Ya boi Lain out here again with the nuclear takes

Ya boi Lain out here again with the nuclear takes


Attached: firefox_XP7PKVR1WF.png (1229x674, 1.86M)

Other urls found in this thread:


I haven't watched the video but the guy annoys me so much. I like his content but it's pretentious as fuck. He also has the "we will be better than SU since we understand Marxism better" hot take. If there's something that's un-Marxist, it's certainly is that.

really just a boring old leftcom take tbh

Zero books is terrible, it feels like pseudo-Marxist opportunism most of the time. Verso has some good books since they republish/translate Marxist books that have been largely forgotten, but there is probably a reason Mark Fisher left Zero books that we don't know about.
Ben Burgis is even worse, he is terrible at arguing and takes the incorrect approach by trying to rebut conservatives through "logic." I have thought about trying to make my own little publishing operation, just printing and binding books and listing them on Amazon or something, like Marxist classics or reprinting books from the USSR, like Clemens Dutt's Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism. But seeing what happened to Pravda makes me not want to.

God this guy is such a self righteous hack. Does everything he can to ride Mark Fisher's coattails it's really disgusting. Tries to cop the right wing youtube clickbait aesthetic instead of making an alternative and is just extremely cringey.

Attached: 1416361096308.jpg (400x400, 68.58K)

REALLY? This is his conclusion of all this incoherent shit? That we should work with fucking Bernie and AOC instead of organising workers and form communist vanguards?

This reminds on a group called "Worker's League for the rebuilding of the KPD" here in Germany - they are officially anti-revisionist and praise Stalin and Mao, but their practice focuses on art projects while they called for workers to vote for the neoliberal SPD because there is "currently no mass base for a vanguard" and surprisingly, they also like Israel. Sure these Leftcoms would not like Stalin and Mao but they are practically the same at this point.

Attached: Screenshot_20190520-084429_YouTube.jpg (1079x864, 123.39K)

I like Doug and don't much agree with him here, but to play devils advocate I would say that Bernie and AOC have the potential to steer the conversation away from the endless reactionary fearmongering and liberal idpol towards more important issues. As long as the country is divided on immigration, abortion, LGBT etc, proles will never achieve class consciousness. Your workers league is an example of this, the national conversation must be steered towards serious discussion of socialism before any significant number of proles would subscribe to your organizations and communes. Yuck, I feel gross typing that out but in some ways it makes sense.

How would you start such an operation?
I mean, printing is easy enough but binding requires expensive machines, doesn't it?


Why do 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anglo🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 do this? Can't they be bothered to copy paste the names of people into translate.google.com and hit the pronunciation button?



Attached: infant.webm (640x360, 934.14K)

I used to think this way (I have shilled for DSA and other Overton window shit on this board in the past), but I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is a fatal misstep. People like Bernie Sanders and AOC are not the agents of change, they're symptoms of a change that's already happening. The conditions are developing for new ideas and positions to take root, but that requires actual Marxists to present themselves as the solution instead of shilling social democrats.

The only way to introduce socialism to "national conversation" is for socialists - real socialists - to come out of hiding and openly state their positions, often and loudly. We need to force socialism to the mainstream by spreading it first on the internet, by pamphlets in our workplaces and in our unions. The seeds need to be sown from the ground up. To think Bernie Sanders are suddenly going to start talking about seizing the means of production live on CNN is delusional. Supporting Social Democrats is literally selling the rope to our own hangmen. Social Democrats are not going to "push" the Overton window to the Left, they're going to contain it.

Attached: maxresdefault-3.jpg (1200x1004, 140.12K)

Douglas Lain
He's more Marxist than you'll ever be
Douglas Lain
Orange man bad must vote for Bernie

Douglas Lain
Mispronouncing something or other
Douglas Lain
Queue that vaporwave track, brother

Douglas Lain
Hashtag Support Bombing Syria
Douglas Lain
Have you read that one book by Mark Fisha'

Douglas Lain
I have friends that are even bigger hacks
Douglas Lain
Publish shitty books give zero facks


Attached: 1.png (421x405, 177.49K)

Lol, why do you hate Doug? He's cool

read the fucking thread

Remember that time when he brought one of his friends on the show who was a Zionist shill and started going on about how the White Helmets are totally not a CIA/MI5 plot and how evil Assad is gasing his own people?

Remember that other time when he brought one of his other retarded friends on the show who started faking shit he didn't know about Lacan and then people in the comment section pointed out that his friend knows jack shit on the topic to which Lain replied i dont care, lol?

