#15361
its badass when you look at like the oxford comprehensive history of the french revolution in 15 volumes of 900 pages each or whatever, and some guy pops up on line to say it was hard to read because there was too much detail and not enough big picture
#15362

Petrol posted:

this book has to many big word for me, the history major



not everybody is meant to read, imo

#15363
lol this book is old now, but i had an NYT-variety neolib friend who kept pestering me to read Bernanke's book on the 2008 crisis. So i looked up some reviews, and holy shit does it seem to epitomize neoliberal dogma. Gonna give it a read when i can, and make them read Mirowski on neolibs
#15364
k i'm gonna do it, i'm gonna read this book with big words
#15365
got an email from my school yesterday about a used book sale the english club was running today...figured it’d mostly be junk but i stopped by. it was just one folding table with a few books. i found a lil gem nestled in between jonathan franzens the corrections and catcher in the rye , so now i’m at the university panda express reading Khrushchev Lied: The Evidence That Every "Revelation" of Stalin's (and Beria's) Crimes in Nikita Khrushchev's Infamous "Secret Speech" to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is Provably False by grover furr
#15366

elias posted:

got an email from my school yesterday about a used book sale the english club was running today...figured it’d mostly be junk but i stopped by. it was just one folding table with a few books. i found a lil gem nestled in between jonathan franzens the corrections and catcher in the rye , so now i’m at the university panda express reading Khrushchev Lied: The Evidence That Every "Revelation" of Stalin's (and Beria's) Crimes in Nikita Khrushchev's Infamous "Secret Speech" to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is Provably False by grover furr


damb that owns

#15367
niceee

grover furr is speaking this weekend at multiple east bay CA locations. baidu it or PM me for deets
#15368
baidu is a place where i find rips of the newest j-core albums for download
#15369

Dimashq posted:

k i'm gonna do it, i'm gonna read this book with big words



this is written real casual and i don't know what that person was complaining about. here's what i'm complaining about. the trotty USSR stuff so far is clock-that-chimed-13-times level and is making me question the rest of it

While the situation in the USSR was far more complex - and is
still an object of debate among historians - a similar pattern
emerges there too. Despite identifying with the Revolution - a
phenomenon much more widespread in 1939-41 than today - the
mass of the Soviet people was hostile to Stalin’s dictatorship. In
certain areas like the Baltic republics and the Ukraine, where
national oppression had been combined with the large-scale terror
and famine of the collectivization period, hostility to Stalin among
large sectors of the peasantry, the professional classes and layers of
the working class had turned into outright hatred - and was inten­
sified by the experience of being abandoned to the German
invaders in 1941. Yet whatever potential this might have created
for a significant degree of collaboration between invaders and local
population was soon negated by the monstrous crimes perpetrated
by the Nazi occupation forces. The systematic destruction of the
infrastructure of civic life; the mass enslavement of tens of millions
of people under inhuman conditions; execution and maltreatment
on a scale in excess of anything Stalin and his supporters had
conducted - these soon turned the tide. The Soviet masses - in the
first place the working class and the soldiers of the Red Army, but
by no means them alone - displayed the indomitable resolve in
resistance of which the defence of Leningrad, in many ways even
more than Stalingrad, became a symbol.

#15370
i found a pdf of a really cool looking book on pol pot and the use of terror the other day, however it turns out that the section where he introduces the concept of state terror seems to rely heavily on stalin as explained by robert conquest so im not feeling that optimistic
#15371

toyotathon posted:

Dimashq posted:

k i'm gonna do it, i'm gonna read this book with big words

this is written real casual and i don't know what that person was complaining about. here's what i'm complaining about. the trotty USSR stuff so far is clock-that-chimed-13-times level and is making me question the rest of it

