She said "It's not about left and right, but its about top and bottom"
It's pride month again? DAMN TIME FLIES

i started to try to read the preface of Engels - Socialism, Utopian and Scientific and even though i’ve been reading a TON post cognitive stroke that s*** put me on my ass the language alone was too much for me, back to commentary on the forefather’s theories instead

Reading and taking time with the text i feel like is probably best but try this sometime if u can take in info through audio.

Might get something out of it rather than giving up on it

i don’t believe it was due to the medium of reading, so this wouldn’t be much different. w anterograde amnesia and my other cognitive issues it kind of just is what it is and maybe i’ll revisit the original texts after i get a brain computer within the next decade that fixes it all

sorry you're having that issue. and i hope that it improves swiftly

it really has vastly improved since from when it started, but insurance is trying to kick me out of my weekly OT but i’ve continued the same type of work at home and am prolly near baseline cognitively, just have to deal w the whole might remember / might not of anterograde amnesia it is what it is til then

ppl say s*** like 'zomg i hate socialism it was so bad and a failure' and then be like 'i love prefigurative politics!!!!!'

so essentially in all socialism, it is anarchism to atleast a certain point given the state being an inherently alienating apparatus?

uh nah i dont think so but im not sure what you mean by 'anarchism' in this context, is it some specific characteristic or something else?

in my at present limited knowledge i was under the assumption that anarchists goal is to dismantle ‘the state’ having any sort of power over them, you can let me know how far off i am

got you, its a good question but im pretty sure a socialist party gets to the dismantlement of old and then development of a new socialist state immediately as soon as it takes power. i think the ussr had the most interim governments before settling on the soviet system, cuba set up a revolutionary government that then proclaimed to be upholding marxist-leninist values. so there are no anarchic periods from the government perspective unless we count general chaos that occurs during and after any revolution. thats how i understand it

in basic terms yes but from a socialist perspective you would need to repurpose the states function to serve socialism/people instead of capital until the “withering away” of the state

before that happens there is some overlap between socialist and anarchist in recognizing the perils of capitalism but to be able to hold strong dismantling it i think socialism is preferable to anarchism i don’t see it being able to withstand the reaction

idk if that makes sense i’m kinda freestyling and exhausted from work

yes exactly what i meant like the person below said it’s not about taking down the state but repurposing it as one that serves the people instead of capital owners

Lenin makes it a point in State and Revolution that it’s a dismantle and then rebuilding of a state. Im sorry for being pedantic but just wanted to throw it out there. It’s something that stood out to me last time I read s&r so might be useful

Need to come up with a hand sign so we all know we used to post on KTT when the camps arrive.

that’s what i just started earlier today!

no because "anarchism" is not a definable thing and socialism has a definition rooted in marxism

idk what it is about state and revolution that had such a big impact on me. Its the first political text i have read that felt "real" for lack of a better word. When i read it now im not terribly interested anymore.

just meaning essentially

only interesting anarchist history IMO was what mao was trying with cultural revolution

hardly can be considered anarchist

correct, nothing to do with anarchism

@krishna_bound what’s ur reasoning for thinking conflicts like WW1 is it just economic global integration cause the world was more economically globally integrated for example during the late 19th century but that ended in collapse with war and rise of auturky

this isnt a subject i would really call myself an expert on really for transparency. I think its clear the latter age of imperialism (and just like territorial expansion) resulted in very transparent cross-colonial struggles and that definitely was a large part of clashing powers/international competition as the race to secure resources, increase national power, and satiate the ruling classes got hotter. Of course like since this was still post-turn of the century modernization, as you mention yourself global economic integration hadn't fully been realized yet and most economies weren't "liberalized" yet. with the world in a pre-globalization state, it was more or less an upheaval of the old world and the ushering in of the reality of early industrial modernization

socialist revolution is not anarchist in that it wants to abolish the state, but instead repurposes the motivation of the state to work in favor of society as a whole rather than the bourgousie or capitalist class, the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is the result