- Oct 27, 2017
Ah, the Mortal Kombat approach to the revolution. Privyet, komrades!
Specifically, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus" and "Contradiction and Overdetermination." Unfortunately, these are reproduced in separate volumes.
I wanted to stay away from anything a little to heady, hence why no Zizek.Specifically, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus" and "Contradiction and Overdetermination." Unfortunately, these are reproduced in separate volumes.
If you are going to recommend Marcuse and Althusser, I think Deleuze and Guatteri's Anti-Oedipus is probably essential reading for it's synthesis of Freud/Lacan and Marxism (e.g., in the concept of desiring-production). I realize that Marxists consider Deleuze at best a highly heterodox Marxist, however.
I have the "The Future We Want" still unread and I'm half way through the chapo guide. baby steps remember
Try The ABCs of Socialism and Manufacturing Consent (although I guess that's not "modern" anymore).
I've read about The ABCs of Socialism and legit cannot remember shit about it
ABCs is basically a simple explanation of socialism 101, so if you've already read it then you're good on that front. And yeah, MC is Chomsky.
Confederalism is the idea of a union of states working together. Murray Bookchin and Abdullah Ocalan go in on that and their work is rooted in the anarchist tendency, though it has a bunch of socialist elements. Rojava does Democratic Confederalism. The idea, roughly, is bottom-up organization that emphasizes community and free associations.
Oh yeah, that's one detail my explanation forgot to emphasize. This all is based on the municipal, community level where people work together and can define things often in a relatively free and unstructured way. So thanks for pointing that out.
I can't speak to the former-- I don't believe so, since our guarantees of federalism end at the state level, rather than the municipal level. I think you'd basically have to Hail Mary pass just before ancapistan if you wanted to follow existing legal trends to the point where things are autonomous at those levels.
Are people calling them socialist here? I've seen more pragmatic anarchists claim them, even if the label is hotly contested. Still, I think it's worth studying regardless of your alignment in the leftist sphere.
I'm gonna guess that the Ilhan Omar thread is going exactly how I thought it would go, right?
I keep forgetting this thread exists, lol. Also, hard to avoid socialism discussion in that thread when there are socialist policies being pushed by candidates!
The most key line from these articles:I fInally got around to reading the ‘militancy is the highest form of alienation’ and ‘give up activism’ articles that House linked me to much earlier in the thread, as well as a reply to the latter. They were excellent, and are quite helpful for situating how left com (I think) ideas work in practice.
The articles, for anyone curious:
It's easy to point out the failings of the activist model because they're readily apparent, even to activists themselves. When it comes time to posit an alternative though the critics can't say anything beyond "it's hard." IMO it's mostly just the left flagellating itself for its own weakness which is really a result of conditions that it has no power over. There simply isn't a large enough base for revolutionary politics in the West to accomplish anything large-scale so the sliver that does arrive at some type of radical critique of the prevailing system and wants to achieve their aims has to take up less than ideal methods (sectarianism, activist specialization, joining NGOs and liberal groups, etc). I'll say the first article is a bit different because it's talking about the post-68 European environment where the range of possibilities seemed less restricted.
"It's Hard", especially to come up with a solution, because the solution isn't something to be crafted by the political Left, which is weak simply because the professional activist has some level of separation from the proletariat. Which leads to...It's easy to point out the failings of the activist model because they're readily apparent, even to activists themselves. When it comes time to posit an alternative though the critics can't say anything beyond "it's hard." IMO it's mostly just the left flagellating itself for its own weakness which is really a result of conditions that it has no power over.
This. The proletariat assesses and acts on if/when there is a revolutionary situation.
To me, yes. The way I see it is you reform with an eye towards enabling/supporting revolution should it ever happen. I cannot really accept the accelerationist model (too many casualties) so this is what I stick with.