It's a shame Epstein died, he would have been great there as a visiting fellow in his time away from Harvard.

At least Steven Pinker can uphold his legacy

Can’t wait for the Ayn Rand Objectivism major bruh

Im surprised Jordan Peterson isnt involved

And it will only be a matter of time until Joe Rogan holds a lecture

Im surprised Jordan Peterson isnt involved yet *

The Epistemology of Foreskin Cleaning

the parties here gonna be lit

Picasso was a communist

theoria.art-zoo.com/why-i-joined-the-communist-party-pablo-picasso

Yup! So were many impressionist painters like Monet, Degas, etc. They supported the Paris Commune.

Picasso is DEAD

Not really socialism I guess anti imperialism still but how common is it for countries to practice war drills like this?

news.antiwar.com/2021/11/09/israeli-military-accelerating-plans-to-attack-iran

So was Frida Kahlo who was FUKKIN Trotsky

Helen Keller was a socialist

everyone flexing their d***s rn

Crayz how both fell off

rip to all the red guards that died in the service
i dive in her cervix

People keep making the same observations Yeat after year after year

Literally preaching to the choir is the maximum amount of praxis you’ll see American progressives do

pretty good commentary

i saw this earlier today, i’ve heard this said so many ways various times, and i appreciate the extra details, but it’s ultimately another appeal to “pragmatic left unity” that falls flat due to historical precedent and other factors

the points made about “ideological purity” among anarchists can be applied to so-called “orthodox marxists” because both marxists and anarchists have to adapt to their own specific regional material conditions, never mind the fact that anarchists disagree on a lot of things internally, however united by certain core values. I’ve described this in the anarchism thread, specifically it’s more unique “big tent” properties in comparison to other more rigid ideologies.

the odd anti-enlightenment appeal is kinda funny though, Marx was heavily influenced by Proudhon within his writings, especially his anti-capitalism/private property stuff, and Marxism was also influenced by Liberalism (as was most political theory in that time period), so I don’t really get this.

The OP completely misunderstands anarchist critiques of authority, and a basic reading of some anarchist theory would at least beget some understanding of the perspective, even if you disagree.

I do agree that critiques of anarchist arent that good in that post. and yeah it can be applied to orthodox marxists as well but I dont really think they exist outside of academia and affluent suburbia. The poster most likely a ML who I find to be the most flexible ideological, imo way too flexible (like dengists)

I took the the anti enlightenment part more of a rapture from the idealism that was prevalent within then, Marx made a rapture from the enlightenment with his materialistic outlook. Of course he would be influenced by the enlightenment since like everyone, Marx as well is a product of his social connections, like take Rousseau for example "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains", does sound like something Marx would say and does sound very alike to "The Proletariat has nothing to lose but their chains", in this example Marx revolutionary leaning were prob influenced by Rousseau. But cause he was influenced by them doesnt mean he was one of them. I often hear Marx is the last enlightenment think or the heir which I think is the closest u can pin him to the enlightenment.

I shared the post more for it's materialist explanation of authority, and more for it critique on libertarian socialists who I personally think are just unserious. You cant just pick choose to be authoritarian or libertarian, your material conditions are going to determine that, and being against one revolution cause its an "authoritarian" one just shows you have no understanding of materialism.

I'm reading him now so it's funny but his second paragraph is basically just althusser