I was told recently by a management type that a software tool could be installed on every laptop because ChatGPT had given him the advice that he should do that. It needs a full server dedicated to even run. I barely convinced him to stop with trying to get people to install it

Oh yeah that’s all shit and horrible. I guess I still see all of this as following from the simplified and entirely incorrect analysis (or at least it could explain it, I guess maybe for Haz it went the other way by starting at conservative and nationalistic values and then finding an analysis that supports it).

I guess the more important question than “how did they reach these shit standpoints”, it’s more important to know how to propagandize and work against it. Does the way we answer the ‘how did they get here’ question have an impact on that? I think so, and that it’s more useful to start with the mistake in class definition than to start at the nationalism as their kernel. But I’m not like super convinced of this

Not gonna say you’re wrong because I only see shit online about them, just that everything I’ve seen up to know can be clarified with my analysis. Very open to hearing that they’re also just outright US nationalists, though. Makes em easier to write off

From what I’ve learned about them (just online shit, idk, not amerikkkan), this seems like it’s not explicitly a goal, but a result of their ‘direct industrial proles’ vs everyone analysis. Because they truly believe that this is the only contradiction that matters, they strategically don’t push back against American nationalism. It’s what anyone would do with that analysis. It’s just that analysis is completely wrong and horrible lol

I, a communist 100% opposed to their vision and analysis, think it’s good to have a better analysis of exactly where they are wrong. Just “class reductionism” doesn’t really cover it, because it’s a very specific sort of limited scope. Sometimes class reductionism is saying that an analysis limits itself to only class (harmful in the long run, but not terrible to work with), but the ACP limits itself to a narrow view of what class means (worse). They look at only direct industrial production as “value creating” and take the hard stance that arises out of that assumption, and they limit “class relations” to “direct industrial production proles” vs “everyone else.” There is no other mode of dialectics relevant in their eyes. They are anti-identity politics (in the bad way, like anti-Losurdo’s inclusive “class” definition) and ultra about the strategies to be used for the chosen class.

I don’t think I’m directly disagreeing with you or anything, but I do think it’s important to name the exact disagreements or else it’s just throwing terms that not everyone understands. I, for example, don’t actually get what exactly you mean with “maga communism” or “nazbol” or “national socialist” in your comment. I’d guess we agree 100% but, you know, clarification for others is helpful, I hope

GOOD comment. Marx wasn’t saying “those ignorant philosophers wasted time analyzing.” He was saying that they wasted their analysis by not following it with change (or, more likely, by not having change be the goal of the entire process of analysis)

Still Mt shoulder is fucked up, and I’m just running a lot. But got sick so I missed 5 days. Today back at it though and had a good run!

Damn it, I thought Trump was comparing him to Kwame Enkrumah and I was excited that trump even knew to make it. Thought for a second Trump might actually know about him

Had a discussion just recently here about this. There are so many good reasons to ignore this critique about DPRK. There’s also just this assumption that every representative body works so that you have disagreements and such up until the very final vote. Any reasonable system would have that worked out and have everyone agreeing before it gets there. Or at least everyone knowing how everyone will vote. Then, it being a 100% vote is just a rubber stamp that, indeed, the procedures were followed and we take responsibility for the actions now. It’s basic democratic centralism one where or another (either hiding disagreement from the West or deciding to agree after all previous steps)

And some pictures of the pages! I’m willing to share any out of my vegan cookbooks of course. This is a good idea for like a mega thread lol. Just share a recipe you like with the site.

Running like 5 days a week instead of anything else because my shoulder still hurts. Excited to get back to strength training but damn it takes a while to heal

I have a version printed in Moscow in 1982. Pretty neat and it was cheap to find 2nd hand. I’d just look on your country’s second-hand shops for it. Like eBay or Facebook marketplace or whatever. Any version is pretty good. First read it’s not gonna matter much which translation! You can read about the translation fights after hahaha

Well if you limit your scope to the west, the anti-bellum imperialism+social democracy push made the K less prominent. But if you expand the scope to all of global capitalism, it’s been a K since our boy Marx at least

Fully agreed. I will once again admit to appreciating videogamedunkey, whose Bad Graphics video’s prescience lives on.

Damn I appreciate this so much! At the end, you should try to put this somewhere? Tankietube or something so we can share with comrades!

I sympathize with this, though I have a ‘philosphy of science’ critique of these sorts of critiques–the forest missed for the trees sort of thing. Holistically considering quotes and portions of huge things as evidence of something while actions and a holistic look may still show its opposite. That is all to say, this doesn’t convince me, but I get that it can be convincing.

I didn’t read this all–I won’t lie by saying I did. But I took an example:

"The main factor in this change is alleged to be the fact that it is now not objective conditions, but man that plays the decisive role in history:

“It is not objective conditions but man that plays the decisive role in the development of history”. (Kim Song Il: ‘On Some Problems of Education in the Juche Idea’, in: ‘On Carrying Forward the Juche Idea’; Pyongyang; 1995: p. 144). "

This seems very easy to me to clarify as the combination of the idea that objective conditions are also created by humans, or at least the most dominating ones. It is just highlighting the opposite in a dialectic which Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were needing to push the other pole of in their times. When Kim Song Il was writing, it was much more important for the movement to recognize the human aspect.

It reminds me of what I read recently (will have to look it up) where Ho Chi Minh talked about Lenin ‘bending the stick’ the other way by saying a more extreme argument to bring the opinions towards a better understanding of the dialectical motion

As Losurdo puts it, Marx sometimes didn’t imply an end to the state saying “the falling away of the state AS SUCH” and other times clearly implied it would go away entirely saying “the falling away of the state” and then discussing the ways that no state power would be needed. It seems Marx just slipped sometimes into that line of thought, but I don’t judge the main body of his work for that slip (the historical materialism and analysis of capitalism)

But what do you consider ways that the DPRK rails against historical materialism? I’ve never heard this claim, genuinely!

Cesare said it first and better, fuck Foucault (nonsexually)

Agreed though I like the wording of:

Fascism is the expropriation at the periphery ever present in Capitalism. Sometimes the periphery is within Geographic borders and defined by race, class, or any myriad of classifications.

But that rolls off the tongue a bit worse lol

Thanks! I enjoyed putting my thoughts down too, glad you liked it. I do think hating MA for his faults is still fine, for sure, including all the horrible shit he used his power for, like every other leader of of Rome. But separating that from the very useful pondering and tactics for avoiding the emotional downsides of failures is useful and allows us to utilize it despite his failures as a person and leader

Also important to note that much of his writing was just journaling, so he may have been simultaneously been a chud outwardly talking about “strength and power and decisiveness” and all that when not contemplating his own troubles alone with his journal