Listen to the full thing for context. If you enjoyed this talk, part 2 is available exclusively on Patreon. 1Dime Patrons get access to a whole catalogue of exclusive episodes among other things: www.patreon.com/OneDime
The reason Luxemburg is associated with more "liberal" marxism, when compared to Lenin is probably because, the German revolution failed and as such could not have develepod authoritarian tendencies under the stress of reactionary attacks, like the Soviet one.
I think the fetishization of failure, i.e., the perfect revolution is one that didn't live long enough to be adequately critiqued, is a big problem on so-called "Left". I think this explains why Luxemberg is more readily accepted over Lenin within the Imperial Core.
True. Cutrone’s point is that we should not regard Luxembourg and Lenin as opposing political figures, but as comrades who for the most part shared the same overarching marxist politics
@1DimeRadio Exactly. The main "difference" being one succeeded while the other failed. However, the material conditions in both cases were the determinant factor.
It's also worth remembering, even if Germany had successfully gone red in 1919, the future members of the Freikorps, Nazi Party and so on were alive and would have been living in that Germany. Even Hitler was living in the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
@@1DimeRadioLuxembourg was a chauvinist toward Slavs. She got a lot of pats on the head for opposing Lenin from the people whom eventually killed her. She didn’t support the Bolshevik Revolution. And the people who worship her today worship and fetishize failure. Martyrdom and sacrifice have their place in all movements but German Marxists not being able to take power with Germany a complete mess following World War I is a complete joke. Those people should all be ashamed of themselves, Rosa included. Paved way for the horror that followed.
Just found your channel recently. It’s so dope to have content with actual academic discourse from the left. You’re doing your part comrade. It’s awesome thanks
I find all of this great, but it finally is idealist, and even more, might partially go against a materialist understanding of history. To say bourgeois liberal ideology and capitalism go against each other is a bit too much. Also, to say there was no military revolution in europe is inacurate at least.
the whole idea that the state first existed with capitalism because before their were no police or prisons is absolutely absurd. The invitee was a pseudo-intellectual with a very idealist framework of analysis and came to some abhorrent conclusions.
It is not that "bourgeois liberal ideology and capitalism go against each other" but bourgeois society becomes ideological. Bourgeois society reflects industrial production - bourgeois social relations and industrial production are in contradiction (both facilitate each other and undermine each other). Hence "the fetishism of commodities," the problem of the "commodity-form," etc. Capital - rule by capital (not capitalists). It is a self-contradiction (capital is grasped ideologically as "past"/"dead" labor - self-contradiction of labor). Yes, the State comes into its own with 1848 - the police and prisons. That is at least Marx's view (see last chapter of 18th Brumaire).Its emergence changes history (hence Marx's letter to Engels about Morgan's anthropology being a reaction to 1848), such that history appears to be the history of the Capitalist State. Hence, Engels (but originally Marx's work) Origin of Private Property, Family and the State.
This is why I'm always dismayed by people who just flippantly say "read theory." Well to what end? For how long? Just because people read it, doesn't mean they will understand it's conclusions. You shouldn't have to spend years of your life reading in order to participate and organize. People want a simple answer so badly, but it can take so long to grasp how much these definitions have changed over time. It's very easy to watch something like this and be completely uncertain how much you do or don't understand. Reading something from a century or two ago can be even more difficult.
@@alexhubble I agree! I prefer to stay curious. I'm very skeptical when people talk like you can just read it and then you will totally get it. It is important to keep having questions. Unfortunately people often say "read theory" when they assume you will arrive at the same conclusions as them.
@ResplendentTrash lol, of course, if you get given a reading list you must assume the person has read them. And understood them. So they're terribly terribly clever! Yet so often this is not true.... It's a people subject and people change and they just won't sit still!
Tony, if I can call you Tony?, that was excellent. Again! I really enjoy the historical deep dives, this and the founding fathers two. Very interesting guests and, while you are on the ball, you still give them plenty of space. Can't say I share the politics (beyond a wish for happy outcomes) but this channel continues excellent. Two thumbs up👍👍
I think since the title says "liberalism" in it, I keep getting Biden campaign contribution ads on this video 😂😂 great discussion so far btw thank you for what you do 1dime!
If anyone knows the letters or writings that Cutrone references of Marx and Engels talk about choosing between free speech and the right to vote - to pick free speech. I would like to know!
I don't know exactly where this is the case but the "The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party" (there are many passages about universal suffrage being easy to manage, especially when freedom of association is curbed - it is the section talking about Bonapartism) and Marx also, to Engels, mocked Lassalle saying the Americans only had a "negative" idea about freedom (30 July [1862]). Later Second International Marxists (Kautsky, Luxemburg, Lenin) all made an argument not just for political free speech but hearing arguments that you disagree with even i.e., not cancelling each other (they also had direct critiques of universal suffrage meaning nothing more than an "imperialist plebiscite")
Stalin's constitution may have given freedom of speech, rights etc etc. It also enabled the office of the Cheka / OGPU / NKVD. All these acted above any law and reported directly to Joseph Stalin. Which was nice.
Please actually read about the history of revolution before parroting bullshit about le scary Stalin. Checka existed basically since the start of the revolution and it had far-reaching authority even back then. It's absolutely correct to say that during Stalin's rule they were given the most leeway during the purges, but it wasn't the constitution that allowed such excesses.
@@novinceinhosic3531idk what the point of a constitution besides to signal dogmatic nothings as you secure power. Like just because you made a central legal document doesn't mean you place actual weight on it, just look at any nation that isn't Anglo and see the lack of sanctity of words on paper.
@Watashiwadeus thanks for the interesting reply! You are right of course, the Cheka had existed since Lenin's instructed Dzerzhinsky to protect the revolution. Stalin did not make them above the law, they always had been. As were every one of their successors. Which was nice. With regard to Scary Stalin, I don't think anything I said is bullshxt. I don't think the constitution reduced the power of the cheka and it's successors in any way. Because it didn't. And they were controlled directly by Stalin. To the extent of destroying themselves or their members at his behest, basically. And Scary Stalin isn't bullshxt. He's about the most terrifying world leader who has ever lived, with the possible exception of Genghiz Khan.
