crustpunk_trotsky posted:
just wanna pop in to remark that almost all trot hate I've seen online has to do with modern 1st world "trot" organizations, if I used the same logic to judge stalinism based on its followers I'd have to deduce that it is the philosophy of being a gross weird dude with neck acne who smears boogers all over his tattered jorts
most reasonable people agree that both trends are stupid and creepy.
gyrofry posted:
Cool. that crows future is so bright it is got to wear shades.
its so assumptively impossible how did they even know to try
tpaine posted:John Q. "Pubic" Christy, rape archivist and caricaturist, best known for his semenal work Fuck 'N' Destroy, which topped the New York Times Best Seller list and left it quivering, secretly wanting more yet wishing it would leave
crustpunk_trotsky posted:almost all trot hate I've seen online has to do with modern 1st world "trot" organizations, if I used the same logic to judge stalinism based on its followers I'd have to deduce that it is the philosophy of being a gross weird dude with neck acne who smears boogers all over his tattered jorts
pee pee doo doo stalinist play the bad gem Trostsky #1 fan
prikryl posted:trot hate.. online modern 1st world "trot" weird dude neck acne boogers all over tattered
crustpunk_trotsky posted:just wanna pop in to remark that almost all trot hate I've seen online has to do with modern 1st world "trot" organizations, if I used the same logic to judge stalinism based on its followers I'd have to deduce that it is the philosophy of being a gross weird dude with neck acne who smears boogers all over his tattered jorts
what? stalinists are the most beautiful creatures on earth
discipline posted:post here more henry and I'll name my first born after you
Goethestein posted:discipline posted:post here more henry and I'll name my first born after you
classic 9gag.
getfiscal posted:one thing i was reading recently said that "maoism" as the "third stage of revolutionary science" or whatever was invented by the shining path in peru in the early 1980s. like before that people considered themselves marxist-leninist, and influenced by "mao zedong thought". the idea that it was a new stage was a small minority position in china, proposed by chen boda but not taken seriously by most people. like most marxist-leninists don't consider stalin to have invented a new stage of marxism, and it could have been the same for mao, but basically a bunch of things conspired to make various groups call themselves maoist.
I thought this was posted today because there's a thread in revleft (obviously it's terrible don't bother) about this today. but it was posted months ago 
This is something I knew very little about, really fascinating and the theoretical implications are massive. The 80s and 90s are seen as a period of left retreat, but for Maoists it was the opposite (and Maoism claims that revolutionary conditions are always ripe in the third world). Despite all the left bleating about the Arab Spring and Occupy and various pseudo-socialist movements (myself included) the hope of the world remains in Nepal and by extension India, as everyone knows a communist revolution in the new 'workshop of the world' would be catastrophic for global capital. Do you have any more info on what defines Maoism as an ideology?
babyhueypnewton posted:getfiscal posted:one thing i was reading recently said that "maoism" as the "third stage of revolutionary science" or whatever was invented by the shining path in peru in the early 1980s. like before that people considered themselves marxist-leninist, and influenced by "mao zedong thought". the idea that it was a new stage was a small minority position in china, proposed by chen boda but not taken seriously by most people. like most marxist-leninists don't consider stalin to have invented a new stage of marxism, and it could have been the same for mao, but basically a bunch of things conspired to make various groups call themselves maoist.
I thought this was posted today because there's a thread in revleft (obviously it's terrible don't bother) about this today. but it was posted months ago
This is something I knew very little about, really fascinating and the theoretical implications are massive. The 80s and 90s are seen as a period of left retreat, but for Maoists it was the opposite (and Maoism claims that revolutionary conditions are always ripe in the third world). Despite all the left bleating about the Arab Spring and Occupy and various pseudo-socialist movements (myself included) the hope of the world remains in Nepal and by extension India, as everyone knows a communist revolution in the new 'workshop of the world' would be catastrophic for global capital. Do you have any more info on what defines Maoism as an ideology?
didnt read
babyhueypnewton posted:I bought a new account on SA
babyhueypnewton posted:Do you have any more info on what defines Maoism as an ideology?
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/05/onwards-maoist-century.html
http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/online-maoism-a-farce/
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/search/label/3%20headed%20beast
keep the change kid
blinkandwheeze posted:babyhueypnewton posted:Do you have any more info on what defines Maoism as an ideology?
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/05/onwards-maoist-century.html
http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/online-maoism-a-farce/
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/search/label/3%20headed%20beast
keep the change kid
tks ill go read these *scuttles away* 
blinkandwheeze posted:babyhueypnewton posted:Do you have any more info on what defines Maoism as an ideology?
