It’s funny because the thesis of the book is essentially that Stalin consulted with and respected the opinions of his ministers, but nevertheless there will be times when she says shit like "Stalin was close friends with X purge victim and expressed remorse at being unable to save them--it's unclear what sort of devious intrigue he was really planning,” as if it couldn’t possibly be the case that he and his colleagues truly believed reports that the person was guilty of treason.
At any rate I thought it was a good “mainstream” corrective to the usual reactionary guff—she cites a lot of Sebag Montefiore but also explicitly refutes his idea that Stalin was trying modeling the leadership of a Tsarist court. I mean I’ve read most of Martens’ book so I’ve gotten the “tankie” line but I think it’s useful seeing certain myths refuted by more “moderate” scholars. It also avoids sentimentality regarding Trotsky that a lot of lib historians fall into—the narrative Fitzpatrick covers has him getting pelted with trash at a committee meeting and then going into exile to write screeds about how importing ice cream was a betrayal of the revolution.
I bought Late Victorian Holocausts alongside the new Sakai so am now just waiting for those to arrive.
rolaids posted:the narrative Fitzpatrick covers has him getting pelted with trash at a committee meeting and then going into exile to write screeds about how importing ice cream was a betrayal of the revolution.
every trotsky anecdote is fucking priceless, he is That Guy anyone who's done any political work has inevitably run into that no one can stand to be in a meeting with for more than 15 minutes without everyone needing to go on a collective smoke break to complain to each other about how insufferable he is
"Two myths lie behind Stalin’s rehabilitation in Russia. One is that he won the second world (or “great patriotic”) war – though many historians conclude that the Russian people, helped by generous US supplies, won despite Stalin’s vacillation between inaction and wasteful enterprise. The other myth is that of Stalin as a great personnel manager."
stalin claimed to have won the "great" "patriotic" "war", though we all know it was generous US supplies that did the job for those feckless russians
Gibbonstrength posted:From the guardian review of that book:
"Two myths lie behind Stalin’s rehabilitation in Russia. One is that he won the second world (or “great patriotic”) war – though many historians conclude that the Russian people, helped by generous US supplies, won despite Stalin’s vacillation between inaction and wasteful enterprise. The other myth is that of Stalin as a great personnel manager."
These men had less team spirit than Hitler’s gangsters (few of whom, no matter how disloyal or incompetent, were repressed by Hitler).
Stalin controlling his ministers is like the Chinese dowager empress Tzu-Hsi (Cixi) whose ministers had to present their genitals for inspection – in a glass jar.
Anastas Mikoyan had a greasy charm
At least this guy doesn't even bother to conceal his racism.
He was actually illiterate until college iirc which is crazy with how eloquent he seems in this book. It's a fast read so just do it
shriekingviolet posted:rolaids posted:the narrative Fitzpatrick covers has him getting pelted with trash at a committee meeting and then going into exile to write screeds about how importing ice cream was a betrayal of the revolution.
every trotsky anecdote is fucking priceless, he is That Guy anyone who's done any political work has inevitably run into that no one can stand to be in a meeting with for more than 15 minutes without everyone needing to go on a collective smoke break to complain to each other about how insufferable he is
somebuddy please post the one about trotsky being too weak to slam the door
tears posted:shriekingviolet posted:rolaids posted:the narrative Fitzpatrick covers has him getting pelted with trash at a committee meeting and then going into exile to write screeds about how importing ice cream was a betrayal of the revolution.
every trotsky anecdote is fucking priceless, he is That Guy anyone who's done any political work has inevitably run into that no one can stand to be in a meeting with for more than 15 minutes without everyone needing to go on a collective smoke break to complain to each other about how insufferable he is
somebuddy please post the one about trotsky being too weak to slam the door
Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928
I request that you delete me from the list of actors of this humiliating comedy,
teapea no...
To say that "socialism doesn't work" is to overlook the fact that it did
catchphrase
lo posted:found an actually marxist article on democratic kampuchea, quite good
https://web.archive.org/web/20070820175157/http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm
i was briefly scanning through that article and ran into this:
It is true that the Vietnamese leadership had turned away from revolutionary Marxism on every front (including military doctrine) and in the struggle to free Vietnam from the clutches of the US compromised their country and sold their soul to the equally imperialist USSR.
i know there's been some discussion about whether the USSR participated in social-imperialist tendencies but to believe it was on par with U.S. imperialism is pretty extreme. it makes me hesitant to read more but the only other article i've seen on this topiic is this one, so i don't know
rolaids posted:I thought it was a solid article because it actually took a Marxist perspective and looked at the class situation on the ground in Cambodia and provided a good historical back drop, which is rare in any account, but yeah I also got thrown off by that imperialism quote. I also felt like it gave a little too much benefit of the doubt in assuming that the Khmer Rouge were at all interested in socialism of any kind, and not just fash opportunists who filled a power vacuum in the wake of the usual US bombing and fuckery. I'm also a bit unclear as to why exactly the Vietnamese line was "increasingly wrong," but I admit I still have a more limited knowledge of the Vietnamese struggle from a Marxist perspective.
