How many books have you actually read?

...

So anything above 0

I've read more than three. It was a waste of fucking time. This whole "theory" obsession is so a bunch of bookworms can parrot received opinions in a circlejerk and feel clever about themselves. I look at the "theory" spouters here and on reddit and wish nothing but harm upon them.

The Dunning-Kruger effect, everyone!

Five in the last month, with a couple I'm nearly finished with.

Do we have any one a day'ers here (at least on average)

Actually it's so we can have a better understanding of the political world of 21st century late capitalism, and what can change about that. Unfortunately, the form that often takes is RPers falling in love with the USSR, or people just dogmatically accepting the first opinion they hear (as you stated) and then positing it as part of their identity. In some sort of weird sectarian commodity fetishism.

But remember, most of the people on this book at like 20. They're young. How can you honestly expect a 20 year old to say something that hasn't been said before (let alone any human beings, without the intervention of geniuses).

This idea that it's a waste of time is stupid though. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just some retard who couldn't follow along in the book he was reading and gave up.

He isn't. 3 books is a lot for the average person, so for anyone here that has accomplished such a task, you should be commended. Our anti-intellectual societies have conditioned proles since birth to not read complex theory texts, so if you take the effort to fight against that programming, you're an awesome comrade!

Spoken like a true witless thug!

Come on them, faggots, what has all that time spent reading enabled you to change?

FUCKING NOTHING, THAT'S WHAT.

It is a waste of time and you should all kill yourselves in the hope that the rest of us might manage to achieve something, freed from the dead weight of your presence.

There's also a ton of people out there who don't read, more than have read theory in fact, and shit still hasn't changed. Guess what this exact logic says about the merits of not reading theory?

What has all that time you spent not reading changed? It hasn't changed shit. What do you spend your time doing?

Historically I can think of examples of reading theory leading to change. Like Lenin studying Marx. Like Marx studying Rousseau, etc.

Are you just some >muh bricks anarkiddie who thinks the end of capitalism will magically appear if you occupy wallstreet enough?

I've read a dickton and I'm proud, not for knowing theory so much as HISTORY

Plekhanov and Mehring wrote some of the most crucial things for me on history of philosophy and materialism
Marx and Engel's most essential works on communism (1844 Manuscripts, German Ideology, Capital Vol 1, Wage Labor and Capital, Anti-Duhring, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific/Principles of Communism, motherfucking GRUNDRISSE)
One of the first things I tried was, without any background, reading Critique of Pure Reason…bad call. Did eventually take basic course outlining Descartes, Leibniz, Lock, Hume, Berkley. Read some Hegel (History of Phil, sections of Logic)
Althusser, Aristotle, Plato
Then there's Lenin and Trotsky
Luxy and Kautsky
Bakunin and Tomsky
DeLeon and Gramsci
Then some more recent things like Mao and Debord. I don't know of many developments since the late 60's.

But seriously there are way too many writers out there
Best thing is to understand XXth century Communism. Social Democracy → WW1 → Bolshevism → Comintern involvement around the world because WE CANNOT FUCKING REPEAT THE COMINTERN

You have to do both tbqh famalams.

You know we read theory because we don't want to needlessly repeat events or debates. Historical precedence is a real thing (it can inform us of actions to take), plus we need to understand what capital is if we want to dismantle it. If a bookworm can't explain things to you they are bad bookworms.

I don't think anyone say anything to the contrary. We were arguing against the MAKE CHANGE NOW 18 year old who thinks any sort of theory (how do you even know what you think without a theory behind it?) is a waste of time.

Hundreds. Been studying continental philosophy and critical theory for close to a decade now.

Hard to pinpoint a personal favorite. SotS has been incredibly influential, but several people have already mentioned it. I also have a very soft spot in my heart for Baudrillard, even though some of his work should be selectively forgotten, particularly his attack on the viability of political projects. Other 20th century favorites and influences include Benjamin, Adorno and Deleuze. As far as the 21st century goes, Franco Berardi is probably my favorite current theorist. His book on mass shootings and suicide is excellent. It succinctly explains the psychopathology of a guy like Anders Breivik or Seung‑Hui Cho, and how that frighteningly common psychopathology correlates with the ideology of neoliberalism. Great read.