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/05/onwards-maoist-century.html
http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/online-maoism-a-farce/
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/search/label/3%20headed%20beast
keep the change kid
This guy has a fixation on Marxist academics which reeks of self-hatred (since he is one), but there's a lot of interesting stuff in this blog. This form of Maoism seems heavily influenced by Althusser, the concept of Mao birthing a new science, but only being able to articulate it in the language of the past and unable to be realized by Mao himself, limited by the conditions of his present, is straight from Althusser's concept of Marxist science being expressed in the language of Hegel but surpassing him in every way.
I''m interested in this in relation to Badiou, I know you and Crow know a lot about this. Badiou assumes you know shit already, his Event makes no sense unless you already are familiar with althusser's conception of science and anti-empiricism. That's why only now am I starting to actually get something useful out of reading Badiou.
The second criticism that must be made is a philosophical one. Badiou relies on a Marxist-materialist notion of historical contradiction and struggle. Without pre-supposing a Marxist analysis of history, most of Badiou's arguments don't make a lot of sense. However, Badiou's idealism locates the realization of the Form of Good that is the Idea of Communism in a transcendental collective subject that can recognize an eternal “truth” that pre-supposes materialist relations and indeed the material world. This is profoundly at odds with the spirit of the Marxism of which Badiou claims to be a disciple. According to Marxism all things, including human individuals, are shaped by the systematic relations of production in which they socially exist. Even “individuals” are, under capitalism, products of capitalism. While Marxist think that such individuals can, through experiencing exploitation, come to understand that capitalism is not in their interests, it is not from meditation on some eternal ideal. This understanding results from experiencing first hand the contradictions of capitalism.
Many of Badiou's mentors of the “structuralist and post-structuralist” generation, including the philosopher Louis Althusser, developed influential theories on the materialist construction of the subject.. Badiou's idealism is a step away from a materialist evaluation of the subject developed in the major works of structuralism and post-structuralism even though, ironically, many of the post-structuralists were fervently anti-Marxist. It is for this reason that some of Badiou's critics on the left have described him as being a “communist without even being Marxist.”
getfiscal posted:my housemate said he watched a (fictional) movie yesterday where a woman gives birth to a baby and as the baby is coming out a man rapes it. and yet he has a girlfriend and not me.
girls date the shadiest fuckin dudes. im not chauvinist btw
stegosaurus posted:they have followers in bangladesh lol.
new short story idea: a marxist cargo cult derived from printed out tumblr posts a FBI plane accidentally dropped over an isolated island
stegosaurus posted:they have followers in bangladesh lol.
this isn't a big surprise, all bengalis are communists
getfiscal posted:i just finished a new book by badiou and it was pretty cool but i think what the PSL's reviewer dude said about it was correct:
The second criticism that must be made is a philosophical one. Badiou relies on a Marxist-materialist notion of historical contradiction and struggle. Without pre-supposing a Marxist analysis of history, most of Badiou's arguments don't make a lot of sense. However, Badiou's idealism locates the realization of the Form of Good that is the Idea of Communism in a transcendental collective subject that can recognize an eternal “truth” that pre-supposes materialist relations and indeed the material world. This is profoundly at odds with the spirit of the Marxism of which Badiou claims to be a disciple. According to Marxism all things, including human individuals, are shaped by the systematic relations of production in which they socially exist. Even “individuals” are, under capitalism, products of capitalism. While Marxist think that such individuals can, through experiencing exploitation, come to understand that capitalism is not in their interests, it is not from meditation on some eternal ideal. This understanding results from experiencing first hand the contradictions of capitalism.
Many of Badiou's mentors of the “structuralist and post-structuralist” generation, including the philosopher Louis Althusser, developed influential theories on the materialist construction of the subject.. Badiou's idealism is a step away from a materialist evaluation of the subject developed in the major works of structuralism and post-structuralism even though, ironically, many of the post-structuralists were fervently anti-Marxist. It is for this reason that some of Badiou's critics on the left have described him as being a “communist without even being Marxist.”
If I remember and understood him correctly he means to say that capitalism shapes the material conditions neccessary for the revolutionary event to occur, and that these requirements are material and create the kind of subject necessary to bring about the event, but that the subject requires to subjectivize these conditions in such a way as to actually perform the required action (which is important when you consider that a revolutionary subject can reflexively think that he is materially determined and thereby wait forever for the event that never comes, the subject conscious of historical materialism may otherwise believe that his action is never required, like some kind of fundamentalist calvinist who believes that nothing he does matters for whether or not he goes to heaven), and that that subjectivization is "transcendental" whatever that means. This doesn't seem to me to be contradicting historical materialism, except some silly primitive understanding of it.
