look forward to this every year

Jonas: "...Slevin o'livarrez, spiritfarer..." Me: *watching with my mouth open and my fist clenched in anticipacion* Jonas: "...Tendies123..." Me: *wildly cheering*

I was half expecting Post-Capitalist Desire: The Final Lectures of Mark Fisher to make it on this year's top 10 list. Wouldn't be surprised if you happened to read it anyway.

This was a fun list, thanks. I also just wanted to take a moment to say I'd put your book on my list for the year. I was rather new to your channel, and I'm not sure what I expected being a newcomer to some of your ideas, but I was bowled over by the passion and intensity of your book. It really did come with the Hammer and Sickle, and livened many of my previous understandings of Marx with the electric themes of Nietzsche. It read not like simply another analysis, but a call to action. Really great read I'd recommend to anyone here.

Thanks for the recommendations! Also, I read your book (and subsequently subscribed to your channel) after listening to your interview on the PlasticPills podcast; I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Interesting list, thank you. Tangentially related to the book about the reality of Lenin's role in the party: there's always a lot of material on theory and high-level strategy and tactics of the revolutionary movement, and about the leaders. Sure, it's important and fascinating, but the inner workings of the movement at low level tend to be overlooked. The unfinished autobiography of Ivan Babushkin, a worker and a member of RSDLP provides an overview of what this day-to-day life of a regular party member looked like, which is really interesting to look at. Not sure if it's translated into English though.

The link to your book in the description goes to the listing for "How to Justify Torture: Inside the Ticking Bomb Scenario" by Alex Adams

@Bisquick

2 жыл бұрын

Ahaha *_*Subtle self-deprecating joke intensifies?!_**

@jonasceikaCCK

2 жыл бұрын

Dammit... This isn't the first time this happened... Fixed now, thank you for pointing it out!

@papilongthang7097

Жыл бұрын

@@jonasceikaCCK can you do a video explaining Nick land and Accelerationism

Great list! I'm actually taking a class on Kant and Hegel with J.M. Bernstein this semester, I might have to check out that book and have a chat with him. Happy studies, Melody

THANK YOU. Always need more book lists.

Great video! The only thing I wanted to point out is that Narodniks were not largely reformists, in fact, it was quite the opposite. Nearly all significant thinkers of this tradition, including such people as Mikhail Bakunin and Georgi Plekhanov, advocated revolution, and its followers have participated in revolutionary action extensively. The assassination of the emperor Alexander II was carried out by a group of narodniks called People’s will. And one of the main revolutionary forces during the 1917 was the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries, a neo-narodnik organisation. Whille a more moderate wing of the party supported reforms and coalitions with bourgeois parties after the monarchy was overthrown, many participated in councils and advocated for radical change, playing a significant role in the October Revolution.

@mrhopperbauer4870

2 жыл бұрын

Party of Socialist Revolutionaries had most exciting campaign of political assassinations. The breathtaking depiction of those events can be found in a book called "Memoirs of a Terrorist" written by Boris Savinkov, the actual member of PSR's Combat Organization and coordinator of their main attacks. It is almost a spy-thriller but free of imperialist james-bond-like-bullshit, so recommend it to all lefties

@JebeckyGranjola

2 жыл бұрын

This reminds me of a book called Lenin's Brother, a biography of the titular Alexander Ulyanov. He was a scientist that became radicalized when the government closed the universities, and he attempted to resurrect Norodnya Volya and assassinate Tsar Alexander III. It's an interesting account of a figure later overshadowed by his famous brother, as well as a period where not muchof note is typically viewed as developing toward Russian revolutionary history.

@Doctor_Subtilis

2 жыл бұрын

Have you read the marx zasulich-correspondence(including marx's much longer drafts)? In it marx unequivocally rebukes the Russian interpretation of marx that came to be known under Stalin as "historical materialism". The book it was originally published in Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx on the peripheries of capitalism seems very interesting its in my backlog. Apparently he sided with Norodnya Volya and disowned the Russian strain of 'marxism' that came to power in the October revolution, then characterized by plekhanov, who rejected the peasant commune in favor of the urban intelligentsia, so your placement of him in the Narodnik tradition is extremely dubious I would say wrong but I'm not really qualified to speak on the social history of revolutionary Russia.

@Doctor_Subtilis

2 жыл бұрын

Okay I just did a little refreshment it's been a while since I learned about that ignore the last time I made about Narodniks, or tell me why it's wrong that would be helpful.