Currently reading Phil Sandifer's Neoreaction a Basilisk, which he sent a review copy of. It's about Nick Land, Moldbug and the alt-right. Equally entertaining/funny and scary. I will post a digital copy of it after he officially releases it later this month.

Doctor Who fan?

Everything, it says everything. Just look at Holla Forums and their meme magic for. Trump approaches the white house and they didn't need a scrap of theory to create change.

My physical fitness levels. I'm still trying to meet non SJW people to organize with, finding normies worth building affinity with is proving harder than expected. Still, I dared to leave my basement.

No, as before, I stand by my claim it's a bunch of faggots wanting to feel superior in their little book club.

So do you really think it's useless then? Or just the way it's manifested on Holla Forums is useless and pretentious?

The idea that Holla Forums didn't need a theory is false though. They rode a rising tide with what they knew about memes (a theory) that epoused a messaged based on Alt-Right thought, populist conspiracy theories, and Yuri Bezmenov. They also spend hours listening to Stefan Molyneux. How is this not the equivalent of learning theory?

Yeap. He's a bit of a turd I must admit, but he makes up for it by causing a great deal of consternation amongst both liberals and the alt-right.

I found him through Holla Forums a few years ago. Same for you? His arrogance just drips off the page but I have liked a lot of his essays.

Nope, I came across him and his work via Twitter. In what context did you find him on Holla Forums? Was a Dr. Who essay posted there or something?

Indeed, he can be incredibly arrogant at times.

What's that book?

Which one are you referencing?

I think it's useless and pretentious EVERYWHERE. Useless niggers like are ten a penny here and on reddit. All that retard wants is to talk about how many obscure books he's read. He doesn't actually want to do anything. They're honestly worse than useless; at least if we're repeating the mistakes of the past we're actually organising and building a network of comrades to struggle with. These theory niggers just want to read obscure books and drone on at each other about how clever they are.

They really haven't needed to do that at all. I remember halfchan's Holla Forums and the entire thing revolved around appeals to emotion and confirmation bias. A few of them might have read things like Evola but was in no way a requirement for their group to function.

Reading is for Fags

The mass shooting and suicide.

There's an epub of it on libgen. Can't find a pdf, unfortunately.

Arigatou

Theory noob reporting in.
Currently reading pic related.
Cybernetics in Economy. It has nice and brief introduction to cybernetics, theory of information and other basic concepts.

Before that I read Cybernetics by Ross W. Ashby, then I read "Introduction to Philosophy" as an extensive primer to dialectical materialism.

Gonna raid few more antiquarian bookshops to get some Engels, Marx and Lenin. Along with other books on topics of cybernetics, automation.

Also I sort of inherited entire Das Kapital from my deceased grandpa. So it is on my list of reading.
But I am probably going to read the conspect first.

But as the next book to read is The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir. If I am to join any organization of any sort, I need to be acquainted with basic ideas of feminism.

Somehow I have conceded to the fact that I am merely a machine with inputs, memory and outputs. The inputs and outputs are both matter/energy and also information. So to expand my mind, I need to consume books. Quite literally.

I definitely agree with you to a certain extent. Holla Forums is in many ways just a continuation of the pretentious contrarians from /lit/ or /mu/ and have existed throughout. But I still disagree that there is NO reason to read theory.

Why can't action and theory coexist. I would argue active without some sort of theory is impossible (even if the theory is subconscious or just based on immediate beliefs).

But I get the sense you're saying theory has gotten in the way of action, and I think you're right. But let's be honest, this board is full with nerdy rich college kids who wouldn't, in practice, really be willing to give up their standard of living, so for them I think it's fair to call theory pointless and masturbatory, but they wouldn't be part of the Left in the long run anyways so does it really matter?

As for the point about Evola and few Holla Forumstards reading him: absolutely but in this sort of meme culture, theory and ideology is spread in 3 minute youtube clips and jpgs, but it's still theory.

