In 1934 he was interviewed by the extremely famous "Shakespeare of science fiction," H. G. Wells. The questions Wells posed Stalin may as well have been posed by anxious, liberal me. redsails.org/stalin-and-wel…
As things get more and more chaotic, it becomes more and more important to remember Assata's piercing words: "Only a fool lets somebody else tell him who his enemy is."
Do your *own* reading.
Don't let anybody else do your reading for you.
The repetition that this chapter of history is closed and that there is nothing defensible or salvageable in it is ubiquitous and incessant (some would mockingly say "totalitarian" 😄), so precisely on this basis I *insist* we reopen it.
toads from the AP and The Economist are furious that China has a large Uyghur population from which to draw positive testimony to counter their latest wave of atrocity propaganda
"how *dare* China present happy Uyghurs to oppose our angry, CIA-funded, regime-change Uyghurs!? 🤬"
I was reading a (bad) essay on Mao Zedong by Zizek a while back, and this bit from him by it always stuck with me.
Zizek is literally quoting *Robert Conquest* (lol), but what made an impression was that the idea of the "subkulak" was so easily dismissed: lacan.com/zizmaozedong.h…
It's becoming fashionable for some Online Communists to speak derisively of how other Online Communists do too much theory, not enough organizing.
I think the opposite is the case. People don't even agree on what to think of China!
Assata's writing on the subject is insightful:
First of all, this is Twitter.
You should be doing one of two things: sharing interesting theory, or telling people *precisely* what exciting initiative they should get involved with.
The much more common and vague "organize!" is reminiscent of liberals yelling "learn to code!"
The dismissive understanding of identity as trap parrots the position of its alleged opponents and simply gives it a negative meaning:
one can’t be [X] and be anything more than that at the same time; one can’t be [X] and understand anyone who is not [X] or anything else beyond being [X], because others’ human experiences are so opaque, and yours to them.
fun fact: this is close to a complete list of countries I use to convince people that the US props up puppet states at the same time it chokes the life of socialist ones to promote a bullshit idea that Capitalism > Socialism
you missed Israel and Saudi Arabia (vs Iran) though.
People don't like feeling left out; like their thing is uncool or unpopular or below consideration.
So I think socialism would fare better in popular communication if people focused less on responding to and engaging with liberals, and more on intra-communist dialogue.
Nuance is a weapon, and we should notice when we are told that "socialism" should be a big indistinct blob, whereas we must adhere to an exacting taxonomy whenever we refer to liberals and conservatives and alt-right and fascists and so on.
Speaking as a newbie: whenever I saw communists dialogue in public, even in disagreement, it made communism seem vast and historical and inspired curiosity.
Whereas e.g. refusing to take sides on "China" for the sake of "unity" made it seem opportunistic and cobbled together.