non-diegetic screams

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies

  • 38 Posts
  • 201 Comments
Joined 1Y ago
cake
Cake day: Dec 28, 2021

help-circle
rss




Yeah, I’d be surprised if law as a profession survived the advent of AI and the simplification of the law that communism would bring.


I had thought it was a scare story. You only really hear about it from keto folks now.


I’ve heard ratios expressed both ways, so idk how much it matters. Maybe it’s harder to accurately estimate muscle mass? This does it by total bodyweight, I think:

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-three-laws-of-protein/


The only real consistent recommendation I’ve seen people I believe put forward is about 1gram per pound of bodyweight.

I’m usually a little under that - maybe 150 grams when I’ve tracked!




I made c/Street_literature to be about how flyers are made and handed out, but I let it fizzle out a bit.



This has been my deload week from regular training, so I’ve just been chasing rabbits.

Today was a conditioning set of front squats, then back squats, then deadlifts, all for 20 with no rest in between. I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to do 20 reps all around!

Coming from a place of calm and positive thinking for big sets has been really helpful to me. I’ve really fed into negative energy to hype myself up for big lifts in the past and I think it’s been bad for me. Going for calm has been better! :)

I’m glad to see the dumbbells are shaping up!


Preface

I went into this expecting it to be dense and academic, but I was pleasantly surprised at the conversational tone of the preface. The essays in this collection were collected from the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in Quebec in 1983. A couple of the essays in the volume are by the editor and a man with the same last name - I’m assuming a spouse or relation. It lends a kind of cozy feeling to know that the editor has that much interest in the topic!

Standout quote: “Bromley made the cogent point that, indeed, all nations are developing, and, by extension, to label one part of the world developed and the other underdeveloped is a denial of history.” (ix)

Essay 1: Marxist Perspectives on the Terms of the Anthropological Discourse Concerning “Third World” Countries

By Keith E. Baird

The point of this essay seems to be a critique of the power imbalance between “western” and “non-western” anthropology down to the origins and commonly used terms in the field.

He calls out anthropology as the study by Western Europeans of peoples over whom they established total dominance.

I liked the quote: “For ‘Third World’ peoples the reclamation of territory is only one aspect of national liberation. An important aim yet to be achieved is complete intellectual emancipation from their former overlords and full recognition of their rightful status as equals in the family of humanity.” (2)

He mentions the military dominance of the West being a factor in their ability to dominate the rest of the world.

I thought it was interesting that he took a paragraph to explain what he means in the essay by “a marxist perspective”. It’s really rad to have the term defined before he leans on it. I can transcribe the paragraph if there’s interest! :)

A bitter sweet part of this essay is that it’s written in 1983, and says a lot of complimentary stuff about Soviet Ethnography and how the Soviet Union is the “quintessential Marxist society”.

A quote I liked: “Significantly absent from Marxist anthropological concern is the preoccupation with physical characteristics of ethnic communities which is still a feature of Western ethnographic discourse.”

He talks about the inaccuracy of using physical descriptors for ethnicity to avoid biological determinism, because no racially un-mixed peoples exist, and because there are no clear-cut anthropological boundaries between contiguous ethnoses. I think it’s really neat to see that examined, because physical characteristics seem to be a huge staple in Western ethnic descriptions.

He includes this definition: “an ethic community proper…may be defined as an historically formed aggregate of people who share relatively stable specific features of culture (including language) and psychology, an awareness of their unity and their difference from other groups and an ethnonym which they give themselves” (6)

It’s really rad to see the western obsession with race disposed of so handily.

He concludes with saying that perceptions of and interactions with a culture do not occur in a vacuum, and that anthropologists should move away from terms that demean “third world peoples”.

He adds a quote at the end that ends with “Marx belongs to us all.”

