This is the average Burgerlander vision of politics.

*century

Probably not, depends on availability

Took me a couple hours, same for my partner.

Perfect! Essentially, to wrap it around, the Republican party exists because the conditions for it exist. The idea that we can “vote blue until the Reps are no more, then a left party will take its place” is wrong, because they won’t remove the conditions for a fascist party. The new party will be fascist as well, or permadem rule for right wing Dems, like California.

Wait, again?

That’s a reasonable critique that I generally agree with, though Anarchism has had a lot of growth over the years in terms of theory and practice.

I will say though, based on your answers, the list I linked would be great. It starts you off on simple terms and concepts, then goes in-depth, then expands it to the modern era, then it moves to organizational theory and practice. I’ve read more works than are just in this list, but it really does serve as a great guided experience for the basics.

Then, you can branch out to Feinberg, Fanon, Losurdo, Parenti, or swing over to Anarchists with Goldman, Kropotkin, etc. Don’t refuse to read theory “across the aisle,” there’s a lot to learn from everyone.

This is the list I am working through! It’s definitely Marxist focused. What do you lean, Marxist, Anarchist, undecided?

Good idea!

Sounds eventful, but glad to have you back!!!

Oh, nice! I’ll take a look, thanks!

Been wanting to get one, no space in my place for one though

Sort of, I’m showing how even taking him at his best, he is still the worst. As a rule I try to assume good faith before dunking, because even good-faith readings of Vaush are terrible.

Let’s start with where you understand, and we will see where we disagree. My position is history is primarily driven by Material Conditions, ie the status of reality itself and what came before it, and not by individuals moving against the current, so to speak.

As an example, if Karl Marx was born in the year 1200, he would not have had the ideas he does, there would be no conception of Dialectical Materialism from him.

It’s insulting to people who have actually made the effort of doing so, and is immediately transparent for those who have.

Many people are saying this