overview for SweetLava

I ain't no cook (CW cursed, not vegan and reactionary) in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

sounds like the shit i'd whip up omw to serve crack to an underpriviledged neighborhood down south

They planned this from the beginning. in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I for one actually think this notion of banning TikTok has some interesting consequences. JD Vance is supposedly anti-big tech and he wants to promote smaller companies for 'free market competition'. This is also at a point in time where the US is pushing to regulate Google, with both the present Biden admin and the future Trump admin on board.

It's true that this is to service the middle-class, bolster American nationalism, and strengthen American domestic production/industry, as well as promote the idea of Big Capital against Small Capital (Big Capital is "woke" and "DEI", Small Capital is freedom). It is also true that the US, especially since the Biden admin, wants to offer some serious restructuring of the global and domestic economy.

I would not dismiss their arguments against China so sloppily if I were you. Public image is all rhetoric, it gets people riled up and excited. You shouldn't mistake that for reality. There is something much bigger going on underneath the surface that I don't think any left-wing groups/orgs in the US are capable of preparing for, even in the best case scenario...

The German Ideology - Red Star in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Now that I watched the whole video, I'm happy to see the end made reference to Marx's "end of philosophy" - but I still do not understand it.

If he is talking about practical activity replacing philosophy, if that's what Marx means to say, I would be tempted to say Karl Marx is a positivist or an empiricist, but:

George Novack’s "Understanding History": Positivism And Marxism In Sociology

Geoff Pilling on Marx's Capital:

(long-ish passage from text)

Empiricism, as a theory of knowledge rests upon the false proposition that perception and sensation constitute the only material and source of knowledge. Marx as a materialist, of course, never denied that the material world, existing prior to and independently of consciousness, is the only source of sensation. But he knew that such a statement, if left at that point, could not provide the basis for a consistent materialism, but at best a mechanical form of materialism, which always left open a loop-hole for idealism. It is true that empiricism lay at the foundation of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century materialism in England and France. But at the same time this very empiricist point of view provided the basis for both the subjective idealism of Berkeley and the agnosticism of Hume. How is it possible, starting with the proposition that sensation is the sole source and material of knowledge, to end up either denying the objectivity of the external world (subjective idealism) or denying the possibility of an exhaustive knowledge of that external world (scepticism)? To take the latter case, the argument runs as follows: to men are given directly perceptions and sensations; they provide the only legitimate source of knowledge. But in these perceptions are to be found no internal necessary connections. How do we know that one thing is the cause of another? We see only one thing followed by another; if this is constantly repeated we come to expect the second whenever the first occurs. This is merely a psychological expectation, not a causal connection. These were essentially the conclusions drawn by Hume from the empiricist theory of knowledge. It followed that any statements about the objectivity of the categories of philosophy or science (causality, interaction, law, etc.) are purely metaphysical, reflecting nothing in the sensed material of knowledge. On this view, logical categories are only schemes which we use (purely out of convention and habit) for the organisation of sense-data. But such schemes remain, necessarily, wholly subjective. They are subjective first in relation to the external world, the existence of which, according to scepticism, can never be established; second in relation to the very sense data themselves, since they are determined by the very constitution of the subject – that is by the aggregate of the individual’s former psychical experiences.

Marx’s objection to empiricism rests upon this: that its attention is directed exclusively to the source of knowledge, but not the form of that knowledge. For empiricism the form assumed by our knowledge tends always to be ignored as something having no inherent, necessary, connection with the content, the source of our knowledge. To return again to a previous example in the light of this: Ricardo saw in labour the source and measure of value, capital, etc. But he failed to consider the form assumed by this labour. Here was an expression not so much of the weakness of his economic theory as of his philosophical stance, empiricism. Here we can see why Marx considered it vital to examine economic forms and why political economy ignored this matter. (It must be said that this neglect is unfortunately to be found in much Marxist writing on Capital.)

The German Ideology - Red Star in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

i'm going to watch the video with the silly Stirner face after this

Thank you for showing this youtube channel

They planned this from the beginning. in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago

at least we have instagram threads

Has anyone tried I2P for torrenting? How is it? in c/piracy

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago

fucking awful

Price of bread up 900% after liberation of Syria: UN warns in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

Did all the sanctions get lifted in exchange for humanitarian aid?

*Permanently Deleted* in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

He was mostly alright, but his significance really comes from popularizing and formulating what is now known as Marxism-Leninism.

As a result of mounting internal and external pressure, as well as the power-struggle following Lenin's death, Stalin had to make countless concessions to deal with problems that could not be avoided.

Because of his role leading a country that was led into, and greatly harmed by war (tens of millions of deaths as a result), it can be very challenging to get an appropriate critique and analysis of his role. You are not going to find any example of peaceful revolution, nor will you find any examples of countries in a state of war that can grant complete freedom and liberty.

I defend him to the extent that he led a struggle against European fascism, and I defend him against accusations that Marxism and fascism are the same. Going so far to condemn Stalin generally has a tendency to grant a certain level of forgivenes and apologia for fascists and their collaborators, as well as a wide assortment of reactionaries and nationalists.

When it comes to people who would be identified as "Stalinists", usually what is meant is something more similar to what we would call National Bolsheviks (NazBols). If not that, then in reference to the tendency of certain Marxist-Leninist groups to justify social conservatism, petty nationalism, and premature centralization.

One thing I'd like to touch on: the experience of the Bolsheviks told us that we need unity of Marxists, where we exclude the distorters of Marx. If you want to be a Marxist, you need Marx - no way around that. Stalin had to read Marx's major works, Lenin did so and more, and so did Trotsky, Luxembourg, even Kautsky and Bernstein.

Any major revolutionary figure is going to be smeared and distorted for someone else's gain. People still hate Robespierre, for instance, and people still try to rewrite the narrative of people from Nat Turner to Huey P. Newton - Stalin was no different. You don't have to defend him at all, nor do you have to condemn him (or any other historical figure), but you should at least understand the real Stalin and understand that the USSR was born out of the ashes of the Russian Empire - generally for worse as we came closer and closer to its dissolution. If you don't care to catch the full story, you are going to be clueness when it comes to any revolutionary movement across the Americas, especially the US. You can try to overcorrect or overly emphasize how much you don't like Stalin, if you'd like, but remember that Stalin's opposition and the leftists who opposed the initial October Revolution were well on their way to make mistakes in the complete opposition direction - equally as harmful and destructive. That doesn't make you superior, it makes you blind. Stalin's errors were far from the only possibility.

It could've went way worse, or it could've been far better off - which would you prefer?

Shoreline Mafia - HEAT STICK (West Coast Rap) in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

he aint really in that water he a knee deeper 🔥🔥

Shoreline Mafia - HEAT STICK (West Coast Rap) in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

shoreline full come back or what

bird flu in LA wastewater in c/[email protected]

Ejidos - Nuevo Megahilo General para el 9 al 13 de Noviembre 2024 in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

is it really bad to do that? asking for a friend