I think this was a neat read, surprisingly absent of any academic stuffiness I was expecting. Def not an essential read, but it brought up things that I thought were interesting! :)


NEBulae Book Club - Nonessential Books - International Perspectives on Marxist Anthropology - Discussion 1
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **International Perspectives on Marxist Anthropology - Discussion 1.** Today's discussion is: * 3/2 - International Perspectives on Marxist Anthropology - Preface and Essay 1 - Marxist Perspectives on the Terms of Anthropological discourse concerning "Third World" countries **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is the author trying to answer? * What have they missed? Are they wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** The next discussion will be: * 3/8 - International Perspectives on Marxist Anthropology - Essays 2&3 - Ethnographic Studies of Contemporary Soviet Life and Primitive Society and the Materialist Conceptualization of History in the Work of Karl Marx **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific. * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

Even if it means just downvoting and running off like kids ringing the doorbell and scooting off like they’re some master prankster…

That’s what I do on Lemmy 😬


I can’t wait to get the fuck out. I’m a settler and don’t feel a sense of belonging in the U$ at all. I’d love to assure an actual life for my kids somewhere with a future.



Pcusa never disavowed Chris Helali iirc. They did plenty to boost his image, and he seems like a pretty slimy guy.



The conclusion here is short, and may not have called for it’s own discussion day. There are some quotes that I liked in this section:

  • “As Huson notes, this philosophy is money, and its primary method of relationality is destruction. There is another word for a money-driven system that expresses its existence through destruction: Capitalsim”

  • “The Red Nation is serious about building alternatives to the world of capitalism that we currently endure”

  • “How will we enforce Indigenous political, scientific, and economic orders to successfully prevent our mass ruin? This is the challenge that we confront and pose in the Red Deal, and it is the challenge that all who take up the Red Deal must also confront”

There’s a bit on p. 144 in my edition that talks about how they spent hours talking with “Indigenous communities throughout Turtle Island and beyond” to draft and develop the Red Deal. I liked reading about how it was developed, and would’ve liked to know more about that process, who they talked to, and really who the authors are. I’m not sure if that’s a failing in the text, or my personal curiosity.

In summation, I think this is an important work. I think any communist in the U$ could use to read it. I’m left with the feeling that it’s a conflicted work. I think there’s clearly some division in the authorship, in the methodology of writing, or in the shared line of the writing collective. There are parts that are clearly supportive of the Green New Deal, and of lib reformism, but the majority calls for an end to Capitalism. I’m not quite sure what to think of that.

The authors mention in the conclusion that they do not feel Indigenous people write enough. I’m glad this work was written, and that I read it. I would like to read more in this vein. This is an excellent work in examining what is currently wrong with capitalism/settlerism in the U$, and what areas should be worked on. I found it kind of lacking in the “what to do” area, but I’m not sure they ever meant to address that. You can’t really be a colonized person in the belly of the beast and speak that clearly, I guess.

Def worth a read!


Submission Suggestion: “International Perspectives on Marxist Anthropology” edited by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, copyright 1989 (Studies in Marxism Vol 24).

I found this at the bookstore, and this is a good excuse to read it. I can’t find a digital copy.


NEBulae Book Club - Nonessential Books - The Red Deal Discussion 4(final)
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **The Red Deal - The Red Nation - Discussion 4.** Today's discussion is: * 2/22 - The Red Deal - Red Nation - discussion 4 - Appendices and conclusion There's a copy available here: https://therednation.org/environmental-justice/ . Under "articles - the Red Deal". My physical copy finally came in, though! **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is the author trying to answer? * What have they missed? Are they wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the U$? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** The next discussion will be: * 3/2 - International Perspectives on Marxist Anthropology - Preface and Essay 1 - Marxist Perspectives on the Terms of Anthropological discourse concerning "Third World" countries **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)



Mine’s been working for a while now. Do you have the latest version from the Play store or fdroid? I think there’s been a couple updates in the last few weeks.



I think the Border Trilogy are the most accessible of his work. All the Pretty Horses is the first one, but The Crossing made me cry. I didn’t care for some of the themes in Cities of the Plain. That’s the only one of his I didn’t finish.

I’d say “No Country for Old Men” is probably the easiest to read (originally written as a screenplay) but I think the pacing and characters in The Border Trilogy are more familiar. I’d go with All the Pretty Horses as a recommendation, I guess.

He can be a really lovely writer, but intentionally uses some very archaic words, and doesn’t use quotation marks. I stop noticing the grammar stuff after the first chapter or two, but it can be jarring at first!


Rest-pause Kroc Rows today made me feel like I was going to shit out my liver.