@jonasceikaCCK

2 жыл бұрын

Oh, I know they were mostly revolutionary, I didn't mean to imply otherwise! I think one can be a revolutionary who endorses certain reforms as part of one's political program, and this is how the Narodniks were. Robespierre, for instance, was a revolutionary who supported bourgeois democratic reform. Even Rosa (to reference another book on the list) said that for Marxists BOTH reform and revolution is a necessity. On another note, I wouldn't have thought of Plekhanov as a Narodnik? I always understood him to be a critic of the Narodniks, being Russia's main early representative of Marxism. I might be wrong, or perhaps we're using the term Narodnik in slightly different ways?

Happy new Year Jonas! Loved your book. Really interesting list, dont want to be pedantik but wouldnt Schillers 'On the Aesthetic Education of Man' be a part of the 'Weimar Classic' rather than 'German Romanticism'?

Read half of this list last year. Will read the others when I find free versions. My favorite from the list was Bernstein. Excited to look at Moshe Lewis' Lenin's Last Struggle. Cheers!

Very new years of you. Loved you book by the way! It was really cool to actually see it in my local book store

@jonasceikaCCK

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@AudioPervert1

2 жыл бұрын

given that not-so-great Lenin was also responsible for persecution and murder of thousands of people who did not identify with bolshevik plans. And Karl Marx, believed in endless growth, profit and surplus. Still worshiping these bad icons with horrible ideas... which actually never came true.

@JebeckyGranjola

2 жыл бұрын

@Audio Pervert wat? Isn't one of Marx's main contradictions in Capitalism the Tendency of the Falling Rate of Profit?

Always love these videos.

All really good recommendations. I really am a big fan of Matthew Meyer so nice to see some appreciation.

Loved the list. I hear distress in your voice and I hope you're doing well 💗

Thanks a lot! What would you recommend as the first Nietzsche book to read?

Lou Salome's autobiography Looking Back had a huge impact on me. As I start the video, I'm interested to hear what you think of her work.

Nice I wanted to take a small break from more theoretical texts so Karl Marx: A life looks like a fun read.

Have you ever read Walter Benjamin's graduate dissertation, The Concept Of Criticism In German Romanticism? It is an absolutely phenomenal read and it might be interesting if yr still on the German Aesthetics kick

I took a seminar on Jena Romanticism in my Sophmore year and found it fascinating...Sanskrit happened to be offered in my Junior year and learning the language very much broadened my understanding of German Romanticism. I would recommend you do as well if you have the time...Sanskrit is very close to Lithuanian and I think you would have no trouble picking it up, unlike me a a native English speaker who struggled with free word-order.

What a reading year you had!

Seeing videos like this one are some of the high points of the stuff I watch online.

Ever considered doing anything on phenomenology? I don't know the degree of your familiarity with it, but I'm fascinated, for instance, by Merleau Ponty's take on the body.

Your first book to recommend is my favourite too😉

I'm reading spinoza now I finished chapter 1 my impression is wow ,his philosophy is ele- gant,I learned a lot I'm so excited to complet- e the ethics for that , would you make a vide- o about spinoza

Appreciate your sharing of interest in Lithuania and its history. I'm just Lithuanian-American, but I am keenly interested in Lithuanian historical proliferation nonetheless, especially in shedding light on its communist history here, a subject mired in issues of nationalism between Lithuania and Russia, for example, and so on. Thank you

As a norwegian, are you ever going to make a video on Zapffe, since you have the ability to read his entire works?

Dude. We're already at 4 of these lists ? Yikes time flies. ! !

9:57 does anyone happen to know what the painting on the cover is called?

I want to see you do more negative book reviews. Your takedown of Stephen Hicks is legendary.

Yes, I love books. I love reading.

Have you read Michael Heinrichs books on Marx? They don’t seem to have arrived internationally yet, coming from a German Marx expert, but I think they should inform any relevant discussion about Marx moving forward.

Hey, cool to see that you're taking an interest in German Romanticism. It's a very important topic in German high school classes so I've developed a kind of hatred for it, but I know some people who still love the writers you mentioned. However, I want to express my experience with people who got really into German romantic writers. All of them, and I really mean all of them are now fully immersed in conspiracy theories. These people don't know each other, this immersion has happened independently for every single one of them. They all believe in all kinds of esoteric practices (which can be harmless fun, of course, but it is often expressed in cult-like ways), they only believe in "alternative medicine" (homeopathy, anthroposophy) to the extent that some have cancer and debilitating injuries will cause their death due to the unwillingness to seek treatment. I trust that you are intelligent enough to not fall into these behavioral patterns, I just meant to express my experience with people whose favourite writers are Hölderlin, Schiller etc.

What do you think of Industrial Society and its Future by Uncle Ted?

i find interesting that in south america the consensus is that Stalin wasn't at all Lenin's continuation, and Trotsky was more loyal to leninist ideals, i find both ideas ludicrous but at the same time, some claims about what was the real will of Lenin have such a strong personification on the results of a revolution that i tend to reject these extrapolations entirely

Can you do something on assemblage theory?

