• Light/Dark

Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

  • Anarchism

    Votes: 127 12.1%

  • Marxism

    Votes: 86 8.2%

  • Marxism-Leninism

    Votes: 78 7.4%

  • Left Communism

    Votes: 19 1.8%

  • Democratic Socialism

    Votes: 425 40.5%

  • Social Democracy

    Votes: 241 23.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 73 7.0%
  • Total voters
    1,049
Reader mode
HBK

HBK

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,092
It's kinda fascinating to watch honestly.

We're destroying our planet and all people talk about is money and jobs.

Seriously, if the real world as it is now was presented as fiction, pretty much everyone would laugh at how stupidly unbelievable it is 🤣🤣🤣

Our "leaders" in particular would be shrugged off as shoddily written.

PS: I know the third planet of the solar system will keep orbiting the sun. But there won't be any human left on it, and as I kinda got fond of this species despite its numerous flaws, this makes me sad. But hey, your loss mankind 🤷‍♀️
 
Surfinn

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA
Was posting this in the sequel to the "republicans could actually be good" thread, then it got locked as soon as I was about to hit submit, so I'll post it here:

Lmao, fuck no, why would anyone want this. Even if we're going with a "whatever it takes" angle, Biden doesn't need this to win (I saw takes about how this could actually a ploy to get more votes, that is, news of a vetting process/considerations of repubs in cabinet positions), as he already has a sizeable/healthy lead. And if he's actually passionate about "progressive" issues, then he won't. We spent the last 4 years rightfully harping about why republicans are shit and destroy everything, and as soon as Biden wants them, it's actually good? Lol no

That first thread is a fucking embarrassment. I don't wanna hear another word about how republicans are bad from any of these posters
 
gogosox82

gogosox82

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,385
I mean, the only rational response to that thread should be he shouldn't but he will because he's Biden. Biden has been a neoliberal his whole career. Can't expect him to magically turn into a leftist. The people that are looking silly are the people trying to argue that Biden is some progressive when he is not.
 
dabig2

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
Don't worry, all those Repubs who spoke at the DNC were just offering their help to get rid of Trump. Nothing more could be expected from them, and they won't stop us from being the most progressive party ever!
l5sklgpy4rz41.jpg





Fucking Kasich btw

It's great that Kasich has woken up &realized the importance of supporting a Biden-Harris ticket. I hope he gets through to GOP voters. Yet also, something tells me a Republican who fights against women's rights doesn't get to say who is or isn't representative of the Dem party.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


and fucking Cindy McCain btw, who is on the transition advisory board and will have her own influence. Guess who most of her friends are?
www.theroot.com

Cindy McCain Apologizes for Making Up a Race-Based Human Trafficking Story That Was a Whole-Ass Lie

Cindy McCain, the widow of Republican Sen. John McCain, ran out here and told a whole-ass lie about stopping a child-trafficking incident at an Arizona airport and even her lie was steeped in racist beliefs.
www.theroot.com www.theroot.com
"At Phoenix Sky Harbor, I reported an incident that I thought was trafficking. I commend the police officers for their diligence. I apologize if anything else I have said on this matter distracts from 'if you see something, say something,'" she wrote.

Here's what McCain's apology should've said: "At Phoenix Sky Harbor, I reported an incident that I thought was trafficking based on how we do things in Arizona, which is basically calling the police on anyone non-white. The police investigated the incident and found that I was wrong and racist-y. Thankfully, no one was shot or tasered because of my ill-informed actions and oh, about that story I told, I made all of that shit up because I can't not see myself as a hero even when I was wrong AF."

There, I fixed it for you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


But no folks, no reason at all to even be at least a bit worried that Biden will commit to his lifetime need to suck up to Repubs and afford them privileges while excusing their historical and still present bullshit.

Whatever it takes and all that. 2022 is right around the corner. 2024 is a skip away.
 
Mekanos

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,754
It's funny that we are told we criticize Democrats more than Republicans but are the first to call out Democrats for cozying up to Republicans.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
AOCs stream thing is on. She doesn't know what she's doing and neither would I. A politician I can identify with!
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Libs: vote blue no matter who or this country will cease to exist in 4 years as all Republicans are unrepentant turbo racists who need to be branded and laughed at for the rest of their lives

Also libs: here's why having Republicans in positions of power are actually good!
 
John Dunbar

John Dunbar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,229
how do you do, fellow communists, i wish to ask you a question. i read the communist manifesto this week, and thought i'd read capital next. i have the abridged oxford world's classics edition, and was wondering if the abridged version does marx justice? it would certainly be much less daunting than tackling the real deal since i am not very smart.
 

