It’s probably not a big deal, but I felt like it could’ve been more radical?
They spent some time lionizing the Green New Deal as a good thing, time talking about what’s wrong with the current system (good), how those problems can be addressed (good), but not how we get from now to being able to address the problems.
Like, maybe I need some self-crit as a violence fetishist or something, but I don’t think they really addressed the necessity for armed struggle.
I guess the book’s not really meant for that, and maybe it’s meant more as an introduction to decolonization for people who’d be turned off by the idea of armed struggle.
Idk, I read “Revolution in the Revolution” right before, so that probably colors my perception of it. Maybe I need a re-read!
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t meant to be too radical. It was meant to draw sunshine and DSA types, and then the further reading it references are supposed to be more radical. That’s what they said on Marx Madness anyway. The further reading being ‘red nation rising,’ ‘our history is the future,’ and the one Bolivian decolonization agreement they mention.
That’s just the stuff in the red deal. I found the Bolivian thing referenced btw. Some more stuff recommended on that podcast was ‘socialism or extinction,’ ‘fresh banana leaves’ (I have a copy), ‘indigenous Paleolithic of the western hemisphere (?),’ and ‘Custer died for your sins’ (classic, but a bit outdated, and I’ve heard criticism of it) among others.
It’s probably not a big deal, but I felt like it could’ve been more radical?
They spent some time lionizing the Green New Deal as a good thing, time talking about what’s wrong with the current system (good), how those problems can be addressed (good), but not how we get from now to being able to address the problems.
Like, maybe I need some self-crit as a violence fetishist or something, but I don’t think they really addressed the necessity for armed struggle.
I guess the book’s not really meant for that, and maybe it’s meant more as an introduction to decolonization for people who’d be turned off by the idea of armed struggle.
Idk, I read “Revolution in the Revolution” right before, so that probably colors my perception of it. Maybe I need a re-read!
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t meant to be too radical. It was meant to draw sunshine and DSA types, and then the further reading it references are supposed to be more radical. That’s what they said on Marx Madness anyway. The further reading being ‘red nation rising,’ ‘our history is the future,’ and the one Bolivian decolonization agreement they mention.
Thanks for the recommendations on further reading!
That’s just the stuff in the red deal. I found the Bolivian thing referenced btw. Some more stuff recommended on that podcast was ‘socialism or extinction,’ ‘fresh banana leaves’ (I have a copy), ‘indigenous Paleolithic of the western hemisphere (?),’ and ‘Custer died for your sins’ (classic, but a bit outdated, and I’ve heard criticism of it) among others.
I guess I just didn’t think of the things it referenced as an answer to my issues - I probably should’ve read more closely!
Interesting. Thanks for your perspective!
Thank you! :)