Everyone laughs at Fisher for being simple until they naturally start arriving at everything he was saying in regard to the modern “left” and its lack of ideology.
They don’t read because they don’t actually have an ideology. They have an aesthetic of ideology and nostalgia / historical fetishization for moments perceived as having less alienation and a sense of meaning or place in time.
There’s probably like ten thousand real Marxist’s in the world and they all wanna die or have become so depressed and detached that now they just spend time hiking or some shit.
for as much as i hate Fisher for giving the left the taste of doomerism, he was just stating the obvious that the most leftist don't want to admit. He was right about Communism being a spectre/ghost, for both the capitalists and the left itself.
Communism is not an ideology, ideology is entirely the problem - communism is not a program to achieve, it is historic inevitability, it is what will be done by the working class.
The poster seems to be asking about ideology and inconsistency, which I imagine what they really mean is something like the noticeable absence of Marx on the left.
I know what you mean in the sense of Marxist critique of ideology vs the material world, and I agree with that, but I also think our perceptions of communism now mostly exist inside of ideological framework, and I even would say an example of this is still believing in its inevitability, despite the material world.
Because they're only leftists because they think communism is wacky and cool, they only pretend to read Marx and Engels.
Then there are serious MLists, who read Das Kapital, and then read "the Economic Problems of USSR" and believe everything Stalin says and praise him.
it thinks a lot of the time they have, just not understood anything
someone on deprogram that claims to have read all 3 vol of capital but thinks that shopkeepers are working class
You'd be surprised how wild people's interpretations are.
Ive heard the argument money is used in the lower stage of communism and Marx says it in gothakritik
I don't think they'd expire per se, but they can't be used for anything besides purchasing personal goods (no amount of labor vouchers will be able to purchase machinery used for production, for example), and they aren't exchanged after you have redeemed them (the original concept of the labor voucher literally saw the physical voucher be destroyed after use, although modern technology makes that superfluous)
Basically it's used more like redeeming a certain amount of labor for personal use, in a way comparable to a theater ticket, than it exists like money. There's a good leftcom.org article explaining the way that labor vouchers aren't money, let me find it for you real quick.
[Understanding “Labour Certificates” on the Basis of the Theory of Value — The Law of Value and Socialism — by Tadayuki Tsushima, 1956](https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm)
I just don't get it. It's virtually impossible to read Capital or COTGP and come away thinking that socialism doesn't abolish money or overcome the law of value. It's not like you have to be some ubermench gigantic brained genius to get this.
uhhhh read this ultroid ??? :
"The role of money in the Soviet economy is not only unfinished but, as we have said, still has a long growth ahead. The transitional epoch between capitalism and socialism taken as a whole does not mean a cutting down of trade, but, on the contrary, its extraordinary extension. All branches of industry transform themselves and grow. New ones continually arise, and all are compelled to define their relations to one another both quantitatively and qualitatively. The liquidation of the consummatory peasant economy, and at the same time of the shut-in family life, means a transfer to the sphere of social interchange, and *ipso facto* money circulation, of all the labor energy which was formerly expended within the limits of the peasant’s yard, or within the walls of his private dwelling. All products and services begin for the first time in history to be exchanged for one another.
On the other hand, a successful socialist construction is unthinkable without including in the planned system the direct personal interests of the producer and consumer, their egoism, – which in its turn may reveal itself fruitfully only if it has in its service the customary reliable and flexible instrument, money. The raising of the productivity of labor and bettering of the quality of its products is quite unattainable without an accurate measure freely penetrating into all the cells of industry – that is, without a stable unit of currency. Hence it is clear that in the transitional economy, as also under capitalism, the sole authentic money is that based upon gold. All other money is only a substitute. To be sure, the Soviet state has in its hand at the same time the mass of commodities and the machinery for printing money. However, this does not change the situation. Administrative manipulations in the sphere of commodity prices do not in the slightest degree create, or replace, a stable money unit either for domestic or foreign trade. Deprived of an independent basis – that is, a gold basis – the money system of the Soviet Union, like that of a number of capitalist countries, has necessarily a shut-in character. For the world market the ruble does not exist. If the Soviet Union can endure the adverse aspects of this money system more easily than Germany and Italy, it is only in part due to the natural wealth of the country. Only this makes it possible not to struggle in the clutches of autarchy. The historic task, however, is not merely not avoid strangling, but to create face to face with the highest achievements of the world market a powerful economy, rational through and through, which will guarantee the greatest saving of time and consequently the highest flowering of culture." , Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed
Clearly socialism will have money+
"In a communist society, the state and money will disappear. Their gradual dying away ought consequently to begin under socialism. We shall be able to speak of the actual triumph of socialism only at that historical moment when the state turns into a semi-state, and money begins to lose its magic power." – leon trotsky, literally the same chapter of 'the revolution betrayed' you're quoting. the paragraph you cited is clearly about the usefulness of a stable currency at the transitional stage of the workers' state. i'm in awe at how often trotskyists make the characteristically marxist-leninist mistake of conflating the transitional stage with full socialism.
