last one died and all active threads are garbage
Other urls found in this thread:
What are you reading famrades?
I've started reading Heidegger.
Oh and I also just finished reading Germany tomorrow by Otto Asser and loved it pls no bully.
reading bordiga atm.
Curently re-reading 'The Conquest of Bread'. Not sure if Im an ancom but it is a really nice book.
Alright, leftcom memeing has got to me. Where should I start?
interesting conversation between Foucault and Deleuze here, that I thought I should drop.
Reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Its pretty good so far.
Just finished Arch Getty's The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939. Pretty chilling stuff.
depends where you are on the theory and what you think you should be reading about.
How familiar are you with Marx's basic works?
you guys just stoop lower and lower.
You can't just give a recommendation without knowing where the person stands on theory. Some works do have basic prerequisites you know.
Here's a random unpacking of some of Bordiga's central texts.
The Lyons Thesis
His opinions on Democracy:
His opinions on Activism:
Fundamental Theses of the Party:
The Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism:
Murder of the Dead:
Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil:
Marxism of the Stammerers:
This. Anyone who reads theory knows this. The leftcom is clearly reads unlike this guy:
watching Casablanca (1942).
Any good reading material to understand the intricate relationship between Nazi Germany and Vichy?
I'm especially interested in situation of French Colonies before and after total occupation of France.
I am currently re-reading The Foundations of Leninism
Im ~150 pages into Debt the First 500 Years rn. Its pretty interesting but I'm starting to get a bit bogged down in the endless anthropological description of different obscure tribes. Anyone want to tell me if its worth continuing?
Just found Kenan Malik. I've heard Zizek say very similar things to the point where I'm sure Zizek is very familiar with Malik's work and chooses not to mention him for whateve reason, which he also does with Agamben and Butler and some others. Not that I'm really shitting on the guy for it but you think with such a captive audience willing to hear about these ideas he would plug his contemporaries who developed many of the ideas he uses.
The Western tradition is not Western in any essential sense, but only through an accident of geography and history. Indeed, Islamic learning provided an important resource for both the Renaissance and the development of science. The ideas we call ‘Western’ are in fact universal, laying the basis for greater human flourishing. That is why for much of the past century radicals, especially third world radicals, recognised that the problem of imperialism was not that it was a Western ideology, but that it was an obstacle to the pursuit of the progressive ideals that arose out of the Enlightenment.
As Frantz Fanon, the Martinique-born Algerian nationalist, put it: ‘All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought. But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission that fell to them.’  For thinkers like Fanon and James, the aim of anti-imperialism was not to reject Western ideas but to reclaim them for all of humanity.
Indeed, Western liberals were often shocked by the extent to which anti-colonial movements adopted what they considered to be tainted notions. The Enlightenment concepts of universalism and social progress, the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss observed, found ‘unexpected support from peoples who desire nothing more than to share in the benefits of industrialisation; peoples who prefer to look upon themselves as temporarily backward rather than permanently different’. Elsewhere he noted that the doctrine of cultural relativism ‘was challenged by the very people for whose moral benefit the anthropologists had established it in the first place’ .
How things have changed. ‘Permanently different’ is exactly how we tend to see different, groups, societies and cultures today. Why? Largely because contemporary society has lost faith in social transformation, in the possibility of progress, in the beliefs that animated anti-imperialists like James and Fanon.
Just how dull are the descriptions? Because that sounds like some shit I'd love to read about
Going to order The Invisible Committee's new book today, v excited
They're actually really interesting, and Graeber has such a fun and easy to follow writing style that it never really gets boring
Fanon, The. Wretched of The Earth, The Coming Insurrection, The Invisible Comittee
give me the quick rundown on cockshott
sounds based as fuck
You left out selecting administration through sortition. Which referendums and other direct democratic means take a back seat to in Cockshotts proposal.
His recommended reading?
See the empirical marxism reading list, but here's some examples: (warning: the economics part does involve a bit of higher math)
–General overview of his views–
–Socialist Economic Planning and Computability–
not really, there's direct democracy for the general outlines of what happens, the randomly selected legislature just works out the details and carries out the will of what was directly voted on, just like some governments today have to figure out how to implement something that's been decided on by referendum.
this is fine imo, though, most people dont want to spend 100% of their day voting on things to the nth anal detail, but still have direct democratic control over what happens
Also, youtube playlist: