A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
Use ask, drama or leftist infighting communities if you want to post 20+ page exit crashouts from communist parties. Not ones dedicated to news or memes.
EDIT: there are quite a lot of first and last names used in the article you posted. Why are ppl doxxing on their way crashing out of orgs.
EDIT: there are quite a lot of first and last names used in the article you posted. Why are ppl doxxing on their way crashing out of orgs.
Well I feel silly now for not noticing that part when reading the original post. I noticed some names were mentioned, but I guess I figured they were high profile enough names in the org that it wouldn't be a big deal. I can see now looking back how irresponsible it is to be casually name-dropping in such a situation (irresponsible being the good faith take on it, as opposed to actively wrecker behavior).
Fed posting hours, only people I’ve ever seen using real names or outing people in public posts while organizing were feds or wreckers.
Happened twice; first time the guy was a state cop, second time the woman was an FBI agent.
I don't think that applies to our comrade and I'm not really sure it's true in general. At any rate, any of us could be feds, and I didn't notice names either, probably because it was a long read and I was focused on the message.
Lenin's quote stands and the message is solid.
I am one of the most fed-suspicious people I know, but I'm no expert, and am human, and I have certainly been wrong before.
With respect, perhaps moving forward, these upsets can be avoided by noting the removal reason, eg:
Wrong community, please repost in correct community name, redact real names.
I appreciate mods are busy with 3D demands and a lot of wtfery, in our spaces, and I appreciate our comrade in Vietnam may get overstimulated and overwhelmed, but also recognize our comrade has made many more valuable contributions than crashout posts. I would encourage forbearance, and if you honestly suspect fed activity, address it with "removed, fedposting" or some such.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my concerns in good faith.
The whole ordeal has me reconsidering some of my own stances, and engaging in some shadow work, perhaps overlapping with self crit.
I really appreciate you addressing the issue comrade, and appreciate your work. Thank you! 🫡
I couldn't even get myself to read the whole "Unity Struggle Unity" article as it was full of so much Reactionary shit slinging that I could not help but immediately see the "USU" as an NSA front desperately trying to smear the PSL in anyway they can as the PSL is making actual progress and the Ruling Fash are getting scared. (so much for "Unity") I have trust issues and don't trust easily, but everything I've learned so far over the last year or two has pointed me to see the PSL as the one US org that I can for sure trust.
The seemingly psy-op levels of smear efforts in these community just makes me think "they must be doing something right".
Edit: I may have gotten a little emotionally heated from this thread, also I meant "these cummunities"
Not a mod, but perhaps the PSL community? I'm sorry I'm always confused where to post things myself.
I'm kind of mad because the GZD description doesn't even say "don't post criticism of marxist orgs here post it in /c/criticizingmarxistorgs", there is no notification for mod actions, (please dont remove it i dont want to go use the markdown tool or copypaste 12 comments) the other post wasnt even removed. They're both directly related to marxism & the antiwar movement that has caused so much trouble for syria... So it's even tangentially related to assad if you want... I gotta travel where internet sucks again & that's a good time to read so not really in the mood to babysit a post
I think USU's writing on this is great, stuff that was giving me a huge headache (I started out as a paranoiac & got into ML stuff because it makes sense & reduces panicky thoughts to a manageable crawl). If we can't agree of them not even pursuing the party form of socialism, which I think was obscured by these kinds of high-level party sabotage actions from a nonprofit-minded leadership (if not necessarily being pursued by these particular critics either), the connections to Gene Sharpe, ANSWER, & the explanation ot the WWP's front groups will not interest anyone
Those letters sound more like an opportunist attack on the PSL than actual criticism to me. My understanding of Right-opportunism is that it refers to sowing division amongst the working class as subtly as possible. Material conditions in the US for the past 70 years have been incredibly hostile to any sort of socialist movement. DSA and CPUSA were both heavily infiltrated, however their members, especially in the past few years, have been raising class consciousnesses. Breakthough news has alot of good content, but sometimes they get some stuff wrong.
Vague claims that the leadership prevented the masses from base building doesn't really do more than tell me there's a disagreement. However, telling the DSA about how there Mamdani failed to arrest war criminals when Smotrich visited NYC, is an attempt to get them to stop relying on bourgeois electoralism. People need to be shown that voting in our current system isn't going to solve the issue. The PSL seems to ask alot of it's members, I don't really know as I've never been a candidate though. I think they might have a problem with burnout.
