> the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed more rights than any other state in the world. I recall a Soviet citizen telling me that people in the USSR had absolute freedom of speech—so long as they did not lie
Actually I heard it as “The people of the USSR had complete and absolute freedom of speech... but only once”. Lie or not, if the state didn’t like it, you ended up in a concentration camp.
I'd hate to be either of the two students the author throws under the bus with nary a sentence of context (the bus here being thousands of words describing Lenin's atrocities). Just think, one moment you're unable to sufficiently articulate your feelings on hate speech in front of a class to satisfy your professor, the next moment you've been lumped in with a mass murderer!
Seems to be a common game with ignorant right and ignorant left (I can think of a million instances of ignorant right-wing people rambling on incessantly about the "socialist" part of national socialist german workers' party). The difference I suppose is that fascism is a far-right ideal and not a far-left one. Also the fact that the far-right in the United States are in some cases literal neonazis.
I’m not sure how you justify this? If one is going to define politics along a spectrum like left to right, fascism is going to be grouped with other political systems that tend toward nationalism and nativist policies.
Control the terminology -> control the discourse -> control the narrative -> control politics -> control everything. That's how the Left operates. cf. Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"
In other words, Wikipedia is not an unbiased source. Rather than throw links at you, suffice it to say that there are other criteria by which political spectra may be defined. Let the reader understand.
Well it doesn’t really suffice it to say. You can’t expect the reader to take your word for it. Wikipedia at least has primary sources that anyone can examine. Sounds like conspiracy theory claptrap.
> I recalled this curious concept of freedom when a student defended complete freedom of speech except for hate speech—and hate speech included anything he disagreed with. Whatever did not seem hateful was actually a “dog-whistle.”
That seems pretty clear, and just the opposite of Evelyn Beatrice Hall's paraphrase of Voltaire's position:[0]
“I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Leninthink erodes power differentials and power relations, which it portrays as good to destroy, but also erodes the dual relations of responsibility. When nobody has any responsibilities towards any other, then society is gone with the wind like so much poor soil.
What ever else you think of this piece, it's worthwhile to know what The New Criterion is and what it represents. Though I suppose "Avidly Pro-Trump Literary Journal" is a concept that easily clears HN's bar for "intellectually interesting".
It's not that I'm familiar with it, and am claiming that it's not. It's just that, based on a few minutes of browsing, nothing obviously "avidly pro-Trump" jumped out.
Edit: I also browsed some discussion of other submissions from it, and didn't find anything obviously politicized. But then, I didn't read it all.
You're not meant to immediately sense it; that's part of the point. The New Criterion was started as a corrective to supposed left-wing orthodoxy in lit/crit, and spent time as a house organ of (true) neoconservative, but was inherited by Roger Kimball, who I believe you can fairly sum up by citation to his non-ironically titled essay "Trump As Pericles".
Edit: OK, it was short.[0] But I also came across an article by historian Matthew A. Sears,[1] which points out ...
> There is a much darker side to Pericles’ legacy, however. For one, he narrowed the group eligible for Athenian citizenship, requiring both parents to be Athenian citizens — a requirement, ironically, that his own children did not meet.
> And, as is increasingly the view among ancient historians, he bore perhaps more responsibility than anyone else for the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, a ruinous 27-year conflict between Athens and Sparta that ended in Athens’ defeat and the temporary overthrow of the world’s first democracy.
> A frequent criticism of Pericles among his contemporaries was that he took a hard line against Sparta and pushed his city toward war not due to any higher principle or strategic goal, but to deflect charges brought against his closest friends and political allies.
Regarding the article, from what I know about Lenin, it’s spot on, and if you ever talk to anyone who survived his dekulakization [1] you’ll understand the violent nature of Leninism.
But I’m not a fan of a propaganda outfit that likes to hide behind the occasional high intellect piece, so thanks again for the comment.
We're right in the West to reject Leninist ideas, but it's important to understand the historical context in which Leninism gained traction.
Russia was a backwards pre-capitalist third world monarchy with vast economic inequality under one of the richest men in all of history, Nicholas Romanov II. He rejected attempt after attempt to reform his monarchy into a democratic constitutional monarchy, preferring to cling onto absolute power and repeatedly losing wars. The story of the Russian revolution is one of a transition from authoritarian rule to authoritarian rule.
