King_Simp

joined 2 years ago
[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I am a little thankful someone has pointed this out. I know this isn't exactly a serious forum, and jokes are fine, but I really dont get why the first instinct of people is to go "what if we did what the Americans did last time? But now it's fine cause China is doing it. [hypothetically]" Maybe it's my own biases from reading the accounts of the bombings, but I dont find them especially funny.

 
[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I think beyond this, its incredibly daunting to just be told, "read theory." Especially of someone's idea of theory is Capital. And that isn't even talking about how reading theory isn't actually enough. I read quotations and yet still had to get critique of the Gotha programmed by someone. It was embarrassing but unfortunately necessary.

Personally I think a good mix of things is a good start, plus just having quick references for important questions. I.e, a baby communist should read quotations to understand how to be a communist, state and revolution to understand the state and, well, revolution, and however much economic matter is needed for them to "get it." But that last section can also be done with videos by people like Hakim or The Marxist Project. And otherwise those are very readable works [quotations especially].

After the intial hurdles, people can learn a lot through experience and through general analysis, which can make theory (somewhat) redundant in terms of time, especially of they don't become a cadre.

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 6 days ago

Right right, I know. The title is just a joke.

Idk, the post doesn't have much of a point. I was just reading it the other day and I couldn't contain my emotions about it.

 

I'm being hyperbolic [the greatest book ever is obviously Capital (/s)], but I really do love Quotations. It was the first piece of theory I ever read and I think it really helped me although I don't follow it religiously [although maybe I should in a few places]. Idk, in a good mood today so wanted to share that

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 1 week ago

Idk what yall are talking about, the F-47 is amazing at stealth. No one has ever been able to see it

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe, but it could also be a feedback loop from the studio ghibli generations. Those are quite yellow so I think that's started to seep into the training data [I think...? At least that's what I've heard]

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's approaching the right direction.

The key difference in my experience is adaptation vs revision.

For example, saying "revolution can be led by a vanguard party leading the working class" isn't revisionism, because it still holds the fundamental truths of class conflict

But "Socialism can be formed by a small group of conspirators taking control of the state and imposinh socialism" is revisionism, as that is, essentially, a form of utopianism or ideologism [I know Blanqui wasn't a marxist obviously, but you get the point. I'm also debating whether to include economism as a form of revisionism or not]

Edit: This didn't really answer that adaptation part.

A better example would be that if someone said "Socialism could have been reformed into via universal suffrage in early 1800s Britain that [presumably, since that's what Marx believed] isn't revisionism [not just because it was what marx believed. I think there's a section on this in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific].

But if someone said "socialism can be reformed into via universal suffrage in modern britain" that would be revisionism. It's one lense seeing two different things and coming to two different conclusions.

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That's kinda the problem. It's not just they specifically are communists in name only, but that they also spread their incorrect ideas. And they, like Carrillo, don't often say "we're revising marxism away from marxism," they often don't even say they are revising marxism. So revisionism [like moralism] is something that has to be abscribed. I.e, peaceful reform is revisionism not because the revisionist say it's revisionism but because we prove that it is

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago

To put it simply it is claiming to be a communist while revising core principles. I.e, a social democrat [modern] is not a revisionist because they don't claim to be marxist in the first place. But social democrats of the 1900s were revisionist because they claimed to follow marxism while promoting "peaceful reform" and such

 

I was reading Carrillo's "Eurocommunism and the State" for an article and he did that thing a lot of revisionist do where they go "well everything is revisionism!!!! Lenin was a revisionist!!! Marx was a revisionist of himself!!!" Etc. Etc.

But really they are, honestly probably purposefully, obfuscating what revisionism is. For example, he uses the change from war communism to the NEP to post-nep policies as an example of lenin being a revisionist of himself, which...no? That's not what revisionism is. That's just applying different policies to material conditions. I mean it gets a little more complicated obviously but I honestly do very much hate it.

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

I like how this is technically almost correct [the German word Burgher being similar to the French Bourgeoisie]

 
[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Mm, good point. I have issues sitting still and relaxing so no, i haven't tried those yet. But I should, Ill see what I can do.

 

My therapy appointment isn't for another little while so I just wanna get this out now, and plus asking will be nice.

But anyway...this is a really hard thing to describe. It's not like autistic masking, I don't feel like I'm faking social interaction or anything like that.

It's also not a depersonalization issue, because, for the most part, I feel connected to my body...I think. Maybe...

But it's more like I have different personalities and demeanors that, at the time, feel real. So like when I'm out or at Uni I'm just a normal person who's boring and wears polo's and dress pants every day. Quiet and just trying to get through the day.

But then other times I feel like this little boy who just wants to share all of his interests and have all these cool gadgets and make his own little library and likes games and literature and is really blushy and shy whenever the concept of sex comes up and just always wants to see the best in people.

But then sometimes I feel like a jaded woman who wants everyone to go away, and who needs nothing except the clothes on her back, and thinks everyone is repulsive and going to hurt her.

And before anyone says anything, I'm not trying to say I have DID. I don't disassociate, I don't have the amnesia associated with it, and I don't say I'm not any of those at any one time.

But it's like, I feel like certain behaviors are associated with those "characters." Like I said, I feel like my standoffishness and anger is associated with the "woman" part of me, while the "boy" aspect of me actively hates that part and really likes people and wants to share things with them. And my "professional" aspect is sitting there trying to keep them from fighting each other so I can be normal.

