-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Please don't there is still a clear difference between the two...
I was actually hoping for a more conclusive turn (winning the primaries) but I couldn't bear sitting out on the sidelines while Iowa was going down.
Did someone say Communist hip hop?
Yes, I did. It's pretty fucking great.
Yes, I did. It's pretty fucking great.
Not yet, but his works sound very interesting. He's going on my theory reading list.
Last edited:
yes one of the few christian anarchists worth reading..."The technological society" is incredibly relevant still... also everyone should read (only a page long) his "76 reasonable questions to ask any technology": https://76questions.tech/
Thanks, that's the one I'll start with then. I always have a hard time deciding which to read first when I begin reading someone new.
I don't fully believe anyone who asks these questions from themselves are to be found on a games forum.
I'm a European, so I can't vote in the next presidential election, but I welcome Bernie Sanders as president. Sadly, the odds are slim: I think it's very likely the establishment will sabotage him.
Sanders would promote diplomatic relations with other countries in a good sense. The previous presidents more or less regarded the United States as superior and other countries as subordinate: every country must conform to them or they are their enemy. Because of the ridiculous geopolitical interests of the United States, unnecessarily many enemies have been made. Bernie Sanders would not strive for even more geopolitical power, but would instead strive for good cooperation with other countries. He would not threaten war if other countries did not keep to their agreement, but would instead act diplomatically as equal partners.
There is a great need for social democratic governance in the United States. The local population has never known such a government and it would bring crucial changes. It is unacceptable that the United States is the only industrialized country that has no social security. One has to pay $2,500 for an ambulance or $32,000 to give birth to a child? This is crazy.
What's more, a social democratic government would have a better reputation: now all social measures are being cracked down on by American neo-liberal propaganda. There is a lack of nuance about what socialism is: in the United States (from what I have seen) it is almost equated with National Socialism. Yes, I know there are mistakes in the governance of self-proclaimed communist states like China and the USSR. There are also violent dictators in power there who are responsible for mass murders. That tells more about the (bad) leaders than the system, and that's no good reason to be hostile to any measure that takes the social aspect into account. American historians are forced to make a distorted version of history public, in the service of American patriotism. Critical thinking or nuance are not allowed: everything must be black and white. Critical people all know that the system of self-proclaimed communist countries such as the USSR and China is not comparable to the ideals of Karl Marx. Marx's proposals tended more towards, among other things, a full labour self-government without superior power and thus no (dictatorial) leader.
I could write a whole book, but I'm quitting for today
Sanders would promote diplomatic relations with other countries in a good sense. The previous presidents more or less regarded the United States as superior and other countries as subordinate: every country must conform to them or they are their enemy. Because of the ridiculous geopolitical interests of the United States, unnecessarily many enemies have been made. Bernie Sanders would not strive for even more geopolitical power, but would instead strive for good cooperation with other countries. He would not threaten war if other countries did not keep to their agreement, but would instead act diplomatically as equal partners.
There is a great need for social democratic governance in the United States. The local population has never known such a government and it would bring crucial changes. It is unacceptable that the United States is the only industrialized country that has no social security. One has to pay $2,500 for an ambulance or $32,000 to give birth to a child? This is crazy.
What's more, a social democratic government would have a better reputation: now all social measures are being cracked down on by American neo-liberal propaganda. There is a lack of nuance about what socialism is: in the United States (from what I have seen) it is almost equated with National Socialism. Yes, I know there are mistakes in the governance of self-proclaimed communist states like China and the USSR. There are also violent dictators in power there who are responsible for mass murders. That tells more about the (bad) leaders than the system, and that's no good reason to be hostile to any measure that takes the social aspect into account. American historians are forced to make a distorted version of history public, in the service of American patriotism. Critical thinking or nuance are not allowed: everything must be black and white. Critical people all know that the system of self-proclaimed communist countries such as the USSR and China is not comparable to the ideals of Karl Marx. Marx's proposals tended more towards, among other things, a full labour self-government without superior power and thus no (dictatorial) leader.
I could write a whole book, but I'm quitting for today
lol
Every time I see the Chris Matthews comment I can't help but think of the antifa supersoldiers tweet.
For real. Whoever gets elected in 2020 and 2024, I think we're in for something special come 2028. I can only hope we get someone half as good as her in my country as well.
Teen Vogue with the leftie knowledge, again.
.jpg)
www.teenvogue.com
Is It Time for America's Industries to Strike All at Once?
