[-] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

Wow! What a treasure. 🍋

[-] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago

Same. Though I also like me some "dangerous radicals" as comrades. Or maybe some "dirty commies", if I'm in the mood. But my dream would be to become a "red menace".

Relevant song.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 4 days ago

What? No. Comrad, of course you deserve to have it good! You're not a villain. The idea of labor aristocracy is about people allied to imperialist interests. People with privileges are free to reject them. Depression or other issues can lie to you and skew your self image but remember you still deserve to be happy.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

They proved it for n=5 and 10.

[-] [email protected] 39 points 4 days ago

Might have something to do with Iran and Russia being capitalist, torn by contradictions, led by liberals and ideologically idealist.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

This was some years ago. I tried, but couldn't find it again. Crimethinc is a bit like this though. They were never anarcho-capitalist, but they changed from vaguely apolitical lifestyle individualism in the 90s to actual anti-capitalism around the time they wrote this book called "Work" in 2012.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I totally feel and understand your frustration. Vijay Prashad is great though, isn't he? The thing about Marxists is, that they are always pretty harsh with each other, always polemic, but still comrades in the end. So I won't take sides against any of the people you mentioned in general but still disagree with them on certain points. I've read biting polemics critiquing Michael Roberts too. And Harvey's Answer to Smith isn't pulling punches either. I guess some stuff might have been taken out of context and he definitely spend decades teaching thousands of students Marx's labor theory of value. I'm still thankful to Harvey for getting so many people to read Marx, even if I've grown beyond lots of stuff and always looked to other teachers for insight on imperialism.

In the end, it's not purity of theory that counts, but the impact on organizing movements. People who read theory on that level to inform their on the ground organizing efforts can definitely think for themselves anyway and will only take what is useful for their place and time and leave the rest.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

from what I can gather, he seems to have imperialism flipped on its head - saying that its Global North workers who are actually exploited by the global South.

Really? I didn't hear him saying that. But he does seem to have a rare speech impediment, that prevents him from saying the word imperialism: here is his friend and comrad Vijay Prashad rightly and brilliantly chewing him out for that.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Value and circulation. MMT is not completely wrong, it's just incomplete. And it's weird to see incomplete alternative economic theories pop up again and again who's main selling point is avoiding the term Marxism. Keynesianism is another example. And there was this weird phase in US anarchism, where a whole lot of anarcho-capitalists finally started becoming anti-capitalist (which is good of course) and they wrote a whole book about it like they just personally came up with the idea capitalism is bad for the first time ever. And it's weird every time because, like, Marx is right over there, way, way in the back of the economics departments library. Ready to be read whenever you decide to become a serious scientist.

Even David Harvey started out like this. He just started calling himself a Marxist after people had repeatedly pointed out to him that he had become one. And his response was something like like:"Oh, I guess I am a Marxist then. I didn't set out to become one, I was just looking for theory that makes sense for a change."

Of course, most economists would do everything to avoid being called a Marxist in order to keep their funding. And that's where things like MMT come in.

47
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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).

[-] [email protected] 65 points 3 months ago

All these fears are completely unfounded and ridiculous, but you know what? If I had a button to press for trans liberation, but it actually somehow meant destroying every organized sports competition on the planet forever, I wouldn't hesitate for one microsecond to press it.

16
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.

[-] [email protected] 55 points 8 months ago

These "right wing christians" are a militia that's responsible for the infamous massacre of Sabra and Shatila, supported by Israel. The so called "Lebanese Forces" fighters were mostly made up of the Kataeb party, which was founded, after their leader visited Nazi Germany and, deeply impressed, modeled the organization after the brwon shirts, with Nazi salut and everything.

So the US counting on literal fascists again for their regime change operation. No surprise, I guess.

209
Left Unity (hexbear.net)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next ›

woodenghost

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 1 year ago