The Civil War in the Unites States, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels edited by Andrew Zimmerman

I'm curious how you find Hudis' read of Marx's corpus. Have you read After Capitalism by David Schweickart? If not, I can't recommend it more highly, comrade. — 180 Proof

I finished Peter Hudis' book and found it to be a well-grounded, well-reasoned, at at times an eye-opening reading of Marx's work and perspective. Per the title of the book, Marx does not delineate concrete mechanisms or detailed institutional forms that would comprise a post-capitalist, socialist society. Rather, Marx provides some conceptual lodestars. The most concise summary I can offer is that Marx's concept of the alternative to capitalism centers on the production process and humanity's social relationship to it. Marx wishes to flip the script so-to-speak, or inverse the subject-predicate logic that infests our current socio-economic horror show. Rather than value-production dominating and alienating the wage-labor that creates it, as we see in capitalism, the "total aggregate product" of a free and democratic association of labor "is a social product", which "remains social to renew or reproduce the means of production" or is consumed by individuals as subsistence as determined by "labor-time" (crucially distinct from socially necessary labor time, which is unique to the capitalist mode of production). The distribution and application of the social component to the social product requires conscious and democratic discussion and debate, the form of which Marx does not articulate or detail (aside from being "democratic) as the organization is up to the free association of producers.

Alternatives which fundamentally center on distribution, the abolition or alternatives to the market or private property, will continue to rely on a core constituent of capitalism, value-production, and its autonomous force that eclipses the autonomous power of free and democratic association of labor which is why (among other things) Marx wouldn't have called the USSR "socialist", "communist" etc. ("Capital without Capitalists").

Turning to David Schweickart's work, which as I said before I haven't read in about a decade and have recently just skimmed the section on the basic model of Economic Democracy. I think there are some elements that Marx would agree with and much that he would not. Focusing on the latter, most significantly, I think Marx would criticize Schweickart's "Social Control of Investment" as driven by the anarchic and autonomous force of value-production and therefore not centered of the free association of producers. As Schweickart himself states, "I use the term socialist to refer to any attempt to transcend capitalism by abolishing most private ownership of means of production". Marx would disagree on this appellative change as the abolition of private property does not entail the abolition of capital, and therefore its autonomous force of value-production remains intact. "Private property," writes Marx, "is the result, the necessary consequence of alienated labor". The "conceptual pivot" of Marx, writes Hudis, "the heart of the problem is abolishing capital itself, by ending the estrangement in the very activity of laboring."

Marx's conceptualization of the alternative to capitalism remains quite abstract, which I'm sure some might find unsatisfying. However, perhaps this is the price we pay now, for a future which will hopefully be deliberated, debated and exercised among and centered on a free and democratic association of social producers. I'll have to reread Schweickart's After Capitalism again this winter and chew on this more.

I have read it, you actually recommended it to me a long time ago (I think like 2012)! It's been about a decade since I've read it though, so might need to re-read and compare with Hudis' view.

Marx's Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism by Peter Hudis

This has been on my list to read but I've been waiting for the paperback edition (along with The Enlightenment That Failed)

lmao

Nietzche, The Aristocratic Rebel by Domenico Losurdo

Excited to dive into this

Art History as Social Praxis: The Collected Writings of David Craven edited by Brian Winkenweder

coolest thing he's ever done

Cultures of Uneven and Combined Development: From International Relations to World Literature edited by James Christie and Nesrin Degirmencioglu

Landscapes: John Berger on Art by John Berger

I'd be suspicious of any article published by Quillette, and a cursory sweep of the authors' wiki page strongly suggests they are dumb.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ... I was born and raised in Bronx, NY like her — 180 Proof

She'll be my new representative in Congress when the NYS redistricting is final (Queens though go Mets)

Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory

Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism: Essays in Medieval Social History by Rodney Hilton

:starstruck: :cheer:

Medieval Europe by Chris Wickham

Banning @Streetlight is bullshit

True, though there have been 46 US Presidents and only 5 have lost the popular vote – the last two in 2016 and 2000. Before that was 1876. With 89% of US Presidents elected with the majority of votes Ivthink your statement in this instance is hyperbolic — 180 Proof

In 1876 women couldn't vote, so I don't think it's hyperbolic to suggest majority ruling has faced enormous hurdles in this country, to which my comment was as much about legislative (there are over 3.3M 18-29 YOs in NY. There are over 186K 60+ YOs living in West Virginia. They both get two senators.) and judicial branches (the latter being non-democratic of course), as it was about the executive branch. To further my point vis-a-vis the executive branch, if we are discussing modern political discontent and the onus of responsibility and blame between a political system and voters within that system, then it seems highly relevant that two out of five presidents who have lost the popular vote (i.e. 40%) occurred within the last 22 years of the county's history (within less than <9% of the country's history).

