Today I'm reading The Country Under My Skin, a memoir by Gioconda Belli, a former member of the Sandinista National Liberation Front. It has me feeling like I did when I read Jakarta Method, which is to say going from hopeful to mournful and back again.
Finished The Microfoundations Delusion by J.E. King (2012), a very thorough compilation of economists being stupid about this one particular thing, perhaps too thorough. Within the first fifty pages or so he convinces you that requiring microfoundations for macroeconomics is pointless and that there have been many economists shilling for that wrong idea over the decades, then come a hundred more pages, and another hundred pages after that. Not only does he distinguish between authors for and against microfoundations, but he distinguishes between being against it out of practical concerns while supporting it in principle and being against it because one believes this sort of wholly one-sided causation direction doesn't exist out there in the real world, and he tries to tease out how strongly held this or that belief is; and he doesn't just tag the life output of an economist as belonging to one position, he tracks how the writings change over time, comparing different works and even different editions of the same work. And he also points out when economists in his view misrepresent other people on that topic. (It's so thorough it borders on creepy. How much time did he spend on this?) He also looks at the idea of building from micro to macro in other contexts and criticizes Richard Dawkins.
Just got around to read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Very short work with very general advice.
So I snagged this book, Dušan Čalić: Actual problems of the development of the self-governing society in the SFRY and I'm seriously considering that ultimately, no matter how you work around it, insufficient material forces will lead to a collapse of any self-declared socialist state. I'm becoming an unironic dengist, bros, and I don't feel guilty. Seriously, it reads like some Stalin's apologia about the state of affairs in the USSR after they claimed to have built socialism.
Oh and, if anyone's wondering, it's in Serbo-Croatian and there's no copies or pdfs online.
Read Losurdo's Opera interviewhttps://archive.ph/ZLmI6
ASB military is a good source on gab on Ukraine conflict https://gab.com/ASBMilitary/posts/107949096229117807
Also reading Losurdo atm, his book on the language of imperialism to be precise. Among other things, it is a good breakdown of the history of antisemitism. There is a somewhat popular idea around that the Nazis hatred of Jews is just a development from the Christian hatred of Jews. Losurdo points out that Christians have been obsessed with converting and absorbing the Jews, which is a horror scenario
from the Nazi point of view ("damaging" the race). So these views are not just somewhat different, but opposed. The source of inspiration is colonialism, slavery, the American genocide of the native population. And you can get that straight from the horse's mouth (and by horse I mean Mr. Hitler and friends). Nazi terms like Untermensch were translated from the American discourse ("underman") and German race-purity regulations were likewise inspired by prior American examples.
Based and thanks. Losurdo is really underrated on this site.
Really nice read. Thank you for sharing.
Not sure what to read next.
I want something light but also engaging.
Well. Might get Liberalism by Losurdo, or Washington Bullets by Prashad.
And I'll make a thread about Losurdo, hopefully soon. Anything worth mentioning?
I love his work but I find him very dense and Liberalism is even more so than his other work (from what I've heard - I've only read Stalin apart from Liberalism).
I still wholeheartedly recommend him, though. Excited to read War and Revolution next.
I read To Have or To Be by Fromm, who i read somewhere was a freudian with some marxist bent. It's total shit, Fromm is a total reactionary (he'd be a Nazi if we wasn't Jewish) who probably never read Marx despite quoting from him numerous times. It's pretty shit. It's not really a study of psychology so much as it's a textual stew of all the references he could find to support his edgelord ideas.
Which is disappointing since the thesis has a lot of merit (the thesis being that we have two modes of understanding our being, Having and Being). Already this looks like a class problem. Why would we, in capitalism, the bourgeois society, focus on Having rather than being? And to make this work, Being really ought to be Doing, as this is what fundamentally expresses the proletarian position. I suspect the reason he chose Being was because he's an intellectual and a reactionary who imagines a utopia of living in feudal times when people respected tradition and humanism (he actually thinks that all previous modes of production have been humanist, including early capitalism, and he blames industrial society for the creation of our supposedly uniquely non-moral production), I suppose he sees himself as an aristocrat then because it would be most in keeping with his current class position. Anyways he totally sidesteps the idea of class, of bourgeois ideology or proletarian consciousness. I think this is a really important idea, that the bourgeoisie impose a dysfunctional ontology onto us, and a real class consciousness goes beyond a mere enunciation of class relations, but has to be a total shift in our view of what constitutes life.
