lo posted:

this might not be quite the same as you're talking about, but something i've noticed about a few soviet writers is their really skilful use of time and moving seamlessly back and forth between different time periods

this is exactly what i'm talking about. olesha does this pretty well, but the master of soviet time is daniil kharms. the reason it made me think of deleuze and guattari in the first place is because olesha stacks contradicting events on top of another, creating a tendril plot structure rather than a linear structure. everything stretched through everything else which is an impressive feat for a book written in first-person.

off the top of my head both chingiz aitmatov and yuri trifonov are really skilled at the same thing. i'd like to know if there's like a specific theoretical thing that these guys might have all been looking at, but i don't know if there's much information on how soviet writers were educated in english.
catharine mackinnon - only words

招瑤 posted:

its called frame-dragging, its when masses experiencing revolution "drag along" the theoretical positions around them

thank u for the upvote swampman this is a real fuckn good joke


blinkandwheeze posted:

the idea that you can simply withhold judgement is untenable. marxism-leninism is not a relativism, it forwards concrete and universal theoretical positions, which will carry with them a critique of existing revisionism internationally whether you want it to or not. the "hands-off" approach is the unstable revisionist line -- refusing to hold to any consistent theoretical positions when it is not convenient to do so

marxism-leninism has its own corrective against its principles being abstracted and appropriated from its revolutionary character. this is that it is actively produced from practical revolutionary struggle. to combat this we should not give up our only theoretical weapon and retreat to a vague pluralist relativism, but instead learn and study from the active revolutionary movements in the periphery. which you might notice, will not present a very flattering portrayal of chinese revisionism

Disclaimer: i'm not very good with theory so if the following post is bad, sorry

the argument i see the most common from supporters of the CCP is that the economic opening-up was necessary to survive in a world of global capitalism, otherwise they would have had the same fate as the USSR. considering every existing socialist country has done some form of SEZ i can kind of see their point of view. maybe the question should be what level of revisionism is acceptable in the current climate? is it about the percentage of privatization? the existence of billionaires? when does the line get crossed?

i just think those arguments are wrong from the outset so i don't see any value in engaging with that line of thought sorry.
In whatever sense those arguments were made by the actually CCP leaders in the 70s (and earlier), they were coming from a capitalist ideological perspective. To frame it in this way, no amount of revisionism is ever acceptable, if we understand revisionism an ideological danger wherein capitalist ideas and practices are masked with communist banners and slogans. So the questions about whether or not to take X political or economic decision, or allow this amount of privatization or foreign investment, are questions that can't be genuinely answered in a revisionist (capitalist) framing. All historical socialist states have reverted back to the capitalist road in time, not primarily because they went "too far" or "too short" in shooting for socialism, but because they fell prey to revisionism ideologically. If the people do not have the consciousness to understand and continue struggle toward socialism themselves in economic production and daily life/culture, the party in leadership will inevitably fall prey to revisionism as capitalist ideas will reconcentrate in the party without the conscious and organized people as an "accountability measure," to put it reductively. This is what the cultural revolution was about: an ideological/educational campaign to teach and apply revolutionary philosophy to all aspects of society. At least that's what a Maoist would say.

So to answer the question of when the line is/was crossed, it's a question of the ideology in leadership in the CCP, which obviously didn't change instantly on the day Mao died, or that the Gang of Four was arrested, but we can point to those points (especially the latter) where it was clear that the capitalist road had won after years of intense struggle. Since then there have been obvious reversals of socialist relations of production and advances in culture.
my thinking on The China Question is that due to their success in the last few decades, if China is capitalist then capitalism is communism.

Edited by Acdtrux ()

if you're judging the successes of communist development in terms of bourgeois metrics dedicated to the market-based efficacy of commodity production and consumption -- which the revisionists do -- then you've already lost.
it's often claimed by the revisionists that they're staunchly taking the line against imperialist propaganda against the prc. but this simply isn't true at all -- on the question of maoist development, the revisionist arguments are completely aligned with and reproducing the western condemnation of socialist developments and the necessity of imposing market reforms

these arguments are identical to any of those made by 80s cato institute or cia factbook reports, down to purely being able to conceptualise the efficacy of development in terms of statistics solely applicable to market exchange and commodity production
A book that helped me understand why the direction that Deng and company took China on wasn't as amazing as they claimed was Gao Village by Mobo Gao. He shows how the narrative of stagnant development until Deng took over is totally false, it's just that a shiny city of concentrated capital like Shenzen is easier to propagandize in the capitalist world. Maoist development was barefoot doctors, barefoot teachers, small scale industry, and democratic governance in the countryside. Maybe a village getting a half-trained doctor and a high school isn't as impressive as building a skyscraper, but if it happens in every village, and 80% of the population is living in these villages then it's really something!

