I can't seem to find it.

Good news: a particularly great episode of the Revolutionary Left Radio podcast just dropped. And you get this great book for free if you click on the link in the show notes.

I think understanding unequal exchange as the core mechanic of imperialism is particularly important in the context of the war on Iran and even more important for everyone on hexbear in the light of recent struggle sessions about the class position of the US proletariat. They even get into what material reasons make settler societies follow a different trajectory than European social democracies, how China represents a fundamentally new mode of production and much more.

I'm thinking Engels. Responsible, reliable, motivated, has money, knows how to manage it and is incredibly generous (he died with more than he gained from the factory sale despite supporting the whole German/communist underground in London).

Also who'd be worst? Would Marx ever catch up with his chores? Would Che disappear suddenly for months at a time?

(Not a very serious question obviously)

I made the title sound like a joke, so feel free to laugh, but it's actually serious and very personal. The question how to deal with conservative family members comes up a lot around the holidays. My case seems like a first-world problem in comparison. I mean, we share the same opinion for almost every immediate real world political issue that comes up.

The thing is, my family dosn't really talk about feelings or express affection verbally (like, not ever!) and it's a whole thing. But at least connecting over shared politics used to be easy and feel safe with him. It was kind of our thing and that safe space was important for us! Now it kind of doesn't feel as safe anymore? We both feel passionate about things and discussions tend to get dragged out and emotionally exhausting. I don't want that this year.

I love him and I'm incredibly proud of him. He's super smart and he's doing a lot of great work in his org.

But he also:

• quotes Trotzky, which makes me cringe

• and he's sort of a tailist about being anti-parties, pro mass movements (even though he is in a party, but he wants parties to support councils and hand over power to them after revolution, I'm not sure I understand correctly).

• Opposition to "stalinist parties" (as if any party defined itself as stalinist) is really important to him, same with bureaucracy and I'm not even sure what that even means.

• He's says he's anti-imperialist (about NATO, Palestine, etc.), but doesn't want to hear any good word about China or the Soviet-Union. I think our duty in the West is to counter NATO propaganda about China and fight our imperialists at home.

• And he thinks Russia is at least as much to blame for the war in Ukraine as the US, or more cause "they send troops first and have the same imperialist interests". I disagree... (he's still against the military buildup in the EU though).

• He thinks China is "state-capitalist" and every bit as imperialist as the US, because they export capital (with this, he refers to Lenins definition of imperialism, though he dosn't like the terms "finance capital" or "monopoly capital") and do "land grabbing" in Africa. To me, it's plain ridiculous to compare that to the US empire, but I guess he's talking about what he thinks China might become in the future?

I'm not a perfect marxist-leninist and I don't have perfect arguments for all of those points. Or I struggle to put them into words. Now maybe the answer is easy: just connect over something else. But what, how and do I really need to avoid talking politics? It seems silly, since, being both Marxist, we agree on a lot.

It looks similar to the whole problem about splits in marxists orgs, but on an individual scale. But it's actually more. I definitely wouldn't feel as deeply about it, if it were anyone else. He already randomly cut me nearly completely out of his live for a while, years ago, when he had a terrible depressive episode and completely retreated and I couldn't get through to him at all. Thankfully, he's back on top with medication, therapy and a better social circle (part of what helped him is to meet cool people in his org, where he became trotzkyist). But I'm kind of still traumatized from how sudden the break was and how long it took. Also, we both probably have rejection sensitivity...

So maybe, I should work on connecting over other topics than politics, learn more about theory, be honest about when I'm not sure or don't know something and try to talk feelings more.

What do you think? Anyone ever had something similar going on? Any good tips on how to talk about those political topics or on how to bridge a years old emotional gap?

Dance behaviour in cockatoos: Implications for cognitive processes and welfare

Video: Study finds cockatoos can performe 30 distinct dance moves | ABC News.

Tag yourself. I'm fluff.

I have a friend who's a actually becoming more and more leftist and lately even communist but not yet fully Marxist. I'm trying to help him shed lib ideas. He specifically asked me if we could have a talk at some point on war. He's confused about the war propaganda. Like just a vague "Haven't things changed maybe because of Russia? Maybe we in Europe need to boost defense now etc."