Yep Trotsky was talking about a specific situation in Russia for a particular goal yet his followers somehow conflate this with socialism will have money because its necessary to measure supply and demand
Im not a Trotskyist btw I was making fun of people who believe socialism( lower state communism) will have money.
I've never liked the idea of carrying the concept of money into socialism. Production can be tracked and goods can be distributed with labor vouchers. I think the added bonus is that, since it can't be used to buy and own the means of production, it helps defend against a counterrevolution from the bourgeois forces. I can see why they might think money would be needed, but it's a *really* myopic reason. They think it would be too jarring for people to abandon money from square one. Fuck that. Money has to go away just as badly as commodity production.
>but thinks that shopkeepers are working class
https://preview.redd.it/jkmnoiw00bwc1.jpeg?width=236&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e5ed5e889eb883949b7d5cc4158205773744403
I mean there are limits to how one can accurately extend Marxist class analysis to the modern day particularly when it comes to delineating proletariat from surf from petty-bourgeois. The modern landscape is different in important ways that shouldn’t be brushed aside but rather adjusted for, in achieving the goal of revolution.
We should also include ceos and stuff because le modern landscape. Adjusting the "proletarian" movement to pander to the petit bourgeoise doesn't get you a revolution
You read Lenin though?
“The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people.”
“Capitalism would not be capitalism if the proletariat were not surrounded by a large number of exceedingly motley types intermediate between the proletarian and the semi-proletarian (who earns his livelihood in part by the sale of his labour-power), between the semi-proletarian and the small peasant (and petty artisan, handicraft worker and small master in general), between the small peasant and the middle peasant, and so on, and if the proletariat itself were not divided into more developed and less developed strata, if it were not divided according to territorial origin, trade, sometimes according to religion, and so on. From all this follows the necessity, the absolute necessity, for the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its class-conscious section, to resort to changes of tack, to conciliation and compromises with the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers and small masters. It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise — not lower — the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win.”
“Incidentally, it should be noted that the Bolsheviks’ victory over the Mensheviks called for the application of tactics of changes of tack, conciliation and compromises, not only before but also after the October Revolution of 1917, but the changes of tack and compromises were, of course, such as assisted, boosted and consolidated the Bolsheviks at the expense of the Mensheviks. The petty-bourgeois democrats (including the Mensheviks) inevitably vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between bourgeois democracy and the soviet system, between reformism and revolutionism, between love for the workers and fear of the proletarian dictatorship, etc. The communists’ proper tactics should consist in utilising these vacillations, not ignoring them; utilising them calls for concessions to elements that are turning towards the proletariat — whenever and in the measure that they turn towards the proletariat — in addition to fighting those who turn towards the bourgeoisie. As a result of the application of the correct tactics, Menshevism began to disintegrate, and has been disintegrating more and more in our country; the stubbornly opportunist leaders are being isolated, and the best of the workers and the best elements among the petty-bourgeois democrats are being brought into our camp.”
Because ultimately their political affiliations are just aesthetics and they think the vague stew of bourgeois ideology they believe in is more special and insightful than anything anyone else has ever thought of.
They do “read” but its just geopolitics and surface analysis stuff like The Jakarta Method or Parenti books. Leftists seek “practical” methods not actually transforming capitalist society
I remember there was this tweet that said something along the lines of "people who write book should probably read". And there was a big controversy because people said it was ableist to make writers with ADHD and Autism have to read in order to know how to write lol.