While the situation in the USSR was far more complex - and is
still an object of debate among historians - a similar pattern
emerges there too. Despite identifying with the Revolution - a
phenomenon much more widespread in 1939-41 than today - the
mass of the Soviet people was hostile to Stalin’s dictatorship. In
certain areas like the Baltic republics and the Ukraine, where
national oppression had been combined with the large-scale terror
and famine of the collectivization period, hostility to Stalin among
large sectors of the peasantry, the professional classes and layers of
the working class had turned into outright hatred - and was inten­
sified by the experience of being abandoned to the German
invaders in 1941. Yet whatever potential this might have created
for a significant degree of collaboration between invaders and local
population was soon negated by the monstrous crimes perpetrated
by the Nazi occupation forces. The systematic destruction of the
infrastructure of civic life; the mass enslavement of tens of millions
of people under inhuman conditions; execution and maltreatment
on a scale in excess of anything Stalin and his supporters had
conducted - these soon turned the tide. The Soviet masses - in the
first place the working class and the soldiers of the Red Army, but
by no means them alone - displayed the indomitable resolve in
resistance of which the defence of Leningrad, in many ways even
more than Stalingrad, became a symbol.



Yea I was expecting as much from Mandel. It’s a short read anyway, so I’ll report back on how shit it is.

#15372
does anyone know where the phrase 'immortal science' actually originates from?
#15373

lo posted:

does anyone know where the phrase 'immortal science' actually originates from?


I'm pretty sure its just a stupid meme from ppl trying to imitate maoist rhetoric badly

#15374
the DPRK refers to the immortal juche idea but i don't recall them ever referring to scientific marxism-leninism in that fashion so it's just a vague conflation of these rhetorical currents i think.
#15375

lo posted:

does anyone know where the phrase 'immortal science' actually originates from?



tHE r H i z z o n E

#15376
according to my quick search of marxists.org hoxha said it once in "OUR INTELLIGENTSIA IS RAISED AND DEVELOPED IN THE BOSOM OF THE PEOPLE", 1962

However, our brave partisans and all the patriots of new Albania, with their Party of Labour at the head, armed with the immortal science of Marxism Leninism, not only took over the dreams of their forefathers, but they spun even bolder dreams, and with their blood and sweat made them a reality. And this is what we shall do in the future, too.



he says "immortal teachings" and "immortal principles" of marxism leninism more often

#15377
hoxha ftw.
#15378
lol when the conversation has to stop, step aside for a moment, and explain the deep cut hoxha reference at the foundations of its discourse.
#15379
I dropped Bernanke's stupid book and decided to re-read Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste by Mirowski. Before I'd read it, I never understood why self-proclaimed neoliberals were much less right-wing than how leftists seem to portray neoliberalism, as if it is laissez-faire capitalism. It's actually far more pernicious than any utopian libertarian idea of a purely free market society, in many ways. Built into the constructivist brand of neoliberalism is a justification of a paternalism that seeks to restrict anti-capitalist sentiment from ever gaining political traction by arguing that the public should not be allowed to subvert their own 'freedom' that is granted to them by capitalism, and a tolerance for government provided welfare except in third-world societies that neoliberals pillage, where international coercion must impose 'regulations', while they assure everyone - based off of the dogshit statistics and lies of the bodies that carry out such coercion - that the poor are still doing better overall than they were. If you press them on this paternalistic - and authoritarian in the "post-modern" sense - attitude, they'll start yapping about Hitler and Stalin and red-bait I'm sure.

Edited by Caesura109 ()

#15380
anyone get their hands on a pdf of the governance of china, volume 2?
#15381

Caesura109 posted:

I dropped Bernanke's stupid book and decided to re-read Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste by Mirowski. Before I'd read it, I never understood why self-proclaimed neoliberals were much less right-wing than how leftists seem to portray neoliberalism, as if it is laissez-faire capitalism. It's actually far more pernicious than any utopian libertarian idea of a purely free market society, in many ways. Built into the constructivist brand of neoliberalism is a justification of a paternalism that seeks to restrict anti-capitalist sentiment from ever gaining political traction by arguing that the public should not be allowed to subvert their own 'freedom' that is granted to them by capitalism, and a tolerance for government provided welfare except in third-world societies that neoliberals pillage, where international coercion must impose 'regulations', while they assure everyone - based off of the dogshit statistics and lies of the bodies that carry out such coercion - that the poor are still doing better overall than they were. If you press them on this paternalistic - and authoritarian in the "post-modern" sense - attitude, they'll start yapping about Hitler and Stalin and red-bait I'm sure.



