Yllych

joined 4 years ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Says tweet not found

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Actually I think buh is Cormac McCarthy

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It's from blood Meridian

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don't hate him. To be generous, you could say his stance wrt the Soviet Union rhetorically useful. I do think there are other historians sympathetic to the Soviet Union that are more rigorous than him, Moshe Lewin or Domenico Losurdo for instance.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

In my amateur political opinion, unless Die Linke seriously purges the reformist and squishier elements represented by the likes of Klaus Lederer lenin-dont-laugh I think they'll be perennially unpopular, caught between what should be their radical roots and the nascent liberalism infiltrating the party.

I skimmed their party program and the biggest impression I get is that it's soft and non explicit in their goal to eliminate capitalism, much reformist talk and none of revolution or workers' democracy. Let's be clear : at this current political moment, this rhetoric sucks ass and does nothing to galvanise workers. It's unfortunate that Wagenknecht is sorta beating them to the punch on this kind of transformation albeit I don't think she is a radical, maybe more chauvinist from what I've heard.

As an aside, personally I've always hated the branding of "democratic" socialism. I understand why socialists thought they had to use it but to me socialism is already the democratic choice, it brings democracy to the site of production not just government elections. To use democratic socialism seems redundant at best and cowardly at worst.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago

I like Michael Roberts the most in that he's probably the one I've read the most of lately. The book he wrote with Carchedi was quite good i thought especially the parts touching on "AI" and automation.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 4 weeks ago

At what point in the history of the roman empire did the Praetorian guard fall apart?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 weeks ago

Sorry we just don't like politicians who enable genocide

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago

Notable previous employment: she worked for a lawfirm hired by Chevron in the Donzinger case.

✍️

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago

Shadow employs dialecticsthink-about-it

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago

It is, Rosetta Stone is a pen name of his.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

It was definitely initiated from the top down I would say. But at the end of the day, whatever mass strikes, work actions, and army mutinies occured were not enough to stop Yeltsin and the west from dissolving the SU into what it is now.

I don't want to mean this as blaming the average Soviet citizen but the fact is; whether from apathy with the old system, or naive hope that westernising would bring prosperity, or being outgunned by Yeltsins military, they and their organisations were sadly unable to defend the Soviet republics. All communists need to take sober lessons here. If it is the first task of the workers' party to instill a revolutionary spirit in the working class, the second and even harder one must be to convert that spirit into a mass commitment to the socialist project.

 

Anyone got it?

10
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2512164

Was thinking about this intellectual period last night. I don't know a lot but I get the vague impression of it being too much on the revisionist side for my taste, although the label New Left is so broad that I'm sure there's a huge span of thought that it gets applied to.

What theory still holds up from that time, what theorists do you agree/disagree with, what texts would you recommend to people who want to understand more about this time, t's origins,links to the French 1968 movement ,etc?

20
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Was thinking about this intellectual period last night. I don't know a lot but I get the vague impression of it being too much on the revisionist side for my taste, although the label New Left is so broad that I'm sure there's a huge span of thought that it gets applied to.

What theory still holds up from that time, what theorists do you agree/disagree with, what texts would you recommend to people who want to understand more about this time, t's origins,links to the French 1968 movement ,etc?

15
Michael Roberts: The State of Capitalism review (thenextrecession.wordpress.com)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Review of Michael Roberts and Carchedi's book, found the parts about inflation and reaffirming the rate of profit portions interesting

 

I want to understand more about these two crises of capitalism. How do they happen? How do they relate to each other?what is the context on the debate in leftist circles around them, as I know some groups prefer to emphasise one over the other. I have read a bit on Michael Roberts' blog, he definitely prefers to emphasise the falling rate of profit but some of it goes over my head.

Any books/articles on this stuff that comrades would recommend?

 

What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?

First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home.

His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification.

Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.

when the capitalist system positions your labour-power as a power alien to you, and denies your species-being, thereby denying your external and natural aspect, your human aspect; as well as ensuring your estrangement of man from man sus

when the workers' activity does not belong to them and is instead felt as a torment, inversely felt by the owner of the labour as satisfaction and pleasure sus-deep

when the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production sus-lovecraft

when the workers themselves necessarily hold within them the revolutionary power to sweep away these systems of domination and contradiction lenin-shining

view more: next ›