A general strike could change the game for workers.
heh, this was really interesting - I don't know if it's a ploy how the journalist is oscillating between seemingly believing in Sanders then just to get pulled back "to reality" by third wayism or if the writing process actually looked this way - nomatter, it's a hilarious read:
www.politico.com
The best part is the juxtaposition of the description of Agnew's event and Bennett's warning how you "Be careful. "The danger of covering movement candidates is that as a human being, you and all your journalistic colleagues, it is impossible to remain immune from the sense that these people are really on to something."
"...
Is It Bernie’s Party Now?
The ultimate outsider took over a splintered party from within. Sound familiar?
www.politico.com
The best part is the juxtaposition of the description of Agnew's event and Bennett's warning how you "Be careful. "The danger of covering movement candidates is that as a human being, you and all your journalistic colleagues, it is impossible to remain immune from the sense that these people are really on to something."
"...
I hope it's going to be Bernie versus Bloomberg, then it's fully mask off for the Democratic party and the veil of ignorance will be lifted for at least part of the working poor Dems...
I looked at the tweeter's profile and saw the retweet of this gem from 2016 - without an understanding of dialectical materialism this must be very confusing for any liberal who attempts to take a step back and take stock:
About the bold underlined, how would you best describe this in layman's terms? I tried reading about it more in-depth yesterday, but maybe because it was late and I was tired, the penny didn't want to drop.
Am I right to grossly simplify it as people's convictions regarding the materialist world is subjected to change, slowly evolving, based on the current socioeconomic condition? Meaning stuff like "socialism won't work because people are inherently greedy" is a false equivalency because said people are greedy because they're products of this greedy time?
I have no idea how to properly interpret this.
OP
OP
Dialectical materialism is actually pretty simple to explain in non-Marxy language. Basically, at its core, the thing that shapes society isn't ideas and ideology, but the economy. Money, the way that money is handled and distributed, the way that production is organized, etc. Beliefs, ideologies, etc. all develop on top of that, because who wields power and who doesn't wield power (classes) over the production and distribution of stuff is the ultimate source (to boil this down to a very simplistic explanation) of societal beliefs.
For example, in the Middle Ages, aristocrats and kings owned the land. This necessitated a belief in the divine right of kings and the great chain of being. In the early modern period, the colonial Europeans enslaved Africans. This necessitated the emergence of racism to justify it. In the present period, the bourgeoisie owns everything. This necessitates liberalism, a belief in limited government that can't infringe on individual's rights to private property too much.
Now, the thing is, the existence of haves and have nots leads to conflict. There are contradictions in any given economic system, like this battle between the classes, and eventually the contradictions can pile up and lead to class war. There will inevitably be struggle between those who wish to give one class power and those who defend the class structure status quo. This struggle between the classes, between one force and its opposite, can ultimately bring about a new system.
What we see here in the Bloomberg situation is that people who may be very well intentioned when it comes to certain issues don't have a full grasp of the intersection of class with every other issue, despite their belief that they are "intersectional". They believe in capitalism, in the market system of production and private control over it, which underlies everything else, and so whether they are aware of it or not, they will betray everything else in an effort to retain capitalism.
Last edited:
A crystal clear and excellent summary of such a complicated (and at the same time easy to understand) subject. Thank you very much, comrade!
You did a much better job than I could dream of, I was about to start with "Well you know when Bernie says 'All Power to the DNC!'"?
The People's Park were we'll hold Struggle Sessions with pundits.
User banned (permanent): troll account
I smell vulgar economism in this thread...
I know you were just simplifying, it's ok. Although I think the late pigeon, pbuh, would be pretty mad if you tried to tell him economics were the "source" of white supremacy, for instance.
OP
OP
I had an argument/discussion recently with some people on discord about just this issue and it was not exactly a fruitful endeavor.
[walking into a semantic discussion in my tightest pants]
who's ready to rumble??
Tight pants are not part of the invasion force uniform, soldier! You need more range of motion.
My friend has a pair of sweatpants that say "god won't let me die" on the butt and it's a mood. It's perfect Central Park attire
A quick google tells me they're seeking help from the IMF.
FUCKING NO, LEBANON! DON'T DO IT!
Matthew Monagle on Twitter
““If you are a man named Matt, you have passed away. Rest In Peace.” https://t.co/ITfIoaNmge”
twitter.com
So who here is entitled to financial compensation in the year of our lord 2020?