Remember that time when he proved that Bernie2020 is the apex of communist praxis?

Remember when he started playing that vaporwave tune?

Attached: download.jpeg (238x212, 11.54K)

now THIS is an epic post

Attached: goat-sunglasses-8.jpg (624x351, 40K)

He's just PRETENDING to be a hipster. It's IRONIC, you see.

yep this one's going in my collection

Attached: 28e871282b2000ce85143c1a9b195cef083b29965ca2fdd082015b409aa4d2bf.png (420x420, 11.32K)

The less you vote for bernie the less marxist you are and the more you vote for bernie the communistier you get.

Doug Lain is a faggot but overall Zero Books is still actually doing something interesting and at least he's not a radlib. Also kind of sad to see no-one actually be able to properly critique the video, considering it's actually simple to do without shitposting. Tbh the only actual take he commits to in this is that reform vs revolution is a false dichotomy, it's not like we didn't know he was spooked by the "Stalinist" menace. Doug is a dumb leftcom LARPing as an "Orthodox Marxist". I can't bring myself to hate Zero Books though because the man gets a broad range of voices on his podcast and he introduced people to Derrick Varn so.

I like Doug Lain but he needs to drop the artsy jargon. What's the point of making analysis if people can't understand what the hell you're saying? I'm not referring to this video but his other vids.

Attached: Это полный идиотизм.mp4 (480x360, 188.23K)

Attached: logo.gif (265x150, 7.68K)

Stop hating on Doug. This is Zero Books appreciation thread.


Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 221.32K)

Attached: 1.png (550x520, 370.45K)

Stop bullying Doug.

I can't, user, he's asking for it.

Attached: 1.png (520x531, 322.58K)

Ok retard

Today will look at all the reasons why I'm better than you by regurgitating all the leftcom clichés about the Soviet Union. We'll also misrepresent some Leninist views and quote the parts of the Gotha Program I like while leaving aside those parts that I don't.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 133.68K)

Remember that time he brought on that guy who was crying about Assad and shilling for the white helmets, with absolutely no contention from Doug.

He's just providing a neutral platform for every voice there is. :^)

I think he made it pretty clear in the video that his intentions where not to subordinate the movement to social democratic partisan alliances, but to use the existing structures of social democratic political movements to subvert their bourgeois political nature from within. Basically eating them from the inside out.


In what meaningful sense were "the laws that dictate capital" intact in the soviet union under Stalin?
Shit, man, these socdems are way cooler than I thought.

Well, both Doug and Stalin are in agreement as to the reality of the law of value in the Soviet Union, which you should know is the corner stone of class based society (capitalism in historic specificity). They disagree however on the "social control" aspect of stalin's socialism
Original ones yes actually. But after their surrendering of Marxist theory, they gradually went to viewing socialism as one giant state conglomerate, then eventually just became the welfare libs of today

Gib webm, OP.

Explain the growth of heavy industry under Stalin.

The solution is to sort between socdems who can be converted (and convert them) and socdems who will turn fascist the moment things heat up (and sabotage them).

Why do people like this talk like they're some high and mighty academic/intellectual? It's just youtube. Talk like a normal person for fuck's sake.

You either can't read or you are trolling.
Honey, every Marxist called himself a social democrat back in the beginning of the 20th century. I knew this was going to be the usual dishonest "let's wash the bolsheviks together with Scandinavian-type socdems " hot take but it's getting very tiresome.
There's literally no other way to end private property other than through state control if you wish to have the whole region's economy consistent. The "alternatives" are loosely affiliated communes with communal ownership involved in some kind of trade or barter system (not communism) or some variants of market socialism (still not communism). The leftcom idea of "anybody gets to use the machinery whenever wherever, lol" is too childish even to address. Star Trek and replicators not shithole and squatopia, okay?

If you think "state control" is necessary you should address how it's managed. You can have (con)federal management where local/state productive forces are managed according to scale. Lots of production doesn't need to be micro-managed from a national level.
You obviously have to be trained before you can use any serious equipment. Whether someone is willing to go through training to get certified by the union/guild/whatever standards is going to weed out almost all people who aren't going to be productive.

Don't accuse other people of being utopian if you justify your plans with:
1. Do things my way
2. ????
3. Utopia

I think they're all trying to rip off Adam Curtis.