Sure it's great that China eliminated extreme poverty in 2020, but how much faster would that milestone be reached if they hadn't abandoned the countryside in the 80s? Would they still be doing it by resettling entire villages? A common criticism I hear is that being against the current Chinese model means you fetishize poverty, want Chinese people to stay poor together forever, but that's ignoring how much the cultural revolution really lifted people up and overvaluing the wealth of the few.

China is a world player now, but on capitalist terms. In the 60s and 70s the GPCR had a worldwide effect too. French students rebelled, Black people in the usa were selling copies of the little red book to finance their national struggle, and decolonization ended European empires to give the African continent a new form. Surely that kind of power is just as important to anti-imperialists as China's current position to counter the amerikan empire?

On the other side of things, obviously the cultural revolution did not achieve its goals. How can a bunch of capitalists in government positions put the country on a capitalist path if the whole people are activated against counter-revolutionaries?
you really can't overstate how parasitic the dengist productive advances were on maoist development. the post-mao era inherited decades of arduous struggle in creating an educated, technically proficient workforce and dispersion of advanced infrastructure to the periphery

simply recentralising this to urban centres and adopting the organisational capitalist firm model would inevitably reach heights of accelerated growth in commodity production. if you believe such an expanded productive foundation the deng era inhereted could not be leveraged instead to a dispersed and communal productive model, what image of socialism are you even working with?

this is even without identifying how much of this supposed miracle is a simple accounting trick. the benefits and access of socialist infrastructure simply are not easily captured in the bourgeois metrics of economic growth and development. simply transitioning this infrastructure to the organisational model of joint-stock firms and market exchange results in an enormous gain in such metrics purely on paper

Edited by blinkandwheeze ()

reading the soviet 1955 manual of political economy, and one hundred years of solitude. one hundred years of solitude has some of the best narration ive read in a book, and sets up a very oniric atmosphere. south american authors do this ive noticed, like borges, bioy casares. references to alchemy, esoteric stuff... cool ...

Edited by dizastar ()

Reading Hundred Day War by William Hinton, it is an analysis of the impact on young people leaving their familial homes to forge new identities. There’s lots of crazy hijinks and pranks pulled by the college kids, but the end result was that the real education was the experiences they had along the way. I feel like I missed out by not having a typical college experience but I was able to live vicariously through the stories of the different frat houses at Tsinghua University.

pogfan1996 posted:

Reading Hundred Day War by William Hinton, it is an analysis of the impact on young people leaving their familial homes to forge new identities. There’s lots of crazy hijinks and pranks pulled by the college kids, but the end result was that the real education was the experiences they had along the way. I feel like I missed out by not having a typical college experience but I was able to live vicariously through the stories of the different frat houses at Tsinghua University.

William Hinton.. very good

i was at the bookshop today and saw a copy of 'the tribes of yahweh' by norman k gottwald which seems to be an exhaustive marxist analysis of ancient israel as described in biblical texts but i didn't get it as it was 40 dollars. but it looks really cool
right now I'm reading "the formation of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand which sounds similar, lo.
recently found this telegram bot for pirating books and it s quite convenient to use https://www.bookzz.ren/blog/26

that book by gottwald is available on it as well
reading MIM theory 9, the psychology issue and its really reshaping my opinion on mental illness, psychiatry and so on. i admit i had quite a reactionary view on that matter before. its an insanely good read just like their theory book on feminism & gender and it hasnt aged a bit despite the almost three decade span. its insane how advanced mim were in their theorical output

dizastar posted:

reading MIM theory 9, the psychology issue and its really reshaping my opinion on mental illness, psychiatry and so on. i admit i had quite a reactionary view on that matter before. its an insanely good read just like their theory book on feminism & gender and it hasnt aged a bit despite the almost three decade span. its insane how advanced mim were in their theorical output

i read the letter and response on anorexia nervosa (p5-6) and it has some interesting bits but also i feel some less good bits. this isnt aimed at you, but its a nice jumping off point since u prompted me to revisit this.