They have to be good for some kind of growth, though!


Yes! I’ve read most of what he’s written, but not the two new ones. He’s probably my favorite fiction writer.

I remember liking the film, but it’s been maybe 10 years since I’ve seen it. Very atmospheric!


I’m currently listening to “The Way of Kings” by Brandon Sanderson. I’ve read some of his books before, and I really like the world he’s building, but this is a 45 hour audiobook!!

I just finished the “Ancillary” trilogy by Anne Leckie, and it might be my favorite sci-fi trilogy of all time. Good hard sci-fi without feeling old and stuffy, and a refreshingly believable politically-guided plot.

I have one chapter left on “No Country for Old Men” to read. McCarthy always effects me weirdly, and I have goosebumps reading the last little bit. This is probably my 5th re-read, but it’s still very vivid.

Probably 80%+ of what I read comes in audiobooks from the library, with a smattering of audible books thrown in. I get stuff from libgen pretty often, but I have a hard time really reading ebooks on my phone. Someday I’ll get a reader! I do like to buy used books too.



Intrinsic enjoyment of this job is possible.

There are more than 4 million victims of sex trafficking globally


I thiink he had a hand in it, but his name’s not on the cover. I’m pretty interested in who the authors were, and who had a hand in which section. I’m pretty sure it’s a collective, though!

I think it’s worth picking up if you’re interested in it! There’s a lot of great stuff in it.


The theme for this section seems to be areas of importance in making sure that we have a planet to survive on. Capitalism is inimical to our survival, after all. :)

Introduction

“There is no hope for restoring the planet’s fragile and dying ecosystems without Indigenous Liberation” - the intro comes out directly with the point. “Healing the planet is ultimately about creating infrastructures of caretaking that will replace infrastructures of capitalism”

They make a point of calling land the means of production of Indigenous people. I like phrasing it that way. There’s also an interesting bit about moving away from “trauma-informed thinking” and towards a “collective well-being”. I quite like the quote “you have to stop crying on the shoulder of the man who stole your land”.

I highlighted a shitload in the intro, just because I liked so much of how it was phrased and what they said. Definitely worth a read!

Area 1: Clean and sustainable energy

They talk about the damage fossil fuel extraction and fracking does. Calling the Navajo Nation the “largest resource colonies in the United States” was interesting to me, and a new way of thinking.

There’s a great bit against all the “green projects” that are pushed recently - saying they take land from native peoples and don’t actually bring jobs or anything to them. They also highlight the problems with lithium extraction, which I think is great! This seems to contrast with the complimentary tone they talked about the Green New Deal in the first sections, though.

They say a transition to green energy under capitalism won’t help, but say that change “can be accomplished with boycotts and divestment campaigns” (no it can’t).

Area 2: Traditional and sustainable agriculture

They highlight the key role indigenous people play in farming and caretaking the land, and how colonial violence centered on removing seed crops and banning traditional foods.

“Imperial borders directly affect our trade and seed sharing with our relatives internationally”

“Having control over our ancestral territories is vital to our ability to care for them and is a generations-long pathway to true sustainability”.

They have a bit against GMO crops which I think is a little unfair. Capitalism is the problem with the GMO crops we have, and the selective breeding that has made us so much food is a form of genetic modification!

Area 3: Land, water, air, and animal restoration

This section highlights the magnificent loss of biodiversity, and the full extinction event we’re living through currently. It also highlights how important natives peoples are in hanging on to the little biodiversity we have left.

The recommendations section falls super flat to me here:

“Popular tactics for Indigenous land return include land trust campaigns and honor taxes, whereby trusts are created with the purpose of purchasing land back or where Native nations occupied by cities assert that occupiers pay the tribe an “honor tax””

“Anyone can promote food sovereignty in their local context by gardening, on a small or a large scale”

I really don’t understand if this book is meant to be a reformist call for gradual changes, or the manifesto of what should happen after a full revolution. Is it a violence fetish for me to expect them to discuss effective methods of effecting change? Are the authors even safe calling directly for attacking The Beast that is the U$?

They do end with “Ending all forms of toxic capitalism will take us a long way in restoring the land to health” so that’s cool.