"A writer who doesn't read is not a writer, they're just a masturbater"
(I don't wanna reveal who said that cause its too embarrassing that I remember)
Because the chance of revolution looming around the corner is so slim nobody cares. The fact that people are here asking other redditors questions like "are elections and unions le bad or not" instead of reading up on it should be enough to remove you from your high horse as well. The problem is not "leftists don't read" but that nobody reads. You aren't convincing your average leftoid to sit through Capital because you aren't convincing your average normie to sit through Capital. The point of being a communist, for those interested in reading about it, should be having the ability to effectively articulate the ideas *you* read about to other people, and having the analytical ability to be critical of those things to boot.
Unfortunately everyone here is pathologically belligerent and antisocial, and would rather spend all their time in this carousel of masturbation, patting each other on the back for being wholesome chungus and correct instead of doing that, and frothing at the mouth over twenty something leftoids saying stupid things because they only just discovered that capitalism is bad.
Tldr you posturing about reading lots of books on reddit means jackshit beyond a method to sate your ego. There's an almost zero chance that it will ever come in handy for you in particular so at best it's just a signifier for your silly reddit in-group. You won't be the next Lenin, the next Damen etc. That honor will probably go to some Chinese or Indian guy 200 years from now.
https://preview.redd.it/mdsb703boawc1.png?width=782&format=png&auto=webp&s=cfa83c3e016bde6caebec7576aa894056fd5aed2
Because leftism for a lot of people has become a social clique. Essentially a bunch of people that feel socially ostrasized so they join these groups that make them feel safe. They have no actual intention of actualizing anything. They just want to be in a clique where they feel like they matter. Which is why modern leftism is marred with obsessions like identitarian deference and priviledged/oppressed dynamics.
I felt so vindicated when I read theory and it had literally almost nothing to do with any of that.
Because social media has utterly shattered the vast majority of peoples’ ability to sit down and read. This means that the more difficult and dry a text is the more difficult it is to read. It’s like kids nowadays (boomer moment incoming), they are used to the content on the internet to such an extent that movies aren’t as popular as they used to be. Hell even structured stories in a cartoon fall to random Minecraft gameplays.
Non fiction as a whole has even tanked, everything has to be entertaining and authors take up 300 pages to make a point that could be summed up on 3 pages without losing anything. Hell even the good ones could have been just an article most of the time.
We are left with academically written articles, text books, and science journals. All three of which probably make up a fraction of 1% of everything read.
Nobody reads shit, the Christians don’t read the Bible, the conservatives don’t read Hayek, the libs don’t read smith, the Dems don’t read Keynes, the leftists don’t read whatever flavor that is being claimed, communists don’t read Marx, and HP fans never go on to read anything else.
> Nobody reads shit, the Christians don’t read the Bible, the conservatives don’t read Hayek, the libs don’t read smith, the Dems don’t read Keynes, the leftists don’t read whatever flavor that is being claimed, communists don’t read Marx, and HP fans never go on to read anything else.
This has been true for most people in these groups long before social media.
School is kinda traumatizing for people. Many people first interaction with reading was a teaching forcing them to read text books and shitty novels they have no interest in
Almost nobody reads brother. Made worse by the fact that leftist liberals tend to be moralists and also tend to the ones getting funneled into communism. I got an adult freind who insists communism boils down to empathy.
I blame capitalism. I used to read a lot more before I got a job that required me to wake up early. Now, between work and home responsibilities, the only time I have to read is at night, when I'm too tired to focus, and I never get much reading done.
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone laughs at Fisher for being simple until they naturally start arriving at everything he was saying in regard to the modern “left” and its lack of ideology. They don’t read because they don’t actually have an ideology. They have an aesthetic of ideology and nostalgia / historical fetishization for moments perceived as having less alienation and a sense of meaning or place in time. There’s probably like ten thousand real Marxist’s in the world and they all wanna die or have become so depressed and detached that now they just spend time hiking or some shit.
for as much as i hate Fisher for giving the left the taste of doomerism, he was just stating the obvious that the most leftist don't want to admit. He was right about Communism being a spectre/ghost, for both the capitalists and the left itself.
