What is your political ideology?

What is your political ideology?

Do you keep up with the news? Through what channels?

How many books do you read a year?

What percentage of books you read are politics related (in a strict sense)?

How often do you try to read your political ideology into movies and media?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/Anarchism AnarchistNews IWW LibertarianLeft LibertarianSocialism Market_Socialism NOWTTYG Rad_Decentralization SelfSufficiency anarchistpics anarchocommunism anarchosyndicalism blackflag georgism media_criticism mutualism news progun uncensorednews worldanarchism worldnews/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Generic libertarian leftist.

I hate-watch FOX sometimes and that's about it. Mainstream news is the equivalent of tabloid magazines but with a false notion of intellectualism.

About 5 to 10. I read a lot online, however, as well as listen to lectures and watch documentaries on politically relevant topics before I go to sleep.

Nearly all of them.

Do you mean: how often do I try to view fiction through a political lens? Often. It's not constant because I like to enjoy the art of it, too, but it certainly enters my mind.

Thanks, and good morning/evening.

AnCom.
Twitter/forums.
I don't know. I do a lot of reading that isn't books, too.
75% or more.
I can't not do it anymore.

I guess you could just call me a "Marxist", but I sympathize with people fighting against imperialism, sort of for their right to self determine so I can't be called a leftcom. I feel that left communism has influenced me a lot though. I've learned a lot from people who follow that school of thought and I think they have a good grasp, specifically Bordiga and his followers. I'm skeptical of the first world's ability to organize and revolt however. I'm also probably a little more actually reactionary than most leftists as I'm a Muslim.

I try to keep up with news. I mostly get it from a variety of sources online. I don't watch TV and try to keep away from what is considered "MSM"

I'm not sure. I live by a library, literally a block away. I read a lot of books about religion, fantasy, and theory. I read the Qur'an once a year as well.

I'd say it's pretty even. I don't feel like reading fiction all the time, but I also can't just read strict non-fiction. I need a mix. I also, like most here I suspect, read a lot of articles and watch documentaries as well. I'll often end a browsing session here with 5 or 6 tabs open of things to read and watch.

I don't try to read too specific, but I enjoy connecting the dots of artists commenting on consumer culture, imperialism, and the degradation of humanity in general.

some sort of nihilist anarchism bullshit, I keep up with the news through friends and anarchist websites, I don't know how much I read on a yearly basis, like, only 3/4 this year so far unfortunately, I've been sort of out of it. Every book I read is politics related.
I consistently look for other ideologies in movies and media.

Snowpiercer was nihilist af tho

I really enjoyed Snowpiercer. My husband and I were talking about it just the other day.

a (not very good) christian who really likes marx
I don't really except what's filtered through memes on here, twitter and ultraleft reddit
I guess that depends on what counts as a book. I don't really keep track cause a lot of it's online and a lot of the shit that gets published as books is available in article form on like libcom and marxists.org but I can list the big ones and the really good ones I've read in the last twelve months and which ones I'd recommend in a moment here
basically all of them. sometimes I'd move on to philosophy or to those famous books that you're supposed to read but I never read in school
I don't try but that shit just happens. This is why I can't follow the news anymore. Every time I try to listen to NPR while I'm driving I gotta turn it off every couple seconds to rant to myself about the shit I just heard.

generic pro-freedom leftie, if I had to pick a system to lead us to glorious Star Trek FALC utopia I'd say Syndicalism.
Tough not to, mostly just this site, TV on for background noise and the garbage people sometimes listen to the radio in stores.
varies, maybe a half-dozen or so
varies a lot, it's not a huge amount
Tough not to, I can't take the Hoffman Lenses off no matter what I try or how hammered I get. I'm kinda jumpy that way and trying not to fall into the same or similar pitfalls or paranoia Holla Forumsyps tend to wallow in.

Ancom/Ansyn

Yes. Holla Forums and I browse news sites.

