There's a copy of it on internet archive but it's only accessible to American people with impaired sight it seems.
Huh didn't know that was a thing that the archive did. I'm both of those things (unfortunately) and could try registering if you don't need it right this second.
It's an interesting piece, and yesh while their position is basically that FRSO is a cut above the rest they do have some criticisms (correct IMO) of how they operate.
With that said the program they lay out meant to address the issues they see as primary in the Communist movement, nnamely theoretical backwardsness and amateurism, strikes me as odd in that this has all basically happened before with the attempts at empire-wide party building during the New Communist Movement in the 80s. There is so much that has gone with even an attempt at summation that it all feels a bit preemptive: why did it fail to cohere in the 80s? Why is it different now?
Why do you think a United Front strategy is valid for India? Unite with who? You do know it's an illegal party right? Nevermind the blatant opportunism of notion that the 'left needs to campaign better in elections.'
I agree it is a sorely under theorized issue, and it is striking just how many groups during the New Communist Movement came to some pretty backwards positions for instance. This document, published in 1975, deals with these incorrect lines: https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/S21-Towards-a-Scientific-Analysis-of-the-Gay-Question-3rd-Printing.pdf
Definitely not related to queer theory as an academic discipline, but should be relevant nonetheless.
Gotcha. Yeah in my opinion philosophy should be taught with a focus on historicaly situating thinkers, and going through their works so as to understand not only why they came to the positions they do but also why, on a deeper level, did their concerns lead them down the path that it did.
Kant as reacting to the French Revolution, or doggedly trying to place God amidst skepticism and reason itself. Nietzsche can be read as reacting against the angst of the precarious petty-Beourgeois intelligensia of the German State, etc.
It's unfortunate really as Kant is a remarkably systamtic thinker, and most of the claims / positions extracted into some lecture are in principal explainable with the text themselves. It's just that a lot gets lost when hurrying from topic to topic as I've experienced.
Uh... If you haven't used https://plato.stanford.edu/ I highly recommend it. Good luck lmao
Well presumably you read the 1st critique and some of the practical philosophy/ the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals over the course? I ask because that quote is perfectly understandable, if a bit disconnected. As for why they talk like that? Well hard things are hard... There are plenty of analytic philosophers who fuss over clarity of language (even then this is being unfair to Kant) and they don't really end up being much better.
Is that thread on here fed jacketing anyone who supports the resistance still up? I wanted to wait to respond, but can't find it. Legit dissapointing to see.
With all due respect this is pretty much a solved problem, and untill there is sufficient reason to revisit it it should be treated as such. I quote from here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
"The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion."
[And yet...]
"Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of wanting to repeat Bismarck’s folly in another form, Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion" (ibid.)
Let me put it this way: As dialectical materialists we must never settle into mere empericism as what appears before us must be understood in the historical relations that produce such a phenomenon. Therefore, when we talk of religion it isn't so much a discussion of particular religious ideas and how we can tactically intervene in them to better our goals, but rather a wuestion of where religious thinking comes from, what are its conditions, what is it an expression of. Another quote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form[...]. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
Indeed today we do see very little reflection of our ideas in the world, and it is understandable that in a desparate effort to remedy this one would try and popularize as much as possible. But at the cost of the very foundation of Marxism. That we see the fantastical mish-mash of half digested ideas upheld as a virtue of the diversity of thought speaks to the overwhelming lack of principle among so-called "leftists." The answer to the disorder of our camp is not to abandon it, but instead to rise to the occasion.
Yes. This is an excerpt from a much longer video that goes into more detail. This was the 'flag operation' of the Nasser Salah Al-Din brigades in 2018. The whole thing was extremely intricate. The pole was manufactured to be filled with explosives without a visible seam, the explosives themselves were made to only detonate when the flag pole was rotated (as seen by the soldier blowing up when he removes the flag).
Huh didn't know that was a thing that the archive did. I'm both of those things (unfortunately) and could try registering if you don't need it right this second.