this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
925 points (86.4% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

466 readers
130 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LengAwaits 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism


Additionally, check out Willam Blum's "Killing Hope" (pdf link), and/or "America's Deadliest Export", by same (pdf link).

[–] finitebanjo 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

That quote basically describes every politician from every ideology that has ever lived. You can literally swap out communism for other words and it still reads the same.

Its got no substance or citations of factual events. Basically word salad.

[–] LengAwaits 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, the citations of factual events are in the links below the quote. Check out Willam Blum's "Killing Hope" (pdf link) for more citations than you can shake a stick at.

[–] finitebanjo 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not going to waste any more hours of my life reading substanceless tankie bullshit than I have, thanks.

[–] LengAwaits -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Scared it might not confirm your biases?

[–] finitebanjo 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Do you sit down and read political theory books written by hedge fund managers?

It's okay to write off low value sources, it doesn't make you biased.

[–] LengAwaits 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, in fact, I do. I specifically seek out and read literature from people with whom I have knee-jerk disagreements.

How else will I be sure I'm not trapped in a thought bubble? It's important to read critically from a variety of sources, while reserving judgement. That's literally how you learn. It's too easy to fall for propaganda, otherwise.

[–] finitebanjo 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] LengAwaits 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure "favorite" is something I can quantify for you with such ease, as I'm not ranking my favorite movies/spectacles, here. We're discussing engaging with things that don't just pet and soothe your inbuilt biases. It'd be like asking my favorite college coursework textbook.

I most recently digested George Soros' "Alchemy Of Finance" via audiobook, (though I'm not sure he really qualifies as a hedge fund manager, exactly). I'm no fan of his hyper-neo-liberal leanings, but why should I be scared to read what he has to say about finance? I have time. His musings on reflexivity were compelling enough, I guess.

I've also recently plowed through Anne Case and Angus Deaton's "Deaths Of Despair". I've historically chafed against Deaton's particular brand of neo-lib economics. It seems he's had something of a mea culpa moment in the past few years, since his Nobel prize in Econ, because he's been running around pissing off a bunch of economists with articles like these.

If you have any recommendations I'm open to them!

[–] finitebanjo -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Guess what I didn't read just now?

[–] LengAwaits 1 points 4 days ago

What do you want, a cookie? What are you getting out of this? Just bored?