askchapo

23035 readers

13 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net

replaceable@hexbear.net

VILenin@hexbear.net

EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net

khizuo@hexbear.net

Sulvy@hexbear.net

What is the easiest piece of theory you've read? You can post multiple in the order of easiest first to hardest last. (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by HexaSnoot@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In terms of theory, I don't consider myself well read. Theory is often really tough for me to read. Even with very easy-to-read writers like Michael Parenti, it's dense with mindblowing info. And things like the book Will to Change by Bell Hooks hits me in really raw feelings so I stopped at the first chapter. I need the easiest authors and their easiest-to-read works, or else I'm just not reading.

-Micahel Parenti: What’s a Slum? Urban Poverty and Marginality in America

-"I Have a Dream, a Blurred Vision" by Michael Parenti"

-Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

No idea how I got through "Friendly Feudalism." I read these all about 3.5 years ago before I lost the bandwidth to go further.

Edit: I tend to watch things more so I guess you can add video links after everything else too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] peeonyou@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

im a little surprised in the beginning of that document by the words "in all civilized countries of the world"... yeesh

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

Yea, it’s not great. I believe he had in mind a certain objective measure of societal development, in terms of the advancement of the productive forces. An aroma of racial science persists; but I don’t think he was exactly saying that certain peoples are biologically under-evolved.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

He meant "development". It was 1847 after all.