Wordplay [he/him]

  • 4 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 15th, 2020

help-circle



  • Thank you for your response!

    What I meant was that their analysis felt like it complicated traditionally marxist positions, eschewing the deterministic trajectory of history (not a bad thing) and being concerned more with the characteristics of individual freedom within early societies rather than more causal ‘class-like’ elements that constrain or enable that freedom. While their problematization of centralized hierarchical states does seem to echo the more utopian visions of a post-socialist, communist society, in our given time and in the context of problems of a global scale, it seems appropriate to be skeptical when these past observations start to turn into present prescriptions for adopting ‘flexible and creative’ forms of organization that have, in the last century, been ineffective at challenging power or ushering in meaningful and lasting alternatives. If you do have a chance to read it, though, I would recommend it.

















  • I’ve done a bunch of research into the lead up to WWII and the evidence is clear that the UK was intentionally stoking tensions between Germany and the Soviets (a good summary from Counterpunch). What I still haven’t figured out, though, is why Poland was the line in the sand for the policy of appeasement. If the UK wanted an armed conflict between Germany and the USSR, why be so passive on Austria and Czechoslovakia only to flip when Poland is threatened, when a partially annexed Poland would have been the gateway for the Eastern war that UK seemed to desire?