When people in a communist society look back at bourgeois society, they will be baffled and confused by the fear the atomised liberal subjects had of their inevitable death at the hand of some disease or other, and the amount of resources the rich spent extending their lifespan at the cost of their quality of life
Also the "all dolphins are torture obsessedremoveds" thing is about as true as "all humans are torture obsessedremoveds". This may shock you, but individuals of species are capable of wide varieties of behaviours. Theres also accounts of dolphins saving people, working closely with indigenous peoples to get food, and many other behaviours. Unfortunately they dont get as many clicks or views
Didnt work, almost 50 years later when he wrote/spoke his autobiography he was still rightfully furious at cornman for his reactionary and cowardly pacifism
USSR: hey romania can i use your infrastructure to support my allies in the middle east so babies stop being bombed?
Romania: "hello, human resourcez?!"
USA: hey romania can i use your infrastructure to suppprt my babybombing in the middle east?
Romania: "awww your so sweet"
I rly hope they do it
It feels like if just one country does it and shows the US cant do shit about it, there will be a flood of countires doing the same
a hundred year's worth of books analysing how a state could rot so thoroughly
Marx and Engels (less than marx) already talk about it in the earlier volumes of marx engels collected works 
(See especially Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right/Law and some of the Rhenisch Zeitung articles for a look at how governmental incompetence forms and operates and expands)
Rasputin was objectively a more meritocratic selection for the Russian Empire
He could preach the bible like a preacher after all
No way erika could fill it with ecstasy and fire. She's a wheeler dealer; not a chance in hell she could be a holy healer
Nicholas II's incompetence had similar world-historical effects. Like even Rasputin was saying "dude entering into ww1 is a bad plan" and he was like "but we will win tho?"
Lenin writes that parliamentary republic is the best possible political shell for the bourgeois. Imo part of this is the ability of the bourgeois to easily change the leader if they go off the rails too much or get too hated
Trump is nicely demonstrating why a presidential republic is sub-optimal for bourgeois interests; all they can do as trump crashes the imperial yacht is have judges wag their fingers and senate/congress say "you cant do that!!"
What i've read suggests the farmers taking over was less a matter of extinctions (that was the onset of the holocene iirc), climate shifts or even specialisation (the linearbandkeramik peoples that displaced the huntergatherers were still entirely rural without evidence of specialisation afaik).
The big advantage in favour of the farmers' expansion was their sheer numbers/density and the fact that by creating their ecosystem (a field farm) they rapidly destroyed the basis for the huntergatherers existence (the forests). Periods of peaceful coexistence lead to the slow erosion of the forest, and war lead to them being overwhelmed by numbers and taking losses they couldnt replace.
Iran’s responses have left him in a state of confusion and helplessness.
Buy the dip 🚀🚀🚀 (Do not actually do this)
Rly shit takes from Engels here [Engels - The Magyar Struggle] Apparently there's worse yet to come in "Democratic Pan-Slavism"
Its also a total reversal from his position in septemberish 1848, when he was castigating germans for their chauvanism being the cause of slavs opposing revolution
Marx has been maintaining this nonviolent resistance stance since the first article in Neue Rheinische Zeitung back in June, in part bc he believed the reactionaries would definitely lose
However, counterrevolution rallies and two days later Marx admits he was wrong:
[Marx - Confessions of a Noble Soul]
And two days after that, Marx is explicitly advocating violent resistence:
[Marx - A Decree of Eichmann's]
Source is Marx Engels Collected Works vol8. Its very interesting to see Marx and Engels operating as agitators/organisers rather than theorists
From Marx Engels Collected Works vol7
Overall the Neue Rheinische Zeitung articles have been very interesting both theoretically and to see Marx and Engels engaged in organisational work during what they hoped would be THE revolution
been reading Barbara Allen's biography of Shlyapnikov. Very well written and sourced almost entirely by archival stuff. But depressing because the workers' opposition gets run roughshod over by basically everyone in power (Lenin, Bukharin, Stalin, Trotsky, Molotov, etcetc). Been wondering what others' have read on the workers' opposition and what your takes are.
The 1930s have been by far the most depressing
But even the late 10s and early 20s have some "dude wtf" moments from leadership imo
Somewhat relatedly, what do folks think of the Democratic Centralists? I've actually never heard of that faction in the 1919-21 debates before
Very good book on soviet nationalities policy using archival research
This one does a good job of showing how rapidly the (centre) of the party shifted lines on nationalism
Russian opposition to affirmative action programmes was pretty strong
Nationality could be shockingly arbitrary and sudden (and often informed by politics)
Stalin begins to turn towards supporting Russians
collectivisation interacted badly with the nationalities policy
The degree of internal conflicts within the party and soviet bureaucracy was also a huge part of the book.
Ethnic cleansings going on, and there's still tons of affirmative culture programmes running. Weird contradictions
Paper talking about both the race of Marx, and how Jews were viewed in 19th century Europe
This particular set of quotes from Cuno (a German socialist who moved to Yankland) is particularly neat imo (cw for slur)
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2402275
I'm reading Levy's The Dawn of Agriculture and the Earliest States in Genesis 1-11 and thought I'd share this screenshot. Really well written and researched book. Levy cites the midrash (fn77) from:
Pirqe Rebbe Eliezer, 24. [Heb], editio princeps, Constantinople, 1514. folio 16b. Digitized Copy, Hebrew Union College, Klau Library, in the Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Manuscript Database.
Reading this like "nope, sorry bud all ur hopes and dreams are gonna be crushed next year"
Poor marx
Feudalism (before markets began dominating it from 1200-1500) had job security, social security provisions, popular control over village life, village influence over production, and a physically present lord who could be beaten to death with a shovel or have their big house burn down if they were too much of an asshole.
No matter how much tech gets added or rent is sought, it continues to be the capitalist mode of production. Money-rent is a bourgeois mode of appropriating a part of the produced surplus value. Undet feudalism, rent would be in kind, and based on negotiated tradition, not dictated by market rates. And in the feudal.mode of production, there would be no production of surplus value, only the production of surplus products