Damn the liberals really got to this one. Sorry comrade ):
I'm not sure how you expect to secure proletarian class interests without police. What, inframaterialism?
What determines whether a colony will be an extrationary or settler colony?
I have begun reading Wang Huning's America Against America and there's one section where he talks about the intial colonization of the Americas and the difference between settler colonies and enslavement colonies. He cites Li Qiren's argument that the native americans were expelled and exterminated because they had not reached a high enough stage of development to be worth enslaving rather than just stealing their land. Meanwhile in Asia and africa and such the societies had reached a high enough stage of development to be worth enslaving.
I hadn't really thought about it, but it is odd to me. I don't fully buy Li's argument here because of the existence of Israel. To my knowledge palestine wasnt much different materially from other Arab areas like Jordan, Iraq, etc. Obviously zionism was a genuine ideology and movement (I don't think there were many advocates for settlement of Saudi Arabia) but beyond that it feels like it should have probably followed the same playback as the othe
Are they actually defending rapists and pedophiles or are they pointing out that fascists like Miloni have a tendency to label certain people (lgbtq people, Muslims, etc.) pedophiles and rapists and ergo that synonym-ity might prove extremely dangerous for obvious reasons?
One little thing, isn't second thought a member of the CPUSA. At least I thought he was, but its been a while so maybe that changed
Deeply unserious organization. That or they're feds.
Sorry forgot to add this to the post:
I mainly dislike BE because of his "beef" with bayarea415, his "enlightened anti-campism" and his tendency to get into and escalate internet fights for very little reason (see the bayarea415 thing). So I think a lot of leftists give him a lot more slack than others would get for similar behavior
Any leftist authors/Video makers you think are overrated?
Mostly yeah
One other part is what i want to take away from this, but I suppose I should give some context on the book he's talking about. Thomas Carlyle's work on the French revolution isnt pure aristocracy and is critical of the ancien regime, but its also heavily against the Jacobins. Edmund Burke type stuff if you follow.
However twain (with some supporting evidence and life experience) takes away an entirely different conclusion from what the prose supports.
Firstly, I find this a very relatable phenomenon. When I watched "Kraut and Tea"'s (may he forever burn in the sun's light) tale of two borders, I didn't take away the Whig histiography and such that kraut supported but instead the idea that no matter what changed politically, if the ruling class is still extracting value from the people then the situation doesn't improve. This was before I was a marxist as well. So I do intensly relate to his experience.
But secondly, and I believe more importantly, is that multiple people can look at the same exact evidence and come to different conclusions. Thats...obvious when you say it out loud, yes, but I think some people have issues putting that to practice. I often see people asking for the best evidence to convince people that marxism-leninism is the correct ideology. However, it is just possible that the same evidence that convinces us will not convince them, especially in isolation. It is very rarely one thing or another that radicalizes someone, even if it seems that way to us.
It's also a very succinct explanation as to how we can use the works of historians who are conservatives or even have conservative spins, even if we don't particularly want to. (Note I was thinking of a better example from a genuine historian but I cannot remember his name. If I find whom I'm talking about I'll edit it in, for now this will have to do). For example, TIK history does a lot of military history on the second world war, and is infamously...a goddamn lunatic anarcho capitalist. However to my knowledge his actual military history is good and doesn't fall for the usual order 227 enemy at the gates type bull crap, so as long as he's not talking about soldiers buying ammo from their own wallets then he's decent. And consequently while he takes one idea from his studies on the war, we take another from the same evidence and some extra help from both our experience and other writers. (Again, if i can find the historian that I was originally going to talk about I'll put him here, for now TIK is an ad hoc solution)
Again, I know it sounds obvious, but I think it's important to think about the next time you see a liberal simp over South korea despite probably knowing similar things about the state that you do. (This isn't to say don't correct them and present evidence, obviously, just that to understand why they're still the way they are even after you present it). Of course class analysis does this too but it can sometimes be too abstract to understand for some people, so a more succinct quote from a good writer also helps in explanations.
A good but underrated quote from United Statesian writer Mark Twain
" When I finished Carlyle's French Revolution in 1871, I was a Girondin; every time I have read it since, I have read it differently being influenced and changed, little by little, by life and environment (and Taine and St. Simon): and now I lay the book down once more, and recognize that I am a Sansculotte--And not a pale, characterless Sansculotte, but a Marat. Carlyle teaches no such gospel so the change is in me--in my vision of the evidences.
