The most I get from my close friend when I ask them about anything political (Gaza, Climate change, etc) is a "wow" or "damn".

With my family members it's a literal "I don't care about politics" or "talk to [insert random distant relative name], he knows all about this stuff"

How can I make them care? How can I convince them that this stuff is important and shouldnt shrugged off so easily?

How can I convince them that their boss cutting their wages in half is an important matter that shouldn't be justified by some abstract notion of "that's just how it is"?

Asking out of comradely curiosity.

Maybe with some Marxism, I know Dialectical Behavioral Therapy is a thing. Either way, mental illness is my current fixation, and I’ll read anything half decent on the topic. Maybe not too long idk (I’m not planning to go through the DSM). Free pdfs or audiobooks appreciated.

All I remember is he comes after Freud, some of his followers are annoying, there’s a Marxist podcast that likes him called ‘the return of the repressed,’ and I don’t think Lukacs liked him.

I know what liberalism is. But the first time I encountered that it is used so often was when I looked into English-speaking social media sites like Reddit two years ago.

Bourgeois, bourgeois class consciousness, bourgeois thinking, bourgeois revolution, etc. The same with petty bourgeoisie etc. etc.

I have the complete collected works of Lenin physically available in german. I have the most important writings of Marx and Engels with me, as well as Tito, Thälmann, Karl Liebknecht, Stalin, Trotsky, Plekhanov, even Lykassenko and some more. (I dont just buy writings I like, but also writing I dont like)

Liberalism didn't come up that often, only when it was actually about liberalism. But the way liberals are often referred to on English-language social media sites, including here, is a bit strange to me.

Idk about other languages that much. I also didn't encountered this kind of usage of liberal in the russian version of Lenin's writings. Bourgeois, bourgeois class consciousness, bourgeois thinking, bourgeois revolution, etc. The same with petty bourgeoisie etc. etc.

Maybe there some here who know what I am talking about and can explain it to me.

Edit: Why did Voyager destroyed my formattig many times

Edit2: Thank you all for your engagement. You helped me a lot how to understand it more correctly if I read it from someone using english language ^.^

I need recommendations

Is it true that during WW2 the Soviet authorities enforced collective punishment on certain minority ethnic groups due to collaboration with Nazis? (Specifically Crimean Tatars) I've heard about this from leftist circles and from reactionary circles. The claim, at least on surface level, seems pretty damming.

If this happened, then why? And was it a mistake or was it a necessary evil?

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2858492

I think I understand the simple model of base and superstructure (but that was Gramsci's model)

The simple use of quantitative to qualitative change, and vice versa

The simple fact that contradictions can exist in a society, manifesting in the form of problems, which are symptoms of its economic systems...

I don't think its about thesis + anti-thesis -> synthesis.

I think its about one economic class, like capitalist to feudal lord, dominating over one class, and absorbing its birthmark attributes, before surpassing its birthmarks overall...

Or as if a capitalist upon its created proletariat, not only ruling over them, but co-opting or destroying any of its measures

To me, its about who the ruling most HEGEMONIC class is, and how it operates...

Other than that, I don't know how else to apply it, let alone know if its somewhat broadly accurate....

Correct me if I'm wrong, if not elaborate on what ye mean?

I've been thinking about it in view of the US doing that whole dance of threat around Taiwan, and I've asked myself, is the US capable of building tanks, subs, planes and missiles without China providing be it raw material or basic manufacturing somewhere along the chain? I'm genuinely curious about that so if someone knows about it or can point me on the right direction I'd be very thankful

I had this question proposed to me recently, and thought I would give it my best shot. I would love any input you guys have on how I can refine this further, make it more clear, more accurate, more succinct, all that.

Also, this is specifically geared towards Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, and that understanding of dialectics, just to be clear. I'm not interested in the hyper-orthodox understanding of dialectical materialism.

I don't understand the ins and outs of gravity perfectly, but here goes.

Internal contradiction is what drives all things. This is true for gravity, as much as anything in the world. Gravity could then be analyzed in the framework of the contradictor forces within gravity. What would those forces be?

Well, Einstein's general relativity is probably the best place to start. I will outline the two contradictory forces below.

Again, I don't know a ton about the in's and out's of it, but the way I see it, there are two sets of contradictions at work in "gravity".

First, the contradiction of Mass and Spacetime Curvature. We have the force of attraction, where masses attract each other, but contradictory to that, we also have the resistance of compression, where the curvature of space resists this attraction.

Second, we have the contradiction of Inertia and Graviational Pull. Objects resist changes to their existing state of motion, but the force of attraction seeks to change the motion of objects

In the case of general relativity, I would say the first contradiction is the primary one, since that relationship is what defines the attraction between masses, and the resistances between each one. I would say the second contradiction is the secondary one, since it's still crucial for understanding how gravity works, but, it explains the result of gravitational attraction, rather than the fundamental cause of it.

In the case of the primary contradiction, I would say that the force of attraction is the primary aspect of the contradiction, over resistance to compression, since the attraction of mass to itself is the fundamental reason why spacetime is distorted in the first place. In the secondary contradiction, gravitational pull is of course, the primary aspect there.

Let me know what you think, and thank you.

publicado de forma cruzada desde: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4926058

Any 3d printing nerd that can point me in the right direction? The amount of brands out there is overwhelming.