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
John Dunbar said:
how do you do, fellow communists, i wish to ask you a question. i read the communist manifesto this week, and thought i'd read capital next. i have the abridged oxford world's classics edition, and was wondering if the abridged version does marx justice? it would certainly be much less daunting than tackling the real deal since i am not very smart.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hi. You would not find many here who have spent their lives first reading Capital I-III (I would say very few, to begin with) and then topping up with reading an abridged version, to compare or for funsies. I have read Capital I-III as well as various companions for it but not the abridged version you mention - so caveat. I'm looking at the description:

"This is the only abridged edition to take account of the whole work. It offers virtually all of Volume 1, excerpts from a new translation of `The Result of the Immediate Process of Production', and a selection of key chapters from Volume 3."

So, based on that - hard to say. Most people can read Capital I, so you won't need an abridged for that - that's also the reason for them offering "virtually" the whole edition. For most people reading Capital I is also sufficient for their purposes of reading Capital in the first place. Based on the description there might be an issue with the rest. Capital II, which is not mentioned in the overview of abridged, is by many considered rather dull and difficult - but there are absolutely key insights regarding the circuits of capital there, but it's a bit challenging to read and recontextualize in the present can be an issue if you solo run. Depending on purpose: read 1) Capital 1 unabridged 2) if you are daunted by II-III read Harvey's "Companion to Marx's Capital: The Complete Edition" (NB complete edition is the only one that covers 1_3) or read 1-3 while watching the companion vids /or reading the notes on his website.
 
3bdelilah

3bdelilah

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,615
John Dunbar said:
how do you do, fellow communists, i wish to ask you a question. i read the communist manifesto this week, and thought i'd read capital next. i have the abridged oxford world's classics edition, and was wondering if the abridged version does marx justice? it would certainly be much less daunting than tackling the real deal since i am not very smart.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Welcome!

I'm not sure if I'd recommend reading through Capital as your second book. At least, I assume that you started with the Manifesto and you're now looking for other theory. Instead, you might have more questions about what was said in the Manifesto, the philosophy behind it, the lens used to view the world, etc. Marxism is usually "divided" in three components: philosophy, politics, and economics. I would start out with works that focus on the philosophy part. Marx's 18th Brumaire and Critique of the Gotha Program (for insight as to how Marx envisioned the steps towards communism) are great books, as well as Friedrich Engels' Principles of Communism and Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.

Unless you really want to jump on the economics immediately, in that case you might start with something relatively smaller and less complicated. Smaller works like Marx's Wage Labour and Capital or Value, Price and Profit. They deal with roughly the same subjects as Capital, but are much less "intimidating".

For the time being I would focus on Marx and Engels. If you've read through a few of their works, you might consider reading some of Lenin's biggest works (which are State and Revolution and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism).
 
dabig2

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
OneEyedKing said:


Very cool
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Great Citations Needed podcast dealing with this and climate change:

citationsneeded.libsyn.com

Citations Needed: Episode 121 - Climate Chaos (Part I): How the Gap Between Liberal Rhetoric & Policy Promotes Denialism

“Climate change is real.” “Three words — science, science, and science.” “From coastal towns to rural farms to urban centers, climate change poses an existential threat.” “Now it is time to put our coalition to work and pass bold climate solutions.” These are just some of the many...
citationsneeded.libsyn.com
But there is a tremendous gulf between Democratic leaders' claims to believe climate change is an existential threat and their actual actions, which are the actions of people who do not believe climate change must be urgently and robustly tackled. Since climate change has ascended from thoroughly ignored to occasionally acknowledged issue in US political discourse and elections, Democratic leaders have for the most part only been willing to push for small-scale policy solutions — a carbon-capture tax credit here, a fossil-fuel subsidy cut there.

These solutions are almost always incremental and market-based, and these same Democrats refuse to embrace what's actually needed: keep fossil fuels in the ground, and mobilize public resources so that we can make the broad social changes we need to address the climate crisis. The most powerful Democrats, people like Nancy Pelosi, have not only steered clear of more far-reaching policies, but have actively undermined them, as seen most clearly with her opposition to the Green New Deal — often under the guise of debt scolding.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
When Democratic Party claims about the dire consequences of climate change are not matched by robust and necessary policy proposals, one can only assume one of three realities is true: (1) they do not care about the disastrous inevitably of environmental collapse, (2) they don't truly believe the science on climate change in general, or (3) they're simply hopeless and spineless. In any case, the resultant inertia amounts to an insidious form of climate denialism in its own right.

On this episode, part one of two tackling climate change, we discuss the net effect of this chasm - what we're calling "the Climate Rhetoric-Policy Gap" - and how, from a messaging standpoint, it reads false and leads many to believe that climate change may be real in some abstract sense, but mostly not a matter of urgent moral importance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Believe Science" and all that. But not too loudly and not too much. Maybe by 2030 we'll give more of a fuck.
 
