Sure. Although we both know as a matter of historical fact that’s very far from always being the case. Reeducation and reform are not inconsistent with facing consequences, taking one’s medicine, laying in the bed one has made, etc. Indeed the latter are likely part of the former imo. For me humans are an intrinsically social and political species, in virtue of our evolution and our capacities, and this determines what our material interests are as a species. When someone is so anti-social to the point of being willing to sue their own sister out of entitlement, they are actively contradicting the interests of humanity. It’s a sign of some of the most depraved transformations of human beings I can think of and should be cursed like the plague.

I’m really not convinced that they would normally prefer to fight fascists on the front lines than to stay in a gulag, uncomfortable as the latter might be.

100% agree. Me presenting it as a choice by a single Commissar for War is more tongue-in-cheek. The answer whether or we should do it is contextual but my point is that there are clear cases which I can imagine in which drafting would be clearly justified, even if of only certain groups.

But responding to a question of whether or not we should do something by saying it would be decided democratically is evading the actual question of what you would put forward or support as appropriate policy in such a scenario. If everyone one responded that way then nothing would be decided.

Yeh when I hear shit like this I’m unable to treat the person in question as really human (in a normative sense). Someone must have really lost - or never had - some really basic moral and emotional capacities to be able to think like that about their sister. People like this need to be terrified into submission and shamed for ever having thought like that, and punished if they did it prior to a socialist society.

I’m not sure there are no situations in which draft’s are permissible. If we were in a socialist society and a fascist government invades and I were Commissar of War you bet your ass the ex-bourgeois are getting drafted.

It’s sad seeing someone like yourself both so confident yet also so ignorant that you post in sincerity a rag like the Guardian for political or economic analysis. There are neoliberal economics textbooks less batshit ignorant.

Hope u getting paid by Langley for this otherwise it’s just pathetic

The Guardian is literally populated by the most craven virtues-signalling clowns imaginable.

Your tone is that of a teenager and I suspect you do not know how to define state capitalist, or alternatively you don’t know as much as you think about the Chinese economy.

100%.

When I’m forced to spend any amount of social time with liberals, especially the more reptilian ones you encounter in academia and managers, especially if they have an explicitly perverted ideology of neoliberalism, and even when they are suposedly best friends, I recognize after not much time that they actually don’t like eachother. They hate eachother. They are jealous, petty and envious. They are all insecure. Their understanding of generosity and sympathy is absolutely reducible to a market relation of exchange for profit in purely inhuman sense, and not even in a progressive social sense of reciprocity. They often dontunderstand that friendship can be good in and of itself, perhaps because they are so alienated and toxic that they’ve forgotten what actual friendship is, and that love is not reducible to material or economic dependence (fantastic scene which shows this in season 3 of Succession, in Italy between Tom and Greg).

I’ve had many ex-liberal friends become communists just because they were so alienated by their liberal friends that they started hanging out more with communists and were like “oh damn these people actually like eachother and don’t try to demean eachother”.

Almost all the communists I know who come to hate eachother do so cos of theoretical and practical political beefs.

Plot-twist: it’s actually the the North Korean Cyberintelligence division who are making use of Juche divination to see the future and the revolutionary importance of Hexbear.

Yeah I mean no culture is absolutely ‘primitive’ but if we mean by that that they were technologically less advanced that the Romans then that goes without saying, pants notwithstanding.

Also (obvs not targeting you herecomrade): Marxism is an Modernist philosophy which is partly and expression proletarian Enlightenment. The notion of progress and civilizational development, indeed of the human species as a whole taking control of itself and its future in a democratic and radically efficient way is baked into the basic ideas of socialism and communism, since inception. If people don’t use the words this way they are not talking about the same things. People don’t get to have their cake and eat it by both championing the progressive achievements of the USSR, which were specifically modernist ones of economic, scientific, technological and sociological development, as well as the pioneering of the development of central planning, and then say we can’t make comparisons.

fuck now I need to rewatch it

deleted by creator

Not only did the US turn a blind eye to the White Terror, but they were positively gleeful about it, as a key target of it was of course not only indigeneous-politics based, but fundamentally anti-communist.

Indeed a basic presupposition of the US providing you such extensive economic support, as a forward base in Asia against communism, is that you crush any opposition to its ‘proper’ functioning as such an economic and military asset. That supposes that you will crush any radical, labor, trade-union, let alone explicitly socialist or communist activity which appears to challenge the state.

Yeh I’ll admit these are pretty much straight barz he’s spitting. But they’re points we should all already agree on.

The issue in for me is why is deconstruction necessary? What is insufficient in the analytical tools we already have, like materialist dialectics, or what they contain themselves implicitly for analysing critically essentialized ideas?

Like there alot of clear value in Spivak but my gawd its not necessary to write like that. I struggled reading through everything I’ve read to her.The dope shit in her writings I can imagine being arrived at without reference to Derrida or deconstruction.