Area 4: Protection and Restoration of Sacred Sites

This section basically calls for the U$ to respect native sacred land, and stop murdering people who try to protect it. Short and sweet. I thought it was interesting that they say “public land is stolen land”. True, but I’ve never seen that stated before in the U$.

Area 5: Enforcement of Treaty Rights and other agreements

They mention that colonizers see treaties as business transactions to open up Indigenous territory.

This section is more about freeing Indigenous peoples to make treaties with each other, which is cool. They highlight that native treaties are different and sometimes had flexible boundaries.

They highlight the People’s Accord of Bolivia as something to strive for. I’m not familiar with it, so I think it’s worth a look!

All-in-all this was a really solid section with some new ideas to me. I’m glad I read it!


NEBulae Book Club - Nonessential Books - The Red Deal Discussion 3
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **The Red Deal - The Red Nation - Discussion 3.** Today's discussion is: * 2/15 - The Red Deal - The Red Nation - Discussion 3, Part 3, "Heal our planet - reinvest in our common future" There's a copy available here: https://therednation.org/environmental-justice/ . Under "articles - the Red Deal". My physical copy finally came in, though! **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is the author trying to answer? * What have they missed? Are they wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the U$? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** The next discussion will be: * 2/22 - The Red Deal - Red Nation - discussion 4 - Appendices and conclusion **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

When the alt was a young boy, did his father take him into the city to see a marching band?



"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."

Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism



Beau was important to my veeeerrryy early transition into communism, but he’s an absolute radlib, honestly.

I haven’t kept up with him, but a lot about his persona is suspicious.


I meant it to be humorous. I’m kind of tired of this conversation, and I feel like the same points get rehashed here every six months or so (and did on Reddit before).

I’d like sex work to disappear completely.


Fully legalize sex work.

Instantly kill all the johns.


NEBulae Book Club - Nonessential Books - The Red Deal Discussion 2
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **The Red Deal - The Red Nation - Discussion 2.** Today's discussion is: * 2/8 - The Red Deal - The Red Nation - Discussion 2, Part 2, "Heal our bodies - reinvest in our common humanity" There's a copy available here: https://therednation.org/environmental-justice/ . Under "articles - the Red Deal". My physical copy finally came in, though! **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is the author trying to answer? * What have they missed? Are they wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the U$? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** The next book will be: * 2/15 - The Red Deal - Red Nation - discussion 3. -"Heal our planet: Reinvest in our common future" * 2/22 - The Red Deal - Red Nation - discussion 4 - Appendices and summary **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

NEBulae Book Club - Nonessential Books - The Red Deal Discussion 1
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **The Red Deal - The Red Nation - Discussion 1.** Today's discussion is: * 2/1 - The Red Deal - The Red Nation - Discussion 1, Part 1 "End the occupation" I'm reading the copy from https://therednation.org/environmental-justice/ . Under "articles - the Red Deal". I was hoping my physical copy would come in time for this discussion! **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is the author trying to answer? * What have they missed? Are they wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the U$? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** The next book will be: * 2/8 - The Red Deal - Red Nation - discussion 2. - "Heal our bodies: Reinvest in our common humanity" * 2/15 - The Red Deal - Red Nation - discussion 3. -"Heal our planet: Reinvest in our common future" * 2/22 - The Red Deal - Red Nation - discussion 4 - Appendices and summary **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

Nebulae book club - nonessential books - Make Way for Winged Eros
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **Make Way for Winged Eros - Alexandra Kollontai** Today's discussion is: * 1/25 - Make Way for Winged Eros - Alexandra Kollontai I'm reading the copy from Marxists.org: https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1923/winged-eros.htm **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is Kollontai trying to answer? * What has she missed? Is she wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of the early USSR? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** The next book will be: * 2/1 - The Red Deal - Red Media. - discussion 1. * 2/8 - The Red Deal - Red Media - discussion 2. I haven't gotten my copy yet, so those discussions may change once I see how long it is. I'd appreciate a line on a free e-copy if you've got one. I'll probably purchase it here: https://www.commonnotions.org/red-media **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

Monday night raw: free culinary chat
Is there a culinary tool or technique that you've found useful?


