Separation of concerns is a basic concept in computer science. Djikstra's original explanation sounds strangely similar to dialectics, to me

I mean, it's not exactly the same (dialectics are much richer) but it is indeed interesting that we only "discovered" this in 1974. Although to be honest, the idea is probably older than Hegel.

Das Kapital basically follows this structure. Various aspects of the capitalist mode of production are viewed in isolation, from one limited perspective. Only after examining each perspective, and the interrelation between them, can one really understand the entire system.

Saw this comment on the commie side of TikTok. My gut tells me this is ultraleft bs, but perhaps my fellow hexbears can educate me on this discussion which I’m sure is not new.

I don’t see how a poor American on food stamps is responsible, even though a systematic analysis reveals that international superexploitation is a thing.

The American proletariat can and should organize in any case. I don’t see how Americans can build any sort of socialist movement if any organization at all is accused of being hypocritical.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2805670

To give a bit more detail, I've been attempting to bridge the gap (however wide or short it may be) between Queer Theory and Marxism. I feel as though the two most common views of contemporary Marxists on queer theory are incorrect.

1. Reactionaries who proclaim that Queer Theory is somehow monolithically idealist, usually having never read a shred of it, should be dismissed out of hand. No need to elaborate further on this.
2. We should be critical of those who simply combine Marxism and Queer Theory (whichever tendencies of both they most align with) like toppings on a sandwich. Queer Marxism is something that needs to be developed, yet it requires more than upholding both as distinct yet compatible entities. We must synthesize them, likely transforming both to some degree in the process.

I don't wish to fall into the trap of naïve originality, aka writing theory on a matter without studying that which has already been written. So, I'm looking for two things. Firstly, any freely accessible (I don't have the funds to buy/subscribe) theory on the question of Queer Marxism. Secondly, your personal thoughts (Brief or lengthy as they may be) on the subject.

Thanks in advance, –Zero

I regularly see trots being memed about because "they do nothing apart from writing newspapers", but to me from their viewpoint (and as an anarchist) it totally makes sense and is a sympathetic view how it should be the workers leading the fight towards a revolution and the vanguard should stand aside and take the role of advisors (hence the newspapers) rather than leaders.

I feel like i'm missing something but i don't know what.

I heard Engels gets some things wrong like applying dialectical materialism to the natural sciences (which Marx didn’t agree with) but overall it’s pretty good?

From here

A section from the overall Q&A that was held by the minister. Overall a good read.

Wang Yi: Multipolarity and economic globalization are the prevailing trends in the advancement of human society. But there are different views on what they should look like. China believes in an equal and orderly multipolar world and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization.

An equal multipolar world means equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal rules for every nation. Certain or a few powers should not monopolize international affairs. Countries should not be categorized according to their strength. Those with the bigger fist should not have the final say. And it is definitely unacceptable that certain countries must be at the table while some others can only be on the menu. We must ensure that all countries, regardless of their size and strength, are able to take part in decision-making, enjoy their rights, and play their role as equals in the process toward a multipolar world.

An orderly multipolar world means all should observe the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter, and uphold the universally recognized basic norms governing international relations. Multipolarity doesn’t mean multiple blocs, or fragmentation, or disarray. All countries must act within the U.N.-centered international system, and pursue cooperation under global governance.

Universally beneficial globalization means growing the economic pie and sharing it more fairly. All nations, all social groups, and all communities should be able to take part in economic and social development and share the benefits. Development imbalance, be it national or international, should be settled properly so as to realize common prosperity and development.

Inclusive globalization means supporting countries in pursuing a development path suited to their own national conditions. No one should impose one single development model onto the whole world. Unilateralism and protectionism for selfish gains at the expense of others must be discarded to keep the global industrial and supply chains stable and unimpeded, and to sustain the robust and dynamic growth of the world economy.

China is ready to work with all countries to steer multipolarity and economic globalization toward the right direction as expected by the whole world, and to make global governance more just and equitable.

A worthwhile read on global capitalism, sub imperialism, apartheid and post apartheid South Africa, Israel, global apartheid and BRICS+.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2512164

Was thinking about this intellectual period last night. I don't know a lot but I get the vague impression of it being too much on the revisionist side for my taste, although the label New Left is so broad that I'm sure there's a huge span of thought that it gets applied to.

What theory still holds up from that time, what theorists do you agree/disagree with, what texts would you recommend to people who want to understand more about this time, t's origins,links to the French 1968 movement ,etc?

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2483233

Check it out.

A friend of mine wrote this.

Your thoughts on the article?

Read this article.

It's great.

And not too long.

Short post by roberts on the piketty's work

PLEASE AND THANKS

An excellent Critical Theory Workshop lecture and Q&A on fascisms and liberalisms—contemporary but also historical—through a dialiectical materialist lens.