This was some years ago. I tried, but couldn't find it again. Crimethinc is a bit like this though. They were never anarcho-capitalist, but they changed from vaguely apolitical lifestyle individualism in the 90s to actual anti-capitalism around the time they wrote this book called "Work" in 2012.
woodenghost
joined 1 year ago
I totally feel and understand your frustration. Vijay Prashad is great though, isn't he? The thing about Marxists is, that they are always pretty harsh with each other, always polemic, but still comrades in the end. So I won't take sides against any of the people you mentioned in general but still disagree with them on certain points. I've read biting polemics critiquing Michael Roberts too. And Harvey's Answer to Smith isn't pulling punches either. I guess some stuff might have been taken out of context and he definitely spend decades teaching thousands of students Marx's labor theory of value. I'm still thankful to Harvey for getting so many people to read Marx, even if I've grown beyond lots of stuff and always looked to other teachers for insight on imperialism.
In the end, it's not purity of theory that counts, but the impact on organizing movements. People who read theory on that level to inform their on the ground organizing efforts can definitely think for themselves anyway and will only take what is useful for their place and time and leave the rest.
from what I can gather, he seems to have imperialism flipped on its head - saying that its Global North workers who are actually exploited by the global South.
Really? I didn't hear him saying that. But he does seem to have a rare speech impediment, that prevents him from saying the word imperialism: here is his friend and comrad Vijay Prashad rightly and brilliantly chewing him out for that.
Value and circulation. MMT is not completely wrong, it's just incomplete. And it's weird to see incomplete alternative economic theories pop up again and again who's main selling point is avoiding the term Marxism. Keynesianism is another example. And there was this weird phase in US anarchism, where a whole lot of anarcho-capitalists finally started becoming anti-capitalist (which is good of course) and they wrote a whole book about it like they just personally came up with the idea capitalism is bad for the first time ever. And it's weird every time because, like, Marx is right over there, way, way in the back of the economics departments library. Ready to be read whenever you decide to become a serious scientist.
Even David Harvey started out like this. He just started calling himself a Marxist after people had repeatedly pointed out to him that he had become one. And his response was something like like:"Oh, I guess I am a Marxist then. I didn't set out to become one, I was just looking for theory that makes sense for a change."
Of course, most economists would do everything to avoid being called a Marxist in order to keep their funding. And that's where things like MMT come in.
"It was legal at the time. We were just following orders. If we hadn't done it, others would have. You can't judge the past by todays standards." I can already hear the excuses they'll make. It'll all depend on the balance of power, not on cheap talk.
There is a myth, that the originally violet carrots are now orange, because the Dutch made them this way to honor the founder of their monarchy William of Orange. The truth is probably more complicated, though orange carrots did spread and become popular from this place and at that time.
btw do we know yet, why is all yellow? Just training bias from human made art (seen this claim) or actually reinforcing itself by more and more ai art in the training data? Probably the second one, right? But is there proof?
Yes and because C3 is a golden ball, you should confidently switch to the second door. Because now it's just the Monty Hall problem with balls instead of goats. When the madman chose a door to opened, he deliberately chose a bad (mixed) door, otherwise he would have given away the correct location. The fact, that he opened the third instead of the second gives you new information, that you can take advantage of by switching, increasing your chances. Had the ball been silver, it might have been revealed to come from a bad door.
Edit: damn I just realized he picked the ball from the first door, not the second. Okay in that case we might actually have to calculate probabilities, but I'm too lazy for that.
Wow... Shouldn't be surprised I guess, but still am somehow. Thanks for the context.
Might have something to do with Iran and Russia being capitalist, torn by contradictions, led by liberals and ideologically idealist.