Agreed. We the Sheeple is only the symptom and not the problem. However, Dem voters aren't pushback as hard as GOP voters in the last four+ decades because Dem voters are "unenthusiastic" despite not having that luxury. — 180 Proof

I do not believe that democratic voters, particularly young democratic voters, are any more or less "unenthusiastic" than GOP voters; the issue is that the GOP don't actively marginalize and alienate their more radical voters in a way that the democratic establishment overtly and repeatedly do. In fact the GOP tends to court them. Nevertheless, this brings me to my final point.

Don't you think, however, the fact that the under-30 vote is consistently less than half the over-50 vote is a significant factor in the Dems being "a milquetoast gerontocracy"? No one willingly "relinquishes political power", they must be out-organized and out-mobilized to have it taken from them, and under-30 "youth vote" is consistently the least organized and most demobilized. Tell me how to reliably elect political parties with under-50 year old leaderships without significantly more and persistent under-30 participation. — 180 Proof

The 18-29 turnout for Obama in 2008 was the second highest in modern American history, second only to turnout in 1972 when Boomers were first able to vote. This was driven by Obama's youth-focused campaign and organizational team, which after having helped him win and defeat Hillary in the primary, was showered with praise by Obama as "the best political organization in America, and probably the best political organization that we’ve seen in the last 30 to 40 years". Shortly before Obama's inauguration, this momentum was transformed into a grassroots organization, Organizing for America, which would have "13 million email addresses, three million donors, and two million active members of MyBO, including 70,000 people with their own fund-raising pages." What happened to this organized, mobilized, grassroots machine with a progressive agenda in mind? It was sidelined by Obama within a year after his historic win and after he stacked his administration with democratic party operatives, and subsequently folded the organization within the DNC and effectively deactivated it. The result? When fight for Affordable Healthcare Act reached it's apex, "OFA was able to drum up only 300,000 phone calls to Congress."

According to Marshell Ganz who famously provided the organizational model and training for Obama's grassroots campaign, "Seeking reform from inside a system structured to resist change, Obama turned aside some of the most well-organized reform coalitions ever assembled — on the environment, workers’ rights, immigration and healthcare...Finally, the president demobilized the widest, deepest and most effective grass-roots organization ever built to support a Democratic president. With the help of new media and a core of some 3,000 well-trained and highly motivated organizers, 13.5 million volunteers set the Obama campaign apart. They were not the “usual suspects” — party loyalists, union staff and paid canvassers — but a broad array of first-time citizen activists. Nor were they merely an e-mail list. At least 1.5 million people, according to the campaign’s calculations, played active roles in local leadership teams across the nation. But the Obama team put the whole thing to sleep, except for a late-breaking attempt to rally support for healthcare reform. Volunteers were exiled to the confines of the Democratic National Committee."

Skipping 2016 and fast forwarding to 2020 (for the sake of brevity, I think my point is made regardless), we see similar grassroots momentum with the Bernie Sanders campaign with nearly 1.4M unique donors (the second highest was Warren with 892K...Biden at 451K), a 2020 election cycle total of $95M raised from individual donors (the second highest was Buttigieg at $76M with Biden at $60M), a rally in NYC with an astounding crowd of 26,000 people ("the largest number any Democratic presidential candidate has drawn" in 2019t) and an unsurpassed on-the-ground volunteer base. Of course Biden, the final entrant into the primary was the nuclear option for the Democratic establishment, having entered the primary two months after Sanders, who had been the leading nominee in polls by a wide margin. Long story short, the Sanders campaign sputtered in large part thanks to a hostile Obama, the Democratic party itself being more or less unified in their opposition to Bernie Sanders, the Clyburn endorsement for Biden prior to Super Tuesday helped to club Sanders' campaign (Bill Clinton thanked Clyburn for "ending the inter-family fight" with the "stroke of his hand"), and a sudden drop out of several other candidates who endorsed Biden .

My point is that youth voter organization and mobilization has existed during my entire adult life. But when preferred candidates gain power or come close to power, the Democratic party, the only viable political party in this country that isn't exclusively run by Hell's demons, disbands or works against it (not to mention a hostile media apparatus).

Blaming an unenthusiastic electorate or democratic voters, for the ongoing societal breakdown is fallacious and counterproductive, beyond the consideration that Evangelical Christians are achieving their political goals despite never having achieved a political majority. In my lifetime only one Republican presidential nominee secured more votes than his Democratic opponent. The United States' political apparatus is structured against majority ruling, and the political establishment is broadly unwilling to produce legislation that runs counter to Capitalist interests. It's like criticizing Sisyphus for being unable to reach the top of the hill. How can we point fingers at unenthusiastic non-voters when establishment democrats routinely throw their weight behind conservative democrats when threatened by progressive alternatives (the latter lost by fewer than 300 votes). The democratic party is run by a milquetoast gerontocracy, one that would make the Soviet Politburo blush, and who refuse to relinquish political power.

Someone suggested how pivotal the 2014 and 2016 election were which betrays a myopic view of the conservative's legal movement to achieve political objectives; a 50 year old mobilization the very concept of which is so alien and anathema to how the modern democratic party functions it seems as a definitional contradiction. Regardless of how 2014 and 2016 turned out (had Hillary won in 2016 who knows how she would have fared in 2020), the conservative legal movement would be waiting by the wings.