@charlesramirez587 and thank you for the interesting reply You make a very good point, without mechanisms, oversight or at the last analysis a bit of faith, constitutions are dead bits of paper. Historically, I can only speak for England really. But I will give you my take. The unwritten constitution of Britain is a series of compromises between state power, aristocratic power, later industrial power and the people. US constitution is much more highbrow but it comes to the same. It's the rules. People like to have rules, particularly if they protect them. A place without rules is.... Somalia? Afghanistan? The ever-colourful North-west Frontier of Pakistan? A place where you need a gun. Do you need a constitution for the state? No. Pay the soldiers and police enough, they'll shoot down whoever you want. But THEY will want a set of rules for interaction between leadership and security. So 8n the end you will need a set of rules for someone. That's the way power works.
He said in this pod that he has been listening Cutrone for a long time. But in other talks he has expressed subtle disagreement with their approach to things, like romanticizing the American revolution a little bit too much, particularly the constitution. Thats where they seem to disagree most.
I have also been listening to Cutrone for a long time and would consider myself a student of his thought & method. But, I also have many disagreements with Cutrone. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As I mentioned, I have been following Cutrone for quite a while. I think he is a critical voice of reason on the left that more people need to listen to. However, I do have my disagreements with him. Namely on Palestine and National Liberation, and what I think is an overly orthodox approach to Marxism, among various other things. Though those things did not get brought up here mainly because I wanted to focus on his contributions to revitalizing classical Marxist thought and his critiques of the North American left
It may be that many of Cutrone's points stand where it comes to colonization of the territory known as the United States and the triumph of Protestantism, or "WASP's" vs. the native population. It may not. The argument is that social relations are the reason for this triumph. However, the only counter to this narrative that was presented by the interviewer was disease or sickness across disparate immune systems of different populations. There is, though, the matter of technological advancement. Namely: gunpowder, metal tools and weapons, sailing technology, agriculture techniques, construction techniques. Are we then arguing that social relations are the basis for these things? I would wager that this would be Cutrone's argument. Still a shame this was not posed.
People always forget warhorses. Warhorses were the primary technological factor in Cortes' victory over the Aztecs, they inflicted mass casualties on them in battle after battle.
1:40:23 - "I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt" Chris, you are a very, very fair-minded man. I am... more open to a bad faith interpretation. 👍
Love the interview and your content in general so I hate to always be responding with critiques but I feel as though I have to intervene. Anarchists are not, by and large, "immediatists". We acknowledge a transitional period, we just don't seek to seize the state and stand in the role of the bourgeois during it. "Can we today pass directly, without intermediate steps, from the hell in which the workers now find themselves to the paradise of common property? Facts demonstrate what the workers are capable of today. Our task is the moral and material preparation of the people for this essential expropriation; and to attempt it again and again, every time a revolutionary upheaval offers us the chance to, until the final triumph... A practical education is needed, which must be alternately cause and effect in a gradual transformation of the environment..." -Errico Maletesta, An Anarchist Program, Section 3 'The Economic Struggle'
You might disagree with this strategy. You might think seizure of the state is necessary to begin transition. That's fine. But the self perpetuating Marxist myth of rampant immediatism in anarchism needs to end. Yall need to grow up and start actually engaging with our position as we have stated it if you're going to keep commenting on it because it's embarrassing to be repeatedly so obviously yet confidently wrong. You cannot understand social anarchism, the most common historical kind of anarchism, through the lense of the post-left nihilistic anarchisms that appear in yuppie academic spaces after the fall of the Soviet Union. You are willingly misleading yourself.
Fair point. However, that doesn’t really refute the broader critique. The Marxist critique of anarchism is not that anarchists think they can immediately jump to communism, but rather that the very notion you can transition to communism without seizing state power is practically impossible because the state will attempt to quash any attempt to build socialism on a large scale and the anarchist project will end up replicating-state structures anyway to maintain order, just more democratically, hence why actually existing anarchism always ends up making compromises with nation states and does mot expand beyond a local level in order to not provoke too many enemy states (examples being Chiapas co-existing with the Mexican state, Rojava having a comprimise with the Asad government, etc). Marxist see class as the primary contradiction, not hierarchy, which is much more deeply rooted and harder to eliminate. So, you are correct to clarify those nuances with specific words, but it does not really refute the broader critique of anarchism, and why most simply don’t think its realistic
@@1DimeRadio I'm not trying to convince you of the anarchist position per se. We could get into a debate about all of this if you want but I'm just trying to get us to the starting place where we aren't straw manning each other. I do agree that the critique you just levied is the actual territory of contention here. I disagree with it Ofc. But it at least finally engages honestly with what anarchism actually is. That's all I'm asking for. If you want to discuss the real space of disagreement id be happy to oblige but it wasn't my primary reason for commenting. Speaking to the examples you mentioned, the EZLN territories continue to expand at regular intervals and the power structure continues to become more egalitarian over time. This contradicts both of your claims that horizontalist projects must A. Remain parochial to avoid reppresion and B. Must recreate state social relations to protect itself. The Zapatistas are actively doing the opposite of both of those things. It's also coming up on having existed for almost half the time of the USSR which is an argument against claiming horizontalist power is always a flash in the pan. It's wierd that you would use them as evidence of your claim since they aren't even nominally anarchist (although no theoretical/praxis disagreement is present with them) and are shining examples of how wrong you are.
Lenin wasnt a Kautskyite, Kaustsky was once a respected Marxist who betrayed the revolution (renegade Kautsky) to join with the bourgois imperialists, Kautsky was also leader of the Second International (was thee International until it collapsed into petti-bourgois ideology. The point isnt who was in it at one point but who stayed in it after its betrayal) and advocated for workers to support their own nation during a imperialist war which runs counter to marxism and Lenin fought him and the Second International bitterly. Lenin built the Third International called the Comintern. Also, Lenin wasnt a liberal, in case, this actually needed to be said. He was a communist. Trotsky WAS a liberal, who advocated for the liberalization of the workers, the militatization of their organizations and rejection of the revolutionary party (Lenins RSDLP) along anarchist lines "the small cicles dont have to do what the party leadership says". Liberalism is bourgois individualism that needs to be combated and over come to move on to communism (both in society and within the individual). Saying this transcendence beyond liberalism is still liberalism, is non sense.
