cucumovirus

I think your argument here speaks to and can be connected with a broader phenomenon that we can recognize even before capitalist relations became dominant. The relationship of religion as the opium of the masses that masks and justifies certain exploitative relations in society while at the same time providing benefit to the oppressed as spiritual respite and allowing them to feel good in spite of their material conditions.

Of course, the problem persists and is even worsened in capitalism along with massive alienation. Today in the West, the place of religion was largely taken by consumerism of various kinds and I think that your analysis of the stim industry fits into that nicely. As you also say, we shouldn't attack people engaging in this type of consumerism nor should we focus on individual decisions, but should understand the material conditions that create the need and seek to build a better society where such practices cease to be necessary.

This is just chauvinistic, liberal nonsense. Incoherent screaming about Russia interfering with the supposed "democratic processes" in the West. I'll just quote one of your finishing statements about a country run by capitalists which still has a hereditary monarchy to highlight the absurdity of your entire article.

The battle to preserve the integrity of British politics and protect the nation's democratic soul is ongoing, and it requires the unwavering resolve of its citizens and leaders alike.

Not that early on, but yes, he makes clear distinctions of modern capitalist imperialism and previous/other imperialisms.

This is from chapter 6:

Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But “general” disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain.” Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital.

The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations of big employers.

Gabriel Rockhill also has work on fascism as innate to capitalism and the false narratives of fascism being defeated in WW2 by liberalism.

Here's a really good article on fascism which broadens the definition from the commonly understood one, and connects fascism to colonialism and capitalism/liberal democracy in general.

Thanks, and thanks @ImOnADiet, I had thought they blocked basically all of lemmy and just went their own way.

I thought Beehaw defederated completely from lemmy. Did they not ever do that or did they return at some point?

Unfortunately, I think most of the libs will just go along with whatever the mainstream view becomes, regardless of contradictions. Not like they really care about any of this anyway.

The substance is the actual thing in reality while the form refers to various ways it's presented outwardly in specific circumstances. Good examples are how the rule of the bourgeoisie is the substance of capitalist states but the form can differ (liberal democracy, military dictatorship, etc.), or how class struggles (substance) take on different forms in different contexts (proletariat vs bourgeoisie, colonized people fighting for national liberation, etc.). On a rhetorical level, liberalism, for example, talks about defense of human rights, equality, and freedom (form) while in actuality (substance) liberalism justifies exploitation, slavery, genocide, etc. which we also see it doing materially.

Your comment here reminds me of Lenin's view of dialectical epistemology and human knowledge in general from his notes where he puts it as eloquently as ever:

Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.

(...)

Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles or a spiral.

There was, as you might expect, some linear progression followed by transformative leaps.

Absolutely. For me it was firstly reading the Manifesto and realizing that what was described there as bourgeois society was in fact very similar and at its core had the same contradictions as our bourgeois society today. I was already primed for radicalization due to my circumstances at the time. Secondly, it was reading Lenin, specifically State and Revolution where I got a sense of how these things could work in practice. I still didn't really understand dialectical materialism at that point. After some time in this phase I decided to really dive into diamat. Finally understanding it, I would say, was the third and most significant leap for me. After that I kept on reading any Marxist theory that would expand my understanding and help me become a more well rounded Marxist. I even went back to revisit some works I had already read, this time with a deeper understanding. This last part is a life-long process, though - we never stop learning.

Each of these stages do overlap, though—I’m something of a polygamous reader so I tend to have a few works on the go at any one time.

Same for me. I even sometimes end up dropping some works if I'm reading too many or other, more interesting ones. I do try to come back and finish them all, but it doesn't always work out.

I agree with this and think it's a very important point. I always try to tailor my reading recommendations to people based on their current knowledge and positions, especially for the first few works I'm recommending to get them 'hooked' so to speak.