Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...



Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, jakeem said:


21 hours ago, Vautrin said:

As the first article points out, turnout was only 23%, so that doesn't exactly make it a

ringing endorsement of statehood. Since PR's status is a result of U.S. imperialism I would

cut them free after a number of years and after their debt is cleaned up.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jakeem said:

EXCLUSIVE: A POLITICO investigation shows the Trump administration — and the president himself – was more aggressive in responding to Texas than to Puerto Rico after last fall’s devastating hurricanes https://politi.co/2pM4ptd 



6 hours ago, jakeem said:

Rebekah Fernández Entralgo Retweeted POLITICO

Is an investigation really needed when thousands of Puerto Ricans went months without clean water and electricity?

But drumpf gave them plenty of paper towels, while insulting the Mayor of San Juan.

But he couldn't help it - - she was an assertive well-educated Progressive female, plus she was Hispanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hamradio said:

Those fleeing doctors may have a different opinion.

I never said Venezuela was doing good. I posted a video saying why the economic recession is happening in the nation and how it doesn't relate to socialism at all. The US sanctioning and invading nations certainly doesn't help either. Funny how you also ignore how Evo Morales has improved the Bolivian economy and what the socialists are doing in Ecuador right now. Almost like you completely ignore facts that oppose your worldview. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

New Zizek article 


There is an old delicious Soviet joke about radio Yerevan: a listener asks “Is it true that Rabinovitch won a new car in a lottery?”, and the radio answers: “In principle yes, it’s true, only it wasn’t a new car but an old bicycle, and he didn’t win it but it was stolen from him.” Does exactly the same not hold for the fate of Marx’s teaching today, 200 years after his birth?

Let’s ask radio Yerevan: “Is Marx still actual today?” We can guess the answer: in principle yes, he describes wonderfully the mad dance of capitalist dynamics which reached its peak only today, more than a century and a half later, but… Gerald A. Cohen enumerated the four features of the classic Marxist notion of the working class: (1) it constitutes the majority of society; (2) it produces the wealth of society; (3) it consists of the exploited members of society; (4) its members are the needy people in society. When these four features are combined, they generate two further features: (5) the working class has nothing to lose from a revolution; (6) it can and will engage in a revolutionary transformation of society.[1] None of the first four applies to today’s working class, which is why features (5) and (6) cannot be generated. (Even if some of the features continue to apply to parts of today’s society, they are no longer united in singe agent: the needy people in society are no longer the workers, etc.)

The historical deadlock of Marxism resides not only in the fact that it counted on the prospect of capitalism’s final crisis, and therefore couldn’t grasp how capitalism came out of each crisis strengthened. There is a much more tragic mistake at work in the classic body of Marxism, described in precise terms by Wolfgang Streeck: Marxism was right about the “final crisis” of capitalism; we are clearly entering it today, but this crisis is just that, a prolonged process of decay and disintegration, with no easy Hegelian Aufhebung in sight, no agent to give to this decay a positive twist and transform it into a passage to some higher level of social organization:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Zizek article


  1. Voices

200 years later, we can say that Marx was very often right  but in a much more literal way than he intended

We no longer ‘really believe’ religion but more of us follow its rituals than ever before because of ‘culture’. This obsession with culture and breaking of identities was foreseen in Marx’s texts

  • Slavoj Zizek 
  • a day ago
  • Commodity fetishism (our belief that commodities are magic objects, endowed with an inherent metaphysical power) is not located in our mind, in the way we (mis)perceive reality, but in our social reality itself. We may know the truth, but we act as if we don’t know it – in our real life, we act like the chicken from the joke.

    Niels Bohr, who already gave the right answer to Einstein’s “God doesn’t play dice“(“Don’t tell God what to do!”), also provided the perfect example of how a fetishist disavowal of belief works. Seeing a horseshoe on his door, a surprised visitor commented that he didn’t think Bohr believed superstitious ideas about horseshoes bringing good luck to people. Bohr snapped back: “I also do not believe in it; I have it there because I was told that it works whether one believes in it or not!”

    This is how ideology works in our cynical era: we don’t have to believe in it. Nobody takes democracy or justice seriously, we are all aware of their corruption, but we practice them – in other words, we display our belief in them – because we assume they work even if we do not believe in them.

    With regard to religion, we no longer “really believe”, we just follow (some of the) religious rituals and mores as part of the respect for the “lifestyle” of the community to which we belong (non-believing Jews obeying kosher rules “out of respect for tradition”, for example).

    “I do not really believe in it, it is just part of my culture” seems to be the predominant mode of the displaced belief, characteristic of our times. “Culture” is the name for all those things we practice without really believing in them, without taking them quite seriously.

    This is why we dismiss fundamentalist believers as “barbarians” or “primitive”, as anti-cultural, as a threat to culture – they dare to take seriously their beliefs. The cynical era in which we live would have no surprises for Marx.

    Marx’s theories are thus not simply alive: Marx is a ghost who continues to haunt us – and the only way to keep him alive is to focus on those of his insights which are today more true than in his own time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JakeHolman said:


Marx was an economist not a dictator. If you hate Marx for who he influenced you should also hate Adam Smith and Keynes for influencing Hitler, Mussolini, Ian Smith and all of the other capitalist authoritarians. Friedman (who you posted a video of in another thread) literally praised the dictator Augusto Pinochet who threw civilians out of helicopters and sponsored death squads.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JakeHolman changed the title to DYSTOPIAN BIDEN NATION

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...