Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism answers a lot of these questions, especially the philosophically related ones. A lot of it comes down to the power of ideology. For example, the reason why Bukharin didn't go down fighting was due to the fact that he sincerely believed that by confessing to false crimes he was advancing the cause of the revolution. He was convinced that his confessions and death were his last service to "the party" and communism. Its twisted but that's what ideology does to motherfuckers.
On why Russia went left and Germany right, I feel like it mainly has to do with the intelligentsia. In Russia they were all exiled, and all united against the tsarist govt. Whereas in Germany, the intelligentsia was not unified, allowing populism and nationalism to win instead.
On the topic of why Communism pops up in agricultural societies, my best hypothesis is that there's just too much opportunity in industrial societies. I think Marx was correct that the greater material wealth of industrial countries could better support Communism, but he missed that the same wealth also obviates Communism to a large degree.
So much to unravel here: A review of Stephen Kotkin’s <em>Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928</em> - World Socialist Web Site https://share.google/WperccAwaIBnJVU3n
Even the first of volume of Kotkin's distorted history is disturbing, to say the least.
So much to unravel here: A review of Stephen Kotkin’s <em>Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928</em> - World Socialist Web Site https://share.google/WperccAwaIBnJVU3n
Even the first of volume of Kotkin's distorted history is disturbing, to say the least.
So much to unravel here: A review of Stephen Kotkin’s <em>Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928</em> - World Socialist Web Site https://share.google/WperccAwaIBnJVU3n
Even the first of volume of Kotkin's distorted history is disturbing, to say the least.
I don't remember where I read that the old bolsheviks persecuted by Stalin were convinced that it was better to sacrifice themselves for the Revolution (by letting Stalin kill them) than risk bringing down the Revolution. And that Stalin was an aberration but perhaps a necessary one, and in any case temporary.
Regarding the rise of fascism and Stalin, Kotkin goes into Stalin’s muted reaction and overall misunderstanding of the rise of Mussolini and European fascism but even figures like Churchill were not at first greatly alarmed by Mussolini. He was seen by many as a modernizer of an underdeveloped country, a dictator of a nation with a strong history of dictatorship, and a unifier of a nation which had spent centuries as a loosely related collection of nation/city-states. What I wish Kotkin went into more, was how the severity of the Bolshevik regime, the failure of Marxist predictions of continental class warfare, as wells as the dissolution of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, played a role in fracturing socialist movements in many directions, one of which was early-European fascism.
Stop listening to western rants about Russia or Asian countries. It’s pure BS and is out to brainwash people. It’s a big racket to create this fake sense of superiority 😂 If you want to learn about Russia go to Russia and learn . Not from these clowns 🤡
Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism answers a lot of these questions, especially the philosophically related ones. A lot of it comes down to the power of ideology. For example, the reason why Bukharin didn't go down fighting was due to the fact that he sincerely believed that by confessing to false crimes he was advancing the cause of the revolution. He was convinced that his confessions and death were his last service to "the party" and communism. Its twisted but that's what ideology does to motherfuckers.
Such an incredible book(s)
On why Russia went left and Germany right, I feel like it mainly has to do with the intelligentsia. In Russia they were all exiled, and all united against the tsarist govt. Whereas in Germany, the intelligentsia was not unified, allowing populism and nationalism to win instead.
On the topic of why Communism pops up in agricultural societies, my best hypothesis is that there's just too much opportunity in industrial societies. I think Marx was correct that the greater material wealth of industrial countries could better support Communism, but he missed that the same wealth also obviates Communism to a large degree.
The deformation of morality and individualism which was initiated by the Bolsheviks is incredibly fascinating.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/hell-on-earth
I listened to the whole thing, and his take on modernity is pretty provocative. Great stuff.
So much to unravel here: A review of Stephen Kotkin’s <em>Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928</em> - World Socialist Web Site https://share.google/WperccAwaIBnJVU3n
Even the first of volume of Kotkin's distorted history is disturbing, to say the least.
So much to unravel here: A review of Stephen Kotkin’s <em>Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928</em> - World Socialist Web Site https://share.google/WperccAwaIBnJVU3n
Even the first of volume of Kotkin's distorted history is disturbing, to say the least.
So much to unravel here: A review of Stephen Kotkin’s <em>Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928</em> - World Socialist Web Site https://share.google/WperccAwaIBnJVU3n
Even the first of volume of Kotkin's distorted history is disturbing, to say the least.
I cannot wait for this. Truly excellent questions.
I love the background on the revolutionary attitude of pre-Revolution Russia. Dostoyevsky's Demons covers this period well
I don't remember where I read that the old bolsheviks persecuted by Stalin were convinced that it was better to sacrifice themselves for the Revolution (by letting Stalin kill them) than risk bringing down the Revolution. And that Stalin was an aberration but perhaps a necessary one, and in any case temporary.
Regarding the rise of fascism and Stalin, Kotkin goes into Stalin’s muted reaction and overall misunderstanding of the rise of Mussolini and European fascism but even figures like Churchill were not at first greatly alarmed by Mussolini. He was seen by many as a modernizer of an underdeveloped country, a dictator of a nation with a strong history of dictatorship, and a unifier of a nation which had spent centuries as a loosely related collection of nation/city-states. What I wish Kotkin went into more, was how the severity of the Bolshevik regime, the failure of Marxist predictions of continental class warfare, as wells as the dissolution of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, played a role in fracturing socialist movements in many directions, one of which was early-European fascism.
I could spend a lifetime absorbing the history of the Soviet Union. What a twisted, brutal project. I fear that we have not fully learned its lessons.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/hell-on-earth
Did you mean Dutch Disease, where you ask about being over concerned with Polish Disease?
I couldn't read this post. Questions seemed to be answered by questions. Is Dwarkesh in normal text and Kotkin in Bold or vice versa?
Stop listening to western rants about Russia or Asian countries. It’s pure BS and is out to brainwash people. It’s a big racket to create this fake sense of superiority 😂 If you want to learn about Russia go to Russia and learn . Not from these clowns 🤡
It’s the leaders, dude. How about you address that?