It's a good study in reaction though, since he shows very well how a third cop out way can be imagined. Obviously it's ridiculous though, since what kind of mode of being is Being. Like you just sit there, aspirate? Obviously being has to have some character, and the bourgeois mode is ownership and the proletarian mode is labor. Being through having or being through creating. With this model in mind, the bourgeois ownership model is progressive even, since it posits a sort of superhuman limitless conglomeration of object and subject, compared to a feudal ontology which is probably closer to "just being" (It'd be super neat actually to see a study of how the people in past modes of production saw themselves and their relation to the world). Having is necessary, and whatever sense of self comes after it must be an improvement. And lo, verily it is! Through our labor we reproduce society, and this act of abstracted production ties us in with the whole material body of society as necessary poles. It's our labor which grants to us our right to the universal productivity of society. This is held back by private property. Having gets in the way of having.
It feels like the hotdog school is one big psyop to push a misinformed popular version of marxism
In Angela Nagle's book kill all normies she says: "The obsession with decline found on the alt-right today comes from a long conservative line of thought, who regularly drew upon books like Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the eighteenth-century text that tied Rome’s
collapse to sexual decadence" What scholar elaborates on this? I want to read more about the obsession of the right about moral decay.
I first saw the triad Universal Particular Single in a Zizek book, and it looks like psychoanalysis, critical theory, and other modern kinds of studies use this triad, but i was reading a Claes Ryn book and he talks about Universal and Particular as a dyadic combo which goes back to Plato.
Anyone know when or from who this triad emerged? Before the singular/individual was what was meant by Particular, and universal was the sort of general category. I was reading the Ilyenkov essay on the Universal and he brings up all 3, but mainly keeps to a Universal-Particular thing. Is this a marxist thing or what? If anyone has any clue i'd be happy to hear it
Looked up the original German text to the last issue of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Here’s what the infamous paragraph reads like when put through Google Translate:>We are ruthless, we ask no consideration of you. When our turn comes, we will not sugarcoat terrorism. But the royalist terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and justice, in practice they are brutal, contemptible, mean, in theory cowardly, covert, double-dealing, dishonorable in both respects.
Definitely a bit less rosy than the official English translation floating around.
Is piracy praxis
I just remembered about an anon talking about the old European nobility "buying in" to capitalism as it formed to maintain much of the class power they had under feudalism, anyone got book recs about this?
Civilization and Capitalism mentions this
Started reading Davies and Wheatcroft's Years of Hunger—any other recommendations for books on the Ukrainian famine?
Fraud, Famine and Fascism by Douglas Totte.
Several Short Sentences About Writing by Verlyn Klinkenborg. The advice: Look at each sentence in isolation. Avoid passive formulations. You don't need to throw in buts wherever something contrasts and therefores whenever it connects. Trust the reader to have some sense of contrast and connections. Trust your intuition when something feels weak. But Don't trust what your intuition produces. That stuff is stereotypical. Keep sentences short. Name the things precisely. Consult the fucking dictionary, even for words you already know.
I started reading Middlekauf and Kennedy's entries in the Oxford History of The United States(still need to get to Zinn though) and wondered if anyone else had book recs on US History.
Done with "How to Learn and Memorize German Vocabulary" (2012) and "How To Learn And Memorize Math, Numbers, Equations, And Simple Arithmetic" (2014) both by Anthony Metivier, both shit. There is a lot in the math book that is not math and a lot in the German book that is not German. He repeats himself within the books and between them. For example, both books have passages about relaxed breathing. Reading him feels like watching a never-ending infomercial.
Oh, and the German is terrible. Three things in increasing order of cringe:
<Ich hole mich ab.