NEBulae Book Club: NonEssential Books - Revolution in the Revolution - Discussion 2 (final)
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **Revolution in the Revolution - Régis Debray** Today's discussion is: * 1/18 - Discussion 2 - “The Principle Lesson for the Present”, “Some Consequences for the Future”, summary discussion on the whole book. I’m reading the Grove press edition translated by Bobbye Ortiz. These seem to be some digital copies, but please share if you find a better one! https://archive.org/details/revolutioninrevo0000regi_p5g2/page/n5/mode/2up http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CA5F03D21F0EED6587F9663A5FDA5D8D **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What is Debray saying and how is he saying it? * What has he missed? Is he wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of Latin America in the '60s? What parts are universally applicable? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** Next week will be: * 1/25 - "Make Way for Winged Eros" - Alexandra Kollontai https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1923/winged-eros.htm **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the title for 2/1 , please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)




NEBulae Book Club: NonEssential Books - Revolution in the Revolution - Discussion 1
Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **Revolution in the Revolution - Régis Debray** Today's discussion is: * 1/11 - Discussion 1 - Preface and Chapter 1 “To Free the Present from the Past”. pp 1-91 in my edition. I’m reading the Grove press edition translated by Bobbye Ortiz. These seem to be some digital copies, but please share if you find a better one! https://archive.org/details/revolutioninrevo0000regi_p5g2/page/n5/mode/2up http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CA5F03D21F0EED6587F9663A5FDA5D8D **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What is Debray saying and how is he saying it? * Is he persuasive? * What has he missed? * What would you say the theme of this work is? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of Latin America in the '60s? What parts are universally applicable? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? * Does the book seem cool? Would you go camping in the mountains with it and share a wistful glance over the flickering embers of a dimming campfire? **Next Discussion** Next week will be: * 1/18 - Discussion 2 - “The Principle Lesson for the Present”, “Some Consequences for the Future”, summary discussion on the whole book. **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title, please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

Nonessentials Book Club - Revolution in Revolution - first discussion 1/11
Hi y'all! I appreciated the discussion on my earlier post about regularly reading and discussing less recommended books. I didn't see a clear consensus on titles to read for this first session, so I'll default to the one that started this topic for me. # **The Inaugural Title:** # **Revolution in Revolution - Régis Debray** I'm reading the Grove press edition translated by Bobbye Ortiz. These seem to be some digital copies, but please share if you find a better one! https://archive.org/details/revolutioninrevo0000regi_p5g2/page/n5/mode/2up http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CA5F03D21F0EED6587F9663A5FDA5D8D # **Dividing This Title:** # This is a short work, so we'll split it between two sessions: * 1/11 - Discussion 1 - Preface and Chapter 1 "To Free the Present from the Past". pp 1-65 in my edition. * 1/18 - Discussion 2 - "The Principle Lesson for the Present", "Some Consequences for the Future", summary discussion on the whole book. Some thoughts to think on while we read (please suggest some that you like as well!): * What is Debray saying and how is he saying it? * Is he persuasive? * What has he missed? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of Latin America in the '60s? What parts are universally applicable? * Is this really a "nonessential" or would it be good for any communist to read it? * Does this book have pizzazz? Is it cool? Would you take it to the barcade and have a pizza with it? We'll have an opportunity to suggest and vote on the next work in each session. I'm thinking the highest upvoted comment labeled "Submission Suggestion" will work. As always, please let me know if you have any suggestions! Big thanks to @redtea@lemmygrad.ml for the nudge to do this book, and the question suggestions! :) I'm excited to read it!

Book club idea: “nonessential” Marxist reading?
Howdy y'all! I'm thinking of starting weekly posts for a bit, as a sort of book club. I wanted to do something a little different, though. I thought it might be more interesting, and promote more discussion, to do "nonessential" works - things that don't get recommended for usual book club threads, or for new Marxists. Reading Debray's "Revolution in Revolution" made me think of this, but I haven't found a good online copy yet. What do y'all think? Any thoughts?

