Walter Water-Walker
There is a dialectic between theory (or head knowledge) and practice. To be a Marxist is to do both things, working through that dialectic to evolve yourself as a practicianer. Additionally, to be a Marxist in practice necessitates interaction with an organized group of other Marxists. This interaction will challenge you to resolve conflicts between ideas, theories, strategies and so forth and develop a practical version of democratic centralism for your organization.
Those who think that Marxism is just learning theory aren’t actually practicing Marxism. They become purists and commit the error of dogmatism. Many Trotskyists fall into this camp (I won’t say all Trotskyists, but I’m still looking for counter-examples). It’s why a Trotskyists probably knows Marxist theory better than I do but is also the most useless leftist on the planet (and can often even become useful to the bourgeoisie!).
If you only ever read theory and do not put it into practice, you are simply doing so for some personal reasons, like to feel smarter than others because you have an insecurity. This is not just useless but dangerous because people like this can sound really smart and like they know what they’re talking about for new leftists. But because they offer no real solution to the material problems of those around them nor any practical avenues for the proletariat to direct their anger and pain from capitalism towards revolutionary action, it drains the energy away from more serious praxis.
Praxis is the hard part. It’s why many don’t do it. But it’s what actually makes any of this make sense.
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” — Karl Marx
It also depends on what “two state solution” actually means. Traditionally, Israel has made such solutions impossible. The “you go your way, we’ll go ours” has been off the table because Israel doesn’t want that, they want the entire land and the expulsion of Palestine entirely.
A two-state solution, where there’s a kind of federation between them might actually work. The federation would have to abide by international committees and violations by either state would be subject to some kind of punishment (be it trade deals or even military action in severe cases).
The first problem, though, is the weapons supply and military training from the West. If that were cut off, it would take maybe a year of bloody gorilla fighting, but the playing field would be relatively equal at that point and then it’d be anybody’s guess who’d win out. Getting the USA to slowly wean away support would mean negotiating partially on their terms.
In other words, Xi could just be giving the USA a peaceful “out” here, if they take it. The USA can save face and support a ramp down of the situation instead of escalation. I don’t see that happening near-term, but lots can change in the next few years and this play by China might just be the thing that allows a better situation to happen here.
Does anybody have resources on AGI being a real possibilities beyond just a marketing term and, one day, just a mashup of various different things of AI?
I haven’t read anything about AGI that isn’t a “tech bro” kind of approach. Also, I don’t see how AGI is anything more than a marketing term where, once enough shitty jobs are replaced by it, they’ll hail it a success and that’s pretty much it.
I want an AI, for example, to analyze the material conditions of a country and plan a Communist revolution for me. Can I have that? Will capitalism produce this for me?
I always ask these people when is it actually OK for people to vote for their own interests instead of based on the opposition party? There’s no right answer of course except that you should always vote your interest. Everybody should.
Worse, though, this trope isn’t just against the “tankies”, it’s for anybody and everybody. Whoever a person wants to blame, especially if the Democrats lose the election. And even if people actually did what these folks suggested, they’d still blame them. It’s never the Democrats’ fault somehow.
Tanks. Lots and lots of T-34s.
A rehash of “the devil made me do it” trope.
Why not ask the Chinese government?
To be clear, capital - the value produced from society that is cycled back into society to develop further surplus - isn’t the problem, it’s capital within capitalism. Capital doesn’t have the “insatiable appetite” but rather capitalists, who control most of the capital, do. How we handle capital is a large part of what defines the system.
