If I didn’t have anything else on my plate I could do a Reddit x Lenin type response to most of the stuff in the book in not too long and format it.

I could crank out a better book in two weeks lol.

Yeah, most “tankies” have heard of the cia thing, the anti-settlers bs, and so on, while the great gatsby and Zeno’s paradox are fairly common knowledge. Its totally unclear what he’s trying to accomplish, even how he thinks this would impress anyone.

I think the point is that they have better analysis or knowledge, but that’s still an absurd way to put it.

It reads more like bourgeois philosophy. Needlessly complicated, expecting you to be familiar with the subject matter before you read the book, and being an exercise in showing the reader just how much the author knows and has read.

Schopenhauer reincarnated but he likes Hegel now. None of the examples are even particularly obscure though.

I haven’t read losurdo either but I’ve heard he’s good.

Class struggle in the Soviet Union or globally? More investigation may be due, but my impression is that he continued many of Khrushchev’s policies and the USSR continued to decline in this era.

As I expected. Khrushchev was not just revisionist for denouncing Stalin. That’s all a lot of people care about, but he declared the end of class struggle and implemented bad “reforms” that led to the rotting of the union from the inside. Brezhnev did nothing to reverse such revisionism.

Lmao checks out.

Spoiler that shit. It’s long.

No, Amerikkkan dominance is great, we just just need to vote it back into the right hands.

Fair enough

Not to start this struggle session again, but his prostitution take isn’t that bad. Under capitalism prostitution is a sorry means of survival or petty bourgeois lifestyle. “Sex work” under socialism is an absurdity. People can fuck whomever and still get the minimums for life, but it doesn’t make sense to pour money into an unproductive industry. If anything - as cockshott implies - stay at home parents are worthy of monetary compensation for their contribution to society.

I was aware of the terf stuff and unequal exchange stuff, but didn’t have much exposure to it. I will look into those links.

Didn’t we just get this question?

Idk but I was given this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16bue8TQo-knWAKlkpuNBnePOs7j7KDh11aDoNa_dPO0/edit

I’ve literally read that book and watched his interviews.

Yes this has strayed, but expelling people who support black national liberation is certainly dogmatic and patsoc esque.

The communist movement is largely decolonial unless you’re some silly PatSoc.

Remember those times CPUSA kicked out people who support national liberation and condemned Hamas?

Nepal is not an example of “revisionism.”

What do you know about Nepal? They had an effective revolutionary movement and ended up compromising for “communists” in power of a still capitalist system.

I’m not ending the conversation. I was not attacking your suspicion of potential anti-China content (without actually watching it, mind you), but expanding the conversation into why you might not like when people talk about revisionism in other situations.

Labels are silly. Call me a decolonial Marxist. I am generally pro-China, but am currently delving into other theory to form an all sided view. The point of the quotation is that CPUSA legalist nonsense is revisionist.

I am suggesting that you don’t like when people criticize revisionism because you support revisionism.