Marches aren't counter revolutionary, they build revolutionary energy, networks, solidarity, and skill. On their own, they don't do much, but they provide an avenue to start doing more.
The Lenin quote explains. Yeah, the letter was verbose, but laid out the reasoning in laborious detail. We don't have to agree but we also don't have to allow techbro-engineered short attention span and intolerance of verbosity and passion (which both fueled the revolutions, iirc) to prevent us from long reading and serious consideration over automatic dismissiveness, especially if we want to build a vanguard. No one said it was always going to be fun, easy, and free of interparty struggle sessions, and it shouldn't be.
“As revolutionaries, we don’t have the right to say we are tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We know that when the people understand, they cannot help but follow us.” — Thomas Sankara
There were 2 letters shared, one was from a high ranking PSL member Walter, the other was from an anonymous person who did not finish their candidacy.
Walter's letter doesn't have a Lenin quotes, but the other does. Walter's letter has some specific points but they fall apart under any amount of scrutiny. Walter's letter reads like it was written by a fed as others have mentioned.
Long winded response to the PSL Letters (Walter)
These are the notes I took while reading the Letters
Walter's Letter
Walter opens his with a few paragraphs talking about he has been dishearted in the past working at the party's center. That tracks as he has a significant amount of writing that was published on Liberation News. The latest publication of his work there was published over a year ago. After that he begins complaining about Brian and Ben Becker and how much respect they seem to have from his fellow members. It kinda sounds like he's jealous of Brian and Ben Becker.
He than explains that the Branch Organizing Conference was the last straw for him. He claims that Brian established a central committee in an unsuccessful attempt to change the bylaws to make it easier to become a member. That could be a good thing as it could help grow the party. There is the unsubstantiated claim about how the leadership is against base building and mass organizing. He complains for quite a while about the leadership attempting to inspire hope and enthusiasm. He also makes the claim that a young union member gave a speech about how it was more important to distribute party literature than unionize and that speech was written by party leadership. That sounds suspicious to me, possible, and not great. Even the speech was written by leadership, it doesn't really show that the party is anti-worker.
He goes on to accuse the leadership of attempting to dissuade openly, than secretly base building projects. He also accused the leadership of sabotaging 2 community centers. It isn't really clear if the leadership really opposed base building as whole or just some part the way they were building there. Then he complains about not being allowed to speak at a leadership retreat where others read speeches from their phones. Seems like a pretty common for speakers to keep their speeches on their phones, it's a little off putting but everyone has to start somewhere.
After that he complains that his loyalty was questioned, considering this letter, that makes alot of sense. Clearly the leadership didn't agree with the way he wanted to do base building. Considering that not all base building is ethical, that really doesn't prove much. Then he goes on to complain about the treatment of one of his allies in the base building thing. He goes on and on claiming the leadership will pretend to support base building and mass organizing, but behind closed do nothing but sabotage it. He mentions an unpublished document where he claims they were explicit about being against mass organizing and base building called turning to the working class. That document is not included.
After that he seems to be disparaging the PSL's efforts to make their views known. From what I've read of Marx and Lenin, that seems to generally speaking be the first step. Then he starts talking about the use of AI chatbots. While I disagree with their use, it is a kinda minor point, also frequently people are accused of using them even when they don't.
The next claim is possibly the most absurd, he claims that the US was closest to a socialist revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That's would be when cointelpro was targeting the black panthers. When CIA was killing all visible socialist leaders. The capitalists had complete control over the narrative. That was the height of US imperialism, historically socialist revolution would have a hard time forming at the height of empire in it's core.
He than goes on to claim that PSL developed a surveillance app disguised as organizing network. That sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory that the CIA came up with.
Contradicting his earlier statement that the PSL members just talk about their ideas, he describes the liberation center he set up in Philadelphia. He explains that the liberation center is rooted in the neighborhood and runs various events to help working class people. After that he complains that are also used for PSL promotion. Completely ignoring that party promotion is necessary to building the revolution.
In the section called why reforming the organization is impossible he complains about the gossip culture while saying all of these horrible things about leadership. He talks about how they one thing and do another, while he describes his own duplicity.
After that in the section called why this can't wait he seems to be blaming the PSL for Trump.
The Response from the Central Committee The response starts off with a request to avoid republishing. Clearly that response was not respected.