The problem with that is that it's relatively easy to overturn a law. Even if the Democrats are able to pass a federal law to protect these rights, when the Republicans are next the majority they'll just repeal it. Such rights need to be constitutional rights. — Michael

Unfortunately passing a constitutional amendment is not a realistic, and even if Democrats are able to pass a federal law to codify these rights it's assured that this Supreme Court will rule them as unconstitutional.

IME, in light of this last week of wingnut rulings from SCOTUS, Biden and the Dems have no choice but to take these "emergency" actions asap (no later than August 1st, 2022) in the following sequence:
1A. By Executive Order of POTUS, issue permits to set up mobile abortion clinics on easily accessible federal lands in all states where abortion and abortion services are outlawed.

1B. CIC orders all miilitary bases, accessible to civilians, located in states where abortion and abortion services are outlawed, to immediately set up, within base hospital facilities, secure abortion clinics to be staffed by civilian abortion providers and open to both civilians and military personnel seeking reproductive healthcare.

2. Kill the US Senate's jim/jane crow Filibuster Rule.

3. Pass the Judiciary Act of 2021 which expands SCOTUS by four or more justices.
I think this achievable list constitutes a reasonable criterion by which to judge the political will and governing competence of POTUS and the Congressional Democratic Leadership. Are they antifascists or fucking collaborators? — 180 Proof

It's also clear that Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, & Loving should be codified

Oh, that's a big one. Let me know if worth, if you can! — Streetlight

I'm a little over halfway through it and it's excellent so far. Very thorough. Helpful in filling some gaps in the period of Europe I was arguably most unfamiliar with. Going to read his book on Medieval Europe next.

Unfortunately had to take two days off of reading; finally caught Covid last week after successfully avoiding it for 2+ years, which were instead were lying on the couch watching mindless movies.

Abortion rights are ideological insofar as you consider woman and your relationship to them to be immaterial.

Either way, even assuming this does provide a clarion call for democrats come this fall, it's all moot unless they have actionable policies including court packing to protect other civil rights that Clarence Thomas explicitly put in the chopping board. But since they've had two months since the leak with little messaging beyond "go vote" I'm not holding my breath.

Whenever someone presents a political philosophy that they purport to be neither left-wing or right-wing it's always just rephrased right-wing sentiments; as was the case with Mishima, who was definitely right-wing.

Marxisms were tried and failed. All you got is the Nordic model at best. — schopenhauer1

wow then I guess Marxists shouldn't have kids, you absolutely nailed it dude, congrats!

This privately owned situation is near impossible to change.
It follows that it would then be best to not expose new people into this unjust, intractable situation. — schopenhauer1

:gasp:

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

Hippies in the 60s? What are we talking? Can’t be civil rights movement. — schopenhauer1

Christ dude you've been on a philosophy forum for seven years and somehow the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Civil War, the Russian Revolution, etc. escape you as examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. Social, economic, political conditions are not permanent. You need to get it through your head that to suggest otherwise is inconsistent with Marxism.

Because since 1848, we’ve seen great strides in the whole Marxist revolution working out — schopenhauer1

Besides being historically false (re: social revolution), it's also irrelevant to what your opening post argues. Additionally, history is not destiny, and certainly not the last 174 years of history.

Internalized defeatism is antithetical to Marxism, so the argument demonstrates a lack of engagement with Marxism and so can't be taken very seriously

Very silly especially since Marx loved kids

The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 by Christopher Wickham

Think I'm gonna lean mostly into history this summer

Empire of Capital by Ellen Wood

Did you enjoy Losurdo's Liberalism?

The Making of Bourgeois Europe: Absolutism, Revolution and the Rise of Capitalism in England, France and Germany by Colin Mooers

This one is new - at least to me - and particulalrly horrifying. Like, imagine the saftey issues with this. A fire? Hell, say a shooter did get in? Like, these people would rather pick a fight against... doors, rather than address mass gun murder. — Streetlight

Walking, talking pile of shit Ted Cruz and others have suggested it.

“Have one door into and out of the school and have that one door, armed police officers at that door,” Cruz argued. “If that had happened, if those federal grants had gone to this school, when that psychopath arrived, the armed police officers could have taken him out and we would have 19 children and two teachers still alive.”

Unsurprised that Ted Cruz would forget a key incident in American labor history that shows how that's a god awful idea. Instead of 19 children shot Cruz would prefer over 500 burned to death since we can't ban fire.

Damn shame we can't even get imbeciles in here to commit to the current wave of psychotic responses for deterring mass shootings measures, all of which evade the direct problem of guns. In the last few days I've seen gun fanatics suggest arming teachers, single entrances in schools, replacing school cops with army veterans since the former are apparently too pussy to engage shooters. Instead we get role players, boooring.

Read my previous responses to you, christ almighty