16:06 Typo about he release date of the book: it says 1808, which was well before Nietzsche's time

Thank you for sharing your enlightenment with us. Your performance is also wonderful just like your progressive perspective. Bravo!

The german aesthetic anthology is so good!

New video let’s gooooo

@tdjhue

2 жыл бұрын

Happy days

You should read books by "Billy" Eduard Albert Meier (BEAM).

Been checking for this video every day since Jan 1st lol

4:39 What do you think about the book by Grover Furr that claims that this "testament of lenin" was a fraud and criticizes Moshe Lewins book.

5:05 yaaaas Luxembourg is queen

If you’re interested in German Aesthetics & the Sturm und Drang and Romantic movements then you need to read Hamann. His Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten and Aesthetica in Nuce are biblical for German Romanticism of this era. He essentially revives German metaphysics from the Kantian onslaught and makes a key significance of art because it avoids the pitfalls of reason; translating & deciphering the word of God, equating truth & beauty, for Hamann its the purest insight into reality.

Two book recommendations: "Rudolf Hilferding: The Tragedy of a German Social Democrat" by William Smaldone (or at least read the book review by Kenneth Calkins in The Journal of Modern History, btw. I'm pretty, albeit not entirely, sure it's 💯% Hilferding's fault that Lenin got a completely incorrect view of Austromarxism, Lenin only got newspapers from Western Europe in stacks every few months due to the times, and Hilferding shaped those. Classical, Neoclassical, Neoconservative, and Neoliberal economists all to this day erroneously believe that Hilferding=Austromarxism, despite nothing being further from the truth, which leads us right over to: ) "Otto Bauer (1881-1938) Thinker and Politician", by Ewa Czerwińska-Schupp. Which is creative commons licensed!!

I find it interesting how much of a contrast these books are with what I read. The most recent I’ve read were either from conservative thinkers like Robert Filmer or liberal thinkers like John Locke. I’ve yet not come around to read socialist thought proper. And I’m not sure when I’ll come around to doing it because I tend to read in chronological order.

Read Michael Heinrich He also wrote a biography on Marx

If you can enable auto subtitle/caption button

Wake up babe! New Jonas Ceika video!

It seems like the link to your book is broken, unless you have a new book on justifying torture.

If the Salome book came out in 1894, then surely it was written before his death (but after he went mad) - he died in 1900.

YO! why is your book not on amazon yo?

You should do a video on spongebob

Friedrich

If one might express some wishes here, your personal hierarchy on the Best recent texts about Marx and marxist thought would be extremely welcomed. Overlnterpreting Nietzsche seems like anachronically applying the Deleuze Tactics. Anyhow, finding the words dialectical and Nietzsche without opposition within the same sentencie Is always suspicious at best. Perspnally I find Salome"s character and thought far more fascinating than Nietzsche"s. And of course both Zarathustra and the Schiller text aré easily available online.

hell yea

Huh i got a Karl Marx A Life and Reform or Revolution (also Marxism or Leninism, Rosa is a queen and loved her critique of Lenin) as christmas presents. Will need to to get them of the shelve and check them out. Also read your book man, it was great. Am I right in thinking it was partly inspired by Rick Roderick's lectures?

Leopold Schwarzchild’s 1947 biography of Marx is by far the best one

What are your thoughts on Vaush?

This just reminded me that Perspective Philosophy said that Nietzsche was a hack that didn't contribute anything to philosophy, and just appeals to edgy teenagers. I'm dissapointed when people I intellectually respect say this, like Renegade Cut, but it's even worse coming from someone well learned in philosophy.

@theideaofevil

2 жыл бұрын

Nietzsche really does get done dirty in a lot of circles, it's sad.

Lol, I guarantee you Schiller is way more famous than Fichte and Schelling. When you ask people in Germany whom they know of the three the most likely answer will be Schiller.

@ObeySilence

2 жыл бұрын

@Rohan Orton Very few people in Germany know Fichte and Schelling, while most know Schiller. Schiller is probably one of the most used street names aswell.

Reform or Revolution is most excellent. I very much appreciate her critique of Lenin's bureaucratization of communism and how it, in some sense, betrays the spirit of the revolution.

@Srijit1946

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/e3dhw9mYide_YMY.html

I read the lenin's testament chapter of Lewin's book, and... he says that Stalin showed it to no one, when in reality it was discussed in the CC and offered his own resignation both at that time and the next year. Also, Stalin was in fact one of the most progressive on the national question? Eg The 36 constitution having the right of SSRs to leave the union was there basically because of him. It's in the Khruschev era that russian chauvinism got more and more entrenched, as I understand it.