The psl is claims that the cohert leaving is has subscribe to reactionary doomerism, against their own revolutionary optimism. Considering how much Walter complained about the peppiness of the Branch Organizing Conference, I'd say that sounds pretty honest.
The PSL than points out there are many NGOs and Unions doing exactly what he want the PSL and while many of them do good work, that is not the role has set out to play. The PSLs mission is to bring class consciousness to the masses so that they can form their own unions. To insist on leading the unionization efforts takes control away from the workers.
The PSL also points out that Walter did not have these discussions with the leadership, this can also be verified by his own words at the start of his letter. He claims that he could not bring these issues to the leadership for fear of being pushed out.
Walter was trying to do a hostile take over the Brooklyn office in secret, rather than doing any sort of organizing among the working class. All of his accusations are starting to look like confessions.
According to the PSL he resigned when he did because there was about to be a debate, where he would have been caught. That would have lost Walters all sympathy and stunted his ability to recruit other members from the PSL.
It also seems clear from the PSL's response that Walter's claim that women were constantly being complained about behind closed refers primarily to his own faction, not the leadership of the PSL.
It sounds like the faction led by Walter is actively attempting to recruit PSL members around the country. It sounds like the PSL is completely done with Walters but is work is still up on Liberation News.
The PSL response actually goes through many of Walters exact points and shows how they are either obviously false by logical contradiction, straight up lies, or mischaracterizations.
After the rebuttal the PSL response brings up all of the ways they are responding to his few valid criticisms.
Walter's letter is not well reason and seems to be more about his distaste for Brian Becker to a point delusion. The few instances he describes as leading him to his conclusion are dripping with emotional language and most are completely refuted by the PSL.
Couldn't fit both response into one post.
Long winded response to My Letter of Withdrawal from the Party for Socialism and Liberation
This person withdrew from the PSL a day before the PSL claims to have received Walters resignation. This person makes the claim that the PSL leadership doesn't represent the common comrade. There is a repeated claim that there is no transparency, however they give a single example of situation where the PSL failed to be transparent. They just make vague claims of corruption. The PSL response detailed ways in which members can comment on any decision that is taken on by the central committee.
There is also a disturbingly inaccurate summarization of the PSL's response to Walter's letter. This line in particular bothers me:
There is only a superficial acknowledgement of “organizational issues,” while the purpose and intent of the criticisms are shifted to personal grievances and a “misunderstanding” of the party line. This shift away from the central thesis of Walter’s arguments, which are overwhelmingly and demonstrably not about a petty personal grievance or a misunderstanding of PSL’s “political line,” is manipulative and dishonest.
Walter named numerous other people in the organization personally, that means he made it personal. The PSL pointed out that he had plenty of opportunities to voice his complaints, but that his complaints were kinda baseless. That's not making it personal.
In the next paragraph the author complains about the PSL's participation in bourgeois elections. Lenin wrote about that in "Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder. My understanding is that participation in bourgeois elections is occasionally appropriate for the revolutionary, just to show that it doesn't work.
The author claims that there has been a mobilization of PSL on social media, but I've seen nothing on any of their official sites. It's possible some members have or maybe she referring to things said here. Walter didn't really name pattern of structural rot, unless it's his own. What he did was publicly make a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and not only quit but took as people with him as he could, all while refusing to debate. That is sabotage, sabotage is done in secret, and he was working in secret to bring people to his seemingly counter revolutionary party. He created a factionalism within the party that planned to exploit by publicly calling it out when he left.
The next part is really good because the author admits to never becoming a full member.
I did not finish the candidacy classes necessary to become a “full” member, and this was deliberate
The author claims that it was because the material was full of both theoretical and historical errors.
The author brings up the general strike thing that Walter mentioned in his letter. The PSL's response to it was rather telling, here's their response.
No matter that a general strike did actually take place. No matter that the Jan 30 shutdown actually advanced the living struggle of the masses and pushed back the Trump administration’s invasion.
The author alleges that the PSL suffers from commandism and that the leadership is disconnected from the working class. Based on their response to the letter, they disagree. Based on my interactions with the PSL I would have to disagree.
This letter appears to be encouraging a split from the PSL, that sounds like encouraging a sectarian split. However the paragraph where the author mentions the Bay Area Socialist, they state that sectarian splits are a great way to stop a revolutionary party from growing. That looks like a pretty major contradiction to me.