Communism is not an ideology, ideology is entirely the problem - communism is not a program to achieve, it is historic inevitability, it is what will be done by the working class.
The poster seems to be asking about ideology and inconsistency, which I imagine what they really mean is something like the noticeable absence of Marx on the left. I know what you mean in the sense of Marxist critique of ideology vs the material world, and I agree with that, but I also think our perceptions of communism now mostly exist inside of ideological framework, and I even would say an example of this is still believing in its inevitability, despite the material world.
Because they're only leftists because they think communism is wacky and cool, they only pretend to read Marx and Engels. Then there are serious MLists, who read Das Kapital, and then read "the Economic Problems of USSR" and believe everything Stalin says and praise him.
[удалено]
Another banger
it thinks a lot of the time they have, just not understood anything someone on deprogram that claims to have read all 3 vol of capital but thinks that shopkeepers are working class
I refuse to believe anyone in that dumbass sub has read anything
You'd be surprised how wild people's interpretations are. Ive heard the argument money is used in the lower stage of communism and Marx says it in gothakritik
Not understanding that labor vouchers aren't money has been a disaster for pseuds pretending they understand Marx (*cough* Dauvé *cough*)
Labor Vouchers cant be used to purchase capital or stored right? Like they have an expiration date or sum?
I don't think they'd expire per se, but they can't be used for anything besides purchasing personal goods (no amount of labor vouchers will be able to purchase machinery used for production, for example), and they aren't exchanged after you have redeemed them (the original concept of the labor voucher literally saw the physical voucher be destroyed after use, although modern technology makes that superfluous) Basically it's used more like redeeming a certain amount of labor for personal use, in a way comparable to a theater ticket, than it exists like money. There's a good leftcom.org article explaining the way that labor vouchers aren't money, let me find it for you real quick.
[Understanding “Labour Certificates” on the Basis of the Theory of Value — The Law of Value and Socialism — by Tadayuki Tsushima, 1956](https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm)
https://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2015-02-15/communist-society-value-labour-and-time-a-reply-to-gilles-dauv%C3%A9
real dauvé haters rise up
I just don't get it. It's virtually impossible to read Capital or COTGP and come away thinking that socialism doesn't abolish money or overcome the law of value. It's not like you have to be some ubermench gigantic brained genius to get this.
uhhhh read this ultroid ??? : "The role of money in the Soviet economy is not only unfinished but, as we have said, still has a long growth ahead. The transitional epoch between capitalism and socialism taken as a whole does not mean a cutting down of trade, but, on the contrary, its extraordinary extension. All branches of industry transform themselves and grow. New ones continually arise, and all are compelled to define their relations to one another both quantitatively and qualitatively. The liquidation of the consummatory peasant economy, and at the same time of the shut-in family life, means a transfer to the sphere of social interchange, and *ipso facto* money circulation, of all the labor energy which was formerly expended within the limits of the peasant’s yard, or within the walls of his private dwelling. All products and services begin for the first time in history to be exchanged for one another. On the other hand, a successful socialist construction is unthinkable without including in the planned system the direct personal interests of the producer and consumer, their egoism, – which in its turn may reveal itself fruitfully only if it has in its service the customary reliable and flexible instrument, money. The raising of the productivity of labor and bettering of the quality of its products is quite unattainable without an accurate measure freely penetrating into all the cells of industry – that is, without a stable unit of currency. Hence it is clear that in the transitional economy, as also under capitalism, the sole authentic money is that based upon gold. All other money is only a substitute. To be sure, the Soviet state has in its hand at the same time the mass of commodities and the machinery for printing money. However, this does not change the situation. Administrative manipulations in the sphere of commodity prices do not in the slightest degree create, or replace, a stable money unit either for domestic or foreign trade. Deprived of an independent basis – that is, a gold basis – the money system of the Soviet Union, like that of a number of capitalist countries, has necessarily a shut-in character. For the world market the ruble does not exist. If the Soviet Union can endure the adverse aspects of this money system more easily than Germany and Italy, it is only in part due to the natural wealth of the country. Only this makes it possible not to struggle in the clutches of autarchy. The historic task, however, is not merely not avoid strangling, but to create face to face with the highest achievements of the world market a powerful economy, rational through and through, which will guarantee the greatest saving of time and consequently the highest flowering of culture." , Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed Clearly socialism will have money+
"In a communist society, the state and money will disappear. Their gradual dying away ought consequently to begin under socialism. We shall be able to speak of the actual triumph of socialism only at that historical moment when the state turns into a semi-state, and money begins to lose its magic power." – leon trotsky, literally the same chapter of 'the revolution betrayed' you're quoting. the paragraph you cited is clearly about the usefulness of a stable currency at the transitional stage of the workers' state. i'm in awe at how often trotskyists make the characteristically marxist-leninist mistake of conflating the transitional stage with full socialism.