Regis Debray - on revolutionary inflexibility in intellectuals
I got "Revolution in the Revolution" at the used bookstore, and thought this excerpt in the first section was very interesting: >"Fidel once blamed certain failures of the guerillas on a purely intellectual attitude toward war. The reason is understandable: aside from his physical weakness and lack of adjustment to rural life, the intellectual will try to grasp the present through preconceived ideological constructs and live it through books. He will be less able than others to invent, improvise, make do with available resources, decide instantly on bold moves when he is in a tight spot. Thinking that he already knows, he will learn more slowly, display less flexibility. And the irony of history has willed, by virtue of the social situation of many Latin American countries, the assignment of precisely this vanguard role to students and revolutionary intellectuals, who have had to unleash, or rather initiate, the highest forms of class struggle.

My copy of The Little Red Book has...some printing errors. This is the best I've found yet!

Contradictions between hierarchical organized religion and the proletarian revolution
I'm reading through Caliban and the Witch, and having some thoughts about the role of hierarchical Christianity in oppression. The church has had a huge role in legitimizing colonialism (doctrine of discovery etc...), as the direct oppressive foot soldiers of colonialism (Missions in the U$, blessing of the crusades and colonizing missions), and in the direct oppression of women, minorites and the working class (witch hunts, legitimizing slavery, killing heretics who opposed social norms). I'm not as deeply familiar with the history of Islam, but I know there are some oppressive trends as well (i.e. Wahhabism and the Islamic State's religious rooting). I know the ML line is to accept the people's religious tendencies. But I have a few specific questions: * After the global revolution, what happens to the Pope? Does he keep institutional power? Who does the gold in the Vatican go to? Is the church allowed to continue gender oppression (i.e. no women priests)? * What happens to someone like Joel Osteen? * What happens to religious sects that are explicitly anti-equality or anti-communist (like some of the most backwards Christian sects in the U$, or hardline Wahhabism)? * Where does the balance fall between allowing the people to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs, and denying powerful reactionary elements entrenched institutional power?

The material effect of anti-immigration: colonized workers stay working where they are to support capitalists
This quote really stood out to me in the endnote of a chapter in Caliban and the Witch: >Capitalism — as Moulier Boutang stresses — has always been primarily concerned with preventing the flight of labor. This made the think that the real purpose of imperial core anti-immigration stances is to keep colonized workers where they are: oppressed and producing cheap goods. It works for denying illegal immigrants rights as well. Illegal immigrants do a vital amount of work in the imperial core, but wouldn't have to if they had better rights or citizenship. This might not be groundbreaking, but it helps me understand the material basis behind some reactionary views and who profits from spreading them.

This first chapter is clarifying a lot about serfdom, the transition to capitalism, and church oppression. I had never thought of the relationship between money and labor obscuring oppression! Can you imagine the effect if you could clearly tell how much work in the day was for your existence, and how much is for your boss?

Finally finished Settlers!
"When we say that the principal characteristic of imperialism is parasitism, we are also saying that the principal characteristic of settler trade unionism is parasitism, and that the principal characteristic of settler radicalism is parasitism. Every nation and people has its own contribution to make to the world revolution. This is true for all of us, and obviously for Euro-Amerikans as well. But this is another discussion, one that can only really take place in the context of breaking up the U.S. Empire and ending the U.S. oppressor nation." A very radical book that left me with a lot to think on.


"Fuck you to the red white and blue"

"We are all we need’ - a snappy single-issue zine with folding instructions!
This is, like a lot of things, a little lib, but there's a lot of good parts to it. I like: * The physical formatting - there's a lot to be said for a single page, black and white flyer that doesn't require a paper cutter. * The visual layout - I'm a fan of the photos with text overlayed, though I wonder if it would have issues on a bad printer. * The attempt to really explain a single issue (fuck cops) in a few pages, and then leave resources at the end people can dig into for more information. It's not ideologically cluttered, but leaves breadcrumbs for curious people. I think this is worth it for the page on folding instructions alone! :)

This is kind of silly, and has some cringeworthy bits. There are some parts that I like, and like that it manages to pack "who we are, what we want, and things you can do right now" (even if I don't agree with them) into such a small space. I'm not sure that I like it, but somebody worked hard on it.

I found the letter where Stalin disapproves of “devotion to him”! - Letter to Comrade Shatunovsky
"*You speak of your "devotion" to me. Perhaps it was just a chance phrase. Perhaps. . . . But if the phrase was not accidental I would advise you to discard the "principle" of devotion to persons.* It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals."