The author claims that the PSL contains working class energy rather than organizing it. That's like when the reactionaries try to discourage marching claiming that it doesn't do anything. It takes effort to become a revolutionary, it takes time, it takes study. To successfully have a revolution we need the working class to understand that they have the power to change the system. We're not there yet. The more we march, and engage in fully legal forms of revolution building the more successful our revolution will be and the faster we will achieve it.
On to the actual letter which is much more well written than the preamble. I'll start with the Lenin quote at the end of this section.
“Those who have the slightest acquaintance with the actual state of our movement cannot but see that the wide spread of Marxism was accompanied by a certain lowering of the theoretical level. Quite a number of people with very little, and even a total lack of theoretical training joined the movement because of its practical significance and its practical successes… Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.“
Candidates for membership of the PSL start off learning the theory as practiced by the PSL. So all members have at least some theory. I don't know what the classes are like and the PSL could really use a book club. As noted in their response to Walter's letter, the leadership doesn't seem to have the bandwidth for that. The material circumstances of many members would make it nearly impossible to read all of the theory and engage in the actual work of building a revolutionary party.
Here's a Marx quote to counter
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
I'm still learning alot of the theory and the historical circumstances that have brought about successful revolutions, but it take a long time. Guiding principles can be picked up much more quickly though. The PSL I know tries it's best to communicate to the working that their low wages are because of the oppression caused by various forms of chauvinism and oppression of the global south.
About the Propaganda Complaint
Attention, therefore, must be devoted principally to raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries; it is not at all our task to descend to the level of the ‘working masses’ as the Economists wish to do, or to the level of the ‘average worker’… You, gentlemen, who are so much concerned about the ‘average worker’, as a matter of fact, rather insult the workers by your desire to talk down to them when discussing working-class politics and working-class organisation. Talk about serious things in a serious manner; leave pedagogics to the pedagogues, and not to politicians and organisers!”
I'm really not sure that I understand the author's issue with the propaganda, the only examples the author mentions are statements that arose organically out to the masses. Without additional examples of the type of propaganda they are complaining about it's really hard to know if there's any weight to this argument. Also there was slight logical falicity that I can't help but point out even though it's likely just a typo.
In fact, not all billionaires are capitalists, plenty of capitalists are millionaires or small business owners.
Pretty sure they meant not all capitalist are billionaires, but that's not what's written. It is true that wealth and class are not the same thing. Though without a concrete example of the propaganda they are talking about, it's not really a great point. Most of the propaganda I've seen is more about stating facts. Every rally I've been to hosted by the PSL had a variety of speakers not just party members.
Failure to Convert Spontaneity into Action
The Lenin wrote the letter author quotes was written just before the successful revolution in Moscow if I'm not mistaken. Class conciseness is growing but it is far from ready for that. There is also the complaint that party drops longer term projects for shorter term projects, that would hold a whole lot more weight if the author included an example of that. They claim that PSL should make demands at protests, but it seems to me that they do. They demand that US stop attacking Iran at that protest. The party should always be ready to respond and support a strike, but they are stretched thin.
Participation in Bourgeois Elections
The campaigns aren't really about winning as much as raising awareness that there is a socialist party. In that regard they are effective. The PSL should also be working towards setting up more mutual aid networks, and other survival stuff. This still seems like strategic difference to me.
The author concludes that the only acceptable option is to leave the party that they never became a full member of because the PSL failed their purity test.
The author accuses the PSL of lacking theory, simplistic propaganda, failure to control spontaneity, and electorialism. I can't judge the first point because no examples of the poor theory was presented, no specifics were given about the poor propaganda but I could at least browse their social media and didn't see anything, the spontaneity thing seems like being a little over eager, and the last point is a difference in strategy. It's clear that author is really leaving because they don't feel like they are being heard. I would consider that an issue for their branch. They mentioned being able to have 6-10 people helping them with support from party leadership when they aren't even a full member.
Hey, thanks so much for your detailed replies. I will reread them several times, I'm sure. This stands out in bas relief:
The next claim is possibly the most absurd, he claims that the US was closest to a socialist revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That’s would be when cointelpro was targeting the black panthers. When CIA was killing all visible socialist leaders. The capitalists had complete control over the narrative. That was the height of US imperialism, historically socialist revolution would have a hard time forming at the height of empire in it’s core.
