cars posted:like putting unread michael crichton novels on your coffee table to appear intellectual
i just tell them its an ironic thing
Puig
literary stars of the rhizzone
cars posted:i keep seeing red takedowns of Murray Bookchin a
link
tears posted:instead of althusser I am actually reading "The crash of international finance-capital and its implications for the third world" (2nd ed) by Dani wadada nabudere which is great, being a summary of his book "the rise and fall of money capital"
this book is good, and i would recommend to anyone who likes economics. a theme which i wish had been developed more is the authors explanation of how capitalist production itself is in the process of grinding to a halt because of lack of profitability causing increasing hoarding &c
The colonial enclaves of production and the colonial state therefore become sub-centres of the reproduction of capitalist relations and struggles. As these exploitative relations are exposed to the bulk of the population, a national contradiction emerges which creates the first battle line between these forces and finance-capital. Although the nation state is created out of these battles and although the native bourgeoisie emerges and tries to consolidate bourgeois relations in collaboration with international finance-capital, this new alliance of bourgeois forces is once more opposed by the exploited and oppressed worker-peasant masses. This forms the second battle against international finance-capital, or imperialism.
As these battles intensify and the working-class in the capitalist states intensifies their own struggle at home, finance-capital increasingly finds it difficult to reproduce itself at a 'reasonable' rate of profit and, as this happens, it closes down production points to try to diversify and concentrate on the most profitable outlets. But here too the going is not made any easier and open revolts of exploited masses in the form of 'IMF riots' or strikes takes place. With mass starvations in the former colonies,, capital finds it cannot reproduce the labouring classes that it needs to perpetuate its rule. thus both in capitalist and Third World states, a point is reached where no further 'reform' or restructuring is possible, and as the urge to make money without the intervention of production increases, so does finance-capital take on a more and more speculative, parasitic composition. But since capital cannot reproduce itself by making money out of fictitious capital without the intervention of production, it must collapse out of these struggles of the exploited and oppressed classes. These struggles must ultimately result in the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie as a ruling class and the enventual elimination and abolition of class rule.
which i think is marxist economics for "shit is fucked"
what im actually reading: jim butcher book with cover depicting "man in stance w/ sword and haircut"
marlax78 posted:cars posted:i keep seeing red takedowns of Murray Bookchin a
link
i don't like save this shit off. I have a bunch of Bookchin I still read sometimes & I don't think he's awful, I'm sympathetic to people's personal experiences and he had a better reason for being bitter about Communist politics than most as a child of Communist immigrants who in his 20s saw Communist practice on political lines help get the U.S. to fight the Nazis and then saw the policy that resulted from it transition seamlessly into absorbing the Nazi apparatus into U.S. imperialist ventures. i also think libertarian muncipalism can inform good models of democratic decision making both in organizing and in some socialist future although i don't think it displaces the state in the immediate future or replaces unified organization in activism, which he would have hated but he's dead now so rip.
My experience of this happening on a small scale was ultimately what drove me out of anarchism, not the theoretical or historical stuff which I didn't have the tools to understand until I started reading socialist writers fairly and without a lot of hostility. Like people would sail in to local anarchist groups with some sort of rep with a couple folks there and turn the entire group toward their own interests as fly-by-night street activists and a lot of people would seem to just be glad to have something to do that felt connected to some other city. And the net result of that was, just as you see with a lot of anarchist politics when attempted on a national or global scale, that it put them to work for the bourgeoisie and specifically for law enforcement because there wasn't a lot of learning from past experience or skepticism about charismatic newcomers, in part because nobody wanted to feel like they were pushing other people to do things they should do or pay attention to certain parts of history, so anyone who was ready to act disingenuously had a head start.
It was a rock and a hard place because people got both excited too quickly and disillusioned too easily. And that's likely to happen with the current Bookchin love which is sad to me.
And I knew better going in, that this was how things would go, but I got attached and thought that with the allies I had we could maybe make a good go of it and Things Would Be Different This Time and we could build something with sustained effectiveness that could resolve its internal conflicts in a sane and productive fashion, learn from them and move on but no. Nnnnooooo. It was all very sad.
