I don't think you should be taking socio-economic understanding from the guy whose mismanagement caused/exacerbated this. And, you know, created an authoritarian state out of a revolution; that was bad too.
What, you can't learn from century old mistakes? That particular famine's not the real warning though, that's just war shit and Russian cyclical famines that were ended by modern agriculture. Look that up by the way, it's fascinating.
What you want is the Lysenkoism-caused famines that followed it, partly because the Soviets were so desperate to end the cycles and thus prove their legitimacy. Ironic.
That particular famine's not the real warning though, that's just war shit and Russian cyclical famines that were ended by modern agriculture.
Okay so cyclical famines don't kill millions of people that's not how that works. The main cause of the famine was the war, but the war caused the famine through (among other things) War Communism. In the immortal words of one angry Irish dude: God created the
potato blightcrop failures; theBritishCommunist Party created the famine.What you want is the Lysenkoism-caused famines that followed it, partly because the Soviets were so desperate to end the cycles and thus prove their legitimacy.
Those are more clear-cut since there was no war to blame for incompetent Soviet policy, but I wanted to point out that even Lenin himself was a failure as a ruler and not at all the source of sound socioeconomic ideas when it comes to actually solving the problem he claimed to have the solution for.
I definitely didn't get my understanding of socioeconomics from Mao or militaristic dictators in general. Marx? Sure. Engels? Sure. Lenin? I mean, as an example of how to use workers' rights as a veil for the promotion of authoritarianism I guess. Reading the State and Revolution is an exercise in seeing how someone can take a good idea and use it to justify terrible shit.
Personally, I take a view of Marx and Engels as descriptivists. Reading works like the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, my takeaway is that these are describing a natural process whereby hoarding of wealth and influence inevitably leads to an overthrowing of power in a cycle that culminates in capitalism and the eventual seizing of the means of production in response by workers. When I read Lenin I see an accelerationist who wants to jump start this process and doesn't care how many people suffer and die in the interem.
To me, that's a form of interference that slows progress in the long run. If you start burning rocket fuel as soon as possible before acquiring enough to reach escape velocity, all you do is cause your rocket to crash back down to Earth if it gets moving at all. Do it hard enough or enough times without a controlled landing, hitting cities full of people with the wreckage, and you're just going to make people skeptical of rocketry.
That's not to say no one should do anything to bolster workers' rights, we absolutely should. It's a natural part of the process for people to be informed by theory and try to advance things. But that's far different from purging large portions of the population in order to shift the system in the span of a single generation before there's widespread support. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, to me, about the most anti-proletarian measure you can take. It slows things down and harms a lot of people with poor results. For evidence, literally look at Russia today. Look at the reputation communism has in Eastern Europe. Lenin and Stalin forestalled any possibility of a worker's uprising by at least a couple of generations. The same can be said of Mao.
And the reactions this post is going to get? I'm guessing many will be much more in line with the knee-jerk thoughtless mockery of South Park and Rick Sanchez than the considered and careful words of Marx and Engels. That also functions as a sort of steam valve letting off the required pressure to achieve meaningful results in favor of mindless posturing, which is why I often question its motivation. It serves the bourgeoisie, not the people.
Personally, I take a view of Marx and Engels as descriptivists.
Those are literally the words carved on his tombstone.
If only someone could explain why people like you want to defang Marx's writings with this blatant revisionism...
What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!
That quote comes from The State and Revolution, which you claim to have read. A claim I find hard to believe considering that the author proceeds to painstakingly refute your exact line of thought and interpretation of Marx, by extensively citing, "the considered and careful words of Marx and Engels."
Lenin had contemporary critiques.
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick".
- Statism and Anarchy by Mikhail Bakunin
A concern is the vanguard party ruling over the prolitariate thereby exchanging capital ownership from one minority to another.
Engels argued the imbalance of ownership is natural because a mill is subject to the authority of the water to operate. There is a lack of imagination in justifying a ruling minority after the revolution by saying that's how capitalist technology works.
What good are my electric tools if I am unable to get electricity from the centralized power plant of the vanguard party? I will need to subject myself to the minority and pay rents. How does Lenin's vanguard party differ from capitalism in terms of ownership? Does it only work if the vanguard party are benevolent towards the prolitariat?
Many Americans received their entire political discourse up until about 2016 from about an hour of programming on Comedy Central: Daily Show, Colbert Report, and South Park.
I don't get South Park.. It's a pretty leftist show imo or is it implying people don't understand the sarcasm of its messages?
it's not leftist, it's very enlightened centrist and somewhat libertarian. i say somewhat because they don't advocate for lowering the age of consent as far as i know. but they're very comfortable with the status quo and the familiar, and rarely ever point to systemic issues or argue for systemic change. most of their critiques and solutions are based on individuals.
i definitely got my understanding from a word cloud that part is spot on.
Me, meanwhile, hanging out on solarpunk memes. . .
The Right has captured a good portion of the American lumpenproletariat (excluding me).
At least that is what I think that these media choices were chosen to communicate.
If you’re watching Fox for the cartoons, you might accidentally catch their “news”
Simpsons did it?
I wonder if Seth McFarlane and Matt Groening ever lose sleep over the fact that they certainly helped turn more edgy boys into fascists than fascists into liberals?
I'm sure the piles of money help.
The right also has some prominent socio-economic writers such as Thomas Sowell and other writers adjacent to Austrian school thought, so it's not just media slop but also book slop.
It's just a bit unfortunate that the right doesn't read any theory, even ones that agree with their worldview, they just like talking about the authors because book = smart. Same with the left - there's lots of people who proclaim themselves to have some theoretically heavy position (e.g. communism or anarchism) then proceed to say the most stupid shit.
Yeah, all the Hayek’s and Fridman’s.
At the end of the day, the actual field of economics is mostly built on capitalist assumptions except for some smaller subfields. So you get A LOT of neoliberal types as economics professors.
And the Chicago school
I like how your post addresses the anti-intellectualism of the original post. I also like the acknowledgment of cherry picking sources. The critique validly states the meme creator is ignoring scholarly sources on the right. The best part is, even with scholarly sources involved, humans are still silly. Humans sometimes consume content, TV show or book, to feel superior to other humans.
I have found delving into the views of others has helped me create better arguments. For example, I read "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick, to better understand the anarcho-capitalist minimal state position. Even if I can form a better argument, I realize I can "proceed to say the most stupid shit". Keep it stupid comrades.
You fuckin' dorks ain't a source of the art You can't be cooler than the corners Where you source all your parts
- Dorks by Ian Bavitz (Aesop Rock)
I honestly don't mind if someone bases their beliefs based on flawed theory or books, as that does show some degree of engagement with actual texts and leaves the room open for recognizing why it might be flawed via future reading or discussion.
What I was mostly referring to were people who claim to be Marxists/Anarchists/whatever, proceed to not read any theory whatsoever and just roll with what they imagine the theory to be, usually based on some surface-level discourse floating online. Now that's where one can find true incoherent bangers
Lots of people in the comments saying south park shouldnt be here. i think it should be family guy. the show frequently bashes the right, and they dedicated 2 episodes to Trump entirely, not to mention its a work of Seth McFarlane and if you've seen the Orville you know he is definitely not a MAGAt.
And that's the reason the Right is in power. The Left needs to endeavor to be more culturally relevant. Liberals cuck us pretty hard there and then the Right threatens us for it. Gotta keep trying though.
....this isn't funny...
Who said memes are funny?
Comrade TRAORE spotted!!!
