Read on Twitter
reading historical power imbalances / assaults is fundamental to understanding everything. reading them as univocal, essential, impenetrable lack, is destructive
you cant be naive about the design of things. but turning away completely is another kind of naivete in reverse imo
thinking through one of the big obstacles u encounter talking to ppl about mmt. "it wont work in countries with less monetary agency." but that is the entire point. the entire shape of economics and sovereignty has to be re thought and overthrown
its not a sidepoint that the dispossessed have less agency in every way. its the entire point. export driven economies where food and oil are shipped abroad are deeply, profoundly, embedded. Ive been thinking a lot about the work of people like Fadhel Kaboub
and a common response from marxists to this line which unfortunately is purveyed by some MMTers where the monetary sovereign is accidentally lucky. its only natural to respond to this by asking where your political read of historical power is
but just because the entire shape of economics has to be made more local and interdepently autonomous in all different ways DOESNT mean "oh, thats a huge giant project that isnt instantly applicable as a theory of change so bye"
after all, the marxist theory of change only FEELS instantly applicable because you can instantly flatten people into their assigned slot of subjective agency and go from there, but that doesnt actually change the whole shape of things instantly either
intl dvlpmt economics has to be rethought and fought for from the ground up, top down, inside out, outside in, whatever spatial metaphors you want
and to wrap up, lack of monetary agency to resource oneself is not the side point. it is the entire point, in reverse
last thought. as ever, so much comes to the state form -- past present and future. theres so much thought to be done there. but I have a lot of natural resistance to flattening reads of agency as far as contesting state and governmental power . obvi some will not agree
which is understandable, and I respect the ethical rigor many take that view with. I think im right tho hahaha
theres no doubt, as @videotroph says, that a kind of revolutionary politics is necessary for our vision. But the quesiton is what that looks like, and I think it may look different than some of the popular versions
ok im going on more sorry lol
I think Americans have a very totalizing fantastical view of revolution, soviet style. living in the global south, revolution as a word is on ppls tongue in a different way. governance is contested. in chile, in lebanon, they say the word revolution
I think Americans have a very totalizing fantastical view of revolution, soviet style. living in the global south, revolution as a word is on ppls tongue in a different way. governance is contested. in chile, in lebanon, they say the word revolution
in ways that wouldnt register to american ears. I want "revolution" to be seen in a more quotidian mundane way
i want depth of range
