Stop procrastinating and start reading leftist theory whether it's Bordiga, Cockshott or Zizek so you can properly agitate and discuss the state of the left.
Stop procrastinating and start reading leftist theory whether it's Bordiga...
Other urls found in this thread:
Why do we still like pop-left liberal who complains about liberals Zizek in this day and age? He ran his shock value dry during the Trump debacle which was really all he had going for him, although his analysis of migration in Europe is pretty spot on
Kore wa!! Study, study, study, just like Lenin-sensei says!
Just finnished capital volume 1.
READ LENIN 2017
user-chan if you bully Zizek-sensei I'll hate you. I'll hate you forever!! And never ever forgive you!!
If you honestly, in all candor, believe that Zizek runs his course solely as a means of consistent agitation to liberals, you've terribly sidelined the man.
Is it any good? Revolution at the Gates wasn't very good imo. Didn't have much to do with Lenin at all really. I always enjoy reading Lenin so I liked the first half, but the second half (Zizeks part) wasn't my thing.
But A.W. told me not to read Bordiga. :(
Yes, he actually crits Leninism and the whole system it inspires and if you spend 10 mins thinking about it you can construct a better DotP.
is it available online already? i would check but can't atm
Further solidfying my thought on (You) being one of my favourite posters
lmao @ calling Zizek a liberal
He is a trot at best and trots are liberals
re-reading rafiq to be quite honest
Lets assess the facts
hes a Trot. Its plain. It is also plain that, Trots are liberals
"advocating revolution" out of nowhere without account of the material conditions and ideological dimensions would be petty-bourgeois leftism
also did he really "endorse" trump or did he attempt to describe the possibilities?
But everything on this site is good
It doesn't have to be "take up arms and kill porky" he did not say, form example, form of join revolutionary parties, organise the proletariat in their place of work and in their communities, for a future communist revolution. These are all options.
he did in fact endorse Trump and later said he was only pretending to be retarded.
I mean, he is funny. And his film crit is entertaining, hes not totally useless, but as for revolutionary theory I'm not sure hes the guy
He really didn't endorse him ffs. Not being able to detect why he said he'd vote him is a sign of autism.
stop using the anarchist flag limp dicked leninist
What is the exact text or interview being referenced here? Link?
First you must ask: Why do you want to learn these? That is crucial. Asking and stimulating this question, critically and incessantly will lead you to the knowledge you seek -so long as you don't cut it short. If you answer your own question with "Because I want freedom, because i want a just, moral world" then you are cutting the process of knowledge-acquisition short by reducing it to uncritically held premises.
To begin: Begin with the ruthless criticism of everything and anything and hold every single thing to questioning. Including yourself.
Now we must ask: What it is about them, drawing from the first question, that you would like to know? Neutral knowledge isn't possible. You must relate these ideas even to your life and yourself, spiritually - what they mean at that level. Continuing to do this will lead you to the knowledge you seek.
Introducing Communism today is difficult. The meaning of works in relation to their time do not automatically register the same meaning today when they are read. The true and essential meaning must be translated to make sense given our ideological, etc. predicimant.
I would say read and struggle to understand Zizek: I recommend as an intro 'In Defence of Lost Causes' or 'Living in the End Times', both are easy reads. You will not understand everything at first. Nor can you be expected to. But the key is to keep on moving. To keep struggling.
Do not EVER cease thinking critically. If you do not understand something, isolate what specifically about that something you do not understand and hold yourself to it: do not assume the author is confused like you are.
If I understood this when I first began reading Marx, I would have saved myself a lot of time.
But I'm halfway through my philosophy reading list and I'm still stuck on Kant
I have been a Marxist for over five years. And the true, full meaning of Principles of Communism I have only recently grasped.
There is a key ingredient you're missing in your recommendations, and it's relavence. When those texts came out, the language they used in its full, substantive meaning, the 'spark' certain words had, were entirely different than today.
Diving head in to classical Marxism is a catastrophe. They can only be fully understood retrosprectively or they won't maie sense, and their relavency won't be grasped (and if it is, only superifically).
Sorry to say but there is no easy guide to the meaning of socialism today, because there exists no meaningful socialist discourse. When Engels wrote Principles of Communism, he and Marx had already gotten a lot of shit together. We haven't yet. I don't even think Zizek had completed this proceds: Until we start engaging cybernetics, do what Marx as a newtonian for a critique of political economy, with quantum mechanics, until we are able to in a materialist fashion fully critique the entire world as it is, Marxism will remain a perverse, outdated school that never completes itself and remains confined to a single layer of life (industrial capitalism) long subsumed. I just want to point out how naive it is to think there is some easy introduction to socialism. There isn't.
Finally, appealing to current levels of understanding will disallow individuals to learn, which includes huge epistemological shifts in the process. When I first read the two books in question, I didn't fully understand them. But I kept TRYING to understand and eventually I got it. Learning must be a struggle or there will be no learning. The two texts are very good introductions to the present.
Marx wasn't a Newtonian, where does this lie come from? You are not the first to say it here.
Read this please:
You misread the post.
No? They wrote that Marx did to economics what Newton did to physics, which is very far from truth.
Rafiq is merely saying that Marx was pivotal in the development of revolutionary Marxism via the critique of political economy like Newton was pivotal for mathematics, as opposed to you thinking that he meant that Marx had a "Newtonian theory" of economics.
Not being a Newtonian in the age after Newton but before Einstein would quite literally be retarded. I don't think Marx was retarded. The argument of the article just seems to be that Marx wasn't directly inspired by Newton in the writing of Capital. That's a different claim.
I'm not saying he did endorse him, although he sorta did but obviously just for lolz but he was still engaging in "which shit puppet is best"
He was retarded just like his senpai Hegel.
But what if it wash the opposite??
Reading a combination of histories on early Soviet Russia and then-contemporary theory
JUST FUCKING READ MARX, ENGELS, AND LENIN HOLY SHIT
And you wonder why the left is dying…
don't actually do this
and Max Stirner.
I know many here hate AW, but he does post theory reading videos for those too lazy to do their own reading. Not the best, but when when he gets serious and isn't shitposting like the Bordiga videos he is pretty entertaining.
AW is incredibly smart actually.
I like him tbh. I would like to chat with him 1 on 1 someday, no recording just learn from each other, just a conversation.
Im studying liberal economics but cockshotts new socialism is on my to buy list.
it only seems that way because you're incredibly dumb. yui, aw, everyone else who hangs out with them are classic pseuds. they read some books to confirm their preconceptions and think they have all the answers. see aw with winfield or yui with foucault. they're little better than the stalinists who read a few tankie books and think the same. they only impress those who haven't done any reading themselves.
There isn't much to discuss. It's completely shit in every conceivable way.
The only way it could possibly be worse is if huge sections of the "left" literally worship capitalism… oh wait.