No idea it varies a lot. Not much this year because I've been busy. Hopefully I'll get something in before next semester.

Again it varies. I read a good amount of theory and juggle "pop-nonfiction" like Devil's Chessboard (reccomended by an user here, read it if you can) and fiction.

I'm hoping to be a director so a lot. I constantly view media through a socialist lense, which I'm unsure if it is autism or putting on the glasses.

Anyways here's the books I've read that I can remember in sorta chronological order from how I read 'em (I know no one's probably gonna read this shit but I like sharing so if someone gets something out of it, that's great):
-Capital (all 3 volumes)- veeerrrrryyyyyy good obviously. I read vol 1 a little while ago, but I didn't get any of it because it was the first extended work of Marx's I'd read and I hadn't taken any econ courses in /uni/ yet which actually helps make sense of it quite a lot. Lemme tell ya, if it didn't make sense to you the first time, it's really worth reading again after going through some secondary literature and more basic works on poliecon by marx, cause that shit is like mindblowingly good once you start to make sense of it. Perhaps what's most important if you want to get into it is to know what's not helpful as a secondary source. In my experience, the David Harvey lectures as well as the Kapitalism101 videos did more harm than good (people might disagree with me here but please trust me, they're overrated and you're probably better off reading some actual secondary literature and Marx himself on the subject than listening to youtube vids explaining the LVT)
-Secondary /lit/ on capital that I read beforehand:
Fine and Saad Fihlo's book and Michael Heinrich's book are both very helpful but Heinrich's was especially clear though I disagreed with his reading later on at several points. Before leaving the subject of Capital I should note that the best introduction to marx's treatment of the subject would probably be "wage labor and capital" and "value price and profit"
-Commie Manifesto and Gotha- I liked the commie manifesto a lot more at the time, but I'm starting to warm up to Gotha more as I read more of Marx's work which makes me think that maybe it's best to read it after Capital. It seems like the commie manifesto has gone from being massively overrated to massively underrated as an introduction to communist theory. I honestly think it provides a rather good starting framework for understanding a lot of things more in depth later on. It's like you can see Marx's thought process before he started getting into more research which is rather revealing in spite of some of its errors. Gotha is good but I'm not sure I'm ready to comment on it because I haven't fully made sense of it yet.
-Gilles Dauve "Eclipse and Reemergence"- very simple and clear introduction. Thought I honestly don't remember much of it now, I do remember it being pretty fun to read at the time and Dauve had a couple ideas that were pretty interesting as well as a concise summary of ultraleft views and history in one chapter (1/2)

-various stuff by plato with socrates in it (including part of Republic, but I was too tired to get through the whole thing)- I was starting out on this really good philosophy reading list and so naturally this was one of the things that came first. I'm honestly not sure what happened but I don't think I was ready for it because I didn't get much out of it. I was still in /uni/ when I was reading through republic so that might have been part of the reason. I feel kinda bad about this one still
-Illiad/Odyssey (again part of the philosophy reading list)- very entertaining but I worry again that I wasn't ready for them because I didn't feel I got much out of them. I may read them again if I have time someday.
-Magee "story of Philosophy" and Hamilton "Mythology"- part of the same reading list. Very easy introductory material (it seemed like Magee's might have been written for middleschoolers but I didn't mind much). The first is a simple summary of the history of philosophy and famous philosophers, the second, a compilation of greek mythology
-Brandon Bernard Scott "The Real Paul"- an interesting summary of various attempts to bring historical context into reading Paul. Basically emphasizes Paul's political role as an important figure in an anti-imperial movement which laid a heavy stress on a sort of proto-internationalism. Looking back I would say it's worth a read but don't take it too seriously. I was much more socially liberal and generally secular at the time than I am now and I was mainly looking for a way to justify that view after having read the new testament. It's an account worth considering, but not worth fully accepting.
-The New Testament- I did not like reading this at the time, I'll admit it. I was a very socially liberal anarkid at the time, but I had been raised catholic so I liked to think somehow I'd finally reconcile my political views with what Christ and Paul told me, but I was not really ready to do that. In fact I wasn't even ready to listen to what they had to say and consider it in good faith. Slowly I feel like I'm retroactively making sense of a lot of the things I read in there. I will be reading the Old Testament and rereading the New Testament again soon. To any people who are interested in reading the Bible here (I doubt there are many but there may be at least some) my advice to you looking back is to really take Paul seriously as someone trying to argue a case, because often that's what he's doing. It's not enough to simply accept each statement as standalone statements to be quoted at people or as a dogma that every christian must believe (though ultimately you gotta agree with paul to be a Christian). Follow the structure of Paul's arguments and grapple with them because that's how you make sense of them.
-"What I Believe" Leo Tolstoy- Honestly looking back it wasn't very good. Honestly he shoulda just stuck to fiction cause this was a bad reading of the Bible and a horrible political program. Sorry Leo. Pacifism is fucking stupid :)
-Breadbook- This one's not very good too, looking back. Sorry Kropotkin, but anarchism is stupid and wrong.

