I usually don't get into the religion discourse cuz of how little I care about it as an agnostic, but I don't agree at all that religion is some major source of evil. Yes, many powerful religious institutions are, but that's cuz they act as arms of the ruling class.
Instead of claiming the mere idea of religion is evil (which just isn't true when we look at ppl & movements inspired to do good), IMO we should be analyzing materially how religious institutions form & attack them as institutions of power. Otherwise it's divisive bickering.
I mean, even within Christianity, look up liberation theology for an example of an entire movement/tendency within Christianity that cares about economic & social justice. There's no reason to shit on potential comrades when the real evil is capital.
Tbh I think we could use more materialist analysis on the left. But I also get that we're given zero materialist analysis in the US & self-study is rly hard when you're trying to just make it through the day, esp in a pandemic. So it makes sense why we don't.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with David, Antifa Supersoldier 🥊

David, Antifa Supersoldier 🥊 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Dave0fReckoning

12 Jan
We don't talk about the Spanish-American War enough IMO. I understand why- it's small fries compared to the wars that would come later- but it was a HUGE turning point for this country. Not just foreign-policy wise, but even domestically. (1/?)
See, the US conception of "freedom" relied on the frontier. Freedom was defined in a Jacksonian way to be able to settle your own farmstead & not be bothered by anyone. The small yeoman farmer who gets to live his days in peace. But this was actually pretty nefarious. (2/?)
The biggest & most prominent reason it's nefarious is, ofc, HOW the land was obtained (Native genocide). But there was another less visible effect it had: the frontier acted as a safety release valve for social & political tensions in the US. (3/?)
Read 11 tweets
11 Jan
Broke: Democrats are bad at their job, they constantly shit on their base

Woke: Democrats are good at their job, they're actually serving capital

Bespoke: Democrats are bad at their job, austerity & means testing is putting capitalism into crisis
This is, of course, why so many historians (myself included) believe that FDR "saved capitalism" with the New Deal. Social democracy is the only sustainable form of capitalism, but the capitalist class is constantly trying to strip it so they can accumulate more wealth.
That's ultimately why those of us left of soc-dem believe that social democracy isn't enough. Letting the capitalists hold the keys means you can have a state with a strong safety net, but they're gonna use everything at their disposal to chip away at it til there's nothing left.
Read 4 tweets
10 Jan
The difference btwn the GOP listening to the rightwing of their party vs the Dems ignoring the leftwing of their party, isn't that it's some personal choice by the parties. It's that the right doesn't threaten the interests of the ruling class, but the left does.
The negotiation btwn the GOP & right is based on how comfortable the GOP elite are having their sense of decorum offended by the right. The negotiation btwn the Dems & left is how much wealth & power the Dems are willing to redistribute. COMPLETELY different dynamic.
I say this because a lot of leftists frequently draw the comparison between the failure of Occupy, BLM, Bernie etc compared to the Tea Party & MAGA. But it's completely ignoring how different the material relationships & threats to the elite are. The context is totally different.
Read 6 tweets
9 Jan
Marx never said poverty would be what'd make poor ppl rise up. He said that the material conditions of the working class (including how those conditions affected social structures) would.

Let's talking about that, starting with ~the dialectic~
The dialectic is between the material & ideal. In other words, the actual material/physical conditions around us & the ideas in our heads. Hegel first brought up the dialectic, saying that our ideas are basically the primary mover of things. Therefore, he was an idealist
Marx basically said that, yes, the dialectic is real & what moves history, but putting the ideal first is putting the cart before the horse. It's actually the material that comes first, because we're responding to our material (economic, physical, geographic, etc) conditions.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!