What are
/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM:
LibriVox
HuffPost
Open Culture
Raddle
Google Podcasts
The Anarchist Library
iHeartRadio
Library Genesis
IPFS
antiX
TeeSpring
Z-Library
Project Gutenberg
Weather Underground
SlideShare
The most popular Android Apps mentioned in /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM:
The most popular reviews in /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM:
We're basically the whole of the American left who saw our dream candidate emerge from a financial crisis to run on a platform of Change and then sell us out to corporations, pass hoards of Republican legislation including extending Bush's tax cuts under the guise of 'partisanship' while simultaneously increasing wars and deportations, cutting down whistle blowers, codifying torture and extrajudicial killings, etc...
The label "democrat" has become meaningless. The fact that regulated liberalism has been termed "socialism" tells you how hard it is to communicate any genuinely leftist politics.
I genuinely don't believe we have enough common terminology to give you a succinct answer.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Project-History-Crisis-Movement/dp/081299356X
Antifa isn't an 'organization' though, and calling it that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what anti-fascist organizers do.
In terms of violence, sure, anti-fascist organizers throw hands from time to time, but anti-fascist violence is fairly sporadic and reactive. It's not as if anti-fascist groups are actively discussing ways to hurt people they don't like and make it look like self-defense or anything.
He’s got like a whole 14 point thing.
The video you sent was misleading in some places (like when he said some people call fascism “radical democracy” or whatever, which literally flies in the face of everything actual fascists Carl Schmitt, Giovannia Gentile, and Julius Evola said about democracy being bad) but overall not that horribly inaccurate. What was more alarming was your claim that fascism is somehow compatible with communism, which is just dumb. Fascists historically got support by claiming they were uniquely equipped to defeat and destroy the left, so saying it’s at all left wing is just cringe as hell.
The mere existence of black police officers does not invalidate how police have been used to further the cause of white supremacy. There were literally black cops protecting Charlottesville protestors.
No, they are. I’ll leave a couple links and subreddits below if you want to learn about Anarchism. There are ancaps, but that’s just a stolen name, like how Nazis call themselves National Socialists. At its core, anarchism rejects all coercive hierarchy, so an ancap’s belief in corporatism, capitalism, etc is far from actual anarchist thought.
/r/COMPLETEANARCHY
/r/Anarchy101
There's plenty of others. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/socialism
Even if what you're saying is the dictionary definition, many people use it in the context I mentioned, where nationalising industries and services is considered socialist.
friendly reminder that admin spez has fantasized about being a slave owner in a post apocalyptic world:
https://raddle.me/f/chapotraphouse/76843/if-you-wondered-why-spez-doesn-t-like-us-talking-about
So yeah, Chapo is bad because people on there were in favor of a man who killed slaveowners back in the 19 century
Here's an irl example of how people are trying to do non-heirarchal justice.
>Because these followers submit to those they consider the established, legitimate authorities in society, they are called right-wing authoritarians.The “right” in right-wing authoritarianism does not refer to conservatism as a political philosophy, but to the word’s earlier use in Olde English, where riht (pronounced writ) meant lawful, proper, and correct. The established authorities involved may embrace any politico-economic position, even overwhelmingly “left-wing” views. Thus, when there was a Soviet Union, the people who gladly submitted to the Communist Party would be considered right-wing authoritarians, even though state-controlled socialism is anathema to conservatives in the United States. Right-wing authoritarianism, as used here, is a psychological variable, a trait. It is an aspect of a person’s personality, like the need for achievement or emotional intelligence, not their economic philosophy or political beliefs
True, but given the choice between a moderate ass fucking and facing the Great American Challenge(NSFW), Trump would choose the latter because it sounds less homoerotic.
You were so determined to prove me wrong you didn't bother to look at all the options - although I admit they don't have a Kindle edition of Powell's <i>The Anarchist Cookbook</i>.
But try here instead, then.
Adding to the recommendation of Amt, there is also Eleanor Janega's "The Once And Future Sex: Going Medieval on Women's Role In History.
And for some lighter edutainment I follow Janega on twitter, and she quite often posts interesting tidbits and discussions there. link
>Individual politicians running for individual positions?
Are you talking about appointments or elected offices? I never said politicians can't agree with each other.
If they never agreed on anything nothing would get done. What they shouldn't be able to do is help each other get elected. That is because they end up more loyal to those other politicians and the party than the Constitution.
>How do you plan to modify the existing legislation to cater to this fantasy of yours, given that the way to elect positions for office is, you know, legislated?
You don't have to modify anything. The Constitution says nothing about political parties.
Read The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States. It's a history of political parties. They were hardly inevitable and took decades to end up with the power they have now.
>Idk if you’re thinking of European parliamentary system where the parties are not limited by 2
The parliamentary system is actually worse on parties because you end up voting for your party instead of the candidate. You would vote in someone you know was an idiot if they would vote for the Prime Minister you wanted.
They also tend to collapse because the parties bicker with each other and often rely on the most extreme parties to get enough people to form a government.