I like this, but it's very visually plain. I think it's formatted decently, and the bold lettering helps to make the main points stand out.

I know this is more "information warfare" than it is a tract to hand out on the street, but I like this one. It's succinct, with a powerful visual message, and it leaves an impression with one page. It's an example of a great slogan drawn out with the right illustration. I bet this is elsewhere too, but I found it here: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/2017-141

“How to Spot A Communist” - anti-communist pamphlet I found
I've been looking for communist tracts and pamphlets, and in the process I've found a few anti-communist tracts like below. ****************************************************************** **Document #1: How to Spot a Communist** Background: This is a pamphlet prepared by the U.S. First Army Headquarters in 1955, but was reprinted in popular magazines in the 1950s **How to Spot a Communist** Events of recent years have made it obvious that there is no fool-proof way of detecting a Communist. The Communist individual is no longer a "type" exemplified by the bearded and coarse revolutionary with time bomb in briefcase. U.S. Communists come from all walks of life, profess all faiths, and exercise all trades and professions. In addition, the Communist Party, USA, has made concerted efforts to go underground for the purpose of infiltration. If there is no fool-proof system in spotting a Communist, there are, fortunately, indications that may give him away. These indications are often subtle but always present, for the Communist, by reason of his "faith" must act and talk along certain lines. While a … preference for long sentences is common to most Communist writing, a distinct vocabulary provides the... more easily recognized feature of the "Communist Language." Even a superficial reading of an article written by a Communist or a conversation with one will probably reveal the use of some of the following expressions: integrative thinking, vanguard, comrade, hootenanny, chauvinism, book-burning, syncretistic faith, bourgeois-nationalism, jingoism, colonialism, hooliganism, ruling class, progressive, demagogy, dialectical, witch-hunt, reactionary, exploitation, oppressive, materialist. This list, selected at random, could be extended almost indefinitely. While all of the above expressions are part of the English language, their use by Communists is infinitely more frequent than by the general public... … In addition to these very general principles common to Communist tactics, a number of specific issues have been part of the Communist arsenal for a long period of time. These issues are raised not only by Communist appeals to the public, but also by the individual Party member or sympathizer who is a product of his Communist environment. They include: "McCarthyism," violation of civil rights, racial or religious discrimination, immigration laws, anti-subversive legislation, any legislation concerning labor unions, the military budget, "peace." While showing standard opposition to certain standard issues, the U.S. Communist has traditionally identified himself with certain activities in the hope of furthering his ultimate purposes. Such hobbies as "folk dancing" and "folk music" have been traditionally allied with the Communist movement in the United States... A study such as this can lead to only one certain conclusion: There is no sure-fire way of spotting a Communist... The principle difficulty involved is the distinction between the person who merely dissents in the good old American tradition and the one who condemns for the purpose of abolishing that tradition. In attempting to find the answer to the question: "Is this man a Communist?" a checklist such as this can prove helpful, although in itself it cannot provide the answer: Does the individual use unusual language? ("Communist Language") Does he stubbornly cling to Marxist ideals without being willing to question them? Does he condemn our American institutions and praise those of Communist countries? Does he pick on any event, even the most insignificant occurrences in this country for his criticism? Is he secretive about certain of his contacts? Does he belong to groups exploiting controversial subjects? Above all, the approach to the problem of discovering Communists must be detached and completely free from prejudice. Using some of the clues mentioned in this study in connection with a factual approach provides the best system at present of spotting a Communist



Mom said it’s my turn to post the full text of Combat Liberalism
We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism. To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type. To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type. Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type. To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type. To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type. To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type. To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type. To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type. To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type. We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution. We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist. All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

What’s your favorite work of Stalin’s?
I've got a soft spot for "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" (though I can't claim I understand it all), but I remember liking the letter where he admonishes a comrade for calling themself a "Stalinist". I wish I could remember which one that was! I like his writing style, and the way he lays his points out. There's still a lot in the archive for me to read!

Some Zines from DSA
I know it's DSA, but I like the visual language of these zines. They're short, informative, have nice graphic design, and a design that lends itself to being easily printed and folded! Not perfect, but maybe a template to grow from.