are ourselves nature acting out deterministically, and free will is an illusion.
Descartes: What God are you talking about?!
Engels: Ignoring Descartes, You are not wrong, though the wills of humanity still move forward history toward communism regardless of if they are free.
Spinoza: True enough.
Hegel: What do you mean forward to communism? I live in the end of history. There is nothing beyond constitutional monarchy.
Marx: You bourgeois idealist bastard!
Marx gets out of his seat and goes to flip Hegel on his head.
Engels: That’s enough everyone. He mutters under his breath. I should’ve picked a different topic.
QueerCommie @lemmygrad.ml [she/they/comrade]
Ultra-left accelerationist Dengist
My matrix is @queercommie28:matrix.org