@igumsoni

2 жыл бұрын

This isn't supposed to be an all-encompassing judgement of the book, but just the important point that he falls for some common mistakes promoted by anti-communists.

@orbit5311

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. And Stalin tried to "hide" some things about the party from Lenin because Lenin's own doctor told him to not worry about politics. Stalin was simply trying to help the man he looked up to recover.

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think Russian Chauvinism was ever a real systemic flaw in the SU. Not even under Khruschev. Red Nations: The Nationalities Experience in and After the USSR by Jeremy Smith 2013 National Bolshevism: Stalinist Mass Culture and the Formation of Modern Russian National Identity, 1931-1956 by David Brandenberger 2002

@igumsoni

2 жыл бұрын

@@jcrios1917 by the Gorbachev era weren't all regional party leaders Russian? I agree it was always more progressive than the West! I'll check out these books. I read about it in Albert Szymanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union. (:

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

@@igumsoni Yes you are right. I read about it also in Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny's book Socialism Betrayed 2004, Gorbachev fucked everything up.

Oh cool, nice to see a fellow from baltic states. Im from latvia, but unfortunately i dont know anything about latvain socialist movements. We have an brief period of authoritarian goverment tho...

Pronounced "Mo-sheh Le-veen".

Lewin's book has a weak underlying historical theory. If we are to believd Lenin saw Stalin's expulsion/defeat as a must to assure socialism's future, we then must ask ourselves, was Lenin right? We can't just accept the authority argument: if Lenin said, that's it. Stalin was a thinker on his own, he was not lenin's little ball sniffer, so after Lenin's death, in the political struggles of NEP and others during the twenties, Stalin, as a marxist, couldn't just copy and paste the ideas of a man that had been dead for years. On Stalin, I reccomend a reading of Domenico Losurdo and Wendy Z Goldman. Here in Brazil we are doing very good progress on overcoming that post kruschev and post 90s stalin and ussr demonization, I dont know how that process is going in your country

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

Ball sniffing IS bad. Stalin was a student of Lenin but he was not a sycophant, Stalin was a consistent Leninist till the end. Domenico Losurdo is a MUST read.

@pedroacacio9556

2 жыл бұрын

@@jcrios1917 exactly, I do hold Stalin in high regard, but even if I didn't, "lenin didn't like him" isn't an argument that can be accepted from a historiographical perspective

@rappakalja5295

Жыл бұрын

@@pedroacacio9556 Indeed it isn't. That's why we specifically focus on Stalin's own abhorrent atrocities instead of on what Lenin thought of him.

You present Lenin's Last Struggle as if it is saying something new, arguing against a popularly held conception when in fact it pushing what is already the absolute most common (and erroneous) viewpoint about the USSR held throughout the liberal West. I highly recommend putting Ludo Martens' Another View of Stalin on your 2022 reading list.

@rappakalja5295

2 жыл бұрын

Romanticization of Marxist-Leninism and willfull ignorance to the atrocities commited in its name is hardly anything new.

@maofas

2 жыл бұрын

@@rappakalja5295 It has nothing to do with romanticism and everything to do with correct, verifiable history buried under a hundred years of Western propaganda. Incorrect history leads to wrong thinking which leads to wrong action. In short, pipe down kulak.

@rappakalja5295

2 жыл бұрын

@@maofas Ah yes, "Kulak". It's easy to justify (or deny) a genocide when you tag its victims with false lables. Isn't it just oddly convenient how Marxist-Leninism relies on historical revisionism in the same way that Nazism does? If you don't like a fact, it's immediately "bourgois history" or "Khrushovite lies" or "Western propaganda". You having such a great lack of self-awareness is nothing short of ironic. So yes, it has everything to do with romanticization. Refusing to even consider the possibility of there being atrocities commited in the name of your ideology is that by definition. Glorify the good; ignore the bad.

@maofas

2 жыл бұрын

@@rappakalja5295 It is so typical and yet telling that the moment one tells someone to read a scholarly work of history about the Stalin years so they can better think for themselves, people like you, within minutes, come out of the woodwork to defend the status quo opinion everyone "knows" without doing a single iota of serious reading. Sure, a genocide of millions while the population rises, and now the same lies being used against modern China for the same reasons, which makes it all the more important for people to read for themselves and understand how the world works. But go ahead, keep repeating all the same tired propaganda points everyone in the West has already been nursed on since birth. The status quo Western conception of every historical event from Columbus to the French Revolution to Vietnam is filled to the brim with propaganda, but somehow it got the first socialist state right, huh? Pipe down once again, kulak.