I've been researching what to read more than I have been reading. Holla Forums and /freedu/ have helped immensely in that regard. The left is a quagmire of sectarianism, misinformation, and turgid lies. Its taken me around 8 months just to get a foothold in this dank swamp. I hope within another 6 months I might be a comrade worthy of the name.

Spoiler that shit, faggot.

wot

Why, then, is every other leftist site filled with these wastes of covalent bonds?

Which is a fair position to take. Acting on subconscious or immediate beliefs doesn't require ploughing massive amounts of time into reading obscure texts, though, does it?

They're an impediment to getting anything done.

I don't think I'm inclined to agree, but I think a large part of my objection is semantic: theory implies something more coherent than Holla Forums offers.

How can I count? I didn't keep track. If I had to estimate somewhere between 50 and 80 I guess.

If you can count then you're not reading enough yet

I have attempted to read three or four economics books but I am sad to report that I have not finished anyway.

If your argument is "we should be lumpen", then you're voluntarily ceding any claim to have a plan past "get power." You may as well just go to Holla Forums and spend all your time dickwaving with all the other tryhards who just see their political lives as another masculine placebo.

Here's the plan you pompous arse:

Get power
Secure food and shelter on a permanent basis

Now either get off your arse and help or stfu, cockwomble

Wich ones?

Here's an observation: tripfags are sooo into theory but not one of them is in any kind of organization.

I don't know if you're just allergic to specificity or if you think "???? profit" is a legitimate course of action, but right now you sound *exactly* like those polchimps who babble that "nuance is the faggiest thing ever."

If you need to dream up nefarious motives for people interested in theory to console yourself, fine; but don't pretend that your Trumplike disdain for it is morally or intellectually higher.

Could it be perhaps the harshest truth of all: that the vast majority of leftist organizations are home to either sectarianism, outdated tactics, the support of liberalist ideological refuse or some unholy combination of the three?

Could it be that in rejecting dogmatism and the basic knuckledragger impulse to 'do something, anything, regardless of any theoretical knowledge', one such as myself ends up disliking these kinds of organizations and denying myself their membership?

The answer to both these propositions is yes.

The obvious observation from what we've just elaborated is easy: why don't I just take part in crafting my own organization if I dislike all others currently in existence?

I have, and her name is Bunkerchan.

How do I into reading?
I haven't really actively read for years. I find it difficult to sit down and read. How do I get back into reading to study theory, comrades?

"Specificity" is simply you excusing yourself for inaction and procrastination. You are exactly the person I am complaining about.
Book club is this way.
>>>/lit/

KEK

Whatever, you're a lost cause more interested in bullshitting up obvious lies to console yourself for being too retarded and lazy to read difficult literature. Holla Forums is waiting for you.

Simple, real world example proving your need for "specificity" is really just covering up the fact you want don't want to do anything:

tomsbiketrip.com/planning-a-bike-tour/

Oh, fuck off, tripfag! There are study groups all around, you can do monthly meetings, you can at least partake in party politics as an outsider who is at least interested in what happens at the trenches and give critical feedback which most orgs crave, you can live in communes for a few months, you can work with anarchists on shared objectives, BUT NOT YOU! YOU ARE TOO SPECIAL! And it's not YOUR fault, naturally, but people are too stupid to collaborate with.

You really imagine yourself as some manstermind behind leftypol?

pathetic

I'm glad you're starting to understand why you need to read more theory.

This. Elitism is the mark of Holla Forums, not socialists.

>>>Holla Forums

I do, but I don't flaunt it. It feeds my desire to partake in communist politics, not hinders it.

Sounds like you need to read more theory.

Yui. Please.

Stop being Inteligentsia.

Wasted enough time doing that, thanks.

kindred spirits of opposite ends:

bitch, do you even class struggle?

Kek'd

Kek'd

this is what idiots actually believe

what kind of help are you talking about?

Jesus I hope you're joking.
Do you seriously think that having any kind of revolutionary tactics, analysis, or theory is unnecessary? How do you plan to secure workers' control?

psychological, presumably

Kek'd

Propaganda. Organization. Strategies to disrupt capitalist organizations. Food and shelter if we need to go insurrectionist.