HBK

HBK

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,092
dabig2 said:
When Democratic Party claims about the dire consequences of climate change are not matched by robust and necessary policy proposals, one can only assume one of three realities is true: (1) they do not care about the disastrous inevitably of environmental collapse, (2) they don't truly believe the science on climate change in general, or (3) they're simply hopeless and spineless. In any case, the resultant inertia amounts to an insidious form of climate denialism in its own right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Believe Science" and all that. But not too loudly and not too much. Maybe by 2030 we'll give more of a fuck.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah. That's way too simple of an explanation. The reality is that ... it's all three at the same time lol

They believe they'll be able to avoid the disasters along with their kids (they'll go to Mars or something lol), they don't realize how dire the situation is, and last but not least, they're utterly unable to "think" outside of their limited capitalistic frame of reference (they're actually unable to "think" if we are to be scientifically accurate, but that's a story for another day).

As long as we rely on them, we're screwed. Oh well, good riddance I guess.
 

Deleted member 42641

User requested account closure
Banned
Apr 25, 2018
864
John Dunbar said:
how do you do, fellow communists, i wish to ask you a question. i read the communist manifesto this week, and thought i'd read capital next. i have the abridged oxford world's classics edition, and was wondering if the abridged version does marx justice? it would certainly be much less daunting than tackling the real deal since i am not very smart.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hey I do not have too much to add, but I am currently reading Capital Volume 1 and I would really recommend David Harvey's video series on youtube "Reading Marx's Capital Vol 1 With David Harvey". Its just a 15 video series of recordings of his course of Capital and it super helps understanding everything, as I have just been reading the chapters assigned between videos and then will watch. The abridged version might be simple enough, but even then I think listing to Harvey's lectures really paints the picture and gives clear examples of some of the difficult concepts. Also easy to just throw on when youre gaming or whatever (been playing smash and galaxy while I listen)

Also sidebar and I might get in trouble for this again but just lol at getting an immediate 5 day ban for questioning the rules of p!r@cy discussions. Anti-socialist resetera lol
 
Equippedwithtowel

Equippedwithtowel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
John Dunbar said:
how do you do, fellow communists, i wish to ask you a question. i read the communist manifesto this week, and thought i'd read capital next. i have the abridged oxford world's classics edition, and was wondering if the abridged version does marx justice? it would certainly be much less daunting than tackling the real deal since i am not very smart.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
i woudn't jump into capital right away. I think it's probably better to look into some companions and skim through marx's work roughly chronologically.
 
dabig2

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
HBK said:
Nah. That's way too simple of an explanation. The reality is that ... it's all three at the same time lol

They believe they'll be able to avoid the disasters along with their kids (they'll go to Mars or something lol), they don't realize how dire the situation is, and last but not least, they're utterly unable to "think" outside of their limited capitalistic frame of reference (they're actually unable to "think" if we are to be scientifically accurate, but that's a story for another day).

As long as we rely on them, we're screwed. Oh well, good riddance I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lol yeah, the entire thing is a bit fucked.


He's has, and will continue, to erode support for Medicare for All, college debt cancellation, and marijuana legalization. My only point is that he doesn't *have* to do this to beat Trump. Liberals are bargaining away all their principles over a false choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The democrats don't have to do any of this, but they like to use the nameless public as an excuse for why they have to keep doing bad shit that mainly just materially benefits their donors and themselves over everyone else.

And on a related note...

Can someone get
@ProjectLincoln
on this that way Dems actually care lol
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This whole Barrett thing is blackpilling me in a way that I thought wasn't possible anymore. Guess I was still holding out a little bit of hope for the future, and reality was like "let me stop you right there..."
 
HBK

HBK

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,092
dabig2 said:
Lol yeah, the entire thing is a bit fucked.




The democrats don't have to do any of this, but they like to use the nameless public as an excuse for why they have to keep doing bad shit that mainly just materially benefits their donors and themselves over everyone else.

And on a related note...



This whole Barrett thing is blackpilling me in a way that I thought wasn't possible anymore. Guess I was still holding out a little bit of hope for the future, and reality was like "let me stop you right there..."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But they're only doing what they believe in.

I'm no US citizen but it seems pretty obvious the only difference between dems and reps is on the manners end and not on the end goal. Dems smile and promote diversity but in the end they fully support capitalism 🤷‍♀️

It's all a demagogic posture. Their policies will keep screwing up blacks and women and queers and whatever else but at least they'll believe they won't have a hand in it as they don't directly discriminate contrary to what republicans do (even if they may pretend not to).
 
Surfinn

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA
Pretty sweet gaslighting happening, 11 days out. So now, according to liberals, Tara Reade is a GOP conspiracy theory/bogus conservative hitjob.
 
