yeah, obviously there’s no real substitute for a teacher but it’s often outside of people’s means because it can get expensive. i haven’t looked at apps like pianote before, but what you really want is some sort of structure for exactly how and what to practice. if you’re not getting that from pianote, i would suggest looking into beginner books made for adults, you might even be able to find one on anna’s archive. and, if there’s content missing from the book that you’d like to learn or are curious about maybe pianote could still be good as a secondary resource

don’t worry too much about doing everything absolutely correctly, because we all make mistakes and develop bad habits sometimes. i still have issues with posture haha. but, we always correct others better than we correct ourselves, and one way to help build that dynamic for yourself is by recording yourself, either with video or even just audio. that way you can fully assess yourself without having to assess yourself in the moment. you can get a definitive answer to “is my back actually straight?” for example.

yup, any question and i’m all ears. good luck!

hey, no shame in that! everybody’s gotta start somewhere. are you using a book or any study materials to help give you some structure?

if you (or anyone reading this) ever have any questions in your musical journey, whether it be related to music theory, piano technique or otherwise feel free to shoot me a DM.

that’s really cool! what kinds of thing do you like to play/learn?

生日快乐!

you really struck a chord with me with mention of that liberal mentality. liberalism encourages us to derive our identity as much from consumption rather than production, because identity based on production leads to class consciousness

thank you! for the most part i agree with you: i really see party formation as the first and primary task, because the more i investigate existing parties in the US the more i am disappointed in them. lack of internal party democracy coupled with incorrect theory and incorrect application of theory to material conditions in the US (not recognizing settler-colonialism as the primary internal contradiction, not understanding patriarchy as a set of class relationships in relation to reproductive labor, etc) makes for ossified, non-revolutionary organizations. and, i think studying and using studying as an organization tool is the first and primary task of party formation: how can we learn to build our own party without having thoroughly and collectively learned from all successful attempts at revolutionary party formation?

and yeah, i think not just one but many historic opportunities are on the horizon for the next century or two, because i think it will take multiple acts of spontaneous unrest for the masses to come to the correct conclusion. and these will obviously increase in likelihood the worse material conditions in the core become, whether via increasing multipolarity possibly leading to a world war, or climate change (which as a ticking time bomb is both a gift and a curse), or other means. but i think for success ultimately two things must occur: global north masses’ material interests must align with those in the global south more than not, and a truly revolutionary party must be present and organized enough to make the masses aware of this qualitative development the moment it occurs. the former will happen sooner for those more exploited within the core (black, indigenous, latino, but also queer and disabled folk), making a multi-vector class analysis critical for any revolutionary org within the core.

thank you, i really appreciate that! i definitely enjoy writing and analysis, but like everyone have a lot to learn before i truly consider myself a practicing scientific socialist. we’re all in this struggle together!

good! i don’t think i could imagine a better outcome

it’s hard for me not to get the last word too (i feel like bourgeois social media really incentivizes this), but yeah the best thing to do here is obviously to just not engage. there’s no point in arguing/debating with someone if you don’t have enough points of unity to actually synthesize both of your viewpoints and come to some sort of an agreement.

i think one of the most integral parts of correctly-applied marxism is understanding that the masses make history, and that the masses are rational: that the masses act and think in service of their material interests, wherever they lie in the multifaceted world of class contradictions. that means to accept the fact that, were you truly able to live in another’s shoes you would think and act exactly like they do, having experienced the same experiences and totality of material interests.

this applies to all the people you’re complaining about: of course non-americans would complain about the actions of the most successful and exploitative empire, and the global hegemon for decades. even within the global north non-americans get the short end of the stick, let alone the more exploitative relationship between the US and the global south. it makes sense that these people would be frustrated for this reason

but, this also applies to americans as well: of course revolutionary politics, theory and organization would be the weakest in the state in which people on the whole have the most to lose from upending the global status quo. this is complicated by the settler-colonial nature of the US, meaning that in a sense there is both internal and external imperialism, but i think most can agree that external imperialism is primary given the lack of revolutionary movement.

the correct marxist analysis accepts the validity of both sides, and synthesizes them. if history is any guide (which as marxists it definitely should be), then imperialism is the primary class contradiction globally, socialist revolutions are more likely (and perhaps only initially possible) in countries in which capital and the bourgeoisie is less developed, the proletariat’s anti-bourgeois class interests are aligned with anti-imperialism class interests, and countries in which imperialist class contradictions are particularly acute. non-socialist, anti-imperialist revolutions are still historically progressive.

for the most part, the material conditions in the US are the exact opposite of this, so anyone expecting revolution to occur within the US is anti-historical. anyone attributing its actions, the complacency of its inhabitants, or the backwards nature of its theory to a unique “evil” is not a marxist: the masses are just acting and thinking in accordance with their material interests.

i do think as the world becomes more legitimately multipolar the imperialist nature of internal american relations represents a relatively unique opportunity for revolutionary change, compared to europe for example. however, the vestiges of american hegemony would need to dissipate first: dollar hegemony, global military hegemony, etc., and we’re just not there yet.

in the meantime, instead of action for action’s sake, i think the best thing people can do within the imperial core and america specifically is to become disciplined, expert communists. if we truly think socialism is scientific then it can only come to be via the same expertise and academic rigor within the natural sciences. learn how to study, study, and study with others. use that expertise to write, edit and publish theory to advance scientific socialism within the imperial core. without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.

zizek is not based, he’s a western marxist in what i understand to be the 2nd international/frankfurt school tradition: academic, culture-focused and no organizing or action. that debate was incredibly frustrating too. peterson read the cliffs notes for the communist manifesto 2 years ago and pretends he has any idea what he’s talking about, and then zizek goes “yes well actually i think we have a lot in common, cancelling is bad” lol wtf