Also Lindsay Shepherd complaining about "muh free speech." It was pretty clear that Lain thought she was full of shit though but still. Shepherd's claim to being on the left was supporting the environment and same-sex marriage or something before the left "turned on her" because she lost an academic job for blasting transphobic Jordy Pee videos to her English tutoring class. What the fuck is this doing on my Marxism channel

You have literally misrepresented and misunderstood everything I said. How can you fuck up so badly when the exact stalin text is in this thread. And no, we are not lumping bolsheviks in with social Democrats, you negative I*Q clown. Enjoy being a Kautistic social Democrat, retard.

fuck this is a stupid hot take. You literally described two different forms of capitalism, and misrepresented the entirety of communization. Read "Principles of Communist production and distribution" and get learnt son

Except you do.

Imagine being so fucking dumb that you say this with a straight face after having read out your state_capitalism.txt, thinking that this is an epic quip with which you BTFO'd the entire history of the USSR.

Attached: 1.png (415x345, 120.39K)

He's only trying to look intellectual and it really shows. He's actually an (quote) idiot (endquote): youtu.be/kEYk33CxmsA?t=317

This video is utterly incoherent. What's his point now? I know he hates Stalin and subscribes to the Leftcom view of the USSR, but is he against Leninism now or for it? Does he like Bela Kun or dislike him? Does he like Kautsky or dislike him? Does he like Constructivism or dislikes it? Does he want old-school social democracy or does he not?

He just looks like just another obscurantist, like so many of his authors like Joffe, and many post-left thinkers like Žižek.

He seems like the kind of guy who reads much but understands little.

He reads them only superficially, compiles a bunch of takes from them to have his own personal Žižek lecture and then pretends to know everything by regurgitating the same takes and aphorism over and over but I yet have to see him actually grasping a complete work, that is on a whole other level.

But it's not like his authors do anything but compile their books like that anyway. This is also why Mark Fisher needs to be criticised, in Capitalist Realism he jumps from topic to topic with a bunch of steaming hot takes. These guys all need to read Lukács to learn how to make a proper coherent Marxist cultural critique.

It's kinda funny, because this type of stream-of-consciousness, eclectic aphorisms obscurantism used to be the field of literal arch-reactionaries like Evola or Nicolas Gomez Davila while the old left was the opposition who'd subscribe to scienticism and empiricism. Now it seems like the opposite.

Ahh I hate Doug Lain so much that it makes me very happy to see how much all of you hate him as well.
Why the fuck does he think he makes a good face? I just remember listening to the early podcasts with him and Varn and it's like Doug is this retard who heard about Marxism from a deaf mute one time and Varn is the only one who has anything to say.
Every time Doug talks he winds up saying that he doesn't want to get into the weeds, or that he's not quite sure and still working on it, or some other fucking stupid bullshit which is retarded. HE SUCKS SO FUCKING MUCH.
Doug: make Varn the face, or at least have him write everything you say, because damn dude.

Youtube attracts egomaniacs

He always takes up one or two lines of argument from their books (2-3 pages tops) and presents them for the whole length of video.

Here' the thing: he's a books salesman and these videos advertise their products.

I'm entirely unsure whether he's incapable of reading whole books (maybe a weed smoker?) or just doesn't have to care to.

He blindly trusts his friends in his other videos who convinced him that they were experts of topics (Lacan, Syria, idpol, etc.) while they were clearly incompetent, so Doug regularly helps people spread misinformation. He is so firmly ingrained in this hipster culture of lying pseudo-intellectuals that I wouldn't actually rule out the possibility that he hasn't read most of the books he published and personally advertised.

The guy writes meh-tier fiction.

Attached: 81-3-Zy-zqL.jpg (1650x2475 422.3 KB, 1.26M)

It's like the right realized which was a more effective argumentation style and squatted scientism while the CIA ran psyops to convince people that if the right wing does it the left wing should do the exact opposite.

The best parts.

Attached: brainlet.webm (500x280, 15.65M)

Attached: 1.png (454x442, 305.96K)

I'd prefer not to base my entire work on anecdotes and takes while never providing any sort of evidence of what I claim is the truth.

enjoy your ideology

What sort of evidence could even prove Fisher or Žižek's points? Or Lacan's, or Deleuze's, for that matter.

I doubt that people deep down have true personal belief of their own (implied by the overton window) which is separate from society, since from a materialist point of view all that truly matters are the institutions which structure our society.
The causes of any kind of shift in the Overton window in the materialist version of it would be the Overton window itself.

