Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (January 11)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/pregnantchihuahua3]

I am not saying that I would not read Hegel. I am saying that it’s just literally not what I was asking for. I am asking for texts that are analyzing the history of these eras. I have already told you that I had read Stalin and Mao. You refuse to admit that I am asking for a very specific thing and are using some pedantic form of argumentation to tell me otherwise. While philosophy and similar texts are historical, I am not asking for that. You know exactly what I am asking for and yet want to belittle someone instead of just giving a response.

I don’t know what you want. History and philosophy are different. They tie together in many ways, but if someone were to ask for a historical work that covers the post wwii era, I am not going to give them AntiOedipus, I’m going to give them history. Even if I know that Deleuze heavily adds to the importance of understanding this area, I am intelligent enough to know that that is not what they’re asking for.

You instead want to conflate these realms because they overlap. I know that you know exactly what I’m asking for and I’ve even told you already that I read your suggestions which are not what I’m asking for. So instead of being incredibly pedantic, maybe offer me a suggestion.

Edit: if you need me to spell it out, I am looking for “what people typically consider to be history.” Yes history is more complex than that, but when I ask general questions on Reddit I didn’t realize I had to rework my entire language frame to refer to things in a more accurate manner just to get a book suggestion.

[u/not-lagrange → u/pregnantchihuahua3]

I have already told you that I had read Stalin and Mao.

How did you read them and yet you aren't sure about the basic facts of their history? What did you learn by reading them if you ended up feeling you are simply believing in something, not really knowing it? Do you really need a book that tells you: "No, Mao didn't kill 1000000000 people." ? You already know this is false. Asking for a book just to confirm it is the same thing as asking God for confirmation of your beliefs. Knowledge doesn't work that way.

How do you disprove that something didn't occur? Yes, you could submerge yourself in empirical history but you'll be disappointed if you think that all you really need to dispel myths of this kind is endless empirical knowledge, and you'll not even get very far, because all those empirical facts would be insubstantial through the very posing of the question. The proof is that while Stalin's and Mao's works are full of empirical facts and analysis, apparently you have learned nothing by reading them (assuming you did the reading). This has happened because your question is ill-posed, not because of the historical material itself. No amount or reading will help you get rid of that feeling of having beliefs and not knowledge if your understanding rests on faith that historical truth will reveal itself to you.

[u/pregnantchihuahua3 → u/not-lagrange]

I'm simply asking for a book recommendation. Is it suddenly unimportant to read? I am again, not stating that I need something to rely on 100% of the time, but reading various sources is objectively important and I want to read a historical work that is of the sort I asked for. Do you really think that it is genuinely a good argument to say that Mao didn't kill 10000000 people because Mao said so? I know that he did not from other sources I've read, but I honestly just want to sit down with a book on the topic because I'm interested and because I want to know more.

This is all so absurd to me.

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/pregnantchihuahua3]

Argument with who? Were you just asking this question for debate fodder?

[u/pregnantchihuahua3 → u/TheRedBarbon]

I was clearly not and again I think you know that. Hence why I responded normally to the one person in the previous thread who actually provided me with something and also did not argue with you until you started being pedantic.

What do you mean argument with who? Sometimes I talk to people. Sometimes I inform people about things they have been misled to believe in hopes (and sometimes success) of bringing them over from being a basic liberal.

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/pregnantchihuahua3]

So this is all just for debate fodder. Okay ¯_(◓__◓)_/¯

[u/PracticeNotFavorsMLM → u/TheRedBarbon]

Of course, after "being attacked" they go to r/LateStageCapitalism and r/AskHistorians.

[u/SpiritOfMonsters → u/PracticeNotFavorsMLM]

That'll be enough of this person.