Kautsky did not "advocate for workers to support their own nation during a [sic] imperialist war" - the whole point is his "Centrism" as Lenin critiqued him. He treated the split in the Second International as accidental (this is literally Lenin's first critique from right after August 4 in 1914 e.g., "The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International " and "Dead Chauvinism and Living Socialism"). The question is the relationship o What is "advocated for the liberalization of the workers" (??????????????????). If you listen to the conversation, they precisely touch on Lenin's critique of Trotsky wanting to "shake-up" the unions coming out of War Communism (this is what is meant by the militarization of the unions and subordination to the state) -> precisely Lenin says that the workers have RIGHTS against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That is liberal - the defense of their civil rights ("We now have a state under which it is the business of the massively organised proletariat to protect itself, while we, for our part, must use these workers’ organisations to protect the workers from their state, and to get them to protect our state. ") It wasn't a rejection of the RSDLP (you are confusing periods), of which the Mensheviks (who Trotsky was part of at the time) also were part of the RSDLP! You are oddly projecting the pre-1914 name and mixing up all sorts of things. Liberalism is not "bourgeois individualism" (this is some 20th-century American progressive claptrap by the way!). Actually, Lenin used to call Anarchism "bourgeois individualism in reverse" (1901). The idea of class struggle is liberal, as Marx pointed out to Wedeyemeyer in 1852 (and Lenin quotes this State and Revolution and says the only distinction This "combated and over come [sic] to move on to communism (both in society and within individual)" is some Maoist garbage ("Combat Liberalism") that liquidates back into the very Narodinism that Lenin spent his entire life fighting and destroying until the so-called "Leninists" revived it out of capitulation to world imperialism. Liberal means the rights of labor. Communism is the return of the revolt of the third estate (the revolution in favor of labor) under the changed conditions of the industrial revolution. Marx is clear about this 1843, "In particular, communism is a dogmatic abstraction and by communism I do not refer to some imagined, possible communism, but to communism as it actually exists in the teachings of Cabet, Dezamy, and Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a particular manifestation of the humanistic principle and is infected by its opposite, private property. The abolition of private property is therefore by no means identical with communism and communism has seen other socialist theories, such as those of Fourier and Proudhon, rising up in opposition to it, not fortuitously but necessarily, because it is only a particular, one-sided realization of the principle of socialism." "Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not begin any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its old work." www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm
Lenin’s disagreements with Kautsky pertained primarily to WW1 and co-operation with the state. On the vast majority of things they agreed. In fact, much of Lenin’s political contributions come out of Kautsky first. Many people today can’t seem to fathom the possibility of having a civil polemic disagreement with a comrade so they think that just because Lenin critiqued Kautsky he was somehow the opposite of him. Back then, communists could critique each other with respect and without deeming them enemies. This changed under Stalin, where political disagreement with the dominant party line got framed as espionage or betrayal and was met with execution or labor camps. Psychotics who think this despotic form of dealing with conflict was justified read into history backwards and forget that Marxism was supposed to be an advancement beyond liberalism, not a regressive rejection of it.
Why does Cutrone call himself the last marxist? Besides egotism of course. Also, his analysis is very strong, but his vision for todays political landscape seems foregone. What's implied in his discourse is only theory should be studied. Be a book wurm. No need to go organize, etc.
I do indeed want people to organize for socialism, both socially and politically - which I don't think is the case with "Left activism" since the 1960s which has been rather radlib pseud-activity in the close orbit of the Democratic Party and not at all what is necessary for socialists to do. But Marxism however defined is not necessary to guide the kind of basic organizing that is needed now, which would be largely liberal-democratic in character, but only to keep in mind the ultimate goal and purpose of such organizing.
It was a revolution. There was a civil war with popular violence of ethnic-communitarian and class (peasant vs landlord) violence, which the Bolsheviks tried to control and direct, but also incite along certain lines. The collapse of Tsardom unleashed social strife also inflamed by counterrevolutionaries. Lenin and the Bolsheviks would have preferred to minimize violence - the October 1917 revolution was relatively bloodless - but that was not to be. After the civil war (and Lenin’s incapacitation and death) the 1920s were relatively peaceful. Then the forced collectivization of agriculture in the 1930s Great Depression era caused famines and violent social degeneration again. That’s when most deaths occurred.
I like this answer. basically, if im following you right, violence was going to be unavoidable under the conditions and though we should never fetishize it, we have to understand it is a reality of revolutionary upheaval.@ccutrone
No. The Bolsheviks didn't go around with no due process mass killing mentality. They organized and guided a revolution against brutal tsarist (which did have mass killing policys) and the bourgeoisie (who also committed to a killing policy adopted from the previous tsarism). The whole period marked by Lenin and Stalin was open class struggle.
@@Salomanemy guy the reds did forced mass conscriptions and put down multiple revolts by indiscriminate mass murder or starvation. The whites were not Tsarists, they were social democrats by in large since the abdication of Nicholas in 1917 in the February revolution.
After listening to a lot of Gabriel Rockhill, I hate hearing that Žižek quote in the beginning. He's a liberal democrat, i.e., an expansionist capitalist fascist. Žižek is the jester of the capitalist Royal Court. We need radical forms of government, not more neoliberalism.
My political disagreements with Zizek aside (and there are many), Zizek is certainly not a proponent of neoliberalism and anyone who think he is not a socialist havent read much of his work and are forming their opinions based on his clownish moments that circulate online in out of context clips. Funny you mention Rockhill because his idea of a “radical government” is modern China, and Zizek also happens to be a big defender of Modern China’s success. In fact, Zizek’s overly bureaucratic vision of socialism (he literally calls it this in a talk titled “bureaucratic socialism” ) is in many ways much more aligned with Rockhill’s politics than Cutrone would be, as Cutrone is much more anti-statist.
