HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.

-- Mahatma Gandhi

Surreptitiously accepting Malthus's doctrine of population

Seriously wtf does he mean by this.

Also Marx never mentions Dialectical Materialism, the closest anyone gets is Engels describes their method as a "materialist dialectic."

There are so many errors in just this one paragraph I can't even fathom.

I know the answer but of course I can't help asking it: how can such renowned and educated thinkers be so incredibly wrong so consistently? I have little formal education past high school and have a better grasp of these topics than Bertrand Fucking Russell. I know people who work at grocery stores who make 99% of economists and philosophy professors look like total fools.

Marx was muddle headed? Are you fucking serious??

Possible, but the risk associated with faking a document that compels isolated alienated service members actually taking up political action against the will of their own government would be reckless beyond measure. This system works in part because it depoliticizes the individual. It would be like handing an unloaded gun to someone who wants to kill you and saying its harmless because it doesn't have any bullets; because if they can get some bullets, you're fucked, and you just saved your enemies a step by supplying the instrument of your undoing

Faking a document where individual military personnel engage in collective action is a real strange way to continue the centuries long concerted effort to prevent and destroy even the idea of collective political action.

Quantitative changes -> qualitative changes

I thought it was the dopey buzzard from Looney Tunes

Wait are you saying imperialism didn't exist before capitalism because imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism? That is incredibly backwards

It sounds a lot like "uneven and combined development". Trotsky and Lenin were trying to figure out why if a technologically advanced nation moved all their high tech shit to an underdeveloped backwards country, why did the underdeveloped country remain backward? They realized that technology takes a long time to develop and where it develops and alienates the workers and causes all these social changes that workers organize against and the bourg has to make cultural adjustments...but once its finished you can just take it to a new country where it can be sold to the ruling class along with all the methods of suppression that were learned along the way, and the new tech just strengthens the ruling class in that underdeveloped country.

But it works the other way too. For example, after the failed 1905 Russian revolution, the burgeoning proletariat of Russia looked to workers organizations in more advanced countries and adapted the union form to suit their own purposes. But the Russian bourgeoisie was a joke and wasn't able to organize against the worker orgs, which became the soviets that grew into a dual power rival until they seized power in Feb 1917.

Uneven and combined development is definitely a crucial theory in order to understand historical development.

I've worn mine to protests and Palestinian people like go out of their way to interact with me, waving, saying hello, etc.,

I bought mine probably in June and wore it to a socialist convention in August in solidarity with a pro-BDS group that was the center of a big struggle session in the org. Honestly at the time it seemed a little weird (I was joking "solidarity with BDS and yt pepo in Keffiyehs") but that was like 15000 deaths ago. When the enemies are out in the open its easier to tell who is on your side.

Also "cultural appropriation" is a form of erasure. Since you wear it to try and save the culture of the Palestinians, to protect it and defend it, you aren't appropriating. Like, technically. Appropriation is taking the cultural capital of another culture that can be monetized and commodifying it, while erasing other forms of social and cultural capital that can't be made into commodities. This severs the cultural symbol from its original (now eliminated) cultural and social context, leaving only the commodity. At least that's my formulation

Yeah go ahead and add me to the list of leftists bound for the glue factory

First as tragedy, then as farce.

The beginnings of capitalism may go back as far as the 1300s. The Ambassadors by Hans Holbein the Younger, which documents this new semi global mercantile system goes to 1533. There was encirclements that began shortly after until much of the land in europe had become private property.

The English capitalists had their revolution/civil war from 1640-1660, supplanting the power of the monarchy, the French and the american revolutions near the end of the 1700s. These were the big capitalist revolutions. They happened at the end of hundreds of years of development, struggle, change, etc.,

When we talk about socialist revolution we aren't talking about a war, we are talking about the replacement of a whole system of social relations. There are wars fought, and uprisings and all sorts of historic struggle and conflict. But those aren't the revolution we are referring to.

STRONGER THAN MULE PISS