The letter writer's theory - longing for power - i feel is key to understanding the mindset of anorexia, and you can really see that she has been a sufferer - though once an anorexic you're never really going back to how you were before. In my experience, just like for her it is about power. there's nothing that makes you feel so good as exerting your iron willpower over your body, denying something that everyone else has to do. its almost like magic - will over matter. it makes you feel good. watching people eat, then saying no--thats a great feeling. watching the numbers on the scales go down, thats nice. of course you're ravenous, starving, you think of nothing but food, eating, hunger, cooking, baking, meals, calories, your every thought is consumed with thoughts of food, you dream of food, its a mental hunger - ive read that its because after a while of heavy calorie restriction your body dials back the physical symptoms of hunger because they're too taxing, too energy intensive. instead you get this mental hunger - food obsession. anorexic people fucking love food and everything about it, because they are so hungry. but while all the people around you are compelled to eat when they feel the slightest rumble, your every moment, awake and asleep is consumed with thoughts food, and yet tell your stupid body no. i will not. thats the power. sometimes you feel like you could live on nothing but water.

of course its not power, its anything but, because it feels like its your control, but in truth you have no control over the control. you literally must not eat more than your arbitrary intake. your starving, hunger gnawing, but you literally cant eat, because you already had 500cals today - and when you do it makes you feel terrible, like you've lost, failed, worthless. you start avoiding anything that tastes nice through fear that you'll eat too much. you only have one days food in the house to stop yourself eating. the whole things takes over your life. What makes anorexia so interesting, even among mental illness, if you can use such a word to describe a disease, is that it is one of very few diseases in which the sufferer does not want to be treated. people with anorexia hide their illness, not through shame, but because they don't want others to interfere. This is not the same as not wanting to be "better" - most people with anorexia i know would wish that they were not, but they don't want to be treated. imagine that, where the treatment is worse than the disease itself - and yet, baring the interventions required to prevent re-feeding syndrome the immediate, life saving treatment is just, literally eating, gaining weight, a normal diet. "Curing" the mental element--well who knows, no one has had any luck yet - there's a reason why its the most deadly mental disorder.

but to get back to the point, Firstly, i strongly resist they idea that anorexia is about beauty, and most anorexic people i have spoken to do the same. Since the desires of people with anorexia don't line up with modern beauty standards, except superficially: lose weight. no anorexic every got to their ludicrously low UGW and thought "cool, i look good" even if they do - you can look fucking great and still its not even close, you still think you look like shit. its a very specific type of body dysmorphia that goes well beyond "beauty standards". And very often you do look like shit, anorexia makes you ugly - your arms and legs turn to twigs, your skin ages, turns thin, your hair literally starts to fall out and then your bones break and your heart fails. As far as bulimia goes, you stink of vomit and your teeth dissolve and you die, too much purging fucks with your electrolyte balance and your heart fails, or else you rupture something inside. eating disorders are ugly and disgusting.

it is far closer to self harm than i think people really realize - the pleasure and sense of control of starving yourself is similar to the pleasure and sense of control that comes from self harm. they are both forms of self-destructive self-control, childhood trauma, neglect, abuse etc etc are "risk factors" for both eating disorders and self harm, though plenty of people with perfectly "normal" lives end up with anorexia too. And so just as "stop cutting yourself you'll feel better" is meaningless to the self-harmer, "stop starving yourself and eat, it tastes good" is meaningless to the anorexic - we know it tastes good, hell, not eating gives you a sublime appreciation of the food you do eat.

Secondly i also contest the idea that anorexia nervosa is an "upper middle class" (white?) disease, as Fasting Girls puts it. ED communities are filled with people who don't fit that mold, and i feel that this does a big disservice to people who are not white with EDs. ive read a lot of stories from people who's struggle with their ED is compounded by people around them, family and medical, who dismiss them by basically saying: "black people cant be anorexic, its for whites only." Perhaps it's a "western" disease, perhaps not, but at the risk of being overly general - it just seems like one of those horrible things that capitalism generates, and claiming that it is a white middle class female disease makes it a lot harder for those who are not that to get any sort of help, support or even a diagnosis

Eating disorders are very complex diseases - of course i believe that at its root, capitalism is at fault, but MIM in this instance, and i guess this was 25 years ago now, are putting too much weight on what they learned from reading Fasting Girls, and not enough time doing their own investigation.

is it possible to put that post on the front page evne tho it's not a thread ?
yeah anything can be frontpaged but who is still reading the front page?