>however number of individuals with similar goals and interests can form a party or whatnot but thats why people form parties. Its to organize everything from campaigning to delegating tasks to find voice and action in numbers.
You can still have organizations that advocate for specific policies without advocating for a specific umbrella organization that exists only to advocate for itself to hold power.
>But sure ok we’ve seen enough of your substandard levels of knowledge in how shit works. You can stop digging and get yourself out of your own stupid hole anytime now.
The fact you think i'm an idiot for even questioning the existence of political parties should be a red flag in of itself. Read The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States. It's tells the history of political parties. They hard hardly inevitable and took time to grow into the hell we have now.
>Remember, George Washington didn't want political parties specifically because he wanted a single-party state.
That is a myth told by political parties. George Washington was afraid of political parties because of the very thing that happened to them. Unscrupulous people take them over. Read The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States. It's a history of political parties in the United States. I think you will find it was hardly inevitable and it took decades upon decades for them to get the kind of power they have now.
> “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” > ― George Washington
You don't need private umbrella organizations that let politicians conspire with each other to get elected. You can have groups that advocate for specific issues without letting them advocate for a specific private umbrella organization.
Read the book The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States.
You've been fed a bunch of stuff that isn't true. The power current political parties have took decades to happen. It wasn't here from the start, it isn't inevitable.
Geostrategist Peter Zeihan holds that this is all a symptom of global systems failing under global problems.
Howe and Strauss say this is an inevitable consequence of the passing of the last generation with firsthand experiencence of Great Power War
https://www.amazon.com/Maos-Great-Famine-Devastating-Catastrophe/dp/1408886367 Mao knew that their wasnt enough grains, and was quoted saying “to distribute resources evenly will only ruin the Great Leap Forward. When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” Great read. Also the gulags???
I like the Eco definition
Yeah he didn't just make that claim, right?
He also said:
> Now, feminism is no longer needed and is used to make men’s lives worse.
Which is the current narrative of the euphemistically called "mensrights" movement which collects all sorts of rightwing morons, incels and conservatives.
Chauvinism and machism are for a matter of fact closely linked to fascism.
Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_masculinity_under_fascist_Italy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice
Read it for free here : https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31271/31271-h/31271-h.htm#link2H_4_0029
This is where ideas for the estate tax came from.
A bunch of colonists fought a war against a monarchy. They were wary of inherited wealth because that’s how you end up with another monarchy.
In America you’re supposed to earn your place, and not inherit it by merely being born.
All of the Behind the Bastards episodes on the KKK, white supremacists, and fascism are fucking gold.
The second Klan, which the modern one is a sort of remnant of, was a perfect microcosm of what the modern right would become: A bunch of trolls and grifters taking advantage of the dumbest nerds on the planet.
Worst Year Ever’s most recent episode is on Pete. It’s a good overview of his issues.
Nah man, that’s a misconception. There’s no way I could explain this as accurately as it deserves in a reddit comment - so go read about it. Here’s the book I mentioned earlier:
A People's Guide to Capitalism: An Introduction to Marxist Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642591696/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_navT_a_K75SARMTRHD47H0AGRG7
If you want something pretty short to read about anarchism, I suggest Malatestas Anarchy: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy
There's a free audiobook version as well: https://librivox.org/anarchy-by-errico-malatesta/
Malatestas Anarchy is also an introductory pamphlet about anarchism and a good read.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy
Audiobook version: https://librivox.org/anarchy-by-errico-malatesta/
> Ha ha wait is this sarcastic? History shows a clear connection between the modern (last 500 yrs) form of racism and the protection of capitalist interests, yeah.
Them having a connection doesn't mean that racism is a product of Capital. Unless you think that racism is caused by Capitalism I would probably somewhat agree with you here.
> Meanwhile the neoliberal era has seen a sharp decrease in investment in training in the private sector.
This is amazingly simplistic. Decreasing investment in training in the private sector is not completely understood as far as I know. You can also point to factors such as the expansion of the higher education system, which has reduced the need for employers to train, or increased efficiency in training investment. link
> We also see that private sector attitudes (cuts, pursuing "efficiencies") end up the guiding attitudes in the public sector too
Even if I grant you this, this hasn't applied in terms of policing. From 1971 to 2017 the percentage of direct spending from state and local expenditures on policing has been consistent over the real dollar increase in the amount spent
I can actually provide a free audiobook, I'd recommend Anarchy by Errico Malatesta. However if you must get something from Audible, I'd highly recommend The Conquest of Bread. It shows it's age in some aspects since it was written in 1892, and it more describes how an anarcho-communist society would work, it's meant to be idealist since it was written to inspire hope in the readers. But I really liked and it was the first anarchist book I ever read.
The breadtube's namesake, Conquest of Bread (aka the Bread Book), is a good read as well if you're teetering on the edge of stateless socialism.
It is an important book in anarcommunist theory, and it's old, but you can easily read it online. What I like to do, to keep my focus, is read the book while listening to the audiobook.
Links here: * https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread * https://librivox.org/conquest-bread-2-by-peter-kropotkin/
Seems like they've moved to raddle, but it'll never have the same impact as the reddit sub.
