Full disclosure of my special branch of study
As 2 wake periods ago clarified for me the special branch of another kind presented itself to me, well not entirely another branch, but from that comes a whole new branch that goes into a part of the 2 wake periods ago branch.
In the period of time after WWII, there was a shiver me timbers global mentality, with someone like Joseph McCarthy a red scare was put forth, which I find to be poppycock, but there is something to it, how a revolutionary approach in how say a government was to be would be seen as a threat, but what all these scare tactics fail to do, is to be informed.
This venture of mine is merely to go into this branch of education without the filter of the bearer of the information working from a mindset that sees it without understanding it on its own terms.
Therefore there is for me a perceived need to hear and use as study aids those who were
1) historical voices of this branch
2) The best voices in the modern era
1 -- Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci among others
2 -- Richard Wolff and David Harvey, among others
I like how Harvey describes MSNBC as repressive liberalism, that they'll constantly say how left they are but aren't actually. A limit.
It's like we're being spoonfed a dichotomy that both sides are a part of the problem, and the drama being performed is being partook and enacted by those who refuse to have a meaningful education about what they are so confident in exposing as evil.
To see everyday mainstream discourse as missing the punchline sort of thing.
For me this is a very complex undertaking that will need all the study aids available, there is no possibility of being a part of a discussion group so that these ideas and so forth can take a organic part of my thinking, and that would be going too far for my present design, it would be something a "believer" would do.
I'm not a believer in anything, all this is simply to get a firmer grasp on what this all means, in order to have a deeper understanding of a time period which took place after WWII to the present, and for that there must be a going back to what the primary sources of this field were, and working through that literature with the top aids available, so for example to use Harvey and Wolff and Gramsci as aids over those who don't have a clue, and work to blind the seeker of knowledge, those types that are a part of the set up dichotomy which the mainstream discourse takes place, which leaves out actual education about this branch of study.
In the period of time after WWII, there was a shiver me timbers global mentality, with someone like Joseph McCarthy a red scare was put forth, which I find to be poppycock, but there is something to it, how a revolutionary approach in how say a government was to be would be seen as a threat, but what all these scare tactics fail to do, is to be informed.
This venture of mine is merely to go into this branch of education without the filter of the bearer of the information working from a mindset that sees it without understanding it on its own terms.
Therefore there is for me a perceived need to hear and use as study aids those who were
1) historical voices of this branch
2) The best voices in the modern era
1 -- Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci among others
2 -- Richard Wolff and David Harvey, among others
I like how Harvey describes MSNBC as repressive liberalism, that they'll constantly say how left they are but aren't actually. A limit.
It's like we're being spoonfed a dichotomy that both sides are a part of the problem, and the drama being performed is being partook and enacted by those who refuse to have a meaningful education about what they are so confident in exposing as evil.
To see everyday mainstream discourse as missing the punchline sort of thing.
For me this is a very complex undertaking that will need all the study aids available, there is no possibility of being a part of a discussion group so that these ideas and so forth can take a organic part of my thinking, and that would be going too far for my present design, it would be something a "believer" would do.
I'm not a believer in anything, all this is simply to get a firmer grasp on what this all means, in order to have a deeper understanding of a time period which took place after WWII to the present, and for that there must be a going back to what the primary sources of this field were, and working through that literature with the top aids available, so for example to use Harvey and Wolff and Gramsci as aids over those who don't have a clue, and work to blind the seeker of knowledge, those types that are a part of the set up dichotomy which the mainstream discourse takes place, which leaves out actual education about this branch of study.
46-50, M