@rappakalja5295

2 жыл бұрын

@@maofas Answer me this, why do you claim that the Ingrian population has risen despite the fact that it has dropped by roughly 88% since the 1940's? You're no better than the neo-nazis making the exact same claims you're making. Genocide denial (and genocide justification) is the only way, as it is with the neo-nazis, to make your ideology hold any possible merit.

10:17 it is amazing that people read about Narodniks in the west (I am from Russia). However, we don't call them Narodniks in Russia, we call them democratic revolutionaries. It is incredible that on the cover page of the book there is a portrait of Chernyshevsky. Lenin read him when he was a teenager. Chernyshevsky, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov, etc. were the best materialist philosopher in the Russian Empire 19th century. These people really helped the revolution movement of 1917. 3:23 1968 book about Stalin. I don't think this is genuine work about the history of the USSR. This is the first time I hear these statements regarding Stalin.

@russelljohnson7004

2 жыл бұрын

One could conduct an entire Zizekian inquiry around this comment.

Heyo: neoliberal here: would be interesting if you dud a video about individualism, collectecism, and how exactly class and power is ingrained in everything: a major part which makes me disagree with marxist philosophy is generally the obsession with power which is very conflict theory minded, and makes all progress about winning in such political worlds, while im more ”we solve technicsl problems which improves things”. The marxist theory feels very zero sum and in extension destructive to me because of that.

2:53-4:56 Erik Van Ree (2001) ‘Lenin's last struggle’ revisited: "In my opinion, to read opposition against Stalinism into Lenin's last writings represents a distortion of the historical record, a retrospective projection of later developments. In important respects the Lenin of 1922-23 foreshadowed the later 'Stalinism' even more than its author did in those days." "many of Moshe Lewin's assessments have by now been challenged. It appears from the archival documents collected by Richard Pipes in The Unknown Lenin, that before the winter of 1922-23 Lenin's relations with Stalin remained cordial." "Lenin remained as convinced a centralist as Stalin. An interesting case is the matter of the Transcaucasian federation. Against most Georgian party leaders' wishes, the chairman of the Caucasian Bureau of the party Ordzhonikidze, wanted to create a unified economic organ by merging the main people's commissariats of the three Transcaucasian republics. Lenin and Stalin backed him up." "In early November 1921 Ordzhonikidze decided that the time was ripe for a federation of the three republics. Later that month Stalin forwarded the proposal to Lenin. The latter answered that the federation was 'unconditionally to be realised'," "The new formula would be 'formal unification with the RSFSR' into a 'Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia'. Thus there would be a Great-Russian republic separate from the federal Union as a whole. Lenin insisted on the creation of 'one more new floor, a federation of equal republics'. Concretely, this meant the establishment of an all-Federal Central Executive Committee, VTsIK, above that of the RSFSR." "What is more, it seems that Lenin wanted the existing situation, that of the central government coinciding with the RSFSR government, to continue. That appears from his remark that the passage in the 24 September resolution concerning the binding nature of RSFSR Sovnarkom decisions for other republics need not be changed. In any case, nothing in Lenin's proposal pointed to the creation of two separate Councils of People's Commissars - a Union one and a Russian one. Even more surprisingly, Lenin wanted Stalin's second group of commissariats to be treated like the first, that is, to be completely 'fused' into those of the RSFSR. Here he was more centralist than Stalin. Concerning the third group which the commission resolution considered 'independent', Lenin added that joint conferences should be created with an advisory capacity, presumably consisting of representatives of those commissariats and its RSFSR counterparts. Here too he was the more centralist of the two." "In his final articles written from January to March 1923 Lenin slightly reformulated his proposals for the reorganisation of the party. Current affairs in the party were more and more executed by the Politbureau, Orgbureau and Secretariat instead of by the Central Committee. To give the latter organ new teeth, the so-called Central Control Commission should meet in joint sessions with it. With the new Rabkrin attached to it, and up to a hundred new members from the proletariat and the peasantry, the CCC should acquire more power. With its help the Central Committee obtained an apparatus strong enough to subdue the Politbureau. This was urgently necessary, Lenin explained, to prevent the struggles in the Politbureau from escalating into a fatal 'split'." "The fact that Lenin's last proposals were directed against Stalin, the gensek, has been taken to mean that they expressed a belated understanding on Lenin's part of the threat Stalin presented for party democracy. According to Lewin, who provides no evidence in support of this hypothesis, it was quite possible that Lenin no longer thought factionalism dangerous enough to justify banning it." "However, in my opinion (Van Ree) their significance was, again, precisely the opposite. The first thing to note is that nowhere in Lenin's last writings is there any indication that he wanted the inner-party regime to be put on a more democratic footing. The issue was not even raised. The essential point of his proposals was his fear of a split. He wanted to prevent the party leaders from going for each other's throats and tearing the Politbureau apart." "Far from defending the last rudiment of democracy, Lenin's last proposals represented the climax of the process of dismantling party democracy begun in 1921. That he hoped to use the Central Control Commission to subject the Politbureau supports this interpretation. This organ was specifically intended for enforcing discipline in the party ranks. It was a kind of 'party police', one of the main instruments used by the Politbureau against the various oppositional groups." "It is impossible to say what would have happened in the longer run, had Lenin lived and vanquished Stalin. The essential difference would have been that the control of the central party machinery over the party and the country at large was tightened at a much higher tempo. Lenin would most likely not have allowed the debate in the party leadership of the mid-nineteen twenties." "He would have exerted all his strength to nip it in the bud and set the Central Control Commission to work to shut up his colleagues - in the name of party unity and state security. With the help of the inflated party bureaucracy he would further have launched a broad attack on the state apparatus. This would have had some positive effects compared to what really happened in the mid-1920s -namely nothing. Inefficient and corrupt officials would have been dismissed and punished. But the other side to this is that the repressive machinery of the party would have been put into higher gear much earlier than it was in reality."