@1DimeRadio I'd add that it is very apparent, to me at least, and please forgive the glibness of this statement, that Rockhill is simply jealous of Zizek's relevance. Rockhill's critique begins there whether Rockhill knows it or not
@@1DimeRadio We can all agree Žižek loves technocracy/bureaucracy. But how is that not fascist? In those power dynamics, the people are NOT represented. Žižek then asserts this is a global world, hence expansionist ideology. When he was asked about the drug war, he said the state has the right to defend itself and make laws about one's personal liberty. The state > individual, in terms of bodily and psychological autonomy, this is a pretty severe tyranny of the individual(a complex war on humans who use drugs)-a necropolitics for those that Žižek doesn't care about (Žižek has never used drugs). Also, from what I understand, when Žižek was running for office, he was promoting deregulation and privatization(this create's power monopolies), which is indeed neoliberal. It seems like Žižek doesn't trust people. Surely, we can find some hybrid form of government that creates a better power dynamic between the individuals, the system and emergent interactive dynamics. We must find the correct balance. Whatever that is, every empire has failed because nothing structurally is resilient enough to last. A sustainable empire must have different characteristics than the power spectrums we see. Hitherto, every empire seems to fall into very similar patterns of self-destruction. The stuff you said about Rockhill, Zizek and China are interesting. Thank you for this channel and your feedback. I'm digesting this Cutrone interview. Appreciate you! I also love the mention of midlife crisis disenchantment with French theory.. Zizek also validly tore some of the French theorists a new "a**hole" for their defense of, what I'll label as sexual taboos, lol. I'll have to be a little more critical of Rockhill, as the consensus is he's a bit... traumatized(he works with prisoners, he's a good dude... also a lot of prisoners are there because of drugs).. I still love him though, but i'm sure at some point, like all theorists, he'll make me a bit sad.
@@comradetrashpanda8777 I heard rumours that he also had a personal falling falling out with his old teacher Alain Badiou, and that among other personal feuds supposedly triggered the vitriol with what he calls “the theory industry” I can’t confirm if these rumours are true so take then with a grain of salt, but it seems strange to me as to how Rockhill, a PHD who previously studied under Alain Badiou, could become so incredibly ignorant and myopic in this worldview. Seems almost as if he had a psychotic break and is trying to cope with his cognitive dissonance of spending over 10 years of his life on French continental theory only to grow to hate it. Overall, Rockhill is just not very intellectually honest or self aware and has managed to transform his personal midlife crisis disenchantment with French theory into a whole political narrative that sells well with certain parts of the left because it gives easy scapegoat answers to complex problems.
@@ramboz494 it is opportunism because they are turning Lenin (the founder of Marxism Leninism) into a liberal to explain that they as liberal have a right to use Lenin as a mouthpiece for their shit takes. Never mind the fact he has a book titled “‘left wing’ communism an infantile disorder.”
@@Comrade_Thrasher That doesn't explain how it is opportunistic. You added into something else (Marxism-Leninism is a term from after Lenin is dead) and you don't say how they turn him into a liberal, how he is not a liberal or where you even disagree. You don't even provide a shit take but an empty, shit take. Then you bring in the 1920 text which is about the growing pains of new recruits to the 3rd International (Pankhurst, Bordiga, German Communists), which is not an answer.
@@1DimeRadiothe whole claim that since France is called after Frankish tribes, the aristocracy whole 1000 years later was mostly descendents of those Frankish conquerors and the French revolution was a revolt of locals against the conquerors is totally ahistorical and insane
His take is not crazy, and he does not deny there is a genocide occurring, however, I disagree with him on the national question as it pertains to Palestine. You can find an old tweet where I criticized something he said about Palestinian national liberation. I don’t think middle eastern politics is his strong point, so that didn’t get brought up. Wanted to focus on Marxism and the history of communism , which is I think is where his analysis is most useful. Growing up with a Lebanese family very aware of Israeli colonialism, my position on that conflict is pretty straightforward and likely wont change so its not something I spend a lot of time thinking about because Ive known about it my whole life.
It is a well-reasoned Marxist take. Just because I don't agree with him on the terms of what to call the conflict (ie: war vs genocide) doesn't change the fact he is right about the flawed methodological nationalist assumptions at the core of the pro-Palestine argument and impotence of the left.
@@1DimeRadio Unlike most of your work/commentary isnt this somewhat " paraochial" . Having a lived experience first hand or otherwise does not necessarily give one more insight or objectivity in a political sense, indeed often it can tend to the opposite, subjectivity or dogma ? The national question is a very important issue, particularly for Marxists and an understanding of the current global order. Can i be so humble and suggest you interview CC , particularly on this and perhaps in relation to the current war ? What's to lose ? Surely there is an audience waiting for this clarification.
1:18:48 - Lennon and Luxenberg are divided amongst each other. That’s the reason Rosa Luxenberg wrote that book called Marxism or Leninism. She was criticizing all of the Bolsheviks and the entire third international. Lennon may not have been against her, but she was certainly against him.
Luxemburg was a close collaborator with Lenin and the Bolsheviks throughout her career, a supporter of the Bolsheviks in the October 1917 Revolution, and a co-founder of the Third/Communist International with Lenin. Her criticisms were of a comrade.
Listen to the full thing for context.
If you enjoyed this talk, part 2 is available exclusively on Patreon. 1Dime Patrons get access to a whole catalogue of exclusive episodes among other things: www.patreon.com/OneDime
The reason Luxemburg is associated with more "liberal" marxism, when compared to Lenin is probably because, the German revolution failed and as such could not have develepod authoritarian tendencies under the stress of reactionary attacks, like the Soviet one.
I think the fetishization of failure, i.e., the perfect revolution is one that didn't live long enough to be adequately critiqued, is a big problem on so-called "Left". I think this explains why Luxemberg is more readily accepted over Lenin within the Imperial Core.
True. Cutrone’s point is that we should not regard Luxembourg and Lenin as opposing political figures, but as comrades who for the most part shared the same overarching marxist politics
@1DimeRadio Exactly. The main "difference" being one succeeded while the other failed. However, the material conditions in both cases were the determinant factor.
It's also worth remembering, even if Germany had successfully gone red in 1919, the future members of the Freikorps, Nazi Party and so on were alive and would have been living in that Germany. Even Hitler was living in the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
@@1DimeRadioLuxembourg was a chauvinist toward Slavs. She got a lot of pats on the head for opposing Lenin from the people whom eventually killed her. She didn’t support the Bolshevik Revolution. And the people who worship her today worship and fetishize failure. Martyrdom and sacrifice have their place in all movements but German Marxists not being able to take power with Germany a complete mess following World War I is a complete joke. Those people should all be ashamed of themselves, Rosa included. Paved way for the horror that followed.
Just found your channel recently. It’s so dope to have content with actual academic discourse from the left. You’re doing your part comrade. It’s awesome thanks
I find all of this great, but it finally is idealist, and even more, might partially go against a materialist understanding of history. To say bourgeois liberal ideology and capitalism go against each other is a bit too much. Also, to say there was no military revolution in europe is inacurate at least.
the whole idea that the state first existed with capitalism because before their were no police or prisons is absolutely absurd. The invitee was a pseudo-intellectual with a very idealist framework of analysis and came to some abhorrent conclusions.
It is not that "bourgeois liberal ideology and capitalism go against each other" but bourgeois society becomes ideological.
Bourgeois society reflects industrial production - bourgeois social relations and industrial production are in contradiction (both facilitate each other and undermine each other).
Hence "the fetishism of commodities," the problem of the "commodity-form," etc.
Capital - rule by capital (not capitalists).
It is a self-contradiction (capital is grasped ideologically as "past"/"dead" labor - self-contradiction of labor).
Yes, the State comes into its own with 1848 - the police and prisons. That is at least Marx's view (see last chapter of 18th Brumaire).Its emergence changes history (hence Marx's letter to Engels about Morgan's anthropology being a reaction to 1848), such that history appears to be the history of the Capitalist State. Hence, Engels (but originally Marx's work) Origin of Private Property, Family and the State.
It was nice to see you pressuring Cutrone on the Cultural Revolution.
chris: hold my beer
Lenin wasn't a liberal, but Chris Cutrone definitely is!
Flamed 😭
This is why I'm always dismayed by people who just flippantly say "read theory." Well to what end? For how long? Just because people read it, doesn't mean they will understand it's conclusions. You shouldn't have to spend years of your life reading in order to participate and organize. People want a simple answer so badly, but it can take so long to grasp how much these definitions have changed over time. It's very easy to watch something like this and be completely uncertain how much you do or don't understand. Reading something from a century or two ago can be even more difficult.
"Completely uncertain how much you do or don't understand" lol, you know, that's the reason I like it!
@@alexhubble I agree! I prefer to stay curious. I'm very skeptical when people talk like you can just read it and then you will totally get it. It is important to keep having questions. Unfortunately people often say "read theory" when they assume you will arrive at the same conclusions as them.
@ResplendentTrash lol, of course, if you get given a reading list you must assume the person has read them. And understood them. So they're terribly terribly clever! Yet so often this is not true....
It's a people subject and people change and they just won't sit still!
Tony is cute and on point, Chris is insightful as always. Great job guys
Tony, if I can call you Tony?, that was excellent. Again!
I really enjoy the historical deep dives, this and the founding fathers two. Very interesting guests and, while you are on the ball, you still give them plenty of space.
Can't say I share the politics (beyond a wish for happy outcomes) but this channel continues excellent. Two thumbs up👍👍
Great talk. Learned a lot!
I think since the title says "liberalism" in it, I keep getting Biden campaign contribution ads on this video 😂😂 great discussion so far btw thank you for what you do 1dime!
This was incredible! Thanks to the both of you.
Adorno = Leninist
Lenin = Liberal
Rousseau = ?
EDIT: maybe Native American fanboy
If anyone knows the letters or writings that Cutrone references of Marx and Engels talk about choosing between free speech and the right to vote - to pick free speech. I would like to know!
I don't know exactly where this is the case but the "The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party" (there are many passages about universal suffrage being easy to manage, especially when freedom of association is curbed - it is the section talking about Bonapartism) and Marx also, to Engels, mocked Lassalle saying the Americans only had a "negative" idea about freedom (30 July [1862]). Later Second International Marxists (Kautsky, Luxemburg, Lenin) all made an argument not just for political free speech but hearing arguments that you disagree with even i.e., not cancelling each other (they also had direct critiques of universal suffrage meaning nothing more than an "imperialist plebiscite")
Stalin's constitution may have given freedom of speech, rights etc etc. It also enabled the office of the Cheka / OGPU / NKVD. All these acted above any law and reported directly to Joseph Stalin. Which was nice.
Please actually read about the history of revolution before parroting bullshit about le scary Stalin.
Checka existed basically since the start of the revolution and it had far-reaching authority even back then. It's absolutely correct to say that during Stalin's rule they were given the most leeway during the purges, but it wasn't the constitution that allowed such excesses.
@@novinceinhosic3531idk what the point of a constitution besides to signal dogmatic nothings as you secure power. Like just because you made a central legal document doesn't mean you place actual weight on it, just look at any nation that isn't Anglo and see the lack of sanctity of words on paper.
@Watashiwadeus thanks for the interesting reply! You are right of course, the Cheka had existed since Lenin's instructed Dzerzhinsky to protect the revolution. Stalin did not make them above the law, they always had been. As were every one of their successors. Which was nice.
With regard to Scary Stalin, I don't think anything I said is bullshxt. I don't think the constitution reduced the power of the cheka and it's successors in any way. Because it didn't. And they were controlled directly by Stalin. To the extent of destroying themselves or their members at his behest, basically.
And Scary Stalin isn't bullshxt. He's about the most terrifying world leader who has ever lived, with the possible exception of Genghiz Khan.
@charlesramirez587 and thank you for the interesting reply You make a very good point, without mechanisms, oversight or at the last analysis a bit of faith, constitutions are dead bits of paper.
Historically, I can only speak for England really. But I will give you my take. The unwritten constitution of Britain is a series of compromises between state power, aristocratic power, later industrial power and the people. US constitution is much more highbrow but it comes to the same.
It's the rules. People like to have rules, particularly if they protect them. A place without rules is.... Somalia? Afghanistan? The ever-colourful North-west Frontier of Pakistan? A place where you need a gun.
Do you need a constitution for the state? No. Pay the soldiers and police enough, they'll shoot down whoever you want. But THEY will want a set of rules for interaction between leadership and security. So 8n the end you will need a set of rules for someone. That's the way power works.