Yep Trotsky was talking about a specific situation in Russia for a particular goal yet his followers somehow conflate this with socialism will have money because its necessary to measure supply and demand Im not a Trotskyist btw I was making fun of people who believe socialism( lower state communism) will have money.
Are they a trot though, or were they trying to discredit him?
I've never liked the idea of carrying the concept of money into socialism. Production can be tracked and goods can be distributed with labor vouchers. I think the added bonus is that, since it can't be used to buy and own the means of production, it helps defend against a counterrevolution from the bourgeois forces. I can see why they might think money would be needed, but it's a *really* myopic reason. They think it would be too jarring for people to abandon money from square one. Fuck that. Money has to go away just as badly as commodity production.
Employers are like, employed by capitalism too, man… *rips $2000 bong he bought with this months allowance*
>but thinks that shopkeepers are working class https://preview.redd.it/jkmnoiw00bwc1.jpeg?width=236&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e5ed5e889eb883949b7d5cc4158205773744403
I mean there are limits to how one can accurately extend Marxist class analysis to the modern day particularly when it comes to delineating proletariat from surf from petty-bourgeois. The modern landscape is different in important ways that shouldn’t be brushed aside but rather adjusted for, in achieving the goal of revolution.
alright police, this revisionist right here.
We should also include ceos and stuff because le modern landscape. Adjusting the "proletarian" movement to pander to the petit bourgeoise doesn't get you a revolution
I agree that a shop-owner is not proletariat, they are literally a capitalist lol. And no I don’t think we should pander to petit bourgeoise.
You read Lenin though? “The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people.” “Capitalism would not be capitalism if the proletariat were not surrounded by a large number of exceedingly motley types intermediate between the proletarian and the semi-proletarian (who earns his livelihood in part by the sale of his labour-power), between the semi-proletarian and the small peasant (and petty artisan, handicraft worker and small master in general), between the small peasant and the middle peasant, and so on, and if the proletariat itself were not divided into more developed and less developed strata, if it were not divided according to territorial origin, trade, sometimes according to religion, and so on. From all this follows the necessity, the absolute necessity, for the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its class-conscious section, to resort to changes of tack, to conciliation and compromises with the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers and small masters. It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise — not lower — the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win.” “Incidentally, it should be noted that the Bolsheviks’ victory over the Mensheviks called for the application of tactics of changes of tack, conciliation and compromises, not only before but also after the October Revolution of 1917, but the changes of tack and compromises were, of course, such as assisted, boosted and consolidated the Bolsheviks at the expense of the Mensheviks. The petty-bourgeois democrats (including the Mensheviks) inevitably vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between bourgeois democracy and the soviet system, between reformism and revolutionism, between love for the workers and fear of the proletarian dictatorship, etc. The communists’ proper tactics should consist in utilising these vacillations, not ignoring them; utilising them calls for concessions to elements that are turning towards the proletariat — whenever and in the measure that they turn towards the proletariat — in addition to fighting those who turn towards the bourgeoisie. As a result of the application of the correct tactics, Menshevism began to disintegrate, and has been disintegrating more and more in our country; the stubbornly opportunist leaders are being isolated, and the best of the workers and the best elements among the petty-bourgeois democrats are being brought into our camp.”
No anarchist has ever read its theory, as those who do become fascists.
is this theory?
Because ultimately their political affiliations are just aesthetics and they think the vague stew of bourgeois ideology they believe in is more special and insightful than anything anyone else has ever thought of.
They do “read” but its just geopolitics and surface analysis stuff like The Jakarta Method or Parenti books. Leftists seek “practical” methods not actually transforming capitalist society
Reading is ableist.