Edited by swampman ()
page 1: damn this is some zybourne clock level shit
pages 2-1000: and yet i am still reading it
swampman posted:Maria Mies Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale
this looks real good cheers. i see federici did a foreword
swampman posted:witch cult stuff
this reminded me that one of wikipedia editors main objection to margaret murrays witch cult theories are that she didnt study history under an old man with beard at oxford OR cambridge, and thus is obviously incapable of doing history right, and immediately an imaginary chorus of a thousand thousand liberals in my brain cried out that grover furr is a professor of medieval history
Constantignoble posted:Haven't encountered anything from the blogger Dolores Vek since she wrote this good post-election piece about U.S. settler-fascism, but now she's back with a post busting on Chapo
some of these critiques wouldn't apply if they'd heard more than one episode, I've heard plenty of serviceably Marxist-materialist class analysis in other eps.
the whole backend about how they're all children of apparatchiks and that's the only way they were able to get this level of fame and funding 95% is spot on (it overstates the punching left, which they do do, but only very rarely, especially if you don't count clowning on the ostensibly red but practically insane Red Kahina contingent), but like, isn't still a good thing to see the controlled opposition upgraded from Daily Show liberalism to Chappo Trot House?
thirdplace posted:Constantignoble posted:Haven't encountered anything from the blogger Dolores Vek since she wrote this good post-election piece about U.S. settler-fascism, but now she's back with a post busting on Chapo
some of these critiques wouldn't apply if they'd heard more than one episode, I've heard plenty of serviceably Marxist-materialist class analysis in other eps.
the whole backend about how they're all children of apparatchiks and that's the only way they were able to get this level of fame and funding 95% is spot on (it overstates the punching left, which they do do, but only very rarely, especially if you don't count clowning on the ostensibly red but practically insane Red Kahina contingent), but like, isn't still a good thing to see the controlled opposition upgraded from Daily Show liberalism to Chappo Trot House?
el chapo's cum trap house: "good job these tankies dont have a sense of humour or we'd be out of a job, but thankfully they are completly humourless :smiley face: :laugh track:"
blogger: *le extremely leninspeak blogpost about how the chumbawumbahouse pogcast is the hitler of podcasts feat. thousands of mao-quotes*
thirdplace posted:Constantignoble posted:Haven't encountered anything from the blogger Dolores Vek since she wrote this good post-election piece about U.S. settler-fascism, but now she's back with a post busting on Chapo
some of these critiques wouldn't apply if they'd heard more than one episode, I've heard plenty of serviceably Marxist-materialist class analysis in other eps.
the whole backend about how they're all children of apparatchiks and that's the only way they were able to get this level of fame and funding 95% is spot on (it overstates the punching left, which they do do, but only very rarely, especially if you don't count clowning on the ostensibly red but practically insane Red Kahina contingent), but like, isn't still a good thing to see the controlled opposition upgraded from Daily Show liberalism to Chappo Trot House?
the trouble with writing a decent critique of chapo trap house is that the only people who care that much about a podcast they don't like to listen to generally have issues
Petrol posted:i've taken my time to think on it and here is my critique of the podcast: More like chapo crap house.
*thinking extremely hard*.... .... .... .... crapo......crapo chap house
gay_swimmer posted:listen to street fight
heh i listened to this on the ride home and i was all queued up to mock it as being classically anarchist in that it was half good takes on police and local issues and half really dumb shit about how weird it was that jeff sessions is a hypocrite on "state's rights" and how the "ruling elite" is a bunch of self-serving parasites whose voters don't really want anything they do
but then i realized i was about to do the exact same thing i'd just critiqued here, lol
Edited by thirdplace ()
Bablu posted:
it just so happens that dr. smith has agreed to conduct an online interview with me for publication. give me some hard hitting questions about contemporary global political economy rhizzone.
tears posted:just flicking back to the stuff Smith wrote about stalin, mao etc - e.g. ref 69 on p214 in his otherwise excellent book:
John Smith posted:For an excellent introduction to the Chinese Revolution see Cindy Jaquith, "The origins and defeat of 1925-27 Chinese revolution" The Millitant, Dec 10, 2007 - http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7146/714656.html; and Cindy Jaquith "How Chinese working people overthrew capitalism", The Millitant, Dec 24, 2007, http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7148/714854.html"
Which is a real shame for such an otherwise good book because this "excellent introduction" can be summed up as
Under the Stalin misleadership,
(...)
Leon Trotsky and other members of the Left Opposition fought for a revolutionary policy in China
(...)
the Stalinized Communist International
(...)
the class-collaborationist course Stalin had promised the U.S. and European imperialists after the war
(...)
Due to its Stalinist leadership, the workers state was bureaucratically deformed from the beginning
tears posted:ask him what he thinks about khrushchev's speach to the 20th congress of the CPSU, settlers by j sakai
i want jacobin (the website) to publish it to expose more people to anti-imperialism, but if they reject it i could ask him more questions i guess that monthly review online would have no issue publishing. i plan on opening by asking him about the social democrats voting for war credits in ww1, which gets at the same point
e: i made a thread on /r/communism asking for questions. if everyone gives me questions that would offend liberal sensitives too sharply, i guess i won't bother trying to publish it jacobin and will just give it to MR Online
Edited by marlax78 ()