Books

If you wanna be notified for the upcoming weekly threads, just reply to this comment with 'yes' or 'y'. I will assume you want to be added to a notification list. If you want to be removed from the list, you can reply to this or DM me.

Just finished Anti-Dühring. It was – shall we say – intense. Not as great for learning as it is often claimed to be. For example: reading an entire chapter on military strategy or Prussian law is just boring and adds little value. This is expected from a book that is essentially just a 500 page diss-track, but still.

I also finished ACOTAR and it was very entertaining to read. It's not a good book though and if you don't fit the demographic of young straight white women, this book might not give you such a good time.

So now i started reading Blackshirts & Reds, which is such a pleasure to read; it really contrast with the dry read that it Anti-Dühring. Rest in power Parenti.

I also started A little History of Mathmatics Snezana Lawrence. It's highly readable and doesn't go as deep into the underlying maths as i had hoped. Still it's pleasant and so far fairly interesting.

I'm reading the laws of my country for an exam.

I get a bit of motivation by thinking "I'll study this so I understand law and then I will be able to write the bylaws of a party or a study group". It's a good strategy up until I look at how many laws I have to read. Studying for an exam sucks.

I also looked at the USSR and China constitutions. It's kind of interesting that the Supreme Soviet was bicameral while China's National People's Congress is unicameral. I'm sure there are a lot more details but I'll look into it later.

I have reread Cambodia 1975-1982 by Michael Vickery (noted it was written and published at 1984)

tl;dr: Michael Vickery challenging standard total viewpoint (STV) on Cambodia 1975-1978 under the Khmer Rouge, which was actually composed of many factions, but specifically namely the more moderate East, sympathetic to the rest of Vietnam-led Socialist Indochina and the more chauvinistic Southwest, as you would known led by Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, who are known for their genocidal anti-communist legacy.

1954-1970, let alone 1970-1975, which was the Cambodian civil war, was not neccesarily a good time, too much over-educated elite people, rampant corruption, reclusive peasants, a basketcase for foreign investment, overall a political economy that is more destructive than constructive, draining wealth from the rural areas to the urban areas, in order to chase an unsustainable luxurious dream.

Initially, 1975-1976 was a time for recovery, and lot of things like the evacuation of the city or mass executions was contextualized or challenged by Vickery. Things could've have gone well

1977-78 was the time the Southwest purged the East, due to political infighting, and then stocked up rice for war against Vietnam, disrupting food distribution, with all the bloody implications that confirmed the STV.

But the thing is, a lot of what defined the Southwest was not necessarily due to its socialist nature (despite many comparisons to actually existing socialist countries, it showed such path was not inevitable or exclusive to socialism) but actually shaped by Cambodian national characteristics

It includes:

• the hypothesis that Democratic Kampuchea (D.K) was ruled essentially by a vengeful dictatorship of the chavinistic peasantry, which were apathetic at best, and hostile to the urban population, even the proletariat. This would be compared to narodnism or the peasant elements of the Tambov Rebellion.

• the arc of Pol Pot et crew mirrors that of Son Ngoc Thanh

from radical student - active guerilla fighter and revolutionary - anti-Vietnamese nationalist - finally offering support to the U.S. against revolution in Indochina. This arc coincides with the time in the regime change of Thailand towards a more staunchly anti-communist position

Also:

it is interesting to note that Pol Pot's consolidation of power coincided with the Thanin Kraivixien government in Thailand (Oct. 1976-Oct. 1977). From 1973 until October 1976 the Thai government, following a factional line that goes back to the late 1940s, tried to develop a policy of friendship toward all the new Indochinese governments. The Thanin regime, on the contrary, adopted an extreme anti-communist stance, but, along with succeeding governments, would have favored any developments in Cambodia which were inimical to Vietnam. The Pol Pot line as it developed would have been much more disturbing to the first Thai faction than to the second.296

• the torturous violence made by Pol Pot-Ieng Sary - Khieu Samphan clique was adapted from the Issaraks, most of them non-Communist, but nonetheless their name was reclaimed by Khmer Hanoi/Viet Minh-aligned Cambodian Communists

Then we get to People's Republic of Kampuchea, which, despite being Vietnamese aligned, was actually less socialist and more liberal and lax as a state, much to a fault. Nonetheless, the resistance, backed by US, China, Thailand and UN, and anti-PRK migrants spread atrocity propaganda, some of which very ridiculous, and ofc this was challenged by Vickery like the STV on D.K.

Weirdly enough, the PRK actually claimed to be a legitimate heir to Democratic Kampuchea, noting that 1977-1978 D.K was a reactionary abberation.

I've been reading Sword Art Online vol. 1. Apart from an unnecessary sex joke in chapter 7 it's been pretty fun so far, though I'm starting to fear that mid-scene exposition dumps are just a part of lightnovels.

Theory wise I intend to continue reading Wage-Labor and Capital sometime.

I'm sure most have read it already as it's highly recommended, but I'm reading Vincent Bevins' The Jakarta Method. I'm about halfway through and really enjoying it. The writing style is pretty simple but engaging, it's very much centered on real people which is nice. Looking forward to wrapping it up.

In terms of my own recommendations, Washington Bullets by Vijay Prashad is another in a similar ilk. Great read on US imperialism, some stuff in it I was already familiar with but others less so, it felt good to brush up on the basics of some of these awful events.

Both pretty entry level but I'd recommend to anyone who's getting back into reading more like I am.

Just finished The Magus by John Fowles. I understand many people are frustrated at its confusing plot and lack of resolution, but I found it pretty great. It's the first book in quite a while where I actually sat down afterwards and wrote out some thoughts and analysis.

Now just starting There is no Antimemetics Division by qntm - much easier read!

Got one of those inexpensive micro-ereaders from China. Put a community firmware on it, added a few books, and it's been remarkably effective in reducing doomscrolling and helping me accelerate reading!

Kind of a vague question, but what non-Marxist books do you think someone should read? Like, to avoid the "Alexis de Tocqueville, which I'm sure most Americans have read" syndrome.

I'm nearing the end of my reread for Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. I took a months long break before starting Citadel of the Autarch, because it had been a nonstop ride through a lot of reading beforehand. While there are problems with the portrayal of women and Severian generally sucks as a person, I adore the writing and the worldbuilding.

I originally read this series in 2010 or 2011 as a young person and while it had an effect on me, I forgot most of the details. This has been an experience of discovery as much as an experience of rediscovery. And I've also been listening to Shelved by Genre's episodes talking about the books as I've finished sections. It's helped, almost like a leftist book club providing analysis and details I missed.

Finished Nkrumah's neocolonialism, onto Cheng Enfu's Five Characteristics of Neoimperialism!

If I'm able to continue my current reading pace, I'll finally be able to finish reading Palo Alto in a little more than a week. I had a long hiatus between the last time I read it due to real life obligations and lack of motivation, but I'm determined to finish it.

It's definitely very interesting and I think it'll be useful for navigating California politics better, but I'm probably gonna have to rope some other poor sap into reading it as well as to have a person to discuss with.

Just letting you know, you still haven't pinned this week's thread.