Caesura109 posted:TG posted:Caesura109 posted:
Students say dumb shit all the time, I'm surprised how few of you have jumped down my throat. Anyways we're all friends here, tell me what you guys are reading.
i read the mieville book, october. i kind of wish i didnt know he was a trot before i read it, because his trot-ness seems readily apparent but i cant tell if it was confirmation bias or not. still, i enjoyed it quite a bit. it filled me with both a revolutionary desire and depression about the impossibility of something like that happening in the untied $nake$ of amerikkka today
now i am reading the three body problem, by cixin liu, at the recommendation of someone on here. good stuff so far. i was worried it would be too technical for my dumb ass but the first half is not, at least
Read and enjoyed it as well, didn't get the feeling he was a Trot, probably because I don't know what Trotskyism is except that all of them seem to have terrible geopolitical views
too be fair I don't know what it is either but assume it's some sort of personality cult surrounding trotsky like he's Bob avakian or something. little things just stuck out to me where mieville would say things like, it's a common misconception that lenin did such and such when in actuality trotsky was responsible for all good things
shriekingviolet posted:iirc we've got one or two folks in Italy rn,
wow, gladio's really fallen off
This is not science fiction, but a distorted nostalgia for a past that never was. I am surprised that Orwell stopped with the steel pen and that he didn't have Winston writing with a neat goose quill.
Nor was Orwell particularly prescient in the strictly social aspects of the future he was presenting, with the result that the Orwellian world of 1984 is incredibly old-fashioned when compared with the real world of the 1980s.
Orwell imagines no new vices, for instance. His characters are all gin hounds and tobacco addicts, and part of the horror of his picture of 1984 is his eloquent description of the low quality of the gin and tobacco.
He foresees no new drugs, no marijuana, no synthetic hallucinogens. No one expects an s.f. writer to be precise and exact in his forecasts, but surely one would expect him to invent some differences.
In his despair (or anger), Orwell forgets the virtues human beings have. All his characters are, in one way or another, weak or sadistic, or sleazy, or stupid, or repellent. This may be how most people are, or how Orwell wants to indicate they will all be under tyranny, but it seems to me that under even the worst tyrannies, so far, there have been brave men and women who have withstood the tyrants to the death and whose personal histories are luminous flames in the surrounding darkness. If only because there is no hint of this in 1984, it does not resemble the real world of the 1980s.
Nor did he foresee any difference in the role of women or any weakening of the feminine stereotype of 1949. There are only two female characters of importance. One is a strong, brainless 'prole' woman who is an endless washerwoman, endlessly singing a popular song with words of the type familiar in the 1930s and 1940s (at which Orwell shudders fastidiously as 'trashy', in blissful non-anticipation of hard rock).
The other is the heroine, Julia, who is sexually promiscuous (but is at least driven to courage by her interest in sex) and is otherwise brainless. When the hero, Winston, reads to her the book within a book that explains the nature of the Orwellian world, she responds by falling asleep - but then since the treatise Winston reads is stupefyingly soporific, this may be an indication of Julia's good sense rather than the reverse.
In short, if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction.
pretty scorch shit imo from someone whose politics should've put him right in the middle of Orwell's target audience.
lenochodek posted:it was extrmely funny when grover furr published a review of that octobre book and the verso guy had a meltdown about it on facebook
i found the review but where's the facebook post?
TG posted:too be fair I don't know what it is either but assume it's some sort of personality cult surrounding trotsky like he's Bob avakian or something. little things just stuck out to me where mieville would say things like, it's a common misconception that lenin did such and such when in actuality trotsky was responsible for all good things
It’s a big part of the sales pitch, that Trotsky’s retreat was the great and defining disaster of socialism, because it allows potential recruits to hold on to most of the ideas about the USSR they learned growing up in countries that were on the opposing side during the Cold War and still endorse the October Revolution as potentially leading to some betrayed and counterfactual better place. Invoking Trotsky as the missing element that would have allowed the USSR to build socialism provides an easy answer to a bunch of questions that n00bling Trots might field, like “you’re a Communist, are you fucking with me?” and “My great-grandparents were Baltic aristocrats who barely escaped with their art collection, I’m calling the police?”