characterising the CPK as a whole as having any particular politics is sort of difficult because prior to victory in 1975 the 'communists' in different areas of the country weren't really a unified organisation. the pol pot faction were the ones who took a nationalist line, and you could probably argue for them as right opportunists(they certainly went that way later on), but the impression ive gotten from reading some party documents and so on is that some of them probably thought they were doing marxism. the faction associated with the older indochinese communist party(who were much closer to vietnam) were almost certainly marxist on some level, and this is the group that was strongest in the eastern zone and were ultimately purged by the pol pot controlled centre, on a scale that basically amounts to civil war. some of the leaders and survivors of this group fled to vietnam and then entered with the vietnamese troops during the invasion and were involved in the setting up of the prk government. the line of these guys was that they were represented the real revolutionary tradition in cambodia, and that pol pot's group were 'fascists' who had perverted it. i think much of the author's criticism of vietnam is coming from an angle of vietnam as revisionist, not really socialist, etc, similar to their ussr criticism. certainly what ive read of the prk doesn't make it sound ideally socialist, but you can perhaps forgive them for that given the state of the country and the need to reconstruct some kind of viable society in a short amount of time.
Edited by lo ()
lo posted:i should have commented in more detail on that link earlier, but im pretty sure those authors were some kind of maoist offshoot who took the 'ussr was imperialist' thing as a given.
i've been diving deeper into articles about the USSR and CCP from their respective followers and it's interesting to see the little jabs they give each other, whether exaggerated or not
for example, this article on CCP (and USSR) foreign policy says:
Soviet policy towards Greece during World War 2 provides a graphic example. As the war was nearing an end, Stalin made a deal with Churchill to integrate Romania into its sphere-of-influence in exchange for giving Britain a free hand in Greece. When the German army withdrew in the fall of 1944, the Greek Communist Party (KKE) and the KKE-led army of 50,000 were in a position to establish a new government in which they would play the leading role. At this crucial juncture, the Soviet Union advised the KKE to hold off on military action and instead join a “government of national unity” with the British-backed monarchist government-in-exile based in Cairo. As the KKE hesitated under Soviet pressure, the British transported the reactionary Greek army in Egypt back to Greece and reinforced their forces based in Greece under the command of General Ronald Scobie. By the time the KKE decided to launch an uprising in Athens in December 1944 (which was unsuccessful), the decisive moment to strike had passed.
stalin done goofed up, paging dr. furr
or this article
Declassified transcriptsof Mao’s conversations with Nixon ... in 1972:
President Nixon: When the Chairman says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.
Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.
President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.
Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.
i really hope mao was trolling nixon here cause otherwise... yikes
Soviet_Salami posted:Every once in a while I pull up Capital on my phone in the break room at work, eye the first chapter for a few moments, then put it away. A new guy caught me and asked what I reading. My supervisor was in the room, so I panicked and had to come up with an answer. "Dune" I said. He loves Dune. Wants to talk about Dune. So I guess I gotta read Dune now. Maybe I'll just quit. Fucking new guy trying to make conversation...get a smartphone!
you can just say you liked the part where faux arab man does kung fu moves on a giant worm without actually reading it
Philosophical Papers, Vol. I
and
Counterfactuals
by David Lewis
Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers, Vol. I
and
Naming and Necssity
by Saul Kripke
The Possible and the Actual: Readings in the Metaphysics of Modality
edited by Michael J. Loux
gyrofry posted:David Lewis
lol modal realism
shriekingviolet posted:analytic philosophy is stuffed full of so much reeking bullshit. ok guys now hear me out, when russell's teapot is about god it's an elegant logical refutation of an absurd premise, but if you replace "god" with "alternate realities" suddenly alternate realities are real and true and my friend because i am a giant nerd goober and want them to be. this is all very logically sound, analytic philosophy is the discipline for practical rational people yes sir.
blinkandwheeze posted:
^^^ PRO CLICK ZONE ^^^
Lysenko posted:does anyone know of any good books about the gdr?
https://ia800208.us.archive.org/30/items/SocialismWithAGermanFace/Socialism%20with%20a%20German%20Face.pdf
Reading this now after reading the post about it: https://rhizzone.net/articles/socialism-german-face/
Gibbonstrength posted:check out some continental phil of mind or biology. the worst shit on earth
*bursting the fuck into this thread*
Gibbonstrength posted:if you think analytic philosophy is shit check out some continental phil of mind or biology. the worst shit on earth
look forward to my upcoming effortpost ranking different philosophers with the bristol stool chart