Yeah, that why I prefer the phrase they use in Europe: Ordoliberalism. It better describes the autocratic implementation of the ideology of market "reform" and the political system it operates under, largely Christian Democratic. It's a free-marketism that valorizes the state and uses the state to implement it: Pinochet as the lizard brain of it in the minds of the Troika and the European Commission.

#15382
is there even a non-ironic "self-described neoliberal" alive today, because when i see writers arguing over whether neoliberalism is real nowadays it's always a Democrat/New Labour-style liberal who thinks the word was made up yesterday by podcasts, vs. a chomsky-n00b DSA college kid who's frightened to just call it liberalism
#15383
imo "neoliberalism" is like "late stage capitalism", a term that might have been useful decades ago in one context but now it's just intra-species recognition for bernie sanders voters
#15384

cars posted:

imo "neoliberalism" is like "late stage capitalism", a term that might have been useful decades ago in one context but now it's just intra-species recognition for bernie sanders voters


yeah it's the older model performing the same function, the dogwhistle used in the soft-left activist scene to oppose aspects of capitalism without having to admit that either a) they are in fact actual anti-capitalists and thereby exposed to more serious resistance or b) they are not in fact anti-capitalist and thereby worthless.

it also functions as the weasel word to allow the two above groups to pretend they can meaningfully work together. in today's context in which the left is finally willing to present itself openly, no longer needed or useful.

#15385
i find it useful when i am writing to describe the specific historic economic period between about the volcker shock and the invasion of afganistan, i dont know what else i would call it *shrug*
#15386

is there even a non-ironic "self-described neoliberal" alive today, because when i see writers arguing over whether neoliberalism is real nowadays it's always a Democrat/New Labour-style liberal who thinks the word was made up yesterday by podcasts, vs. a chomsky-n00b DSA college kid who's frightened to just call it liberalism



Said friend who told me to read the book also recommended (unsurprisingly) that i check out the "neo-liberal subreddit", which has like 30,000 subscribers who are all the first type of person yiu described. Their "about this community page" links to the Brookings Institute says this shit:

With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive programme, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary.
This sub serves as a forum to continue that project against new threats posed by the populist left and right.

We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy

Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity
The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress
Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has lead to an unparalleled decline in global poverty
Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality



Jesus fucking Christ, now a single word of that is ironic. Im also disgusted but not astounded that they share memes of Ben Bernanke and Milton Friedman. One of their posts was a Saudi Arabia Cola Cola ad, and the comments were about how great it was that capitalism breaks down barriers between cultures lmao. What stupid fuckers, none of them have seen the Gulf, beyond maybe the Mall of Dubai.

Anyways they are overwhelmingly econ undergrad Obamacrats, like my friend.

#15387

cars posted:

is there even a non-ironic "self-described neoliberal" alive today



i've seen a right-wing economist adopt the label but there's a chance he was just doing it in a self-consciously contrarian way ("aha, i see you are using that word as an epithet, but have you considered that maybe it is... good?"), though strictly speaking it's not irony i guess

tears posted:

i find it useful when i am writing to describe the specific historic economic period between about the volcker shock and the invasion of afganistan, i dont know what else i would call it *shrug*



yeah this is more or less my thinking too

i'm of two minds on the issue. i agree that "neoliberalism" et al basically function like qualifiers, which means the users' opposition to capitalism is likewise qualified. but on the other hand, when i see liberals in particular using "late-stage capitalism," i'm also appreciative; libs break hard toward idealism and thus ahistoricism, and so it seems like a positive development to see them framing capitalism as something historical, transient, aged past its date, etc.