I think you're all deluding yourselves into thinking this can be preplanned and predicted. It's comical.

Again, please point out the number of successful revolutions thanks to all that worthless reading. It's zero! None!

You realize these need theory, no?

It doesn't matter how emphatic or self-assured your tone is when you make these arguments, they're still non-sequiturs and you're still an immature rat obsessed with action for action's sake.

On what planet are strategies not theory? How can you have a strategy without analysis, understanding and tactics?

point out the number of successful revolutions thanks to not reading

le argument from "we're not there yet"

No, they do not. They require analysis, yes. They do not require someone who is acquainted with Stirner or Marx

The whole point with that link is there are lot of things in life you just can't plan for. It's a real world example of something where pre-planning is in large part an irrelevance.

That's why all your cries of "Read more theory" are simply demands for inaction. I imagine mummy and daddy are paying for your liberal arts educations, your iPhone and your lattes and so you have no real desire to see change in the system. This is just your "edgy phase".

Book club is this way, son.
>>>/lit/

In that all the theory texts you lot circlejerk over are exposition of nebulous hypotheses. There is nothing that I can put to practical use in these texts (presentation of the State and Revolution excepted, which seems to be singular oddity). If I need to organize a strike, do you expect me to pass out copies of "The Conquest of Bread" and pray for the best?

Democratic Kampuchea were a bunch of ignorant motherfuckers, you know? :P

Nothing you can put to practical use? I mean I'd agree that Kropotkin isn't who I'd recommend for strong political theory, but if you don't understand how to turn theory into practice then you really need to learn how to learn, comrade.
If you think historical revolutionaries didn't read theory you are sorely mistaken. They read it and they wrote it.

Literally kill yourself. You are a lumpen liability to this movement with your intentional strawmen.

It is not useful. I don't need half a million texts to spell out the glaringly obvious. I've got a copy of a text by a certain Carlos Marighella. Far more interesting.

A "movement" would imply action, something you're steadfastly opposed to, you worthless maggot.

Just because you're a caveman retard who fetishizes action over everything else doesn't mean I reject action entirely, you illiterate faggot.

Jesus how thick are you. If you are reading a text on revolutionary strategy or tactics, then you are already reading theory

And guess what; it's useful.

Read of finished? Important distinction tbh

In what sense is it leftist? I haven't read it myself yet but got kinda interested in it because it seemed like it might be useful to develop a leftist strategy of violence.

This isn't a philosophical text. Here, theory means chairwarmers reading philosophy. Just look at the reading lists that get passed around.

Bullshit.

Philosophy is a type of theory, just as political tactics are a type of theory.

I can't believe I'm having to explain something so basic.

Hey, remember that time you said that theory can't deal with the unexpected, thereby proving that you don't know what theory is or anything about the position you're arguing against? Man, what a complete retard.

He's just a caveman faggot who wants to find some tortured way of turning his retardation into moral and intellectual virtue.

Theorization and constant analysis shouldn't be an end in itself, I'd proud myself more in taking part in a organization, helping put its roots in a territory, spreading information, to put it simple to actually do politics.
I believe that one of the reason the radical left has stopped being relevant it's because it confined itself in the academia and became a cultural fetish for the elite.

No. Leftypol does not discuss political tactics. At all. As I said, here theory means philosophy.

My mental images are unfounded? Is that why half the fuckers on IRC openly express their contempt for "normies"?

Clearly you've been here about 5 minutes then.

...

The Holla Forums ideology is real

regarding theory/practice debate… this text from Invisible Committee posted in another thread (>>712701) seems relevant:

No.

I'm currently trying to get through the phenomenology of spirit and having a rough time.
The stuff I do understand is really interesting though.

fuck, meant to quote

Would you like to explain why the image is wrong? Let's take as an example Judith Butler's work. Her entire thesis is reducible down the idea "no-one is born wearing a dress or make-up". No shit! What exactly is the need to trawl through several hundred pages of filler that she's added to pad out this self-evident assertion?