A lot of USians, including me, have long been upset with the flower power generation for turning themselves into the "fu, I got mine," generation. I know you already put in a lot of work on my behalf, and I appreciate it. I'm wondering if it's because there were largely disorganized and co-opted, and if there's some reading you can point me to explain more.
Thanks again.
Glad you appreciated it. The flower power movement was disorganized and co-opted. However, it also lacked theory and involved alot of drugs, it was also more of cultural thing, the only real political position it held was anti-war.
Building a revolution requires a clear head, the hippies had a CIA drugs faucet turned on them. This the British communist understanding of the hippie movement.
MLK was beginning to shift from reformism to a more socialist stance but was assassinated as soon as he spoke against the Vietnam war, that stopped the civil rights movement from ever becoming truly revolutionary.
The black panthers were an actually revolutionary socialist movement. They were hunted down and disparaged by a government at the height of it's social, and material power. Racist tropes were used to make them terrifying to the white working class and uninitiated. Their neighborhoods also got the opium war treatment.
There's that old joke about the KGB and CIA officers having a friendly chat.
CIA: "Your propaganda is pretty good."
KGB: "Thanks, yours is pretty good too."
CIA: Looking offended "What propaganda?"
That shows just how little class awareness there was.
*edit: I forgot to mention that many aspects of the hippy movement were as anti-worker as they were anti-capitalist.
**edit: There was also no real crisis of capitalism at that time. That is typically required to start a revolution.
I apparently have been stewing this on a slow burn back burner, because I actually think it sums up a lot of the issues with US voters throwing their hopes behind Mamdami et al. I'm not done stewing, though.
Thanks. I read the article and am nonplussed. It's quite dated and rather uninformed, imo. I was typing a more detailed critique but lost it dealing with real life issues for the past seven hours. Forgive me, but I just don't have it in me to critique it in detail right now. Nevertheless, there were a couple of good points about the doping, co-opting, and disorganization, which we already established, prior.
Cheers!
The article was contemporary with the movement it was critiquing. I'm curious as to what was uninformed about it though? Don't worry of course I understand irl stuff coming up. I'll probably be offline for the rest of the night in an hour. #notabot #notai
Cheers!
The article was contemporary with the movement it was critiquing.
I'm aware, the date didn't escape me, hence "dated and uninformed."
While psychology is still way more art than science, and perhaps because Jung hasn't received proper credit or attention to his work to date imo, it discounts how incredibly tied to subconscious/superconscious our favorite mythos are. Humans seek to explain the mysterious through our mythos, and both sub- and superconsciousness lies just outside the realm of consciousness.
And I've been thinking about his overall rejection by left, right, and center, for reasons. For well over a year now. I understand the leftists' squeamishness because of a foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him. The centrists may dismiss him for lack of familiarity.
That the liberals dismiss and even discourage utilizing his work ought make us pause and ask ourselves why. After all, the conservative right isn't as cautious about establishing a public distance from those who have had a hope in known Nazis/adjacent as the left liberals. Perhaps liberals mock and discourage his work not only because it's slow and doesn't return people to the machine quickly enough, but also because it's effective, if only the general populace has time, space, and most importantly, impetus to actually roll up the proverbial sleeves and do the time and labor intensive proverbial dirty work.
Okay let me see if I understand this correctly you believe the article is "dated and uninformed" because it's close to a first hand account of the hippie movement and it doesn't take into account Jungian philosophy?
A bit oversimplified, but sure.
Edit:
Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.
Sounds like you aren't ready to do work that is necessary to understand the material conditions of the time period. Why should a socialist analysis of the flower power include the philosophy of psychologist, especially one as controversial as Jung? How can you expect to understand an event or even time period in history if you just dismiss all accounts from the period as dated?
That's quite a lot of extraneous words you just put into my mouth. I clearly understand the* article, and I didn't retype what I agreed with.
You asked:
I’m curious as to what was uninformed about it though?
That is what I answered.
I addressed the left, right, and centrist criticisms of him (a bit oversimplified),
foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him
No, I don't want to intentionally cozy up to Nazis. Yes, at some point, if we believe in socialism, we will have to start working with and organizing ourselves with reactionaries.
The centrists may dismiss him for lack of familiarity.
And you, perhaps. Where exactly do you think the term "projection" has it's roots? What exactly do you think is being projected when people project?