These weren't the point of the video. Why should he fully cover every single topic he touches on? His point was both social democracy and communists were only focused on the working class achieving political power. He has a point, since there were times when even communists self-admittedly went for the capitalist option (see NEP USSR and China today) although he is definitely wrong about the Soviet Union. The law of value operated in pre-capitalist societies too, but that still doesn't make them capitalist. Anyway, his conclusion was that we need are anti-politics. Pretty weird to me. Even if politics are prone to being subverted by the bourgeoisie and capitalist roaders, it still has a lot uses and is the only way to change the base. He ended the video with the rejection of anti politics and the endorsement of social democracy (because there is no communist movement) and of politics in general (because of Trump).
I don't think this is hard to understand at all.

Read Critique of the Gosspfthsa Program. Lenin and Stalin were bad because they didn't dismantle the state, just like dismantle the state 20 years after the revolution bro. Imagine 1937 and we all do anarchy in Russia and smoke weed. What if we used factories to make music?
–Doug Lain, intellectual

Attached: (YOU).jpg (246x205, 9.32K)

His point was that work has to be transformed into art. From what I know this is a pretty basic situationist position.

Well I imagine I wouldn't get crazy amounts of orders, I'd probably just run it out of my basement or something, have an office type printer printing on smaller paper while I'm at work, then come back and print covers on gloss paper. It doesn't look too hard to bind softcover books with perfect binding on your own, you just need glue and clamps and stuff. Maybe print 30 or so copies of something, always make sure I have 10 lying around to fill out orders or something, if it starts to get too out of control then maybe lease one room in an office building. But I don't know what interest there would be in this beyond filling orders for people on here and maybe left wing Fedbook

Capitalism is when I'm sad :( is also a situationist position.

I see. Keep up with the effortposting.

shut up and fucking read some marx you arrogant piece of shit

stupid ass he sees the uprising of social democracy as an opportunity to reclaim a place in the political discussion for marxism/true socialism, since real socialists have had historically their fighting stages against social democrats.

TL;DR in basic and rough terms, moving the overton window to the left through social democrats

left tube is flooded with entry level shit, zero books is the only actual channel which demands a bit of knowledge on the history of the left, which of course triggers reactionary ☭TANKIE☭s since all they care about is muh social democracy down the barrel of a gun and their antiquated ML theory

Attached: social-democracy-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-imperialism-actually-26758570.png (500x477, 13.95K)

So all those books and all he can piece together is a non-Marxist analysis any of us could find on a Bernie Sanders fan page on Facebook?

Attached: jim carey.PNG (210x239, 88.51K)

I don't know what 'left tube' is to you.

Where do people get the gall to say things like this?


Calm down, Doug.

If Stalin good, how come he bad?
If socialism actually in the Russia, how come the law of value in the Russia as well?
If Lenin said capitalism, how come you say no capitalism?
If there a state there can not be communism as well.
– Douglas Lain, book publisher, 49 years old adult

thats a reduction of what the video is about.
In reality the video covers the history of the dispute between socialists and social democrats in their various leanings, specially the ideological struggle of Bela Kun, the controversial concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and other interpretations of Marx in the soviet union as opposed to non soviet socialists such as Douglas himself, the lost of sight on the actual objective of archieving workers control of the means of production in favor of politcal tactics to maintin power etc…

and your version of his thesis, wheather you disagree with him or not, is incomplete:

whether radical socialists take Marx to be advocating for a socialist state (he wasn't) or whether they think that socialism requires a radical break and change, not only to our political institutions, but also our material or productive relations (it does); there is another difference between radical socialists of both types and Social
Democrats. In today's moment when there is no revolutionary workers movement to speak up, when the idea of revolution seems both antiquated and like something out of a fairy tale, radical socialists don't have a political project of their own, while Social Democrats do have a political Project.
In his book the “Writing on the Wall” the Zero Books author Anselm Jappe argued that far from the lack of a politics being a problema, socialists today need to accept that they don't have a political project and realize that this is what makes their effort radical. He said, quote: “faced with this desire to play the game, and almost always as a representative of some interest, movements and moments of radical opposition that embraced anti-politics should be recalled. From the historical anarchists, the artistic avant-garde and the continuous state of insubordination in Italian factories during the 1970s.”
It seems to me that this desire to escape from the game to develop a path through anti-politics and resistance, is no longer really tenable. In this age of Trump, even if we don't agree with the policies and the platforms of the Social Democrats, even if we think the Social Democrats don't go far enough, aren't material enough, we should
remember that the history of Marxism was fought within Social Democratic parties; and with the rise of these new Social Democrats we may have a stage on which to fight them again.