People pretend that the Bible means the same to them at 50 that it did at all former milestones in their journey. I wonder how they can lie so. It comes of practice, no doubt. They would not say that of Dickens's or Scott's books. Nothing remains the same. When a man goes back to look at the house of his childhood, it has always shrunk: there is no instance of such a house being as big as the picture in memory and imagination call for. Shrunk how? Why, to its correct dimensions: the house hasn't altered; this is the first time it has been
Ngl I'm not sure so I'll name a few.
1.Im very pro-natalist. I think, under well and stable circumstances (so not china during the one china policy) people should be encouraged to have children and preferably 2 or more. Obviously there should be provisions for this to make sure it doesn't turn criminal or get out of hand, but I think having a large and fresh young generation is very good for preventing lapses into unproductivity and conservativism. (However, abortion and such shouldn't be criminalized, Obviously)
2.I kinda like Theodore Roosevelt, at least on a personal level. I know I know imperialist warmonger, you don't have to remind me. But as a physically deficient near sighted kid, he really inspired me to both be more active and more curious about the world. It was kinda a never meet your heros thing, but I still have a soft spot for him
3.Up to a reasonable point, you should obey authority with little question (in day to day activity). Obviously it shouldn't be unquestionable or unqualified (not even Confusious thought that authority should be completely unquestioned), but I always feel like getting person x the y they ask for without question makes things a lot smoother than constantly butting in, trying to wield authority ypu don't have. I'm also a much larger fan of consistency rather than pure benefit (i.e, if one mathematics professor has a different system for notation than the rest of the field, even if that notation is better I woukd rather just be taught the consistent notation). [Side note:this makes me hate capitalism even more. Like how are you so bad that the person who bows so easily doesn't even believe in you?]
I've only read the first volume, but so far it seems good. But also it is a little outdated since that was made back in like, 2014 I think. So for instance the first centenary goal hadn't been met yet. But it is very helpful in generally understanding Chinese policy and development. I think one of thr most important sections is on pages 132-133.
"Now, the total population of well-off countries in the world is about 1 billion, while China has more than 1.3 billion people. If we are all to become modernized, the well-off population must more than double. If we are to consume as much energy in production and daily lives as the present well-off people do, all the existing resources in the world would be far from enough for us! The old path seems to be a dead end. Where is the new road? It lies in scientific and technological innovation, and in the accelerated transition from factor-driven and investment-driven growth to innovation-driven growth."
As someone who still kinda followed the keynsian "muh consumption" ideas this was very helpful in setting my brain on the right track. Although more detailed works like "China's Economic Dialectic" [Cheng Enfu] are important for ironing out the details
Yo, peep the bookshelves
Notes:
1.Yes, there are some libby liberal books there. I started collecting as a very...patriotic social democrat, so that's why I have a couple copies of the constitution and Theodore Roosevelt's autobiography and such (I still do like Common Sense though)
2.Blank spines are (from left to right), the communist manifesto, dialectical and historical materialism [by J.V Stalin], Gaddafi's Green book, an inquiry into the origin of the wealth of nations [Adam smith], The Dao De Jing [Lao Tzu, not blank but the light might make it hard to read]
3.Havent read all of these. Capital is...its capital. The Sun Yat-Sen and Mao focussed books (not including quotations) are recent purchases. I'm current reading through China's Economic Dialectic and America Against America, and a lot of the fiction is unread since I have to be in a specifc mood and that mood doesn't appear often
4.My favorite is still probably Quotations from Mao Zedong. It was my first theory book and really set me on the
Wonderful little interview with Han Suyin (1916-2012), author of Wind in the Tower and Eldest son (biographies of Mao and Zhou Enlai respectively).
Also somehow a biographer has better historical analysis of the transition from Chiang to Mao to Deng than many other supposedly "learned" peoples.