#15388
nevermind

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()

#15389
nevermind

#15390
been reading about 40s-50s Soviet deterrence policy again and John Bolton is headed back to the White House and i got the sudden and entirely baseless hunch that the U.S. is going to try to normalize some form of limited nuclear warfare as an ongoing strategy in my lifetime. just a mood probably, happy Friday everyone
#15391

cars posted:

entirely baseless hunch that the U.S. is going to try to normalize some form of limited nuclear warfare as an ongoing strategy in my lifetime.


i've also been feeling this. anyone else in sync with my internal doomsday clock?

#15392
what hunch, they said exactly that in their Trump-directed "Nuclear Policy Review" last month. "we will use tactical nukes, we will consider first-strike, we will escalate".

did you know they have 200-400 nukes stationed in Europe? i didn't know that until a few weeks ago when I read up on "Nuclear Sharing", which Russia mentioned in their response to the review. The US trains allies up on how to use nukes, and gives them aircraft to drop them, and then says it's not nuclear proliferation because legally the nukes are still American. thumbs up.
#15393

drwhat posted:

what hunch, they said exactly that in their Trump-directed "Nuclear Policy Review" last month. "we will use tactical nukes, we will consider first-strike, we will escalate".



i don't know if that will really happen though. the united states has had a strategy for nuclear warfare since WWII that pretends that the U.S. can win it

#15394
finally getting around to Caliban and the Witch after years of having it on my shelf. it's just as good as i'd heard, and even more horror-inducing than i imagined. absolute barbarism unleashed upon innocents accused of literally impossible crimes; the thames and rhein reddened by the blood and ash of hundreds of thousands of women, and the entire epoch has been shoved into the trivia of history.

like, legit, i took an elective in college on the history of the witch trials, and the professor's explanation the century of terror by saying it was due to the 'overzealousness' of prosecutors, and the illegitimacy of torture as a tool of interrogation. the historical/material reasons why torture became acceptable, why terror needed to be induce, and why the areas with the most fervent witchhunts correlated almost exactly with the regions later famous for their 'protestant work ethic' was never brought up or questioned. the professor wasn't an incompetent guy, but the liberal historiography he'd absorbed just assumed those events were 'natural' and unquestionable.

i appreciate that federici links the witch trials to both the reaction against the peasant revolutions of the 14th-15th century, and the early colonial horrors inflicted on the american natives.

final thoughts: settler culture both conditions and rewards saboteurs. i'm going to try to read 'racecraft' next.
#15395

Scrree posted:

final thoughts: settler culture both conditions and rewards saboteurs



power pisses on the weak and this is the logical outcome

#15396
can anyone recommend any good reads about the origins and intended purpose of the stock market? doesnt have to be marxist, just well sourced and decently written
#15397

Petrol posted:

can anyone recommend any good reads about the origins and intended purpose of the stock market? doesnt have to be marxist, just well sourced and decently written


heard some good things about this guy: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm

#15398

tears posted:

Petrol posted:

can anyone recommend any good reads about the origins and intended purpose of the stock market? doesnt have to be marxist, just well sourced and decently written

heard some good things about this guy: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm


thanks. but rather than a description of the stock market's function i am looking for a historical account of its development and the stated intentions of its creators.

#15399
im confused, the stock market, aka the market for stock, wasn't "created" by a group of people, not independently of the creation of joint stock companies, incorporation and limited liability, any more than the oil market was created independantly of oil.......its a market

you could try reading chapters 7 and 8 of hilferding's finance capital:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1910/finkap/ch07.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1910/finkap/ch08.htm
#15400
I got "Great Power Diplomacy: 1814-1914" by Norman Rich at a used bookstore. I'm almost halfway through it and it's been good for filling in gaps in my knowledge of 19th century history but he sucks whenever he talks about political ideologies (fortunately not too often so far). Overall, pretty bourgeois, he discusses revolutions through a realist geopolitical lens as threatening the overall security situation of the Concert of Europe, lauds various leaders for successfully maneuvering through periods of crises, but it's a good detailed textbook overview of diplomacy and still pretty educational and now that I know a lot more names, it'll be cool to go back and read Marx's letters bashing and owning different statesmen.