That the liberals dismiss and even discourage utilizing his work ought make us pause and ask ourselves why. After all, the conservative right isn’t as cautious about establishing a public distance from those who have had a hope in known Nazis/adjacent as the left liberals. Perhaps liberals mock and discourage his work not only because it’s slow and doesn’t return people to the machine quickly enough, but also because it’s effective, if only the general populace has time, space, and most importantly, impetus to actually roll up the proverbial sleeves and do the time and labor intensive proverbial dirty work.
Sounds like you are projecting your unwillingness to examine yourself onto me as not being willing to understand blah blah blah. I clearly did understand it, since it was in my original question,
I’m wondering if it’s because there were largely disorganized and co-opted, and if there’s some reading you can point me to explain more.
Leaving out the doping was oversight.
Jung didn't have much to do with the flower power movement. I find his theories to be overly liberal and chauvinistic at best and lacking in any basis in material reality, as well as somewhat poorly worked through. I did think he was cool when I was in high school. But if you want Jungian analysis that's fine go find it.
Not trying to be overly snarky, but I have no desire to discuss philosophers and/or psychologist who struggles so much with empirical evidence. Marxism is based in material reality.
foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him
If I didn't believe that there was basic goodness in humankind I would not have bothered to respond.
If you want to know more about the actual flower power movement look up Allen Ginsberg.
Jung didn’t have much to do with the flower power movement.
Please copy and paste where I said that.
I find his theories to be overly liberal and chauvinistic at best
I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?
and lacking in any basis in material reality, as well as somewhat poorly worked through.
You can think that. I stopped smoking, doping, drinking, and using sexual relationships as a drug that way. I became much less reactive and reactionary. So have plenty of others.
Marxism is based in material reality.
So... Marx wasn't a philosopher? I guess Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML's have no place in your world.
Ideas aren't material, nor emotions, nor ideas.
If I didn’t believe that there was basic goodness in humankind I would not have bothered to respond.
Ok?
I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?
As I have previously stated I don't wish to continue talking about him, it seems to get in the way of a civil conversation.
Marxism is based in material reality.
So… Marx wasn’t a philosopher? I guess Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML’s have no place in your world.
Of course Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML's are completely acceptable in my world view. It's just that as Marx said:
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Opiates can save lives and they can just as easily destroy lives. So religion must be handle with extreme care. Of course Marx was a philosopher, but all of his work is based on material reality. Every premise he states is based on observable evidence, such as the state of the British working class. Every conclusion he makes is backed up by logical proofs. MCM doesn't come from some feeling but is a description of an observable reality.
I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?
As I have previously stated I don’t wish to continue talking about him,
So I am willing to consider your PO perspective (because I actually may agree), and you're talking about material evidence but want to drop this?
Ok.
it seems to get in the way of a civil conversation.
For whom?
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
I largely agree, but it's not going to be a cold-turkey abstention.
Opiates can save lives
First I've heard of this.
So religion must be handle with extreme care.
Agreed.
Of course Marx was a philosopher, but all of his work is based on material reality. Every premise he states is based on observable evidence, such as the state of the British working class. Every conclusion he makes is backed up by logical proofs.
And I presented some for my argument.
MCM doesn’t come from some feeling but is a description of an observable reality.
MCM? Also what I just said.
So I am willing to consider your PO perspective (because I actually may agree), and you’re talking about material evidence but want to drop this?
I don't like talking about dead people I don't like.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
I largely agree, but it’s not going to be a cold-turkey abstention.
That completely depends on the addiction and the substance. Gabor Mate has written and spoken a great deal about it. There's actually a 20 minute audio clip comparing his approach to addiction treatment with Jung's, I'm not sure of it's origin. Gabor Mate's theory on addiction has ace (adverse childhood experience) scores to back it up.
Opiates can save lives First I’ve heard of this.
Anesthesia is the first one that comes to mind for me. I think surgery would be far more dangerous without the use anesthesia. There's this recent study that shows opioids may no longer be needed for that though.
MCM? Also what I just said.
MCM (money->commodity->money^) refers to the capitalist ability to grow their money supply by using their money to by commodities (often including labour) and resell it for more than they paid for it. The difference in what they paid vs what they sell for is the surplus that they take from the workers and buyers. I think it's like chapter 9 of Capital vol 1. It's pretty easy to compare that to the workers general relation to money and commodities. Worker tend to use CMC, commodity money commodity. Sell labour for money, use money to buy groceries.
I don’t like talking about dead people I don’t like.
So for you. Ok, so much for material analysis.