If you're really going to try to argue that reading is worthless because "LEL U CAN JUST GET THE UN-NUANCED TRUTH SPOONFED TO YOU BY SOMEONE WHO HAS READ THE BOOK AND IS TOTALLY NOT PRESENTING THEIR OWN SELF-INTERESTED SPIN ON IT", you seriously have no place in a anything related to leftism or anarchism. I will not lower myself to arguing with this right-wing level of anti-intellectualism.

I'm not saying you need to be a motherfuckin scholar of philosophy to be a leftist or an anarchist, but if you can't be arsed to even read some basic theory - most of which is even enjoyable to read - then you are just a fucking worthless person.

You have to get that beliefs from somewhere. Either you indoctrinate/brainwash yourself with cliches floating around, or with revolutionary ideas that break with those cliches and are thus harder to both explain and understand, ergo books are written and read.

I've got other things I want to do and are probably more immediately productive, that's the point. I remember someone showed me a video of Zizek making the same point about endless direct democracy meetings; he wanted to stay home hand do something he enjoyed not attend endless meetings.

You don't have an answer, then.

1) I have read theory. You'll note that I did say as much earlier.
2) Reading those texts was a fucking chore. They were about as enjoyable as dental surgery. I cannot understand why you think reading texts written in archaic or deliberately cryptic language is anything other than frustrating and irritating.

This is your brain on thuggery.

THIS

Allot of the texts are dry and archaic as fuck.
The only books you need to read are the manifesto, das kapital and State and revolution.

Y'all need to quit masterbating over fucking books and ACTUALLY FUCKING DO SOMETHING. Turn up to demos, vote,Join a party, create propaganda. Instead of wanking over authors.

You fuckers should also learn how the current system is ran. Non of you fuckers can tell me how a business is run and what a LLC is.

No-one insists that you read von Neumann or Turing to operate a computer or Newton's Principia to drop things, fool.

Also, Ulysses 31 for anime illiad!

Probably thirty-forty? Depends what counts, and I generally read a lot more history than theory or economics.

" A lot"

Also, just because the texts are "dry and archaic" does not mean they don't have pertinent information inside. Whether you read Bakunin, Lenin, Marx, Proudhon, or some newer people, you're going to learn how the economy works. That's information and knowledge.

How the hell are you going to come into this thinking you can read "Das Kapital" by yourself and understand the strongest arguments of Marx by yourself, with just one read through? That makes no sense.

Everyone has to start somewhere and just learning about them from people around here and helps immensely. Class struggle isn't individualist.

CEOs make decisions, you're stuck with the results. Working class gets screwed, capitalist class gets paid off your misery.

Did I miss anything pertinent?

The economic manuscripts are also essential

By ingrained customs, habit, and metaphorical duct tape and string

Limited Liability Corporation

Dry and archaic isn't good. Lenin made films to explain the concept of communism to the masses because it was accessible. The problem is accessibility. Dry and archaic != good.

Of course they have to start somewhere. Which is why you pass em leaflets instructing them on the basics.

Wrong its the board that makes decisions. The shareholders have a vote on it.

They need to be made assessable. Since political philosphers have a habbit of being dry as fuck.

Your kinda right. What creates those customs are called rules of association. Basically its how the business is ran.

which means?

Currently:
-Revolución Peruana, Autonomía y Deslindes, by Carlos Delgado. (Theoretical approach to Velasco's selfmanaged socialism)
-Participation in Politics, edited by Pennock and Chapman
-Participatory Democracy, edited by Roussoupoulos and Benello.
-Por Una Vuelta al Socialismo, a compilation of the best articles of G. A. Cohen.

Favs:
-Participation and Democratic Theory, by Carole Pateman.
-Against Capitalism, by David Schweickart
-Governing the Commons, by Elinor Ostrom.
-On Revolution, by Hannah Arendt.
-La Revolución Participatoria, by Carlos Franco (another theoretical approacho to Velasco's selfmanaged socialism).

Seriously, as much as I like that book, would recommend people reading it to the letter someday, that is one of the most dry and archaic books of all time. Unless you're initiated into some economic theory, preferably the dialectical method too, you're going to have a bitch of a time trying to understand what's really going on, and even then many require a steady, helping hand to gleam some kind of meaning from that text.