Great discussion. Need a follow-up convo
The Little Man and the Philosophy of Freedom.
I'm really enjoying the Platypusization of 1Dime
He said in this pod that he has been listening Cutrone for a long time. But in other talks he has expressed subtle disagreement with their approach to things, like romanticizing the American revolution a little bit too much, particularly the constitution. Thats where they seem to disagree most.
I have also been listening to Cutrone for a long time and would consider myself a student of his thought & method. But, I also have many disagreements with Cutrone. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As I mentioned, I have been following Cutrone for quite a while. I think he is a critical voice of reason on the left that more people need to listen to. However, I do have my disagreements with him. Namely on Palestine and National Liberation, and what I think is an overly orthodox approach to Marxism, among various other things. Though those things did not get brought up here mainly because I wanted to focus on his contributions to revitalizing classical Marxist thought and his critiques of the North American left
what does platypusization mean?
@@1DimeRadio What's his position on Palestine?
Thanks
It may be that many of Cutrone's points stand where it comes to colonization of the territory known as the United States and the triumph of Protestantism, or "WASP's" vs. the native population. It may not. The argument is that social relations are the reason for this triumph. However, the only counter to this narrative that was presented by the interviewer was disease or sickness across disparate immune systems of different populations. There is, though, the matter of technological advancement. Namely: gunpowder, metal tools and weapons, sailing technology, agriculture techniques, construction techniques. Are we then arguing that social relations are the basis for these things? I would wager that this would be Cutrone's argument. Still a shame this was not posed.
People always forget warhorses. Warhorses were the primary technological factor in Cortes' victory over the Aztecs, they inflicted mass casualties on them in battle after battle.
State smashing occurs at 1:45:40 nyan
Good interview
Would love to interview you on the politics of modern China and the CPC today!
Clickbait really? You should be above that
1:40:23 - "I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt" Chris, you are a very, very fair-minded man. I am... more open to a bad faith interpretation. 👍
Brave of you to call Lenin a liberal in the title, if maybe a bit clickbaity.
This title is the 13th form of liberalism./j
Whoosh
What is this guy on about?
Get em big Chris. talk to the children
Love the interview and your content in general so I hate to always be responding with critiques but I feel as though I have to intervene.
Anarchists are not, by and large, "immediatists". We acknowledge a transitional period, we just don't seek to seize the state and stand in the role of the bourgeois during it.
"Can we today pass directly, without intermediate steps, from the hell in which the workers now find themselves to the paradise of common property?
Facts demonstrate what the workers are capable of today.
Our task is the moral and material preparation of the people for this essential expropriation; and to attempt it again and again, every time a revolutionary upheaval offers us the chance to, until the final triumph...
A practical education is needed, which must be alternately cause and effect in a gradual transformation of the environment..."
-Errico Maletesta, An Anarchist Program, Section 3 'The Economic Struggle'
You might disagree with this strategy. You might think seizure of the state is necessary to begin transition. That's fine. But the self perpetuating Marxist myth of rampant immediatism in anarchism needs to end. Yall need to grow up and start actually engaging with our position as we have stated it if you're going to keep commenting on it because it's embarrassing to be repeatedly so obviously yet confidently wrong. You cannot understand social anarchism, the most common historical kind of anarchism, through the lense of the post-left nihilistic anarchisms that appear in yuppie academic spaces after the fall of the Soviet Union. You are willingly misleading yourself.
Fair point. However, that doesn’t really refute the broader critique. The Marxist critique of anarchism is not that anarchists think they can immediately jump to communism, but rather that the very notion you can transition to communism without seizing state power is practically impossible because the state will attempt to quash any attempt to build socialism on a large scale and the anarchist project will end up replicating-state structures anyway to maintain order, just more democratically, hence why actually existing anarchism always ends up making compromises with nation states and does mot expand beyond a local level in order to not provoke too many enemy states (examples being Chiapas co-existing with the Mexican state, Rojava having a comprimise with the Asad government, etc). Marxist see class as the primary contradiction, not hierarchy, which is much more deeply rooted and harder to eliminate. So, you are correct to clarify those nuances with specific words, but it does not really refute the broader critique of anarchism, and why most simply don’t think its realistic
@@1DimeRadio I'm not trying to convince you of the anarchist position per se. We could get into a debate about all of this if you want but I'm just trying to get us to the starting place where we aren't straw manning each other. I do agree that the critique you just levied is the actual territory of contention here. I disagree with it Ofc. But it at least finally engages honestly with what anarchism actually is. That's all I'm asking for. If you want to discuss the real space of disagreement id be happy to oblige but it wasn't my primary reason for commenting.
Speaking to the examples you mentioned, the EZLN territories continue to expand at regular intervals and the power structure continues to become more egalitarian over time. This contradicts both of your claims that horizontalist projects must A. Remain parochial to avoid reppresion and B. Must recreate state social relations to protect itself. The Zapatistas are actively doing the opposite of both of those things. It's also coming up on having existed for almost half the time of the USSR which is an argument against claiming horizontalist power is always a flash in the pan. It's wierd that you would use them as evidence of your claim since they aren't even nominally anarchist (although no theoretical/praxis disagreement is present with them) and are shining examples of how wrong you are.
Lenin wasnt a Kautskyite, Kaustsky was once a respected Marxist who betrayed the revolution (renegade Kautsky) to join with the bourgois imperialists,
Kautsky was also leader of the Second International (was thee International until it collapsed into petti-bourgois ideology. The point isnt who was in it at one point but who stayed in it after its betrayal) and advocated for workers to support their own nation during a imperialist war which runs counter to marxism and Lenin fought him and the Second International bitterly.
Lenin built the Third International called the Comintern.
Also, Lenin wasnt a liberal, in case, this actually needed to be said. He was a communist. Trotsky WAS a liberal, who advocated for the liberalization of the workers, the militatization of their organizations and rejection of the revolutionary party (Lenins RSDLP) along anarchist lines "the small cicles dont have to do what the party leadership says".
Liberalism is bourgois individualism that needs to be combated and over come to move on to communism (both in society and within the individual). Saying this transcendence beyond liberalism is still liberalism, is non sense.