I don't think any part of these is the "real" me really. Theres not anything here where I say "that's not me." But they're all "distinct." So while other people might say "oh, I like sharing things with people." Or "I don't like people," that is generally just one trait associated with themselves. Of course they can change or have conflicting feelings about things, but I feel like...idk, it feels like there are multiple people within me sometimes.

For instance, I was thinking of getting a statistics minor. And I think they were all in agreement about that. My professional self likes adding things to their resume, my boyish self likes learning, and my womanly self...honestly I don't know. She's not objecting at least.

Conversely, I finally shaved my body hair recently. At first everyone was in agreement for the most part. But then a family member laughed about it [not...at me...kinda. its complicated] and kinda just treated me like I was stupid or absurd, so now I feel like my "boyish" personality and my "womanly" personality are fighting about it. My "womanly" side says it's fine and I made the right decision. But my "boyish" side feels like we did make a mistake now, and is anxious over whether I look stupid or whether we should've kept it because even though I didn't want it, other people seemed to like it.

But also I'm not a psychologist so i have no clue if this is a normal thing to feel or not :p, and sorry for so much detail. I'll talk about it to a therapist, I just didn't want to be misunderstood because I know what it sounds like.

 

This is a "response" [not really] to this post here (https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9692469?scrolltocomments=true).

I actually related to that post a lot, but there's another part that I also wanted to discuss since I didn't see it discussed there [unless I'm blind and just didn't see it].

Honestly being into popular things can kinda be disappointing too, because while you can talk to a lot of people about it, not a lot of people will engage in it to the same degree you might. For instance, I liked Star Wars for a while. While I could definitely find a lot of people who also like star wars, only a fraction of them will want to discuss any deeper than "Darth Vader is so cool isn't he." Not saying it's bad to not be obsessed with something, but that a lot of interaction is inevitably going to be surface level, save for when you find the occasional likeminded person. With more Niche things [i.e, Disco Elysium], when you find someone else into it, you both know you're both into it, and can have at least a somewhat on depth conversation about it.

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

No, this is the exact opposite. They haven't read enough theory. This is categorical ultra-leftism [edit: I meant left-communism, but theyre similar concepts] at best, straight social democracy at worst.

It's not that they "view the entire world through theory" and that's a bad thing, it's that they're just throwing a general trueism [class consciousness] at a problem to handwave it away because it feels bad to their "common morality." [That being the idea that "cultural boycotts" are bad because they are bad].

And no offense intended towards you, since I know you're getting started, but it is extremely important to view the world through a marxist lense and avoid moralism [not saying you can't oppose things on personal moral grounds, or that the genocide isn't horrific]. Here it did lead you to the correct analysis, that Palestinians must engage in a violent anti-colonial struggle and liberate themselves from the Israeli genocidal apartheid state. Additionally, actions like boycotts and such can be a way to help palestine by isolating Israel and Israelis.

However, without a Marxist analysis, you might come to incorrect conclusions. I.e, positions on the special military operation in Ukraine, the recent "gen z" protests, etc.

"[With the Marxist-Leninist attitude,] a person applies the theory and method of marxism-leninism to the systematic and thorough investigation and study of the environment. He does not work by enthusiasm alone but, as Stalin says, combines revolutionary sweep with practicalness" - Mao Zedong

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago

So true. It's like when I was trying to find someone to have a conversation with about Italo Calvino and his work, or hell actually Han Suyin too, since she's pretty obscure nowadays.

It doesn't help that I'm a STEM major in the most boring white guy part of STEM [basically Engineering that isnt comp sci] so everyone is just focussed on that and doesn't have time or care for literature and stuff, especially critical analysis [yes yes I know I'm trying to make some friends outside of that sphere]

 

Edit: note, I haven't smoked myself, so this is second hand info

Like seriously

Short term it

calms you

let's you focus

feels good

can be used fairly consistently while leaving you capable to do work

is minimally intensive to use, just requiring cigarettes and a lighter/match/fire of some sort

Compare that to alcohol or drugs and such. The only thing comparable is tea/coffee.

Long term it

gets you seriously addicted

Gives you over a dozen different cancers and other diseases

massacres your lungs

And so on, not to mention what it does to underage smokers.

And I get why it happens medically, and I'm not denying it [obviously]. But it's almost on par with those random creeks filled with brain eating amoebas. Like, if there is a god, why did they decide to design earth like that?

6
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
 

It's written by the same person who to my knowledge has the best biography on Jean-Paul Marat in English [I think there's a better one but its in French so :p]. Just wanted to see here if anyone else has read this and if I should check it out

Edit: Ugh Lemmy is being stupid so the image isnt posting. Here's the link instead; https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/a-peoples-history-of-science

 

Yeah, reading a 650 page textbook larger than the textbooks I have to read for my actual degree. It's very interesting but it feels very crushing sometimes

 

In working on an article right now [won't say on what because that's not the focus], but I'm having to read and cite a lot of stuff for it. And it'd be so nice to just not have to. Just be able to go in front of a camera and be like "Stalin personally ate 5 million people" and get paid to do so. Or be like those guys who can barely read the communist manifesto [a 48 page pamphlet] but proudly announce they've debunked communism.

I mean...I wont...I'm too principled and honestly I would still have no motivation for it because I hate doing bullshit. But it would be easier if I didn't hate it...

 

Has anyone ever discussed how insane the bounty on Maduro is? Just a cash reward to kill/imprison the elected leader of a country you have no jurisdiction over? Imagine if Russia put a bounty out on Finland's PM and tried multiple times to kill/kidnap them. We'd probably be starting the mobilization already.

But if the US does it? Crickets

view more: next ›