OneEyedKing

OneEyedKing

Member
Oct 25, 2017
452
dabig2 said:
Great Citations Needed podcast dealing with this and climate change:

citationsneeded.libsyn.com

Citations Needed: Episode 121 - Climate Chaos (Part I): How the Gap Between Liberal Rhetoric & Policy Promotes Denialism

“Climate change is real.” “Three words — science, science, and science.” “From coastal towns to rural farms to urban centers, climate change poses an existential threat.” “Now it is time to put our coalition to work and pass bold climate solutions.” These are just some of the many...
citationsneeded.libsyn.com



"Believe Science" and all that. But not too loudly and not too much. Maybe by 2030 we'll give more of a fuck.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A bit optimistic to think they'll give a shit that soon.

It's pretty crazy to me that this is all such a team sport to people that having the Chosen One utter something as horrible as "we're not banning fracking" over and over actively encourages public support of that position in the span of a few weeks as they all fall in line, which is apparently the smart and right thing to do because it doesn't scare away the much-needed "moderates," and yet allegedly we can't adopt actual good policies like M4A or the GND because "the public doesn't support it" (which is obviously a lie but that doesn't stop it from being the narrative that's pushed). If a large block of reliable Democratic voters are so unprincipled that they change their mind so easily on something like fracking because the candidate keeps defending it then why the hell can't we adopt, support, and promote actual good things instead of incrementalism or outright concessions to the GOP? Oh wait I think I know the answer to that.
 
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
61,777
You all read Color of Law? What a brilliant take down on the Invisible Hand.
 
Mulligan

Mulligan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,505
I just got into Street Fight Radio. Anyone else listen to it, and what other leftist/anarchist podcasts do y'all listen to?
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
Mekanos said:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


It's like what I mentioned in an earlier post about what Angela Davis says. She clarifies capitalism as racial capitalism. Some people might hear that and think "as opposed to capitalism with no racism which obviously exists", but nope. She says capitalism has always been racial capitalism. It always has had a racial component on which to divide people on to justify exploitation. There has never been non racial capitalism. Race is an inherent dynamic of capitalism
 
Zerokku

Zerokku

Member
Oct 25, 2017
340
Televator said:
It's like what I mentioned in an earlier post about what Angela Davis says. She clarifies capitalism as racial capitalism. Some people might hear that and think "as opposed to capitalism with no racism which obviously exists", but nope. She says capitalism has always been racial capitalism. It always has had a racial component on which to divide people on to justify exploitation. There has never been non racial capitalism. Race is an inherent dynamic of capitalism
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah I was watching Renegade Cut's video on Global Capitalism the other day and it really helped show that exploitation of "the other" is built into the system from before it was even called capitalism.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
entremet said:
You all read Color of Law? What a brilliant take down on the Invisible Hand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I haven't, but it looks like it's got a good understanding.

To scholars and social critics, the racial segregation of our neighborhoods has long been viewed as a manifestation of unscrupulous real estate agents, unethical mortgage lenders, and exclusionary covenants working outside the law. This is what is commonly known as "de facto segregation," practices that were the outcome of private activity, not law or explicit public policy. Yet, as Rothstein breaks down in case after case, private activity could not have imposed segregation without explicit government policies (de jure segregation) designed to ensure the separation of African Americans from whites.

A former columnist for the New York Times and a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, as well as a Fellow at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Rothstein has spent years documenting the evidence that government not merely ignored discriminatory practices in the residential sphere, but promoted them. The impact has been devastating for generations of African-Americans who were denied the right to live where they wanted to live, and raise and school their children where they could flourish most successfully.

While the Fair Housing Act of 1968 provided modest enforcement to prevent future discrimination, it did nothing to reverse or undo a century's worth of state-sanctioned violations of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Thirteenth Amendment which banned treating former slaves as second-class citizens. So the structural conditions established by 20th century federal policy endure to this day.

At every step of the way, Rothstein demonstrates, the government and our courts upheld racist policies to maintain the separation of whites and blacks—leading to the powder keg that has defined Ferguson, Baltimore, Charleston, and Chicago. The Color of Law is not a tale of Red versus Blue states. It is sadly the story of America in all of its municipalities, large and small, liberal and reactionary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

www.epi.org

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America

www.epi.org www.epi.org

Any particularly notable insights from it?
 
samoyed

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Televator said:
I... wut
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's the usual 2016 bitterness dialed up to an insane degree.
God, if only there were this much concern when Leftists do shit like vote third party, write-in, or undervoting. If there were this much concern when Leftists cry publicly that both sides are the same and that there are no good choices. When they say that an establishment conspiracy blocks their personality cult candidates from getting mainstream nominations.

Leftist/tankie/'rose' types are installing Amy Barrett on the Supreme Court until 2050 with their ineffectiveness.

If only anybody gave a shit about that instead of...The Lincoln Project.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
www.resetera.com

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner threaten to sue The Lincoln Project over Times Square billboards

How much did you give them
www.resetera.com www.resetera.com
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.