@orbit5311

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this. I will check it out

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

@@orbit5311 No doubt homie, gotch'u. M-L's unite.

@orbit5311

2 жыл бұрын

@@jcrios1917 do you have any other works that you recommend reading. ik it might be a out of the blue question but you seem to know a lot of good and interesting books/studies. any i should check out?

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

@@orbit5311 Cultivating the Masses: Modern State Practices and Soviet Socialism, 1914-1939 by David L. Hoffmann 2011 The Stalinist Era by David L. Hoffmann 2018 The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 by Terry Martin 2001 Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution by Robert C. Allen 2003 Rise and Fall of the Soviet Economy: An Economic History of the USSR, 1945-1991 by Philip Hanson 2003 Death and Redemption: The Gulag and the Shaping of Soviet Society by Steven Anthony barnes 2011 China's Political Economy: The Quest For Development Since 1949 by Carl Riskin 1987 Chinese Economic Development by Chris Bramall 2009 Red China's Green Revolution: Technological Innovation, Institutional Change, and Economic Development Under the Commune by Joshua Eisenman 2018 The role of collective mobilization in the divergent performance of the rural economies of China and India' (1950-2005). PhD dissertation by Burak Gürel 2015 China Under Mao: A Revolution Derailed by Andrew G. Walder 2015 A Social History of Maoist China: Conflict and Change, 1949-1976 by Felix Wemheuer 2019 Mao's Third Front: The Militarization of Cold War China by Covell F. Meyskens 2020 Finding Women In The State by Wang Zheng 2016 Women and Gender in Twentieth-Century China by Paul J. Bailey 2012 Women in China's Long Twentieth Century by Gail Hershatter 2007 Women and China's Revolutions by Gail Hershatter 2018 Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence by Kristen Ghodsee 2018 Stasi State or Socialist Paradise? The German Democratic Republic And What Became Of It by Bruni De La Motte and John Green 2015 Famine: A Short History by Cormac Ó Gráda 2009 Famine Politics in Maoist China and the Soviet Union by Felix Wemheuer 2014 The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft 2004 The Rise and Fall of Communism by Archie Brown 2009 The Red Flag: A History of Communism by David Priestland 2009

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

@@orbit5311 Some of these you may be familiar with already and this list is in no way exhaustive.

f̷̩̜͚̤͇͔̿̋̓̐͜͝͝e̷̞͍̲̜̔̃́͝e̷̠̭͎̽̂̾̕d̷̛͈͓͉̮̦͔̼͈̳͔͙͊͌̌̊̔̏̊͂̔̚̚t̸̢̛̤̰̯͕͊̀̈́̈͛́̈̒̓͝͝h̴͖̠̱̝̣̼̩͕̥̭̜͊̍͗̋͛̾͋̌̍̒̓̍͝ę̴̛̯̮̰͖̝͎̼͎͙̼̻̻̺̈́͒̈́͐͂̔͒͘͠â̵̬̰͍̾̉ĺ̸̞͌̐͐̉̑̐̓͒̎̊̈͘͝g̸̛̩̥͌͋̌̊̑̌̈̓͝õ̴̡̯̥͔͓̙̪͓̫͓̞̞̣̜͓̅̀̑̉̒̋̇̄̐̋͝r̸̨̤̤̔̆̍͌̾̈́͆́̚͜į̶̨͓̗͚͚̳͉͕͚̝̪̳͍̲͌̈̊͗͛̎͌̌͒̏̒͋͘͝t̶̨̘͕̂̽̀̉͐̈́̎͌̌̿́̆̿h̴̡̥̺̤̳̘̳̜͈̝̤̱̾̐̽m̷͉͊̾̊̽̅́͋͋̍̂̋́̚̕͘

My mom always said that berserk fans were gay but I didn't believe her until now

This money was made from crypto. Great username.