Trotsky as a cure-all means they curve a lot of their writing back toward Trotsky’s misunderstood genius and wronged heroism and their specific version of the events of Trotsky’s life in a way that the people they call “Stalinists” rarely do with Stalin unless they’re writing in direct response to other people writing about Stalin. Segueing into Trotsky as a topic every single time can provide a little extra entertainment when the article is supposed to be about something like recent fluctuations in East Asian currencies or Pokemon Go, or when you’re writing a book and you stop every now and then to inform readers that Trotsky was the original inventor of peanut brittle.
This all applies mostly to the small Western European and U.S. Trotskyist groups, though, which is what I think a lot of people on here mean when we poke fun at “Trots”. Their sort of scrupulous obsession with the guy himself doesn’t seem to be as big a part of most Trotskyist parties elsewhere. You can guess what I think about that in terms of the spending patterns of Completely Innocuous Americans, but it’s probably also that in a lot of other countries, sympathetic ideas about the USSR are slightly less weird-seeming and Trotskyists there don’t feel the need to present Trotsky as one weird trick to build international socialism.
Yet that seems to be the main thing those Trots try to do with their time and energy, following a kind of forever-WWII mentality for theory, strategy & tactics. Like, I guess Socialist Alternative melted down recently when some big chunk of them said they wanted to fold the entire organization into DSA as some form of neo-entryism. To me that’s just bonkers, it’s clown activity.
for advanced political thinkers, you also have the opportunity to quibble about increasingly minute questions of doctrinal orthodoxy that become less falsifiable or practical the more minute the question
cars posted:shriekingviolet posted:iirc we've got one or two folks in Italy rn,
wow, gladio's really fallen off
it doesn't seem fair to the situation for me to chime in when i spend twelve hours a day in a study hall reading/doing flashcards in english
ask and i'll answer i guess but i'm really pretty walled off from broader italian society
Can you imagine how bad it would be if history was repressed by our government using a series of pneumatic tubes? Thank god we don't have a ministry of truth or anything today. A world where women are entirely subservient to men and only valued for their reproductive abilities? Well, sure seems like things are bad now but when the goofy period attire comes, then we'll really have to be worried.
I guess when I put it like this it sounds like Banksy shit, but I'd argue that's the point.
the paper has 33 authors
please direct all questions to this guy though
this is where he works
i wanted to see HOMESTEAD HILL DRONE, here he is
they also have MELT BEEF
the journal is "Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology", it published this a few years back
well...... bye
Bablu posted:it doesn't seem fair to the situation for me to chime in when i spend twelve hours a day in a study hall reading/doing flashcards in english
ask and i'll answer i guess but i'm really pretty walled off from broader italian society
was mostly just curious how much local support/chatter there is about the big budget that has brussels extremely caremad, and how seriously the threats of greek style imposed austerity are being taken
ialdabaoth posted:
They do tend to publish a fair bit of Trot stuff, but I don't think they're as strictly Trotskyist editorially as a lot of the other big "Left" publishing houses. They did publish Mobo Gao's "Battle for China's Past" for example, which you'd never get Haymarket or Bookmarks doing.
pescalune posted:ialdabaoth posted:They do tend to publish a fair bit of Trot stuff, but I don't think they're as strictly Trotskyist editorially as a lot of the other big "Left" publishing houses. They did publish Mobo Gao's "Battle for China's Past" for example, which you'd never get Haymarket or Bookmarks doing.
how do they manage to fit that next to that horrible anti maoist book you mentioned even
The author is also careful to say that he thinks the Maoists in Nepal, China and the Philippine's are justified, with the Naxalites being a uniquely evil army of, essentially, child slavers in league with the Mafia subverting a legitimate democracy. After all, Chomsky tells us "Indian democracy is one of the triumphs of the 20th Century". One section of the book is dedicated entirely to finding writings of non-CPI(Maoist) Naxalites denouncing the PW as mere terrorism, all the focus is on portraying the PW as an aberration rather than attacking Marxism or Maoism as a whole, though the author clearly holds both in contempt.
dimashq posted:
repost, u dirty dog.
It’s actually hilarious though