(if tears says it's ok though then me or anyone else with The Power can click the frontpage button.)
Front page is what people see when Thug Lessons or someone else on Twitter tells people that we suck and ruined online and they come here to find out why we’re Actually Good. Also it’s necessary for posting morale imo.
I always want to frontpage things but then remember that it used to take multiple attempts, time travel, and costly occult sacrifices to make it work right. I think dr cat has fixed it to be less weird now but I still avoid it out of habit
if tears wants it to go o the front page, easiest thing to do is they start a new thread with that post as the header. then one of the more powerful mods has to check a box that enables it for posting to the front page. then it gets posted on the front page. its not that hard. tears its a fascinating problem and i would ask what is the rate of anorexia in cuba or other modern or past communist states and if the solution to a mental issue with control is to mayhaps give women political power and if you had that infomration would you put in your new post about it bc personally, i would read the words

swampman posted:

what is the rate

https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health lots of graphs on this page


swampman posted:

if tears wants it to go o the front page, easiest thing to do is they start a new thread with that post as the header

i have had a post frontpaged from mid-thread, so i know it's definitely possible (and maybe easier?) but if it's a topic that warrants a more focused sort of discussion, such as this, it's probably worth separate-threading it tbh, so anyone who clicks through won't be thrown off by any abrupt discontinuities or shifts. but then again, maybe those are good?

poster's choice shall be the whole of the law, IMO

Dear rhizzone, here is something I’ve wondered about on here before but it keeps coming up. I’ve decided to risk a searing ‘bation and use this thread to ask ur thoughts....

When far right Online types, the kind who think of themselves as jaded and worldly-wise, pass around some image to fuel their collective anxiety attacks over Culture, or repost a screenshot that’s supposed to represent the downfall of civilization, anything like that... 50% or more of the time, the image is obviously fake. It’s been clumsily doctored by one of their own group to appeal to their preexisting notions. It’s SO obviously fake most of those times that it boggles my mind how one of them doesn’t play their favorite stab-in-the-back game, one-upping the others by pointing it out. They genuinely don’t seem to know.

The ineptitude of it reappears whenever they try to cook up some image meant to provoke or troll “leftists” by pretending to be “leftist”. The results are vastly incompetent and fail utterly. It’s like, an anarchy-A next to a slogan about how Hillary Clinton is president for life. These far right people, who are deathly Online and must bump into every sort of phish/scam daily, are somehow unable to muster the theory of mind needed to understand deception. The only people they can fool are each other, and they almost always do. It’s weird, that’s all I’m saying

New vetting technique: send them a text message from a burner phone telling them a transaction for their Wells Fargo debit card was declined with a link to put in their social security number to find out more information
You’d think a steady diet of “click here to collect your prize” would have an impact though, right...? It seems to have an effect on most people online. But these guys are just Nigerian-prince scamming each other left and right, sometimes over real money with cryptocurrency even.

I just remember swirlsofhistory reappearing here briefly and trying to fool all of us big-time DemoKKKrat voters into voting for Jill Stein, of all people, instead of our favorite person in the world Hillary KKKlinton. While I had fun owning him by posting GIFs of a tiny dog running full speed into the front of a couch, a fat nerd falling off a skateboard and face-planting on the street, etc., it was a little eerie, how dumb he had to have become to think what he was doing made sense. swirls could be stupid, but I don’t think he was ever THAT stupid, not until he stopped posting here and moved full-time to whichever online insect hive convinced him that his posts when he came back were expert psyops. What sort of environment makes someone that much dumber in just a few months??
please post the gifs again they sound p cool. also wth is up w your post memory do you actually have the excel spreadsheet i facetiously accused you of having in a past post, you probably already know which one im talkin about geez
[1] Please find attached the GIFs requested:

[2] I keep no spreadsheet records of posts as it would provide no net benefit to the greater postingwealth. I admit however that when HenryKrinkle's Twitter account briefly vanished, getfiscal's R.I.P. thread here named me HK's successor as posting historian, to which I replied with the following: