I'm an idiot so I often run out of gas in the middle of the road. Everytime there is a proletarian willing to help me. I don't think that is a coincidence.
I'm an idiot so I often break my eletronics. Everytime there is a petite bourgeois to scam me. I don't think that is a coincidence.
The universe gives me this answer. Is the revolution near?
Officially, Vietnam economy is “socialist oriented, market economy”. But we all know what that means. There is this old man, Bùi Văn Nam Sơn. He had studied philosophy in West Germany so naturally, he opened classes to teach German philosophy when he came back in Vietnam. Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel and obviously it came to Marx, “the most important” as he said. He just lectured purely Marx’s philosophical writing, made no attempt to attack Marxism-Leninism or revive the old revolutionary spirit. Somehow, the public security hear about this and reprimanded him for daring to teach Marx in Vietnam.
Despite all these mockeries, if anti-communists believe Vietnam is communist then so can leftists. These people are the most outspoken opponents to the government but neither of them have any meaningful ways to oppose the government.
I'm trying to read A revolution summed up. I understand well the Introduction (because it was written in 2020). But the remaining is another story. They not only used archaic words, but also riddled me with numerous examples for each analysis. I'm not trying to criticize or anything because that was the writing style in that time, but how do you read them?
since there are many "ultra" active in r/teenagers4real
The Youtube channel, YaleCourses post lectures of Ian Shapiro, a IR professor. In one of those videos, he said communism isn’t theoretical possible. He explained it like this. He assume the “needs” in “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is just enough for people to survive. Hence resources aren’t poured into foods and supply but also in technology to cure terminal illness. Because we can’t cure every illness even in post-scarcity, so the final stage of communism can be reached. This keeps me think forever because it is some kind of strawman arguments that you often see from deniers.
I dont even care about live match. I struggled in legendary division and can’t enjoy the game.
- Dick Cheney joined politics at 28, became white house chief of staff at 34.
- Mussolini found Fasci Italiani di Combattimento at 36, became prime minister at 39.
- Hitler joined the DAP at 30, became chancellor at 43.
- Stalin joined the RSDLP at 23 but only commanded in Tsaritsyn at 40.
What do these guys have in common? Talented individuals with proletarians background, experts in their respectively field. They didn't start their right career early (except for Stalin), even later when they became shining stars.
The lesson is that if you are under 30s and feel like a loser, chances are you aren't in the correct career. Look for sign around you. Maybe you aren't destined to be a web developer but a genocidal maniac.
I only watch the movie, never read the book. 4 years ago, I make the connection that V is just an reverse anarchist icon along terrorism and activism stuff. But up until this I still don't get that what anarchism has anything to do with "V for Vendetta"? Masked seriall kidnapper and serial killer? More like the The Black Phone
This is my next book to read. From my limited knowledge of Wittgenstein, this man and his philosophy has almost nothing to do with Marxism. Though, I know that there are very well-read people in this community so I hope you guys can give some opinion.
I’m aware of the book called “Ur-Fascism” but there is a popularized formula to detect fascism based on this book that makes me don’t value the author.
There is a shooting in Quebec, Canada in June 22. He killed 1 cops while the cops killed 1 innocent civilian. The shooter is Seth Scott Hatfield. He blamed capitalism, women, feminism and porn. Just sound like your average redditors from r/deprogram or r/stupidpol. Can't find the full-104-page version. This is the 37-page version.
History books are always easier for digest than economics and theory ones (in this case, I'm talking about Capital). I was stalled at chapter 1 of Capital 3 months ago, since then I have finished 2 books, the Coup d'Etat by Luttwak and this one. I chose the Russian revolution over the German revolution because I prefer to read the story with a satisfactory and happy ending. However, I didn't find what I expected at the end.
The biases of the author
These biases against the Red and against Lenin, in particular, couldn't be more obvious.
>Lenin did not look the part of a future leader in his old clothes and hobnailed boots, yet an obsessive compulsion and his dictatorial instincts made him take charge of everything.
>Lenin despised notions of false modesty and clearly believed himself infallible. Those Bolsheviks who disagreed with him were usually treated as either totally misguided or dishonest
>The closer Lenin came to power, the greater his contempt for any notion of morality or for the rights of others, and the greater his obsessive belief that he alone was capable of achieving the total revolution he sought. Nobody, whether Bolshevik or any other Russian politician, could hope to match his iron will and self-belief.
>Lenin wanted sole control.
No one, even Stalin, was attacked like Lenin was in this book. It's like Beevor was personally harmed by Lenin.
>Lenin, Dzerzhinsky and Sverdlov had agreed at a meeting in the Kremlin that with the Czech advance, they did not want the Whites to have a ‘banner’. They entirely failed to see that the Romanovs, once dead, were far more useful to their enemies as martyrs. Lenin did not want to take any responsibility for the decision, especially the murder of the children, so it was to be blamed on the Ural Soviet.
Most of controversial incidents in this book, like the rape of the Women Army, were presented with evidence and narratives from many sides. The hatred for Lenin from Beevor harmed the integrity and consistency of his writings. There were countless tragedy, committed by both sides, which Beevor knew clearly but none of them was described vividly as the death of the royal family:
>The former Tsar had to carry his son in his arms as the boy could not manage the stairs. Yurovsky read out the sentence of death and the shooting started. The boy Aleksei, the former Tsarevich, was still alive despite lying in a pool of blood, so Yurovsky fired two more bullets from his Colt into his head.
>The following night in Alapaevsk, 130 kilometres north of Ekaterinburg, other Romanov prisoners as well as the Tsarina’s sister, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna, were taken from their improvised prison. The guards, half of whom this time were Austrian internationalists, escorted them to a flooded mine. The Grand Duke Sergei was shot at this point because he resisted. All his companions were thrown down the shaft. But a short time later they heard splashing and the singing of hymns. They dropped grenades to finish them off.
>The murders of all these Romanovs, together with other relatives and friends, represented a declaration of total war in which ‘the sanctity of human life’, as well as notions of guilt and innocence, counted for nothing.
According to Beevor, the ultimate evil of this civil war is the murder of the Romanovs, not the massacre of the innocent mass. Moralism is a weird hill to die on. The Bolsheviks in this book was nothing other Lenin's and to a lesser extent, Trotsky's tools to power. But the main events is still presented. He even defended Lenin to generate a sense of neutrality to the reader:
>The army’s counter-intelligence department had been gathering evidence for the Provisional Government on Bolshevik sources of finance. Without permission, they had passed their most sensational findings to the newspapers, which published accusations that Lenin had received ‘German gold’. Lenin was never a German agent as the papers claimed, on the other hand, he would have had no scruples about accepting large sums of German money to develop the increasingly powerful Bolshevik press empire.
Another weird thing about Beevor is that he insisted "the Romanovs, once dead, were far more useful to their enemies as martyrs" but after the death of the Romanovs, he presented nothing to support this argument.
But it is better to read an author with obvious biases rather than someone appears neutral but secretly injects misinformation.
The role of a vanguard party
Beevor, an obvious anti-Bolshevik moralist, unintentionally ended the debate around the vanguard party. The Russian proletariats had radicalism but without the direction of party, the effects are just senseless riots and would be cracked down by the Provisional Government eventually. The Mensheviks and the Right SRs had no intention or ability to seize full control of the government. They may rise up somewhere but only the Bolshevik's coup in the capital decentralize the counter-revolutionary.
Factionalism and Oppoturnism
>Stalin’s attacks on Trotsky’s employment of former Tsarist officers to make the Red Army more professional.
>Stalin backed Kamenev, even though he was a former Tsarist officer.
Sergei Kamenev, like Vasilevsky was promoted quite quickly because of their association with Stalin. The opposition to Tsarist officers in the Red Army was originally an opinion by Bukharin. I think this shows that Stalin was purely an oppoturnist and would side with anyone to further his gain.
>Stalin managed to get more of his own supporters onto the committee.
Conclusion
Despite being bombarded by the "crimes" of Chekists and Red Terror, this book only strengthen the trust I have in the revolution. The larpers in this sub should read this book because it will filter out the moralist and idealist. This book is more like a British propaganda than a White propaganda. The Red committed atrocities because of necessity and the lack of professional officers, the White committed atrocities because their officers were maniacs. Only the British had the privilege of being merciful because they have no stake in this civil war. This book is still worth reading, nonetheless.