DictatrshipOfTheseus

I don’t see the utility in convincing a bunch of people in the imperial core that they should be investing more into the long term interests of the western bourgeoisie. That they should be concerned about stabilizing capitalism and reforming it.

I completely agree. I just don't think that the dude who runs Second Thought is doing that. That channel is among the best there is, if not the best, for getting liberals to start considering things outside of their bullshit worldview. The guy is as at least as radical as most people here, but he's cognizant of the fact that the typical western libs aren't capable of going from supporting "the lesser evil" blue team to calling for a protracted people's war against the US. Pipelines are real, and JT as well as the other Deprogram boys have made an excellent opening for people to jump into it, people who would otherwise just scoff at anything that seems to resemble gommulism.

I admit I don't know enough about MMT and am willing to learn about where I'm wrong. But from my limited understanding, MMT is narrowly just theory about how economics works without anything prescriptive to say about revolution. You can recognize that MMT explains a lot of the things that western "economists" are utterly blind to (and outright refuse to look at) and still be a dedicated Marxist/ML. Doesn't even Michael Hudson talk a lot about MMT? Should we write him off as not worth paying attention to because of that?

I don't know what JT's views are on MMT, and I am skeptical it even matters. But I do know he's not a social democrat, he's a radical Marxist and has openly and frequently said so. If I remember right, even said so here during the last AMA.

people just get trained in Marxism right away. Why can’t we just do that and skip the cringe stage?

A multitude of strategies is a good thing. Different tactics work on different people.

We’ve been trying the succ dem slow pipeline for 200 years in the West and it hasn’t worked.

Tell that to all the people here who started their journey to radicalization because of . Also, JT doesn't advocate for succdemery, he explicitly states it's not socialism and actual socialism is what's needed. The fact remains, one of the best strategies for getting people in the core to even begin questioning the water they've been swimming in their entire lives is to meet them where they're at, then go from there.

I don't know how to go about it - currently it sounds a bit like a left wing Wikipedia. In my head, I can see it more like a giant 4D map, or a big messy case file sprawling out over a desk.

Well to butt in again, I don't know enough about it, but people here have said good things about Obsidian. This is the place I know of that shows how it might be used to build an interconnected knowledge base. I think it would be better for the kind of thing you're describing than a wiki would. There's no "4D map" but it does have a rotating 3D map of how different sections connect. Just a thought.

I'm not entirely sure what this means specifically, but it does sound cool.

As for leftist internet personalities, JT of Second Thought (youtube channel) and The Deprogram (podcast) fame will be doing an AMA on hexbear on the 28th, and I hope lemmygradians come participate. Lemmygrad should get Hakim to do an AMA after that, then we can have some sort of posting battle for who gets Yugopnik as a follow up.

Country of the week.

After some discussion in the last megathread about building knowledge of geopolitics, some of us thought it might be an interesting idea to have a Country of the Week - essentially, I/we choose a country and then people can come in here and chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants, related to that country. More detail in this comment.

I am actually tempted to put some feelers out for the starting of a community researching project. I think we have a varied knowledge base and if we could put our collective minds to use in mapping the history of a country/region/issue in a similar way to the Ukraine stuff.

I think this is an excellent idea and believe that @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net has said something very similar. It was the major impetus behind the COTW thing that was started a few weeks back. It might be worth hitting him up to discuss further.

"Elevatorgate" and especially Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" letter made me step away from atheism as any organized movement.

the idea of standing with that bunch of euphoric reactionaries was unbearable by that point.

Exactly the same for me. Well, I would say I stuck with the movement a little longer, but only as part of the sliver that had no choice but to shift the focus of criticism towards our former atheist "allies," the reactionaries and sex pests, which in turn made us the evil enemy SJWs, the fanatic feminists, the beta cucks, and the cringe white knights. While it was shocking how elevatorgate suddenly revealed this giant gaping rift in the community, and how full the entire atheist movement had been with the most disgusting of reactionaries, it was one of those things where in hindsight, all the misogyny, racism, white supremacy, etc. had been visible just beneath the surface all along, but had been easy to overlook as just a nasty patina sticking to the broader movement. Nah, turns out it was actually deeply intertwined with it.