Initially the revolution was widely praised by genuine revolutionaries, such as Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, & Rosa Luxemburg. The country was ruled democratically by a system of workers' councils (soviets), and workers were encouraged to form committees to self manage the work place democratically.
Within the year, however, the Soviets were dissolved and commissars were sent to the factories to take the place of the boss', effectively ending workers' self management. This was widely condemned by mainstream Marxists, most notably Rosa Luxembourg, who sent a historic admonitory letter to Lenin. This is when the idea of "Marxism-Leninism" as opposed to simple "Marxism" began to distinguish itself.
What Leninism has become now is a sort of paranoid ideology about "holding onto the revolution" against "the forces of reaction." They point to examples of successful workers' self management e.g. The Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia (read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell), and claim that these revolutions were crushed because of a lack of "party discipline" and organization.
When you see a stinking heap on the road you don’t have to poke around in it to see what it is. Your nose tells you it’s s*, and you give it a wide berth.
I tweaked to it not being apolitical with the casual mention of Saul Alinsky, who is only a figure of any note in American right-wing circles (as a boogeyman).
In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College about community organizer Saul Alinsky entitled "There Is Only the Fight" . . . : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.
Apparently he is more than a bogeyman to Hillary Clinton.
Attempting to tar social justice movements as Leninist is sheer speculation. And maybe Leninist, so to speak.
But damn, just ignore that part. It's always good to be reminded of just how insanely ruthless Lenin was. Also, recall that the Germans paid Lenin to destabilize Russia, and keep it out of WWI. So maybe the whole thing was basically a put-on.
I have not heard of them doing so (though I admit that I have not followed them very closely). For those of us who haven't seen this, can you supply some reference(s)?
But if they're going to call the alt-right Nazis (with justification, at least for some of them), and they're going to fly the hammer and sickle... well, I guess they earn being called communist, Stalinist, and Leninist.
Attention conservation notice: Lengthy somewhat tendentious history of Soviet Leninism, followed by an assertion that the confusing twists of cancel culture is down to the woke masses being in thrall to a Hiddden Lenin, and a rapid exit.
Whilst I'm sympathetic to the overarching point the author is trying to make (Lenin bad, more so than is generally appreciated), confusing Georgy Chicherin with Boris Chicherin does not build confidence he is the best person to make it (or in the editorial practices at New Criterion).
There is some truth to the theory of "cultural Marxism" but it's usually presented in an unflattering and conspiratorial light.
Gramsci, a prisoner of Mussolini, questioned why Marxism had failed to foment revolution in the west. He came to the conclusion that the working class were indoctrinated, and that a "counter-hegemony" of thought based on progressive values was necessary to grow a more egalitarian society.
Herbert Marcuse, perhaps the defining philosopher of the 60s, continued this line of thought. There was no conspiracy or deception, however, since Marcuse was an open Marxist. He had a significant impact on the radical culture, and the sexual revolution of the 60s.
In this sense, if you are opposed to "cultural Marxism," then you are opposed to the cultural shift of the 60s. Personally, I think the cultural shift of the 60s is to be celebrated.
37 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 92.3 ms ] threadActually I heard it as “The people of the USSR had complete and absolute freedom of speech... but only once”. Lie or not, if the state didn’t like it, you ended up in a concentration camp.
The version I like is “Soviet citizens have the freedom of speech, but American citizens also have freedom after speech”
That myth underlies much of the misunderstanding in contemporary political discourse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
In other words, Wikipedia is not an unbiased source. Rather than throw links at you, suffice it to say that there are other criteria by which political spectra may be defined. Let the reader understand.
> I recalled this curious concept of freedom when a student defended complete freedom of speech except for hate speech—and hate speech included anything he disagreed with. Whatever did not seem hateful was actually a “dog-whistle.”
That seems pretty clear, and just the opposite of Evelyn Beatrice Hall's paraphrase of Voltaire's position:[0]
“I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
0) https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
It's not that I'm familiar with it, and am claiming that it's not. It's just that, based on a few minutes of browsing, nothing obviously "avidly pro-Trump" jumped out.