I mean, seriously das Kapital is a hell of a big book—as in three eight-hundred-plus page volumes. And then you're trying to tell the thread that theory shouldn't be dry and archaic, that one should merely GET OUT THERE? Puh-lease.

Stock holders, ie the owners of the company, are protected from liability for the debts of the corporation

As opposed to older forms, for example Loyd's

If anything I would argue that it is the reverse. These rule of association are formal, even informal unincorporated businesses operates according to custom, think in terms of the british constitution as compared to the formalized USian constitution

Things like explaining what the M – C – M, C – M – C means, and noting where it comes from; also, that the ultimate goal of communism is to abolish work per Marx The German Ideology (contra Stirnir) and also implied in the Manuscripts would be the kind of thing for such brochures

This following comment is pertinent

archive.is/kNMyR#selection-1019.0-1019.741

>The actual problem is in part the fault of the self-proclaimed Marxists — namely, no one bothers to distinguish between proletarianism and left-Menckenism (the “smug style”, if you prefer), so your average ‘Marxist’ talks a line superficially resembling the former in order to advance the latter. So when Joe Flyover sees Marxism, he (reasonably) thinks “here’s another goddamn freak from Oakland or Brooklyn who wants to sarin-gas every state without a coastline”, tunes out, and maybe votes for Trump. Every few months I see a post from an evident true believer in Marxist proletarianism, acting all surprised that it’s not hard to propagate Marxist proletarianism, but for the vast majority of them, left-Menckenism seems to be the point.

What is "left-Menckenism"?

Finally someone sane in this thread who doesn't wank over theory.

kek

It refers to H. L. Mencken's brahim sensibilities one must assume

You're not even trying to persuade anyone, you clearly just want to lash out at anyone who makes you feel stupid.

Did you stumble in from the book club?

Are we going to have to review that incident where you inadvertently revealed that you don't know anything at all about theory and have no legitimate basis for rejecting it?

Which means?

KEK.

If you don't read. You're shit

I might be bothered about the insults if I thought any of you were going to accomplish anything, ever.

Read!

Not wasting any more time, thanks.

These Holla Forums faggets, tell you to go to read their socialist bullshit, yet they still support feminazism.

Wtf. I've been here for a while and most of us hate that shit and idpol.

This looks taken out of context, but I'm pretty sure you just got trolled.

News flash, you dumb faggot; anyone who thinks they have the personal power to reinvent new meanings for words and assign arbitrary criteria for success just so they can feel a little better about being a retard is a solipsist who can't be useful to anyone.

Pic related, go join your lumpen caveman equals in Holla Forums.

Wage labour is not slavery, fuck off every socialist parasite in Holla Forums and their retarded twin Holla Forums Nazis are socialists too.

Boy, this is low quality b8 if I've ever seen it.

This is why we need theory, because of retards like you.

this is where I'm supposed to call this b8

It's well documented that Makhno asked for volunteers at gun point, and his nick name was papa makhno.
fucking "An"coms and their illusionary non "goverment"

Gass yourself.

k

You are literally retarded.

Again, this is nothing other than a tacit admission you have no interest in changing the system. You just want a book club.

Yeah, I'm the retard because you're a feeble coward who tries to deflect the obvious fact that your ideas about other people's beliefs and lifestyle are 100% consoling imagined horseshit.

So again, kill yourself you needy, resentful faggot.

I don't really get the argument, because I have hard time believing there are more than a couple anons maximum here who spend a big part of their free-time reading.

Everyone on this board would be at least moderately well-read on modern standards if they'd used even 15-20% of their time they've spent on vidya/anime/lurking reading relevant literature instead tbqh

LOL. This comical, son.
It's clearly not true, kid. It doesn't matter how much you say otherwise, you're blatantly lying. Of course, you're going to instantly scream "NO, U" again and throw more insults. I honestly would go to Holla Forums if their views didn't nauseate me. It's quite obvious those knuckle dragging nazis are more competent than you. They've managed to build a movement. You just masturbate over pieces of paper. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You know who managed to build a movement, AND "masturbate" over pieces of paper? Lenin.