I still think Rebecca Watson is cool (for anyone who doesn't know but is interested, "elevatorgate" centered on her because she dared to say "guys, don't do that" when referencing being hit on by a stranger very creepily when alone in an elevator at a convention, and was subsequently hounded, harassed, ridiculed, and derided even by the famous Dickie Dawkins). She still to this day puts out some banger videos sometimes. I will always have a soft spot for PZ Myers and his Pharyngula blog that I spent so much time on, finding community there because even then it was clear how ugly and toxic so much of reddit was. Pharyngula was like the last bastion where social justice was recognized as good and necessary, rather than demonized as something that needed to be snuffed out.

I'm also still an atheist. But that movement is dead, just as it fucking should be. Amusingly, but also sickeningly, the larger fascist-adjacent majority of it kind of morphed over time into things like Jordan Peterson's cult, at least the parts that didn't just fizzle out into the background noise islamaphobia and generic chuddery.

I should confess too, reading Christopher Hitchens (one of the "four horsemen") was definitely a big stepping stone on the path towards my own radicalization. Though I wince to say it now, I did admire him back then and he wrote about being, or having been a Trotskyist, which was one of those little epiphanies that showed there were actually political positions to the left of "as left as it gets" liberal. Wanting to find out more about that is eventually what lead me to Lenin.

To be clear, I'm not saying that's what radicalized me, though it was a small part of it. I'm mostly just commenting to respond to the New Atheist part of the discussion.

I guess I'm trying to understand what makes this a liberal viewpoint or why do you classify it as such?

I guess I am just trying to understand the viewpoints of my communist fellow humans

I'm not the person you're responding to, but... A liberal viewpoint (in this context) is one that is idealist, not materialist. A liberal will point at a policy ostensibly drawn up to address some given issue, and whether that policy is effective or not, or even whether the policy is enforced, will claim that "something is being done" to address that issue. In a liberal framework, it is the policy itself that satisfies the condition that the issue has been addressed, not any actual action that makes a real material difference to solve or change the issue. Again, it's just idealism vs materialism. Liberalism is a philosophy based on the former, communism is (among other things) a philosophy based on the latter.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I think you missed the whole point of GarbageShoot asking you specifically about Allende.

just based on a small snippet of reading about them, I think in general [...]

I think this is the main problem here: a lack of knowledge about the historical context of "authoritarian" socialist projects, but nevertheless making generalized statements about them without even considering the material reasons why they were by necessity "authoritarian." Read up more about the history of Chile and consider what happened to Allende and the hope of a socialist Chile. Who came after Allende (and almost as important, who installed that successor)? Why do these events seem so familiar when learning about every other attempt, successful or not, to bring about a communist society? When you've done that, you will at the very least have a leg to stand on when criticizing so-called tankie authoritarianism.

I'd also suggest reading The Jakarta Method. Here's a somewhat relevant quote from it:

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

That group was annihilated.

Im not liberal, im a socialist.

A "socialist" who believes capitalist propaganda and refers to the largest and most successful actually existing socialist state's functionality as "antics"? Sounds pretty liberal to me.

And im not American either :)

The person you're replying to wasn't suggesting that you were. He signs all his comments with that phrase at the end, and strangely enough, it's almost always fitting.

Anyway, yes, this instance does tend to try to talk about China accurately, and it does so in the face of overwhelming torrents of western propaganda cultivated by the capitalist's/imperialist's demonization of the state that poses the largest contemporary threat to their hegemony.

I just edited my comment to fix my use of "they/their" into "he/him" as per the other commenter's pronouns. I mention this specifically because you said in another comment for us to "stop being against lgbtq." This instance is the most lgbtq-positive space I've ever encountered on the internet. We frequently get hated on by transphobes because we include pronouns next to usernames. We were, and to my knowledge still are, the only instance to do so.

I'm curious what aspects of that comment you thought were fantastical. Will you elaborate and be specific?