Kautsky did not "advocate for workers to support their own nation during a [sic] imperialist war" - the whole point is his "Centrism" as Lenin critiqued him. He treated the split in the Second International as accidental (this is literally Lenin's first critique from right after August 4 in 1914 e.g., "The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International
" and "Dead Chauvinism and Living Socialism").
The question is the relationship o
What is "advocated for the liberalization of the workers" (??????????????????).
If you listen to the conversation, they precisely touch on Lenin's critique of Trotsky wanting to "shake-up" the unions coming out of War Communism (this is what is meant by the militarization of the unions and subordination to the state) -> precisely Lenin says that the workers have RIGHTS against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That is liberal - the defense of their civil rights ("We now have a state under which it is the business of the massively organised proletariat to protect itself, while we, for our part, must use these workers’ organisations to protect the workers from their state, and to get them to protect our state. ")
It wasn't a rejection of the RSDLP (you are confusing periods), of which the Mensheviks (who Trotsky was part of at the time) also were part of the RSDLP! You are oddly projecting the pre-1914 name and mixing up all sorts of things.
Liberalism is not "bourgeois individualism" (this is some 20th-century American progressive claptrap by the way!). Actually, Lenin used to call Anarchism "bourgeois individualism in reverse" (1901).
The idea of class struggle is liberal, as Marx pointed out to Wedeyemeyer in 1852 (and Lenin quotes this State and Revolution and says the only distinction
This "combated and over come [sic] to move on to communism (both in society and within individual)" is some Maoist garbage ("Combat Liberalism") that liquidates back into the very Narodinism that Lenin spent his entire life fighting and destroying until the so-called "Leninists" revived it out of capitulation to world imperialism.
Liberal means the rights of labor. Communism is the return of the revolt of the third estate (the revolution in favor of labor) under the changed conditions of the industrial revolution. Marx is clear about this 1843,
"In particular, communism is a dogmatic abstraction and by communism I do not refer to some imagined, possible communism, but to communism as it actually exists in the teachings of Cabet, Dezamy, and Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a particular manifestation of the humanistic principle and is infected by its opposite, private property. The abolition of private property is therefore by no means identical with communism and communism has seen other socialist theories, such as those of Fourier and Proudhon, rising up in opposition to it, not fortuitously but necessarily, because it is only a particular, one-sided realization of the principle of socialism."
"Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not begin any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its old work."
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm
Lenin’s disagreements with Kautsky pertained primarily to WW1 and co-operation with the state. On the vast majority of things they agreed. In fact, much of Lenin’s political contributions come out of Kautsky first. Many people today can’t seem to fathom the possibility of having a civil polemic disagreement with a comrade so they think that just because Lenin critiqued Kautsky he was somehow the opposite of him. Back then, communists could critique each other with respect and without deeming them enemies. This changed under Stalin, where political disagreement with the dominant party line got framed as espionage or betrayal and was met with execution or labor camps. Psychotics who think this despotic form of dealing with conflict was justified read into history backwards and forget that Marxism was supposed to be an advancement beyond liberalism, not a regressive rejection of it.
see also "Socialism with a Human Face"
liberal garbage
Why does Cutrone call himself the last marxist? Besides egotism of course. Also, his analysis is very strong, but his vision for todays political landscape seems foregone. What's implied in his discourse is only theory should be studied. Be a book wurm. No need to go organize, etc.
I do indeed want people to organize for socialism, both socially and politically - which I don't think is the case with "Left activism" since the 1960s which has been rather radlib pseud-activity in the close orbit of the Democratic Party and not at all what is necessary for socialists to do. But Marxism however defined is not necessary to guide the kind of basic organizing that is needed now, which would be largely liberal-democratic in character, but only to keep in mind the ultimate goal and purpose of such organizing.
he is not even a marxist
"Mass killing with little or no due process:" Did Lenin do this or is this a lie? That's what regular people want to know.
It was a revolution. There was a civil war with popular violence of ethnic-communitarian and class (peasant vs landlord) violence, which the Bolsheviks tried to control and direct, but also incite along certain lines. The collapse of Tsardom unleashed social strife also inflamed by counterrevolutionaries. Lenin and the Bolsheviks would have preferred to minimize violence - the October 1917 revolution was relatively bloodless - but that was not to be.
After the civil war (and Lenin’s incapacitation and death) the 1920s were relatively peaceful. Then the forced collectivization of agriculture in the 1930s Great Depression era caused famines and violent social degeneration again. That’s when most deaths occurred.
I like this answer. basically, if im following you right, violence was going to be unavoidable under the conditions and though we should never fetishize it, we have to understand it is a reality of revolutionary upheaval.@ccutrone
No. The Bolsheviks didn't go around with no due process mass killing mentality. They organized and guided a revolution against brutal tsarist (which did have mass killing policys) and the bourgeoisie (who also committed to a killing policy adopted from the previous tsarism). The whole period marked by Lenin and Stalin was open class struggle.
@@Salomanemy guy the reds did forced mass conscriptions and put down multiple revolts by indiscriminate mass murder or starvation. The whites were not Tsarists, they were social democrats by in large since the abdication of Nicholas in 1917 in the February revolution.
After listening to a lot of Gabriel Rockhill, I hate hearing that Žižek quote in the beginning. He's a liberal democrat, i.e., an expansionist capitalist fascist. Žižek is the jester of the capitalist Royal Court. We need radical forms of government, not more neoliberalism.
Your problem is you have been listening to too much Rockhill and his tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
My political disagreements with Zizek aside (and there are many), Zizek is certainly not a proponent of neoliberalism and anyone who think he is not a socialist havent read much of his work and are forming their opinions based on his clownish moments that circulate online in out of context clips. Funny you mention Rockhill because his idea of a “radical government” is modern China, and Zizek also happens to be a big defender of Modern China’s success. In fact, Zizek’s overly bureaucratic vision of socialism (he literally calls it this in a talk titled “bureaucratic socialism” ) is in many ways much more aligned with Rockhill’s politics than Cutrone would be, as Cutrone is much more anti-statist.