Edit: I also browsed some discussion of other submissions from it, and didn't find anything obviously politicized. But then, I didn't read it all.
I'm going to have to read that one.
Edit: OK, it was short.[0] But I also came across an article by historian Matthew A. Sears,[1] which points out ...
> There is a much darker side to Pericles’ legacy, however. For one, he narrowed the group eligible for Athenian citizenship, requiring both parents to be Athenian citizens — a requirement, ironically, that his own children did not meet.
> And, as is increasingly the view among ancient historians, he bore perhaps more responsibility than anyone else for the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, a ruinous 27-year conflict between Athens and Sparta that ended in Athens’ defeat and the temporary overthrow of the world’s first democracy.
> A frequent criticism of Pericles among his contemporaries was that he took a hard line against Sparta and pushed his city toward war not due to any higher principle or strategic goal, but to deflect charges brought against his closest friends and political allies.
0) https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/269472/
1) https://theconversation.com/do-something-trump-pericles-and-...
https://thebaffler.com/latest/decline-of-the-new-criterion-g...
Regarding the article, from what I know about Lenin, it’s spot on, and if you ever talk to anyone who survived his dekulakization [1] you’ll understand the violent nature of Leninism.
But I’m not a fan of a propaganda outfit that likes to hide behind the occasional high intellect piece, so thanks again for the comment.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
Russia was a backwards pre-capitalist third world monarchy with vast economic inequality under one of the richest men in all of history, Nicholas Romanov II. He rejected attempt after attempt to reform his monarchy into a democratic constitutional monarchy, preferring to cling onto absolute power and repeatedly losing wars. The story of the Russian revolution is one of a transition from authoritarian rule to authoritarian rule.
Initially the revolution was widely praised by genuine revolutionaries, such as Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, & Rosa Luxemburg. The country was ruled democratically by a system of workers' councils (soviets), and workers were encouraged to form committees to self manage the work place democratically.
Within the year, however, the Soviets were dissolved and commissars were sent to the factories to take the place of the boss', effectively ending workers' self management. This was widely condemned by mainstream Marxists, most notably Rosa Luxembourg, who sent a historic admonitory letter to Lenin. This is when the idea of "Marxism-Leninism" as opposed to simple "Marxism" began to distinguish itself.
What Leninism has become now is a sort of paranoid ideology about "holding onto the revolution" against "the forces of reaction." They point to examples of successful workers' self management e.g. The Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia (read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell), and claim that these revolutions were crushed because of a lack of "party discipline" and organization.
In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College about community organizer Saul Alinsky entitled "There Is Only the Fight" . . . : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.
Apparently he is more than a bogeyman to Hillary Clinton.
Attempting to tar social justice movements as Leninist is sheer speculation. And maybe Leninist, so to speak.
But damn, just ignore that part. It's always good to be reminded of just how insanely ruthless Lenin was. Also, recall that the Germans paid Lenin to destabilize Russia, and keep it out of WWI. So maybe the whole thing was basically a put-on.
When a lot of them readily use Soviet symbols like hammer and sickle to represent themselves, it's not that far-fetched.
But if they're going to call the alt-right Nazis (with justification, at least for some of them), and they're going to fly the hammer and sickle... well, I guess they earn being called communist, Stalinist, and Leninist.
The facts of this piece are pretty specious here as well. Boris Chicherin, for example, died in 1904, well before Lenin came to power.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...
Gramsci, a prisoner of Mussolini, questioned why Marxism had failed to foment revolution in the west. He came to the conclusion that the working class were indoctrinated, and that a "counter-hegemony" of thought based on progressive values was necessary to grow a more egalitarian society.
Herbert Marcuse, perhaps the defining philosopher of the 60s, continued this line of thought. There was no conspiracy or deception, however, since Marcuse was an open Marxist. He had a significant impact on the radical culture, and the sexual revolution of the 60s.
In this sense, if you are opposed to "cultural Marxism," then you are opposed to the cultural shift of the 60s. Personally, I think the cultural shift of the 60s is to be celebrated.
Or perhaps those Bond villains were modeled after Lenin? Some western anti-communist propaganda thing?