(I know her comment about stalin will probably sour the video somewhat, but I do think its still very good)
I know this isn't how history works and yada Yada but it really do feel like this sometimes
Maybe folk would be more accurate, but it'd also be less funny
Also Blake Shelton is to country what Pitbull is to rap. I hate him and I hope he swallows his own tongue
But muh north korean peasants executed by anti aircraft gun for listening to .1 seconds of kpop
Churchill and the Munich agreement
So, I was finishing up Lyudmilla Pavlochenko's autobiography (which I strongly reccomend), and there was one section where she met then prime Minister Winston churchill and his wife. Something I found surprising was one of her reasons as to why she was surprised to be meeting with him.
"On hearing this, we were at first bewildered. What had Soviet newspapers not written about Mr.Churchill during the pre war years! He was referred to as an inveterate enemy of the socialist order and the young workers and peasant state...He was blamed for the so called Munich Agreement with hitler and Mussolini in 1938 (although it was not churchill at all who signed it)."
It's that last sentence that confuses me. Obviously churchill was a fairly notable supporter of early Italian fascism and such, but I thought churchill was fairly famous for opposing the aforementioned Agreement (which is also what google shows, although obviously that wasn't a throughough investigation). Am I missing something or
Yeah, I'm in amerikka rn and honestly it's just wierd and really anxiety inducing.
I just really don't want to die. I really just wanted a good job and people who care about me, and now I've got to worry about all of this.
Prices are rising and it feels like something big is coming but I've got to just keep going to classes as usual. I was talking to my advisor a few weeks ago about my plan for the rest of my degree which won't be done until 2027/28.
I guess I never really considered what life during wartime actually looks like. Is there even a point worrying? What if the conflict goes nuclear and there's no hope of recovery? I just don't want to have wasted my life
So I got a copy of Han Suyin's "eldest son"...
Inside I found this kinda odd bed exercise pamphlet for (I think) elderly people. I hadn't really thought about it but now I really wonder who I bought this from. I got it used and don't know them at all but i really wonder how long they had it and why they decided to sell it. I'm really grateful obviously since all of Han's works are out of print, but it still makes me wonder.
(P.S, is Han Suyin's work respected within china? If not what are the biographies used within China for Mao and Zhou Enlai domestically?)
(P.P.S, can't attach image since it's too large somehow:p)
I know I have a bunch of unfinished books but I really wanna read Han Suyin's mao biographies
Tbf I am reading China's Economic Dialectic rn and goddamn is it dense (for good reason)
If we were lucky, this would mean these guys defected
Unfortunately, we are stupendously unlucky so this is probably a cover up for something
Why was France able to revert fairly quickly back into a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie after the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy while the soviet union hasn't been able to do the same?
(Obviously I mean a restoration of a proletarian dictatorship in the case of the USSR/former constituent states)
Just from what I can quickly gleam from my limited knowledge of the reign of Louis XVIII and Charles X it sounds decently similar to what occured with post soviet russia.
counter revolutionary ruler is incompetent and authoritarian
conflict between reactionary ruler and progressive legislature
reactionary ruler rigs elections and gets involved in foreign wars
reactionary ruler dissolves progressive legislature and appoints their own loyalist legislature
But why was it that the French restored the Bourgeois dictatorship under the citizen king but the Russians and other post soviet states (save for Belarus if you follow the same line of thinking of Cheng Enfu) were unable to? Was it size? Foreign interference?
Honestly I wanna write a fantasy setting where it follows the events of the French revolution, but the French revolution and pre-capitalist history and histiography hurts my brain too much for me to simply write it
This is how I kinda felt about Lightlark. The main character is literally from a race(?) Of people who are forced to subsist on human hearts. But she's special and simultaneously normal so she doesn't have to. Like if you're going to write that don't be a coward and chicken out
Honestly I wish (at least as an Amerikkkan) that we got more middle eastern mythology. It Honestly seems interesting but I barely know where to start and it's never adapted anywhere. Plus, I basically only know what a Djinn is in passing
Damn, yeah. KOTOR got given such a short stick after the first game. And it sucks cause the 2nd is great (although even with the patch it's very obviously unfinished)
Small things youre really salty about?
So like, obviously it's fair to still be mad about the Armenian genocide or fall of the USSR. So I'm more looking for little things most people ignore but You're hung up on for one reason for another.