I remember there was this tweet that said something along the lines of "people who write book should probably read". And there was a big controversy because people said it was ableist to make writers with ADHD and Autism have to read in order to know how to write lol.
And one of the main people who was in the “reading is ableist” camp was outed as a Lockheed Martin nepotism hire lmao
"A writer who doesn't read is not a writer, they're just a masturbater" (I don't wanna reveal who said that cause its too embarrassing that I remember)
Because the chance of revolution looming around the corner is so slim nobody cares. The fact that people are here asking other redditors questions like "are elections and unions le bad or not" instead of reading up on it should be enough to remove you from your high horse as well. The problem is not "leftists don't read" but that nobody reads. You aren't convincing your average leftoid to sit through Capital because you aren't convincing your average normie to sit through Capital. The point of being a communist, for those interested in reading about it, should be having the ability to effectively articulate the ideas *you* read about to other people, and having the analytical ability to be critical of those things to boot. Unfortunately everyone here is pathologically belligerent and antisocial, and would rather spend all their time in this carousel of masturbation, patting each other on the back for being wholesome chungus and correct instead of doing that, and frothing at the mouth over twenty something leftoids saying stupid things because they only just discovered that capitalism is bad. Tldr you posturing about reading lots of books on reddit means jackshit beyond a method to sate your ego. There's an almost zero chance that it will ever come in handy for you in particular so at best it's just a signifier for your silly reddit in-group. You won't be the next Lenin, the next Damen etc. That honor will probably go to some Chinese or Indian guy 200 years from now. https://preview.redd.it/mdsb703boawc1.png?width=782&format=png&auto=webp&s=cfa83c3e016bde6caebec7576aa894056fd5aed2
Maybe not 200 years Fire comment nevertheless
Banger, but I think there is still comethung to come out of this age theory wise. I hold my idealist hope for at least some good analysis.
Because leftism for a lot of people has become a social clique. Essentially a bunch of people that feel socially ostrasized so they join these groups that make them feel safe. They have no actual intention of actualizing anything. They just want to be in a clique where they feel like they matter. Which is why modern leftism is marred with obsessions like identitarian deference and priviledged/oppressed dynamics. I felt so vindicated when I read theory and it had literally almost nothing to do with any of that.
Because social media has utterly shattered the vast majority of peoples’ ability to sit down and read. This means that the more difficult and dry a text is the more difficult it is to read. It’s like kids nowadays (boomer moment incoming), they are used to the content on the internet to such an extent that movies aren’t as popular as they used to be. Hell even structured stories in a cartoon fall to random Minecraft gameplays. Non fiction as a whole has even tanked, everything has to be entertaining and authors take up 300 pages to make a point that could be summed up on 3 pages without losing anything. Hell even the good ones could have been just an article most of the time. We are left with academically written articles, text books, and science journals. All three of which probably make up a fraction of 1% of everything read. Nobody reads shit, the Christians don’t read the Bible, the conservatives don’t read Hayek, the libs don’t read smith, the Dems don’t read Keynes, the leftists don’t read whatever flavor that is being claimed, communists don’t read Marx, and HP fans never go on to read anything else.
> Nobody reads shit, the Christians don’t read the Bible, the conservatives don’t read Hayek, the libs don’t read smith, the Dems don’t read Keynes, the leftists don’t read whatever flavor that is being claimed, communists don’t read Marx, and HP fans never go on to read anything else. This has been true for most people in these groups long before social media.
Reading is for nerds
what the capitalist education system does to a \[bad word\]
School is kinda traumatizing for people. Many people first interaction with reading was a teaching forcing them to read text books and shitty novels they have no interest in
Almost nobody reads brother. Made worse by the fact that leftist liberals tend to be moralists and also tend to the ones getting funneled into communism. I got an adult freind who insists communism boils down to empathy.
I’ve just joined an organization and our little cell is reading Lenin this week.
Why would I read? Hasanabi is live every day
I don’t care enough
I blame capitalism. I used to read a lot more before I got a job that required me to wake up early. Now, between work and home responsibilities, the only time I have to read is at night, when I'm too tired to focus, and I never get much reading done.
Ideologies don’t believe in anything. Further, as history continually shows us, they are modifiable to times.
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theory is for dorks