That completely depends on the addiction and the substance. Gabor Mate has written and spoken a great deal about it. There’s actually a 20 minute audio clip comparing his approach to addiction treatment with Jung’s, I’m not sure of it’s origin. Gabor Mate’s theory on addiction has ace (adverse childhood experience) scores to back it up.
There's the dead guy you don't like. Afaik, ACE theory is just from the last ~30 years, so obviously that wasn't developed to discuss yet. So I'm not impressed by an 1969 article, you're not impressed by the comeback of a century old psych theory. Fair enough.
MCM (money->commodity->money^) refers to the capitalist ability to grow their money supply by using their money to by commodities (often including labour) and resell it for more than they paid for it. The difference in what they paid vs what they sell for is the surplus that they take from the workers and buyers. I think it’s like chapter 9 of Capital vol 1. It’s pretty easy to compare that to the workers general relation to money and commodities. Worker tend to use CMC, commodity money commodity. Sell labour for money, use money to buy groceries.
Thanks you. I knew the idea, not the abbreviations. So the exchange wasn't entirely wasted. I appreciate you confirming my suspicion on the hippie generation, and defining the abbreviation for me. I hope you have a good night and great sleep.
There’s the dead guy you don’t like. Afaik, ACE theory is just from the last ~30 years, so obviously that wasn’t developed to discuss yet. So I’m not impressed by an 1969 article, you’re not impressed by the comeback of a century old psych theory. Fair enough.
In the realm of the hungry ghost is 15 years old. Adults of any age can report an ace score, things like divorce and cps file are hard evidence. Psychology is a science and science evolves, history does not. Even when people distort it, what happened, happened. All the same I can agree that it's fair enough.
Thanks you. I knew the idea, not the abbreviations. So the exchange wasn’t entirely wasted. I appreciate you confirming my suspicion on the hippie generation, and defining the abbreviation for me. I hope you have a good night and great sleep.
Hope you have a good night too.
15? A Tennessee public health doctor was advocating for it around the turn off the century, but if course he was fired, records were scrubbed. Nice Tibetan Buddhist reference. In fact, I highly recommend reading the Bardo Thotle. Lots of allegory, allusion, metaphor, and simile, like any religious precursor to any psychological theory -- including the pioneers, Freud et al. 😉
Hope you have a good night too.
Thanks. Nothing wrong with a friendly exchange, even banter.
Singleminded attacks on the people splitting, I see. Well, they're the least interesting part of it.
Oh good it's time for you to recite the hymn of solidarity I see.
So I messaged an admin directly about this issue and was told Leftist Infighting is the proper community, if you feel like a bunch of effort, again.
I'm a bit overstimulated and will be taking time to address that and invite any comrades who may also be to take time for self care, including hydration, cooling, a nutritious snack, nap, or meditation, breathwork, just ten minutes closing eyes, whatevs.
Thanking everyone. 🫡❤️
It seems like the response to it is difficult to find since it's just reactionaries and internet leftists who want excuses not to do real work reposting it. You should share that along with it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTpCO1itqmzDPE3h_4tt1nrp4Gqp0h7PZV03PjCZmqEIeJzDk1HmLbKHZ9TzifS5Oe9mCO4h_7QbW0Q/pub
The "resignation letter" is written to persuade the average leftist of low political development and is not serious. If you consider yourself a serious leftist, put the work in to understand the actual political disagreement at the very least.
both the original resignation letter and the PSL's response letter were included in the original post.
Can you please link to not Google?
My apologies for "not putting in the actual work," I'm a bit busy with a serious injury, navigating a shitshow of the bestest country on earth's hellscape of piecemeal healthcare, with several different organizations that from the jump made several different mistakes, as I also navigate some semblance of hygiene and meals, while also helping community members who's family members instilled learned and actual helplessness, while also half-assing their share of the codependent relationships with dying and warehoused in "care" homes family and community members, while also trying to rough-sketch a map by which to move myself forward, rather than giving up and ending up like that, while also contemplating keeping up nutrition, shelter and other basic needs. Oh and trying to read theory and sort how to contribute my share while also not having more serious side effects while doing these things.
Pardon me if this comes off as unnecessarily rude, I'm a bit overwhelmed.
I'm confused why the letter keeps being removed and/or shaddowbanned without so much as a proper reply with an explanation, especially since this letter pulled me out of my weekend doomer spiral. Mods?