At 4:05 "What constitutes Lenin’s “Testament.” Most historians include all the letters, articles and dictations, taken together, from December 1922 through March 6, 1923. The historian Valentin Sakharov, on whom Kotkin relies almost entirely in his analysis, accepts the authenticity of most of these items, but denies Lenin’s authorship of the following items: “The Letter to the Congress” [dictations of 24-25 December 1922 and 4 January 1923]; the “notes” [more accurately: article] “On the Question of Nationalities or on ‘Autonomization’”; and the letters to Trotsky [5 March 1923], Stalin [5 March 1923], and to Mdivani, Makharadze and others [6 March 1923] (endnote 20). Sakharov devotes more than 1000 pages to constructing an argument. In an endnote, Stephen Kotkin adds: “Volkogonov correctly noted that ‘it is remarkable that Lenin was capable of dictating these lengthy works in such a short time…’ But Volkgonov failed to connect the dots: Lenin indeed could not have dictated all that work.” He also admonishes Lewin: “Moshe Lewin correctly grasped that the message of the alleged Lenin Testament, essentially, was to fight nationalism in favor of internationalism, to fight bureaucracy, especially the party leadership, and to remove Stalin, but Lewin did not question the legitimacy of the documents…” [note 186, p. 825]." Stephen Kotkin: “Lenin’s alleged ‘Notes’ were dated December 30- 31, 1922… The existing evidence strongly points to a maneuver by Krupskaya, and the staff in Lenin’s secretariat, to forge what they interpreted as Lenin’s will. They knew he was exercised over the Georgian affair; indeed, they egged him on over it. Trotsky might also have been complicit by this point” [493-494]. Richard Pipes, “The Cleverness of Joseph Stalin,” New York Review of Books, November 20, 2014 "It comes as a considerable surprise to have Kotkin reject the Testament as very likely a fabrication. He refers to it as a document “attributed” to Lenin whose authenticity “has never been proven.”"

@heraclitusblacking1293

2 жыл бұрын

"Stephen Kotkin: “Lenin’s alleged ‘Notes’ were dated December 30- 31, 1922… The existing evidence strongly points to a maneuver by Krupskaya, and the staff in Lenin’s secretariat, to forge what they interpreted as Lenin’s will. They knew he was exercised over the Georgian affair; indeed, they egged him on over it. Trotsky might also have been complicit by this point” [493-494]." It's amazing (not really) that this kind of apologetic and assertion can pass for scholarship. "The existing evidence strongly points to a maneuver by Krupskaya," I'm sorry but that's just transparently conspiratorial nonsense. And it admits itself to being such with the arbitrary evocation of Trotsky. The quotes amount to mere assertions. So and so admonishes such and such and claims that this or that doesn't seem authentic according to their ideology, and therefore is probably the result of a conspiracy of their political enemies. No evidence is actually offered; just speculation.

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

@@heraclitusblacking1293 OK, forget the "conspiracy" but Professor Kotkin is on to something. Him and the historian Hiroaki Kuromiya, take the archivist Valentin Sakharov seriously. There is NO orgininal document of "Lenin's supposed dictations", that say "remove Stalin".

@JebeckyGranjola

2 жыл бұрын

@Heraclitus Blacking I don't know anything about the historical facts, but this really comes off to me as a battle between two factions: One trying to justify that Lenin was based and had nothing to do with Stalin, and the other StALiN Did Nothing Wrong and Lenin would've agreed.

@igumsoni

2 жыл бұрын

@@heraclitusblacking1293 you think Stephen Kotkin of all people is making pro-Stalin conspiracy theories? And Robert conquest as well I assume?

Yeahhh gotta disagree with Lewin, the there a reason Stalin was totally fine with everyone reading Lenin's testament and made no attempts to keep it a secret or anything. People all read it and really couldn't tell if it was phony or if it was really Lenin's complete words but by this point he was so degenerated that it was the incoherent words of a man on death's door. When we look at Stalin and Lenin's words and actions its pretty evident they were basically on the same wavelength and only ever really were even slightly at odds very late in Lenin's life. One document of questionable full authenticity doesn't stop the entire decades of actual theory, thoughts, and actions between the two.

Domenico Losurdo >>> Moshe Lewin

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

Domenico Losurdo was the GOAT, RIP.