I.e, my salt would be
● EA buying the developer of dungeon keeper and turning it into a crappy mobile game (I know someone made their own version like the old ones but still)
●In fact actually just the fact that big studios bought up a bunch of immersive Sim IPs and then killed them, either remaking them worse of draining them of all their original charm (Deus Ex, thief, prey*
I know prey got a good remake but that was 90% unrelated to the original prey and Bethesda got that by specifically killing the company making prey despite the fact that they had a functioning product)
●Subscription services being everywhere
● JJ Abrams in general and his stupid mystery box specifically
●Disney in general, and that their live action remakes are such a hit despite being so garbage
● The r
Wow, if China did that we would be hearing about the ebil xixipee like no other
Help finding a quote/slogan/section
I actually feel like I'm losing my mind.
Basically, I swear I read an article/section of a book by either stalin or lenin that discussed how communists rely on class allies rather than ideological allies (i.e, supporting Chiang Kai-Shek despite his reactionary behavior and not supporting anarchists despite their supposedly revolutionary ideals). I thought it was "Anarchism or Socialism" but im going through it and I can't find it. Stalin does discuss ideas similar to it, but the exact phrasing I'm looking for is not there. Did I hallucinate this (or just sum up my own thoughts and thought that Stalin wrote it somewhere in there) or am I thinking of a different article or something.
Could you expand on the section about "thats what it's on its way too in the Taiwanese parliament"?
I wish there was more time in the day
Having just finished reading The Governance of China's first volume and really taking in the fact that there's three more to read in that series alone, I truly do wish I had more time. Between going to university, wanting to consume and create art (books and video games to be specific), developing relationships, cooking, cleaning, developing political thought and of course engaging in socialist construction, theres just so much I wish to do.
I'm not saying I'm 100% productive throughout the day on all days, but I cannot imagine doing more without causing damage to some part of me. Simultaneously I start to suffer from analysis paralysis at a certain point, like trying to decide if I should read America Against America or try to delve back into Capital's three volumes. Or if I want to read some poems in the backbone flute or start Italo Calvino's invisible cities.
I'm young (although simultaneously American, so I'm unsure how long I'll actually live) but at the same time I do wish
What separates socialism from state capitalism? (I promise I'm not an anarchist)
So, in discussions about Gaddafi era Libya, people usually say it was state capitalism, from what I've seen anyway. Thats fair and I think I agree (although if you pointed a gun at me and forced me to define it, the best I could think of would be anti-colonial bonapartism, but idk). However, it does make many wonder what splits socialism from state capitalism. For instance, the soviet union under the NEP is fairly regularly called a period of "state capitalism." Bukharin is also usually labeled a right oppurtunist who was open to the Bourgeois elements of the NEP men. Conversely, China and Vietnam today are said to be "market socialist."
In terms of Gaddafi's Libya, what does make it state capitalist versus socialist? Profit motive? Commodity production?
What about post Krushchev soviet union? Was it state capitalist and social imperialist like maoists say?
I know theres not one concrete answer to this. It's not like there's a communism button you can press to confirm communis
How the UK hasn't had a revolution yet is beyond me. Or even a more popular socialist party. The USA is one thing, but yknow settler colonialism or whatever. Britain has been in constant decline for like, 60 odd years now and its political parties are constantly infighting while the royal family flaunts its wealth like a billionaire who is compensating for something else.
I think very simply, the answer is that the former wanted to end socialism while the latter wanted to preserve it.
In affect, they both succeeded to a certain extent. Gorbachev admitted himself that after the secret speech (thanks Krushchev), he wanted a Nordic style social democracy, in a sense. Of course that goal wasnt achieved in Russia, but the end of socialism was successful.
In comparison, Deng Xiaoping and the CPC reiterated possibly hundreds of times that the reform and opening up was not a restoration of capitalism.
As the other commenter pointed out, this led to two very different systems. In the first, where capitalists regained control of the state, the nation's of the USSR were drained of their resources and sent into debt, chaos, poverty and strife.
In the second, where the proletariat and communist party remained in control, the Dual track marketization and controlled development of productive forces, (albeit with some temporary setbacks intially) led to the biggest development in quality of life in human history, possibly only seconded by the socialist construction in the USSR.
There is of course the third factor that hasn't been mentioned, which was that marketization in china was progressive in a Marxist sense.