If I’m wrong regarding above points please point in right direction :)

Also, not that its directly relevant to the validity of her theoretical work I’ve also heard from people who studied under her that she treats her research assistants like garbage and makes them clean her driveway and shit. Might of been bullshit but lmao.

Also don’t forget how Derrida writes about cats. Peak case of critical support.

I’m not sure whether you’re paraphrasing in agreement or not. I’ll assume for this comment the latter:

Respectfully, I’d like to push back on some takes here, which is basically Adorno and Horkheimer pseudo-Marxist Dialectics of Enlightenment (coincidentally they are hegelians, thus idealists, not materialists).

The idea that other cultures have not had ideas of truth, reason or objectivity which correponds to what westerner culture might sometimes refer to as realism, or the belief in a real, objective universe which has certain properties whether or not human minds are there to perceive them, or as determined by the mind, is simply wrong. The immense tradition of Indian philosophy is a great example here. Even if you just take the Buddhist tradition, which is most famous for its later iterations post Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna where the very idea of absolute truth is definitely brought into question and problematized (in Nagarjuna, this is done dialectically), this is not always true for earlier or latter Buddhist thinkers. You can find descriptions in the Mahayana tradition to Nirvana or Buddha Nature as something like what we would translate as the ultimate truth/reality, etc. The Hindu traditions of philosophy also makes similar references to truth, absolute reality. There are most certainly ideas of absolute reality or truth in Islamic traditions. Namely Allah.

Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mesoamerica and other peoples developed scientific knowledge and they would not have done so if they didn’t have somelike like the idea or assumption of truth or objective reality. Also, ideas of truth, reality or objectivity existenced well before anything like the modern concept of race, therefore whiteness or white supremacy, ever existenced.

I sometimes find like similar relativizing historicist interpretations very problematic, and ironically very reductionist, because they often feed into an impression that properties or capacities like reason, observation, experiment, systematic investigation of a world which we take to exist independently of us could not have belonged to non-white, non-european or non-western peoples, because they are ideas invented by some vague entity called ‘The West’.

The fact that white-supremacists claim to venerate objectivity doesn’t mean that they do, nor does it mean that the word ‘objectivity’ refers to (or appears to) a meaningless concept which couldn’t be translated into the language of other cultures.

The fact that absolute objectivity is not something that any individual or collective can possess with finite space, time and resources does not mean that there is not, say, something like objectivity in much scientific work does in mathematics or natural sciences,a s opposed to, say, modern neoclassical economics, which is straight-up pseudo-science compared to Marxist economics. I think it’s is impossible to properly explain the distinction here unless we make reference to the fact that Marxist political economy was the genuine epistemologiical break which produced a scientific approach to the questions in that field, as opposed to the apparent neoclassical break in the marginalist revolution.

I’ve often had debates with social scientists, such as sociologists, who are trained in a post-Bourdieu and post-structuralism environment where their understanding of what makes some practice a science is very narrowly sociological, based on certain superficial social practices, organisations and institutions. They would argue that neoclassical economics is just as much a science as physics, or mathematics, or biology, due to its social and organisation practices. You can only make such a ridiculous argument if you reject the idea that one produces knowledge, and the other does not, and that this difference is based in how they relate to the reality of the thing they are studying.

I definitely don’t think a rejection of such ideas has a place in Marxism. For example, you can’t seriously claim to be doing Marxist economic analysis of modern capitalism, if one doesn’t recognise that capitalism is characterised by a contradiction between (i) its hyperrationality (in particular, instrumental reason) insofar as it is concerned with exploitation and production of surplus-value, and (ii) the obvious irrationality from the broader point of view of society and the vast majority of the people in it, namely the labouring classes.

White supremacists claim to venerate alot of things, like reason, evidence, virtue, courage, and so on. But they don’t. We know that they don’t. And we know that they don’t, not by deconstructing the ideas they claim to venerate and then saying: ‘see, they can’t venerate these because they we’ve deconstructed them and so we can see that they don’t have stable definitions/essences/natures etc. and therefore they couldn’t have been venerating anything real behind these fictions in the first place’; we refute them easily by showing how they had none of those virtues, and their behaviour was not guided by them, but by material factors (in particular, their class and racial position) and in particular those which shaped their ideology.

It’s also not clear to me how people are going to make claims that certain things are true, namely that it’s a fact that white supremacists have used these concepts in these ways, which assumes a certain amount of evidence for, thus reference to independent reality to correspond to, what you’re claiming, while also claim in the very same process of doing so that ideas of truth and reality are complete fictions with no actual content. To me this is clearly idealism.

To say that "white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America " is due to an idea - which you call ‘a constructed myth’ - of objectivity or absolute truth, is some hardcore idealism. It was certainly mobilised consistently by the ruling classes to justify the supposed objective truth of white supremacy, and the supposed objective moral validity and rationality of imperialism, colonialism and capitalism. But these are wrong. They are fucked up, wack, incorrect, regressive politically and ethically evil by anymost any sensible understanding of them. You can explain how and why they were upheld in terms of historical materialism. The ideas did not produce all of those themselves, and to the extent that they played a role, well, people use alot of valid ideas for reactionary and evil purposes.