shit I didn't realize I'd written that much. well sorry fellas. hope someone gets something out of this.

>reddit.com/r/Anarchism AnarchistNews IWW LibertarianLeft LibertarianSocialism Market_Socialism NOWTTYG Rad_Decentralization SelfSufficiency anarchistpics anarchocommunism anarchosyndicalism blackflag georgism media_criticism mutualism news progun uncensorednews worldanarchism worldnews/

that's interesting. are you muslim or is this just an interest of yours? I've met a couple of christian socialists but I can't say I've met a muslim socialist yet.
I haven't really read much on imperialism, do you have any sources you'd recommend?

Nothing new under the sun.

What specifically didn't you like about the Bread Book? Between "Mutual Aid", "Debt", and his essays on anarchist morality, the body of work came across admittedly as far less in-depth and rigorous than Marxist literature, but at the same time remained much truer to its original ultra-materialist and liberatory roots in a way only matched in modern times by Marxian communization (which comes to similar conclusions anyways).

post tits

that's more or less it from what I can remember. It's rather difficult to describe but while Kropotkin often had very insightful ideas, it felt like he was working without a method. You may disagree here but, it seems to me like Kropotkin's brand of anarchism could be roughly seen as liberalism taken to its logical conclusions, no matter how impractical those conclusions may be. In that sense, he was certainly admirable in his consistency and went further than a lot of liberal political theorists, but ultimately as far as understanding the world, I think Marx's work has an approach that's much more interesting.

Maybe that assessment is not entirely fair. I may be projecting some of my own views at the time onto Kropotkin. I will certainly be reading "Debt the first 5000 years" very soon and I will hopefully also read Mutual Aid soon so if my assessment was not fair then I suppose I'll find out soon enough.

Stratocracy

I purposefully avoid local/national news.
It is seldom relevant to me or my political goals.
I try to keep up with international news however.

Around 24.
More if you have a loose definition of what constitutes a book.

Maybe 25% of what I read is strictly related to politics.
The majority is comprised of a mixture of philosophy and history.

Quite often.

Marxism-Leninism


Yes, through, BBC ,Reditt(pls no bulyng), and Youtube


Around 40


This year around 15


Depends, I try to don't do it constantly as it makes you really cynical.

Anarchist. Daily News Thread. Around 30-40 I think. Maybe half of them or more. Rarely.

If you guys would really read this many books the discussion here wouldn't be so fucking dumb most of the times

Tiqqun/Invisible Committee except I've never read Heidegger

fedbook, newspaper, TV, internet generally

Can't say, probably a lot, and they are almost all politics or philosophy

always

>hi I'm tumblr Tankie, here to act like a condescending prick while offering no evidence as to why I'm better or better-read than you