@juliusaugustino8409

2 жыл бұрын

@@jcrios1917 Oh man, if I remember correctly, you were the guy who gave me bunch of great book recommendations on China years ago. Much appreciated! It was when Ian Goodrum and that Maoist rapper had a debate hosted by BadMouse. If I remember incorrectly then nevermind :D

@jcrios1917

2 жыл бұрын

@@juliusaugustino8409 haha yeah man, i wish that bastard would re-upload the debate!

Someone likes Jewish authors.

@condimentofmassdestruction9114

Ай бұрын

Didn’t know Nietzche was Jewish.

16:07 if you need help to read Nietzsche, then you should not be reading Nietzsche. That is implied in the subtitle of this very book. Nietzsche would never respect one who needs the meaning of his writings to be regurgitated into one's mouth, like a baby bird receiving the regorged worm from it's mother's mouth. Always go to the source material, make of it your own mind. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in the first paragraph of - perhaps his most brilliant essay - "Self-Reliance". "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, - that is genius."... "the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought" .

@kll8550

2 жыл бұрын

this seems ableist

@CeramicShot

2 жыл бұрын

What a child-like, stupid comment. I guess books should never be read in translation because you needed the "help" of a translator? Or you weren't self-reliant enough to print it yourself? Grow up.

@Vicente_Lopes_Senger

2 жыл бұрын

@@CeramicShot For a Nietzsche reader, "child-like" probably won't be an insult. Had you read Nietzsche you would know that. Should books ever be translated? I don't think so. Maybe in the past that made sense, as we were living within the geographical, physical limits of our countries. But particularly now, with the internet and as we move further towards an increasingly more globalized economy and a global culture. It's seems to me irrelevant to learn any language but English, since it is the established global language and it is thanks to it that the owner of this channel, you and me can communicate effortlessly. So in my opinion if you are writing today, you should be writing in English alone. That is coming from a non-native speaker by the way. "Should you print your own books?" That to me seems like a waste of time, but maybe there is some value to it. Nietzsche had a transcribed copy of Self-Reliance by Emerson, one made by himself. To this day this transcript is still in his personal archive. This was one of his most treasured works. There are clear influences of Emerson in Nietzsche's writings. I think maybe there is some value in copying books, those being worthy books. What you fail to understand is that Nietzsche was never meant to be accessible. It was always meant to be read by exceptional individuals, those he called "higher men". And these are 1 in 100k or less. Nietzsche never spoke to the "herd" as he called the common folk. This is well established in the prologue of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and further reinforced throughout the book and also in other works of his. So should Nietzsche in particular be accessible? Certainly *Not* . Nietzsche would not care for people who need help to understand his work, these *are* the herd. And more -- maybe, and this is my speculation here, he wrote the way he did so that only "higher men" could access his work.

@CeramicShot

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Vicente_Lopes_Senger Your comments seem like the stereotypical teen reading Thus Spake for the first time and mainly absorbing just the ego-soothing, self-flattering parts. Statements like "Nietzsche would never respect..." are weird. Why would an ubermensch give a damn one way or another what Nietzsche the person respected? We should salvage what philosophical propositions seem broadly useful while staying alert to contradictions and personal prejudices. The stupid "superior man vs. everyone else" binary is surely one of the most infantile aspects of his writing though. And "Nietzsche was never meant to be accessible"? Again, who cares what was "meant to be" with him? Not assigning ultimate/objective meaning to things is one of his basic positions. We're not bound by authorial intent, and wouldn't a real Nietzschean be indifferent to what's supposedly "meant to be" in the first place?

@Vicente_Lopes_Senger

2 жыл бұрын

@@CeramicShot I certainly do not agree with Nietzsche in everything he writes. And one should certainly "write their own tables" be that whatever they believe. However that is exactly what I'm doing here: I do agree with Nietzsche in my disdain for the herd. And I think it is relevant to understand what Nietzsche would think of a given attitude. And I don't think one of a somewhat elevated spirit should have his first Thus Spoke Zarathustra experience as reading the mushing of his writings as it is served to the herd. In the very prologue of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche wrote: "I am not to be a herdsman, I am not to be a grave-digger. Not any more will I discourse unto the people; for the last time have I spoken unto the dead. With the creators, the reapers, and the rejoicers will I associate: the rainbow will I show them, and all the stairs to the Superman. " In a sense what I'm doing here is preventing fellow creative spirits, higher men, from falling into the trap of reading the regorged version of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. For me this is and should be a sublime experience. And they should make of it, what they will, like Emerson wrote. Furthermore I do not care what herd-like animals think of my opinion. Didn't the herd laugh at Zarathustra? That much have not changed and perhaps never will.

Damn, you really went to bat for bad books.

@Liliquan

2 жыл бұрын

Care to actually say something instead of shitposting?

@tenmanX

2 жыл бұрын

Which ones?

That's nice. When are you becoming transgender btw?