It’s ironic because people are claiming (and I agree) in this thread that Derrida and co. should be read critically, and that we should take the good ideas and reject the bad, and noting in particular his rejection or problematizing of western concepts. So l while we’re at it we could give the example of linear history. This concept comes up in the above comment, and so ironically in Adorno, when they claim that history can see a linear ideological progression from the Enlightenment to Auschwitz, when reality is far more complicated.

Marxism is also a child of the Enlightment and the Scientific Revolution. There were radical, progressive and genuinely scientific developments as part of these processes, just as there were regressive, reactionary and pseudo-scientific parts. They were not homogeneous. The embrace of ideas such as these from Derrida has been an essential tool through which the rad-lib, postmodern bullshit that mascarades as serious thought has attempted to delegitimize Marxism by painting it as part of the ‘road to Auschwitz’. So it’s again ironic, because inconsistent, to make the critique that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water and keep Derrida’s good ideas, and then use some of his critical ideas to basically absolutely tarnish anything progressive or scientific which could have been produced in the european enlightenmend and scientific revolution.

If we’re going to reject everything we can possibly associate with the extremely complex and contradictory set of social, economic, political and ideological/theoretical processes and transformations which we call the European Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, then it’s not really clear where to go from there. Newtonian mechanics was a produce of this. But the relative truth of many of its statements is not compromised by the fact that Newton was personally, by all accounts, a piece of shit.

I don’t think we should confuse the fact that conservatives take every idea that they associate with fromage-eaters as ‘corrosive acid to the fabric of the west’ as evidence that they actually are. Derrida’s ideas are very much in the ‘radical liberal’ tradition of Western thought which are dangerous, from a materialistic perspective, at the very least because they give the impression that Marxists have nothing to contribute to these discussions. A non-materialist discourse of these topics was always going to be appropriated by liberals to the detriment and exclusion of marxists.

Modern liberals have appropriated pro-LGBT, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, anti-western-chauvinist, racial and gender liberation discourses, but they never understand or use them in a materialist or dialectical way, and so they do not understand these struggles concretely., or know how to apply them in praxis. There are no militant derrideans.

For most of these rad-liberals, these are language games where they can angle for radical credentials in academia or liberal social movements based not on uniting these other essential struggles with materialist analysis, class analysis, or class struggle, but on liberal identity politics. These struggles also ofc requires groups, orgs and struggles which emphasize them and their particular social, political and economic circumstances without having to worry about white marxist men lecturing them on their lack of class analysis or engaging in actual class reductionism, but that doesn’t really affect the point that most of the identity-based discourse in the West around these issues is liberal, not radical. These liberal discourses have been very influenced by all of these supposedly radical thinkers like Derrida. A simply question I always ask myself: if this thinker has been so influential in areas of obvious political importance, where is the actual evidence that their thought has, or could have, played a real role in revolutionary struggle.

Honestly I’m always both fascinated and saddened when I see self-described Marxists trying to square the circle of identifying with an explicitly scientific project of Marxism while also embracing currents of modern rad-lib thought which explicitly calling the foundations of Marxism into question as a materialist philosophy and scientific project, and which themselves don’t have much to contribute to any such project.

I don’t disagree with your second point, but I think it doesn’t take into account what reading, understanding and agreeing some points in Derrida actually normally means concretelt. I agree there are some good ideas, but the effort required to get to them is something you can only do if you have the time to, normally as a a bougie, petit-bougie, or if you’re lucky enough in the West as a member of the labouring classes to get access to higher education, which is especially difficult in the US. It’s really not justified imo and the goods ideas can be expressed without the idealist baggage and intellectual masturbation.

I couldn’t and would never try to ‘explain’ (whatever that means here) Derrida to my friends at my local bar. But Ho Chi Minh could explain Das Kapital to revolutionary peasant soldiers in the jungle. They are not the same. One is materialist, dialectical, and scientific. The other is not.

One of the issues in the most influential modern Western leftist thinkers, and also Western Marxism as a tradition, resulting from the fact that unlike every other Marxist movement around the world it was uniquely detached from actual class struggle or the working class full stop, hence any real vantage point over concrete material conditions, is that it overspecialised in superstructural analysis. That produced alot of good analyses from certain Marxists (I’d still defend alot in Badiou, Luckacs, Lefebvre, Balibar or even Althusser; all the Frankfurt school can go fuck themselves), but also created an intellectual climate where methodological and ontological idealism really flourished. Like its difficult to explain otherwise how a Maoist like Badiou managed to arrive at a kind of of weird, peudo-materialist platonism. Its not a coincidence that perhaps the best thinker often placed in this tradition (Gramsci), who produced the most impressive superstructural analysis was a leader of the Italian Communist Party.