You repeating yourself in a self-assured tone isn't going to make your consoling lies true. I don't really know how I can make this any simpler, but you ranting baseless non sequiturs at me about your emotionally reassuring imagination sessions isn't an argument; it's just you scrambling for bullshit excuses to feel better about the fact that you're not capable of planning action in advance and resent feeling stupid next to other people. Your "desire" to "do something" has as much practical use as a dog running around obeying random animalistic impulses without design or structure.

Did Lenin obsess over his pieces of paper to the exclusion of all else?

I take it you are infallible and omipotent and have never needed to access the skills of others to accomplish anything, ever?
snigger

Is there some other way of saying "your feels are not a valid form of gauging my behavior or motives" that will successfully penetrate your retard brain?

Are you saying that's what I'm suggesting you do? Of course, we can't always be reading, but reading is useful. It helps shape the very praxis we need for revolution, in order that we not give excess credence to "idpol" nor to affluence for the sake of affluence. We need to be wary not just of others but of our own biases that cultivate capitalism.

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement."—Vladimir Lenin

Your behaviour and motives are obvious from what you're writing. Your choice of language sticks out like a sore thumb as far as advertising your internal state. Don't assume everyone else has your terrible social skills.

He was a disenfranchised '68-er, he was an anarchist anthropologist/ethnographer. Oh and he BTFO'd the whole marxist view of history (idk how you call it int English)

said no one ever.

The revolution that will never take place in reality.

Anarch@-Feminist quoting Lenin a fascist collectivist statist is just priceless.

forgot pic.

"kek23.gif" what year is it who still has varg vikernes gifs saved on their computer

Nice memes, I guess.

READ THIS BOOK

You fucking what?

Thanks for making and keeping our jobs so much easier.

This!
"I read books–therefore Im intelligent"

You dont need to read 500 volumes to know basic realities.

You read 500 volumes when you need to be brainwashed against realities.

To all those saying that reading is pointless:

By engaging in this debate you have engaged in a theoretical discussion. You are talking about action; this is what we call theory. Reading the views of others on how best to achieve certain ends is a useful exercise in learning how to reach those ends. An understanding of the structures of reality helps us to make more accurate assumptions about the effects these actions we take might have, and thus helps us to decide on courses of action.

All you are reading when you read any of this political theory is the understanding and experience of other revolutionaries. If you think this isn't useful to you then your ego is overgrown; your experiences alone are not enough to secure a socialist revolution. We must use the collective experience of the proletariat.

Adorno, Althusser and Zizek were revolutionaries? Ummmmmm…

Explains a lot tbh.

Explains why you think North Korea is communist.

Where did I make that claim, please?

How did you even manage this?

Eesti?

What should I read from Lukács?

Maybe not, but they still have opinions and ideas that can be used in formulating political strategy

But I agree, Ardorno and Zizek are not particular good or useful theorists. That doesn't mean all philosophy is pointless

History and Class Consciousness

It's great, isn't it?

History and Class Conciousness, I'd suggest the "Orthodox Marxism" opening, and then keep reading about Reification until you feel you get it, that's bare minimum.

Thanks, and what about his works aesthetics?

...

Posted earlier, but adding in that I'm reading The Joy of Revolution by Knabb and he adds,
"As Debord put it in his last film, those who find what he says too difficult would do better to blame their own ignorance and passivity, and the schools and society that have made them that way, than to complain about his obscurity. Those who don’t have enough initiative to reread crucial texts or to do a little exploration or a little experimentation for themselves are unlikely to accomplish anything if they are spoonfed by someone else."

I've thought about this. I know it's rude to answer a question with a question. Sorry, but still: Do you have praxis? I've seen no evidence of it and it's absence infers that you are suggesting we obsess over books.

What a load of self-impressed wankery. "I'm not being obscure. You're just ignorant!"

Lemme answer your question with a question too, then:
How do you prove your praxis on an imageboard without forfeiting your anonymity?

A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique

amazon.com/Clinical-Introduction-Lacanian-Psychoanalysis-Technique/dp/0674135369

Because I'm a Zizekfag. If you want to learn Lacan, start here.

That meme is everything wrong with leftism today tbh