I’m back in good health and should start posting serious theory discussions instead of talking about football all the time.

Post ideas here. Upbearing comments will be interprebeared as an expression of interest.

It would be good etiquette to mention the length of the book, as it’s relevant to choosing.

    • MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      11 months ago

      More disturbing, Harris’s radicalism leads him on more than one occasion to embrace an ends-justify-the-violent-means ethic of the sort espoused by utopian revolutionaries from Robespierre to Stalin to Mao. He characterizes the 1980 murder of the liberal politician Allard Lowenstein, who was seen as a sellout by the radical left, as “chickens who have come home to roost,” and quotes from a Workers Vanguard article whose headline read “No Tears for Allard Lowenstein!” The radical paper summed up the murder with an analysis right out of a Stalinist tract: “Sides were taken and there were victories and defeats.” Harris writes, “That’s as good a summary as I’ve found.”

      Or take his assessment of the 1967 encounter in which the Black Panther Party co-founder Huey Newton fatally shot the Oakland police officer John Frey. “In October,” Harris writes, “a car stop gone awry left one pig dead and Huey under arrest for murder.”

      Once you have climbed the great mountain of scientific socialism, the murder of one liberal or one “pig” becomes a minor detail, a skirmish in the revolutionary struggle.

      che-smile cry about it you fucking lib

      • GinAndJuche@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        Just realized the bastard called Stalin and Mao “utopian”

        hoping for some “victories” to take place at the NYT offices…

      • GnastyGnuts [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It’s such a shit “review.” His critiques are almost entirely just whining about incivility or “ends justify the violent means” rhetoric (but I’m repeating myself). There’s also a lot of just presenting stuff from the book and expecting the reader to share his sentiments instinctively, which many who bother reading NYT reviews probably do, to be fair.

        Gary Kamiya is the author of “Cool Gray City of Love: 49 Views of San Francisco” and “Spirits of San Francisco: Voyages Through the Unknown City” and writes the Portals of the Past history column for The San Francisco Examiner. He was a co-founder and longtime executive editor of Salon.com.

        lenin-dont-laugh

        • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          Lmao yeah the lib reviews off Palo Alto are funny as fuck one was just a dude complaining that it spent too much time talking about settler colonialism.

          • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            what’s this? I wanted a history of California, what the hell does settler colonialism have to do with it?

            least blinkered yankee

            • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              worse still the person said they were interested in it because it was a marxist analysis of California history but they were mad it didn’t spend more time on biotech, ai, and other bazinga brain shit.

              • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Yeesh. For some reason, Americans have a really hard time with the idea that other perspectives are, like, genuinely different and not just the same thing but with the colours inverted

                sort of like when christians try to write atheist characters, but the end result is Christian, but I’m mad at God