@1DimeRadio I'd add that it is very apparent, to me at least, and please forgive the glibness of this statement, that Rockhill is simply jealous of Zizek's relevance. Rockhill's critique begins there whether Rockhill knows it or not
@@1DimeRadio We can all agree Žižek loves technocracy/bureaucracy. But how is that not fascist? In those power dynamics, the people are NOT represented. Žižek then asserts this is a global world, hence expansionist ideology. When he was asked about the drug war, he said the state has the right to defend itself and make laws about one's personal liberty. The state > individual, in terms of bodily and psychological autonomy, this is a pretty severe tyranny of the individual(a complex war on humans who use drugs)-a necropolitics for those that Žižek doesn't care about (Žižek has never used drugs).
Also, from what I understand, when Žižek was running for office, he was promoting deregulation and privatization(this create's power monopolies), which is indeed neoliberal.
It seems like Žižek doesn't trust people. Surely, we can find some hybrid form of government that creates a better power dynamic between the individuals, the system and emergent interactive dynamics. We must find the correct balance. Whatever that is, every empire has failed because nothing structurally is resilient enough to last. A sustainable empire must have different characteristics than the power spectrums we see. Hitherto, every empire seems to fall into very similar patterns of self-destruction.
The stuff you said about Rockhill, Zizek and China are interesting. Thank you for this channel and your feedback. I'm digesting this Cutrone interview. Appreciate you! I also love the mention of midlife crisis disenchantment with French theory.. Zizek also validly tore some of the French theorists a new "a**hole" for their defense of, what I'll label as sexual taboos, lol.
I'll have to be a little more critical of Rockhill, as the consensus is he's a bit... traumatized(he works with prisoners, he's a good dude... also a lot of prisoners are there because of drugs).. I still love him though, but i'm sure at some point, like all theorists, he'll make me a bit sad.
@@comradetrashpanda8777
I heard rumours that he also had a personal falling falling out with his old teacher Alain Badiou, and that among other personal feuds supposedly triggered the vitriol with what he calls “the theory industry”
I can’t confirm if these rumours are true so take then with a grain of salt, but it seems strange to me as to how Rockhill, a PHD who previously studied under Alain Badiou, could become so incredibly ignorant and myopic in this worldview. Seems almost as if he had a psychotic break and is trying to cope with his cognitive dissonance of spending over 10 years of his life on French continental theory only to grow to hate it.
Overall, Rockhill is just not very intellectually honest or self aware and has managed to transform his personal midlife crisis disenchantment with French theory into a whole political narrative that sells well with certain parts of the left because it gives easy scapegoat answers to complex problems.
Imagine turning Lenin into a liberal. Opportunism at its most direct.
How is it opportunistic?
@@ramboz494 it is opportunism because they are turning Lenin (the founder of Marxism Leninism) into a liberal to explain that they as liberal have a right to use Lenin as a mouthpiece for their shit takes. Never mind the fact he has a book titled “‘left wing’ communism an infantile disorder.”
@@Comrade_Thrasher That doesn't explain how it is opportunistic. You added into something else (Marxism-Leninism is a term from after Lenin is dead) and you don't say how they turn him into a liberal, how he is not a liberal or where you even disagree. You don't even provide a shit take but an empty, shit take.
Then you bring in the 1920 text which is about the growing pains of new recruits to the 3rd International (Pankhurst, Bordiga, German Communists), which is not an answer.
@whoopsie890 How is it opportunistic? You don't back up what you say
@@Comrade_Thrasher Saying something is not "liberal" but instead "Marxism Leninism" says absolutely nothing. It is just making sounds
lots of bad history in this one before it even gets to what's actually in the video title.
How so?
@@1DimeRadiothe whole claim that since France is called after Frankish tribes, the aristocracy whole 1000 years later was mostly descendents of those Frankish conquerors and the French revolution was a revolt of locals against the conquerors is totally ahistorical and insane
It’s what the French Revolutionaries themselves thought! They were correct that feudal claims were illegitimately based on conquest. See Abbé Sieyès.
Check out Cutrone’s take on Israel’s current genocide 😬😬😬
His take is not crazy, and he does not deny there is a genocide occurring, however, I disagree with him on the national question as it pertains to Palestine. You can find an old tweet where I criticized something he said about Palestinian national liberation. I don’t think middle eastern politics is his strong point, so that didn’t get brought up. Wanted to focus on Marxism and the history of communism , which is I think is where his analysis is most useful.
Growing up with a Lebanese family very aware of Israeli colonialism, my position on that conflict is pretty straightforward and likely wont change so its not something I spend a lot of time thinking about because Ive known about it my whole life.
It is a well-reasoned Marxist take. Just because I don't agree with him on the terms of what to call the conflict (ie: war vs genocide) doesn't change the fact he is right about the flawed methodological nationalist assumptions at the core of the pro-Palestine argument and impotence of the left.
@@1DimeRadio his take is problematic at best.
@@1DimeRadio Unlike most of your work/commentary isnt this somewhat " paraochial" . Having a lived experience first hand or otherwise does not necessarily give one more insight or objectivity in a political sense, indeed often it can tend to the opposite, subjectivity or dogma ? The national question is a very important issue, particularly for Marxists and an understanding of the current global order. Can i be so humble and suggest you interview CC , particularly on this and perhaps in relation to the current war ? What's to lose ? Surely there is an audience waiting for this clarification.
Well maybe listen to it as well since it is quite reasonable even if you disagree with it.
Wuuuuut
Wow truly painful to watch. Keep up the good work!
Except for his shameful stance on Palestine & his belief that Israel is there to remain Zionist 4ever, Chris Cutrone is amazing
Sort of...he keeps on alternate between good insight and pure nonsense
I am opposed to Zionism but think Jews already there have the right to stay.
1:18:48 - Lennon and Luxenberg are divided amongst each other. That’s the reason Rosa Luxenberg wrote that book called Marxism or Leninism. She was criticizing all of the Bolsheviks and the entire third international. Lennon may not have been against her, but she was certainly against him.
She came around to the side of the Bolsheviks and Lenin, in the end.
Luxemburg was a close collaborator with Lenin and the Bolsheviks throughout her career, a supporter of the Bolsheviks in the October 1917 Revolution, and a co-founder of the Third/Communist International with Lenin. Her criticisms were of a comrade.
America has never been Democratic. There has always been the rule of the few.
🤮
Lenin could not get the blood off his evil hands!