That sentence is nonsense. Ich hole X ab means I pick up X. But it only means picking up in the narrow sense of getting a person (or thing) and then walking with that person or transporting that person (or thing) elsewhere. For example, I pick up the kids at the cinema. You do not use hole ab for something like I pick up the coin. There is a different verb for that. And neither verb is used in a construct like I pick up myself, which is what the author is apparently trying to say in German. Such construct does not exist.
He recommends to come up with some memory hook for at least every letter of the alphabet (I approve). And he goes further by also memorizing pictures for common prefixes. He gives the example of using Zorro to memorize words with the prefix zer. It makes sense to expand the collection of memory hooks to syllables if the syllables are basically random. But this is not some random sound, it carries meaning. A zer word almost always has something to do with a bigger thing getting destroyed and spread over an area. (For example, brechen is to break and zerbrechen is to shatter.) He does not seem to be aware of this.
He mentions zerunten and zeroberst. These words do not exist. How can you fail like this? This is not a mistake a normal fraud would make.
Finished Ciber-comunismo by Paul Cockshott and Maxi Nieto (2017). It's arguing the usual points from TANS and against Austrian economists, but in Spanish.
Trying to become a mini-Michael Roberts or Cockshott and become a respectable Marxist economist. Beyond finishing Capital and Theories of Surplus-Value(along with ABCs of Communism), what else should I read to reach this goal? Yes, I'm aware that economy without political education is a slippery slope, and I hope that your recommendations will also accommodate for that as well.
Hello. Does anyone have a link too Ismail's book suggestions that are on available on the internet archive?
Which, out of the various philosophy threads in here, count as the general one?
Thank you. I always forget to bookmark this eregime page.
i'm the retard who was asking about what the deal was with universal(or general)/particular/singular division
i'd seen it in a way where singular seemed to take on the meaning of particular, and particular taking a more specific meaning at a higher order of categorization than singular. Anyways i was reading grundrisse and saw marx use the triad, and how he used it was keeping general and particular as they're known, and referenced singularity in regards to the unity of the two. I don't have my notebook or book rn but i think the phrase went smth like "blah blah is the general, blah blah being the particular, and blah blah being the singular which brings them together"
In case anyone also had this question. Now it's answered.
Reading Thomas Pikkettys Capital and Ideology. The writing is refreshingly clear and to the point compared to 19th century French philosophy.
I'm going to read Moby Dick
History Anon here, I guess I've made progress; I pined a bit more through Vol. 1 of Carr's Soviet History, same with Years of Hunger, and I'm just starting Fraud, Famine, and Fascism. Rothstein's history is fun to read, and adds a few more tidbits to the way that R. W. Davies and Alec Nove would cover collectivization. I'm certain, by the time this is over the average r/historymemes user will disintegrate at my touch.
Apart from that, I'm relearning the Piano.
Question: I'm at Chapter 17 in Capital, and this particular passage confuses me:
>(1.) A working day of given length always creates the same amount of value, no matter how the productiveness of labour, and, with it, the mass of the product, and the price of each single commodity produced, may vary.
It doesn't make sense to me because of course if you were to do really productive labor throughout the working day, your necessary labor would be done quicker, and surplus value would increase(along with overall value), no? Please help me, I've thought it through and this has confused me for a bit. Why assume something like this in the first place, even as a hypothetical?
The passage is about society-wide
Hey. I'm just here to say hi.
Just remembered a pdf posted on this site, something about the USSR being close to radically altering its approach to labor time? I think the introduction talked about political and foreign relations reasons ultimately stopping the project from being implemented, anyone got it?
reading a history of libya atm. Writer is a liberal, but he keeps mentioning the lack of domestic expertise as a hindrance for the development of gaddhafis libya, and its ability to expand beyond a simple oil producing state. Question is, why didn't the Soviet Union take advantage of this? I know the pan arabists were anticommunist in speeches; but this didn't stop cooperation between Abdelnasser and the Soviets, even as he arrested Communist activists domestically. What prevented the Soviet Union from pulling Gaddafi, who was relatively isolated, especially as Egypt's revolution is betrayed by Sadat, into the Soviet sphere?
>How to argue and win every time
a good book about how to argue ?, if not is there others.
one i'd like is how to combat sophistry, because right winger and right-wing adjacent like breadtubers and their fans love it.
Unique IPs: 38