Althusser is problematic in a different way but his works on structuralism better defined the State as a tool that reproduces capitalist rationalization and logic.
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.
That kind of rules out most theory then. Have you read any other modern socialist lit? That might help five us an idea what you're looking for.
I have the "The Future We Want" still unread and I'm half way through the chapo guide. baby steps remember
I've read about The ABCs of Socialism and legit cannot remember shit about it
Manufacturing Consent is Chomsky right?
Essentially democratic socialist organization at a municipal level, linking together society on a wider scale.
Would the united states with less centralization qualify as confederalism?
Can we sell confederalism to red states because it says "confederal"?
Also thinking about House_Of_Lightning 's take that tankies are left wing reactionaries and such is fascinating thing to think about I would love to hear more
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?It's very depressing how many shitlibs on here are all too willing to attack their own in bad faith while chastising us for some not providing some "Unity" bullshit.
It was generally pro Omar/pro her statements, but there's always a couple who wanna start something.I'm gonna guess that the Ilhan Omar thread is going exactly how I thought it would go, right?
Not as long as I'm here.Can a day go by without the 2020 primary thread turning into a socialism thread? One day we may find out!
Can a day go by without the 2020 primary thread turning into a socialism thread? One day we may find out!
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:
https://libcom.org/library/militancy-ojtr
https://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism
http://libcom.org/library/anti-activism
This is a modest proposal that we should develop ways of operating that are adequate to our radical ideas. This task will not be easy and the writer of this short piece has no clearer insight into how we should go about this than anyone else.
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
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.So if we are not in a revolutionary situation, is it ok to be pursing short term reformist goals in the meantime?