It's true, i never denied that ML is an important part of leftist history, the problem with it is that it was concieved, relies upon and adresses social conditions which are no longer present in late capitalism, thats what i mean by antiquated, and ML usually dismiss narrowly dismiss every other leftist ideology which is not inside the ML tradition, and they usually dismiss even these ones. This leads them to be completely ignorant on anarchism, libertarian marxism, the cultural marxists such as critical theorists, the likes of gramsci, situationists… and other important movements and methods, like the mentioned situationists, the provo movement from amsterdam, generally the student movement of the 60s. Im not going to mention the usual complete ignorance on PoMo and feminism, that goes without saying. These are all movements and theory adressed in the Zero Books (a critical theory label) youtube channel, which of course ☭TANKIE☭s will not be able to enjoy.

It's been a while since I've read Fisher, but Žižek constantly makes references to falsifiable economic, historical, social and political situations, and he "proves" them with anecdotes instead of peer-reviewed sources.
I'm not a fan of Psychoanalysis but it's still a science subject to the scientific method.

Childish ass clown are you unable to argue like a developed human being?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 89.59K)

look mom, I created a 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧thing🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

explain this

>In his book the “Writing on the Wall” the Zero Books author Anselm Jappe argued that far from the lack of a politics being a problema, socialists today need to accept that they don't have a political project and realize that this is what makes their effort radical. He said, quote: “faced with this desire to play the game, and almost always as a representative of some interest, movements and moments of radical opposition that embraced anti-politics should be recalled. From the historical anarchists, the artistic avant-garde and the continuous state of insubordination in Italian factories during the 1970s.”
Doug, either start using your name openly in order to stop embarrassing yourself or simply leave and don't get mad at this thread making fun of you.

lol, you really think it's Doug?

When Marx said quote, "dictatorship of the proletariat", unquote, what he actually meant was anarchism.

This is perhaps the major flaw with Marx, as Bakunin rightfully predicted. Whether or not Marx really meant "anarchy" here, that's not how he's been interpreted by the most influential followers.

Attached: sweet marx and hella bakunin.png (788x1024, 761.37K)

he is describing the dictatorship of the proletariat interpreted by the likes of marxist leninists, by which it is an actual State led by a vanguard party, as opposed to other interpretations, which vary from less centralized, like Trotskyists, to a workers self manegement in a political and economic transition to communism to capitalism, in which may or may not be a party, but would be always decentralized (unlike vanguardism in which power is taken away from actual workers), with the aim of changing the basic forms of production (abolition of the commodity, currency, labour as we knwo it etc.). Of course this positions may vaery depending on particular ideologies.

As a much more literate marxist than i am, Doug would probably giving more sistematic responses than i give, he wouldnt even loose time in this board to begin with.

This varies on interpretation, but the fact that marxists and anarchists of that time did not understand and characterized each others work is largely known, so they may have been closer than they thought in theory, but they arent alive anymore to settle the dispute so we can only rely on our own reading of both.

Attached: 1518326786659.png (1420x1299, 300.21K)

and sorry about grammar yall mfs, i know someone will point that out

lol not even one of the haters of zerobooks here but your not fooling anyone doug.

Trotskyists are Leninists you utter sperg. Nowhere do Trotskysts advocate a more "decentralized version of the party".
He hasn't made a very systematic video. It's very incoherent and very confusing. If you want to argue from the Leftcom position I'm sure it's possible without it being an eclectic and obscurantist mess.
When have Leftcoms ever honestly engaged with Marxism-Leninism? The last one I can think off is Bordiga in his review of Stalin's writings, and he never made the arguments modern Leftcoms make. Most modern Leftcoms look for a single quote in Economic Problems of Socialism and take it out of context.

Im just a spanish hijo de puta livin in the islas canarias, sorry to disappoint you

From the Manifesto:

Attached: muke v finnbol.jpg (548x366, 165.43K)

Nice thumbnail retard


This is the most retarded meme from anarchists, really. Whenever you tried your anarchism you were just as authoritarian and gulag-happy as Marxists, so shut the fuck up.

t. Doug

i know, but even tough i am surely not a trotksy expert, i tought they didnt like the one vanguard party thing, thus creating a different interpretation of the DotP
this might be personal, but the only times i dont understand a video of his, is because i am ignorant on the topic itself
engaging with ML today would be completely useless and it was not what i meant.
I was saying that Marxists such as Marx himself and anarchists such as Bakunin himself did not engage enough with each others work, and with the more libertarian marxist interpretation of the DotP they could have been closer than they even thought, but this will never be known because of their beef and death

It's not me, Doug. I'm actually ein Deutsch fellow student living in das ist California, ja.