​
Here's a good book I've read on this topic. I wouldn't say the books theses are undisputable but it traces the history of the German Volk and how hypernationalism was built over decades leading up to the Nazi takeover in 1933.
You need to take a poltical science class to see how stupid you sound. The Political Compass is just a Nolan Chart turned on its side. No one uses it. No college uses it. It's fucking stupid.
If a college professor ever uses the Dog Shit Political Compass, they should be fired. That is why you NEVER, EVER, EVER, see the Dog Shit Compass used in colleges.
Read these books if you want to see how stupid you sound to me.
https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Nightmare-Trump-His-Followers/dp/1612199054
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
Oh, and I will ignore any response you have. You have nothing of any value to offer me. Good bye.
[Lenin, p372] I know that there are, of course, wiseacres [dunces] with a high opinion of themselves and even calling themselves socialists, who assert that power should not have been taken until the revolution broke out in all countries. They do not realise that in saying this they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air. This is senseless. Everyone knows the difficulties of a revolution. Everyone knows the difficulties of a revolution. It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the join efforts of the workers of all countries. Our task consists in being restrained and prudent, we must manoeuvre and retreat until we receive reinforcements. A changeover to these tactics is inevitable, no matter how much they are mocked by so-called revolutionaries with no idea of what revolution means.
This is Lenin talking about Trotsky’s permanent revolution which means to go over to the side of the bourgeoisie (to betray the revolution) while socialism in one country was policy Stalin took straight from Lenin. Trotsky was a fool and an ally to fascists. Stop worshipping him.
I'd just like to jump in here and address your sample size point because I think a lot of people misunderstand how they work. There's a formula to tell us how confident we are in a certain statistic, and plugging in the values for this study shows that we are 99% confident that the actual statistic is 13% ±2.6%. A good explanation of how we calculate these is found here underneath "calculating sampling errors".
So either way we have more than 10% of Americans know somebody who died due to being unable to afford care. Personally, I think that number is unacceptably high. But at least we can now agree that the number is correct.
>That's an accurate description of what is being disputed. How do you know that Imperialism isn't the reason for success?
Countries that weren't heavily into imperialism are still successful. Like Austria, Switzerland, Germany, China, Japan(It was only for a little while and much of their economic development came after the fact.) Also, some of the worlds fastest improving countries are in Africa such as the Congo, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and Tanzania.
Tim is left center, he is the CEO of an open and independent news group called Subverse. The is the most impartial news source out there right now.
https://www.minds.com/subverse
If all it takes is 3 people to ruin a mans reputation, career and status in the public eye, just from accusation. It can be used as a tool to hurt people they dont like. Its why trump has a consistent number of rape allegations against him and will always have them. Until there is hard proof, not suspicion of him commiting these acts, allegations are just rumors at an attempt to smear.
>If true, who is to say that also wouldn’t occur here?
It's already occurred here! A People's History of the United States. The entire history of the US is vilifying "public" and worshiping "private" with the result of horrendous suffering. Genocide against the indigenous people that already lived on the land; owning human beings as private property; redlining; Jim Crow laws; blacklisting anyone accused of communism; the Cold War; law enforcement that respects property more than life; endless international warfare in order to control precious resources. On and on. We don't fight inequality because we know we'll win. We fight because it's the right thing to do.
> Learn a bit about history
I'm doing a degree in history at University, honestly i recommend you read The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J Evans if you want to educate yourself about German history.
Perhaps you should take your fabricated reality up with the leading historian on Nazi Germany
/r/asablackman
Also if you are German how does that mean you know what Nazi Germany did? We all learned the same history, you didnt get the super special secret german only Nazi are really bad (but also communists are good) class.
Why is it so difficult to say that both sides are bad sometimes? Does the Left literally do nothing wrong? Are you this blind?
Know what would help your case? Some kind of source for your rambling about the Nazis. Mine is mostly a freikorps book which detailed the street fighting in the weimar republic before the nazis came to prominence - https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Birth-Nazis-Freikorps/dp/0786713429
>I wouldn't say that, and ironically they have Trump to thank.
A tax policy that is bad across all age cohorts doesn't undo or make up for the last several decades of policy that is coming home to roost. Trump's tax policy, for example, blew the deficit way, way, way up in a time of economic growth so when we have our next recession we're basically fucked. And who is going to get fucked the most? Who do they expect to not get social security or Medicare?
> One of the benefits of being a large generation I guess.
A large generation that gives zero fucks about what happens next and creates a cult like culture to make it easier to avoid giving a fuck.
This book summed it up horrifically well: https://www.amazon.com/Theft-Decade-Boomers-Millennials-Economic/dp/1541742362
Just because someone publishes something doesnt mean it's true, therefore verifiability on previously published information is still subjective. Plenty of published books have been written on how liberals are closely related to nazis and could be linked on that page like:
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767917189/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_uFDHDbZ6KJ4F4
It's something that can be backed up, as I've shown here liberal policies are related to that of nazi Germany.
And I mean if you're going to trust some liberal with a gender studies degree, over a quote directly from Hitler, then theres really no arguing here. You're wrong.