(It's been a while so feel free to correct me if I'm missing remembering). In his book "understanding the French revolution," Albert Soubel describes the San Clouttes as the proto-proletariat petite Bourgeoisie, but points out how they were not necessarily the most progressive force. In order for capitalism to develop to its higher stages, the productive forces of society would have to be collectivized and centralized at least within the country. The San Clouttes fought against this, as it was not in their class interest to go from artisans and workhousemen to factory workers.
A similar situation existed in china even after the great leap forward. While China had limited markets and a fairly centralized political system, along with some industrialization in the cities, the wider economic system was decentralized into wide mostly rural communes. Without markets the communal labor and markets would have to be centralized via the political governance of the CPC, which would have been costly and unpopular. It most likely would have happened at some point, but the wish for the ascetics of communism conflicted with the actual political-economy of china.
Comparatively, the USSR had very different political-economic positions. Very simply the privatization was pointless. The most justifiable expansion of markets would have been in the light consumer goods industry in order to alleviate buercratic strain. However, instead of that, everything up to the commanding heights of heavy and resource industries were privatized and of course the entire socialist state apparatus was done away with.
Felt class shame yesterday(i think). I know I shouldn't have but I still did.
So I've been taking chinese classes recently for obvious reasons, and yesterday we had to talk about our families, parents and their jobs.
Firstly, I felt really embarrassed about just having 吗吗和我 (my mom and me) in my immediate family, while everyone else had mom's and dad's and siblings. I know why I felt sad during that, cause I hate being reminded that I know my moms subsequent boyfriends more than I know my dad. Plus I feel spoiled for being an only child (独生子) but at the same time hating the consequences of being lonely and having to be an emotional support son for my mom.
Secondly, when talking about professions, everyone else's parents were doing the expected things. Doctors (医生), lawyers (律师) and casino/bank managers (赌场/银行经理). My mother is just a simple warehouse worker (仓库工人).
It's like...I don't know. I don't know if it's just me feeling like Im spoiled or ungrateful for going to college instead of working or going to trade school, or if I feel like my family is a f
Guilty Bourgeois pleasures?
Mine has to be cop procederals and paper money.
A)I just like solving mysteries and problems and have a natural deference to authority figures, so I've watched way too many cop shows. The only one I'm not ashamed to name is The Wire, which is really good and probably is the only one with genuine substance.
B)It's not the concept of money I enjoy, i just like having a physical thing I exchange to get another physical thing. I..."dislike" per se, using numbers on a screen to get food or something.
I do wish I could experience the idyllic parts of the cultural revolution period/mao period in general
To preface, it is correct that the cultural revolution was a mistake and to a certain extent revisionist, along with causing great harm. However,
I watched the documentary "how Yukong moved the mountains" a while back. It's a good watch if you have the time(and trust me, you need a lot of time), and honestly I can't help but feel a little jealous.
The documentary shows worker self management, military egalitarianism, etc. (I'm unsure how much these things exist in China today. I know workers control the means of production but I dont know the spirit in which said management occurs over there, per se. And the military I just know very little about)
Its astetics, and I know this. I also know it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. But in my, perhaps a little too idealistic, heart, I do wish we could eat our cake and have it too. Have that same society so focussed on socialist principles while also having the development of modern China.
Id
How do I develop relationships/friendships?
So like...I'm not repulsive. People actually really like talking to me. I don't make people upset and no one ever dislikes me. But...no one ever wants to hang out with me or talk to me without me intiating or already being in the same place.
It's not like I'm boring either. I have interests and hobbies and a personality of a sort, but it feels like no matter what I do I'm always having to insert myself into groups and such, and no one ever thinks "hey, i should invite him to do x."
I know you can't give exact answes without knowing me personally, so if anyone has general experience with feeling like this any general advice is appreciated
Good resources/explanations of pre-capitalist class society? (Especially on the transition between these societies as compared to the transition from capitalism to socialism)
A while back, I was trying to read "understanding the French revolution" by Albert Soboul. However, I never finished it, not because it was necessarily bad but because
A.Was swamped with work and classes
B.Pre-capitalist class relations have always kinda alluded me
I've also read origin of the family, private, property and the state, but I dont remember it talking about that in too much detail (although it was very good [and maybe I just can't remember {I have a really bad memory}]).
I know theres the soviet textbook on political economy from the 50s, but I would prefer something I can obtain physically, since I have difficulty reading on computers.
Thanks in advance