I want to introduce him to Lenins Idea of revolutionary defeatism, because I think it applies to our historical moment. A revolutionary can not but desire the defeat of his imperialist government. Also Liebknechts line:"the main enemy is at home". The main task for leftists in imperial core countries is to fight the imperialists we can actually effect: the ones right here. You can be happy about any success of comrades in Russia fighting their oligarchy, but don't get roped into supporting western oligarchs' NATO wars.

We both care about trans and queer issues a lot, so he will bring up fears of evil Russia conquering part of Europe and rolling back queer rights. I can contextualize by bringing up the moral track record of western countries (like the ongoing genocide). But is there a more direct answer? Also just in general, I'm not sure if I'm missing an obvious angle or argument. Anything you would definitely mention on war? Suggested reading?

I might have to get into the specifics, of how the war developed historically, but there will be a lot of propaganda to unravel, so ideally, I'm looking for a concise argument, that can pierce the propaganda and illuminate the truth. Hope that's not too much to ask ;)

As some feel too hopeless to get out and organized, I was reminded of this quote:

The first lesson a revolutionary must learn is that he is a doomed man. Unless he understands this, he does not grasp the essential meaning of his life. [...] I have no doubt that the revolution will triumph. The people of the world will prevail, seize power, seize the means of production, wipe out racism, capitalism. [...] The people will win a new world. Yet when I think of individuals in the revolution, I cannot predict their survival. Revolutionaries must accept this fact.

• Huey P. Newton

I like this sense of letting go. Letting go of the necessity to personally catch a glimpse of the new world with my own eyes. Maybe I will. I almost surely won't. And yet, I want to help us get there. Even if things have to get worse before they get better, I want to help keep that spark alive.

Activism burnout is real and valid. If you're effected, take all the time you need to heal. But recognize it's similar to depression in that it lies to you. It lets you see reality through a distorted, non-materialist lense where everything is hopeless. (Might even lead to actual depression.) Don't confuse it for wisdom. Material contradictions will move history forward.

To avoid that burnout in the first place, if we organize around a moment that arises outside of our control, we should anticipate the ebb and flow of social forces, of action and reaction. Use any arising moment to agitate, grow our forces, raise class conciseness, strengthen our orgs. And don't be surprised or disappointed when inevitably the moment passes and forces of reaction take the stage. The moment will only not pass once. Until then we have to endure. And only personally commit what we can sustain long term.

Also we should be understanding towards people who feel burned out from activism. Don't call them weak or pressure them, but invite them to come back in their own time (but don't let people spread nihilism either).

I recently leaned about how the dogma of divine simplicity shaped the history of philosophy, especially metaphysics and the problem of universals in the Islamic world as well as in Christianity. Basically it's the idea, that God is identical to each of his (her/their/just) attributes. By extension, each of the attributes is identical to every other one. So this obviously touches on the problem of universals. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) added the conclusion, that for God, essence is existence. Ibn Sina is key for this in Islam, as well as Christianity (because people like Thomas Aquinas learned his teachings and shaped scholastics for centuries).

Divine simplicity is central in the different schools of Islam and a dogma in Catholicism. Protestants kind of stopped talking about it, but never officially gave it up and Calvinists revived it. Only cool new streams like process theology distance themselves from it.

About the stupid joke in the title: Divine simplicity means, God has literally no parts you can point to (no pun intended), to determine their gender (no material parts, no temporal parts, no metaphysical or ontological constituents). If God has a gender, it must therefore be identical to all their other attributes, as well as themselves.

Question: If you got any religious education, was divine simplicity ever mentioned? Cause I never heard of it until recently, even though it's so central, that other attributes are typically derived based on it (for example immutability, infinity, omniscience) in official doctrine. Or, in Ibn Sina's case, even existence as well as every other attribute.

Do religious people still care about this? What would be cool pronouns for justice, freedom, truth, omniscience, etc.?

Edit: Also, do you know people who reject this dogma or accept it, but make mistakes around it? Like saying:"God might get angry or have wrath, but God IS love", which mistakenly elevates one attribute above the others.

I have no stake in this, as an atheist, just interested and willing to learn. And like I said it's historically relevant for the history of philosophy, no matter what you believe.