@MourningScholar@NiaFrome I dont think so. His moral framework seems much more centered upon ending exploitation of people and securing a more sustainable political economy to avoid misery and poverty.
@drumm_colin@RodericDay What's your Twitter sized description of Hegelian dialectics? Read the RS articles, which are referenced at the top of the thread instead of bullshit nitpicking at the condensed bit halfway down
@drumm_colin@RodericDay Did you read any of the RS explanations or just assume that this was another example of vague and shitty descriptions because it was condensed? Unfortunately, philosophical differences at the base of rational description don't lend themselves to tweet-length explanation.
@MrTaha@RodericDay 'Pre-conditioned' insinuates an outside cause when the redsails position is that people find excuses to believe things that benefit them personally when believed.
@NiaFrome Damn I was just having a discussion about definitions of socialism, imperialism, etc wrt China with comrades and needed this tweet 3 hours ago. Perfect distillation of the problem I was highlighting. Can I take it to put in my internal critique piece?
@israeliens1@JosephARaines@RodericDay Is this what ACP passes off as analyses? Marxism is only purely about capitalism and DotP? Loser shit, honestly. Settler-colonialism, capitalism, and fascism are co-constituant and that is crucial to building a successful movement. Read Losurdo
@israeliens1@JosephARaines@RodericDay Gerald Horne is a historian. I don't think he's written anything on current strategies for socialism. His analyses are entirely useful to marxists regardless of that. He does an analysis of settler-colonialism starting from the land question. I don't think you've read him
@israeliens1@JosephARaines@RodericDay Ah ok you're an ACP-type person. Assessing the land question is marxist. His analyses of the American counter-revolutions are based in historical materialism. He describes the horrific regime in ethical terms, so did Marx. It's still based in a dialectical-materialist analysis.
@israeliens1@JosephARaines@RodericDay What makes you say that? He's a marxist with analyses of settler-colonialism of the US and of black American radical movements. His works are historical-materialist. Do you have some description of what would make him liberal?
@RodericDay I am reminded of some who lament specialized consultancy as a system, meanwhile I think "some are developed to be skilled and quick at something useful across society, that's super deep socialization." It just lacks the comradely feel of a union man in a factory his whole life.
@maxajl Very good thread. Speaking of "capacity" in this way sometimes reeks of capitalist ideology, but analyzing it more generally as human relations requiring resources which must be organized gives an unassailable way to have that conversation. Will keep that in my pocket.
@fightpantz@BlackVelvvett@bidetmarxman I said higher levels in businesses, meaning practical application. Such skills are made concrete in practice with decision making with responsibility. This is limited by capital to those it rewards. Thats a structurally small overlap with leftist movements.
@fightpantz@BlackVelvvett@bidetmarxman These are not the skills referenced, though. We have many with those skills. That's great. But skills like 'prioritizing tactics to fulfill strategic goals' is something mostly only taught at higher levels in business. We need them too but are structurally limited from them
@IndianaModerate@RodericDay Definitive final reply from me: you've only gone deeper in the nesting doll. You want capitalism to be a ranking and nothing analytically defined in stark contradiction with the need to concretely define it to understand it systematically. There's nothing left to discuss about it
@IndianaModerate@RodericDay Ignoring everything bad in methodolgy, this still does nothing to define Capitalism as you initially claimed, unless you define Capitalism as "more capitalist the higher on the list you are" and export all thinking to these groups. Then it's still useless to talk to you.
@IndianaModerate@RodericDay No you didn't. You just threw these terms out there with no possible way to grasp them except by accepting a huge set of ideological assumptions that you have accepted from liberalism. I'm done replying unless you say something worth reading.
@IndianaModerate@RodericDay π₯±
Your thinly veiled normative and ideological assumptions are boring and useless. "Free" "freedom" "voluntary". It's like you created a nesting doll definition that gets more vague the deeper you look.
@RodericDay This is a huge problem in Marxist groups in the west. Take a 1 line definition from The German Ideology -> define CPC policy today with limited discussion of goals, conditions, strategies then vs now. Losurdo's holistic approach is sorely needed. But, that requires intense study.