hello beautiful people, I’ve read Parenti’s Inventing Reality and have in my shelf an unopened copy of Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent (as well as Ellul’s Propaganda)

now I love Parenti but don’t really care for Chomsky, I was gonna give him a shot but honestly in light of the recent Epstein connections I really cba; also I’ve skimmed through some of Manufacturing Consent and I can’t escape reading it in Chomsky’s awful talking cadence, whereas obviously I loved so many passages on Inventing Reality where Parenti’s usual eloquent passion shines through so beautifully

so I’m thinking of gifting Manufacturing Consent to my sister for xmas, which is someone quite left-leaning but still very haunted by the scary ghosts of communism; and I feel like the book is way less overtly marxist than Inventing Reality, which might be a good thing in this situation

my questions are then: for those who’ve read it, am I missing something by not picking up Manufacturing Consent? is it so boring that it’s not even an interesting gift?

ty, xoxo

  • invent_the_futureOPEnglish
    10·
    3 months ago

    thanks a lot for the further reading reccomendations, I believe I’ve read the Nia Froome text but I’ll be sure to revisit it

    also thought about gifting Blackshirts and Reds before, probably will do it eventually but just as a more personal gift anytime but xmas

    • darkernations
      9·
      3 months ago

      🫡

      Frome is just an awesome marxist writer and their twitter feed is an excellent resource to up one’s game in dialectical materialism and philosphy in general. The whole trio (Malone and Day) are generally excellent writers on Redsails.

      One of my favourite pieces by Frome is this:

      https://redsails.org/the-problem-of-recognition-in-transitional-states/

      I am a philosophy layman though, so stuff likes this challenges me and for me can be quite dense. I’ve currently got this on my deeper read (read it once already, next time involves research, reading around and notes - like I barely know Spinoza):

      https://redsails.org/aristocratic-marxism/

      • invent_the_futureOPEnglish
        7·
        3 months ago

        do you have any idea what happened to redsails? I don’t really use twitter so I’m probably missing out on information but I did notice they stopped publishing texts on the website around this time last year

        also I’m right there with you, one of my favorite dense philosophy essays is this one: https://redsails.org/maoist-and-daoist-dialectics/, it’s not necessarily hard to follow but it introduced whole new notions foreign to me and I’m so grateful for it

        • darkernations
          6·
          3 months ago

          I forgot why they stopped, I understand Day is taking a break from social media/internet due to life stuff. Malone and Frome are still very much active on Twitter.

      • davelEnglish
        6·
        3 months ago

        https://redsails.org/the-problem-of-recognition-in-transitional-states/

        Interesting.

        Why are there so many trans tankies? What is the beef between trans studies and queer theory?

        The problem of recognition in transitional states is the difficulty of assigning to a definite set an object that possesses some of the features of two mutually exclusive ones, and the harms attendant on failing to do so. Socialism is not capitalism; hence capitalist traits are evidence of non-socialism, and vice versa. On this excluded middle hinges the standard argument against the socialist credentials of any given country: “Look, they’ve still got commodities. They’ve still got accumulation. They’ve still got bureaucracy, repression, and elites. They’re still impersonally dominated by the market.”

        Trans and queer theory share a deep suspicion towards any assumption of an excluded middle. What, then, distinguishes them? My claim will be that queer theory, as opposed to trans studies, remains more imbued with Western Marxist pessimism and theoreticism, whereas trans studies, as opposed to queer theory, arises from trans experiences with direct parallels to those of Really Existing Socialism, and thus tends to express a greater optimism and realism. The terms in which trans theorists and others criticize queer theory are anticipated at nearly every turn by homologous arguments to be made against Western Marxism in favor of Eastern Marxism.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

        The problem is that liberalism is an idealist and metaphysical –ism, not a materialist or dialectical one. For this I might recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy.

        • darkernations
          6·
          3 months ago

          The problem is that liberalism is an idealist and metaphysical –ism, not a materialist or dialectical one. For this I might recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy.

          Thanks, though I think that’s already a given here!

          (Politzer’s work is always generally a good recommendation though).

          The exploration here goes deeper and, for example, considers why may a particular explanation may be self contradictory and incomplete if it proposes that others are trapped in an unknowing ideological state while oneself is an knowing state while in conditions that reproduce the ideology but does not explain how the latter transitioned from the former to the latter - why does a non-DM approach may diagnose a problem but offers no treatment and how DM finds the treatment.

          (^you see this problem arise in lemmygrad, for example, when people are aghast when explained “brainwashing” isn’t actually much of a thing but not have a theory of mind of how they escaped it while others are trapped in it)

          It’s an article I recommend after reading something like Politzer’s work as an example of exploring how DM navigates complexities of reality to find a solution.

          I means quotes like

          but instead returns to Hegel, describing Butler’s theory as an example of the “Unhappy Consciousness” because it contains within itself an Althusserian split between a knowing scientist (who is pessimistic about the possibility of mutual recognition) and a hopelessly ideological subject capable only of misrecognition.

          …And…

          "In order to be meaningful for their proponents, they have to presuppose epistemic asymmetries which cannot be justified within these forms of thinking”

          …and…

          makes the case that there is a trans-antagonism inherent to queer theory’s valorization of universality and virtuality

          … while tackling Nietzschean aestheticism makes the whole essay in some ways a work of art.