cucumovirus

joined 2 years ago
[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 8 months ago

Based on this comment, I think you'd also enjoy Gramsci's The Revolution against Das Kapital (1917)!

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 8 months ago

Yes, I also quite like NYE, I don't know why he chose to write about it in particular, maybe it was worse in his time. However, his point about about bourgeois holidays and commemorations of historical events that have no meaning to the vast majority of today's people I find to be correct. There are several such "holidays" in my country which the bourgeoisie basically forces, and which the majority of people don't care about. I guess getting the day off is still nice though.

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 8 months ago

I agree, it has that vibe a bit, and I have no particular problem with New Year's, but his general point is definitely correct when it comes to some bourgeois holidays and commemorations of specific historical events that really don't have any meaning to the vast majority today. I can think of several examples that are "celebrated" in my country.

 

An interesting and short article by Gramsci on bourgeois conceptions of history, and important dates.

This text was first published in Avanti!, Turin edition, from his column “Sotto la Mole,” January 1, 1916.

Every morning, when I wake again under the pall of the sky, I feel that for me it is New Year’s day.

That’s why I hate these New Year’s that fall like fixed maturities, which turn life and human spirit into a commercial concern with its neat final balance, its outstanding amounts, its budget for the new management. They make us lose the continuity of life and spirit. You end up seriously thinking that between one year and the next there is a break, that a new history is beginning; you make resolutions, and you regret your irresolution, and so on, and so forth. This is generally what’s wrong with dates.

They say that chronology is the backbone of history. Fine. But we also need to accept that there are four or five fundamental dates that every good person keeps lodged in their brain, which have played bad tricks on history. They too are New Years’. The New Year’s of Roman history, or of the Middle Ages, or of the modern age.

And they have become so invasive and fossilising that we sometimes catch ourselves thinking that life in Italy began in 752, and that 1490 or 1492 are like mountains that humanity vaulted over, suddenly finding itself in a new world, coming into a new life. So the date becomes an obstacle, a parapet that stops us from seeing that history continues to unfold along the same fundamental unchanging line, without abrupt stops, like when at the cinema the film rips and there is an interval of dazzling light.

That’s why I hate New Year’s. I want every morning to be a new year’s for me. Every day I want to reckon with myself, and every day I want to renew myself. No day set aside for rest. I choose my pauses myself, when I feel drunk with the intensity of life and I want to plunge into animality to draw from it new vigour.

No spiritual time-serving. I would like every hour of my life to be new, though connected to the ones that have passed. No day of celebration with its mandatory collective rhythms, to share with all the strangers I don’t care about. Because our grandfathers’ grandfathers, and so on, celebrated, we too should feel the urge to celebrate. That is nauseating.

I await socialism for this reason too. Because it will hurl into the trash all of these dates which have no resonance in our spirit and, if it creates others, they will at least be our own, and not the ones we have to accept without reservations from our silly ancestors.

– Translated by Alberto Toscano

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think prolewiki has a good overview: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Your comment here is way too favorable to the tzar. There was plenty of racism against the non-Russian peoples in the empire. Plenty of pogroms and other horrors committed. The "Great Russians" were very chauvinistic in their attitude towards the other nationalities, and were very privileged in what positions they could occupy, for example. An important part of Bolshevik propaganda was fighting against racism and "Great Russian" chauvinism.

From Walter Rodney's 'The Russian Revolution: A View from the Third World':

There was a group of people known as Russians, who ruled over Finns, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians, Ukrainians, Armenians, Mongolians, and Turks, to name just a few. The Russians monopolized political power and sent their governors and settlers into the countries of these other peoples. As in all colonial states, there was a legal distinction between the citizen (Russian) and the colonial subject. The constitution of Tsarist Russia explicitly based discriminatory measures on the racial or national origin or religion of those affected. It was in some ways like the distinctions made under Portuguese and Belgian colonialism, and under South African and Rhodesian apartheid. In other words, Russian colonial rule hardly differed from that of the Western European powers. The British sent warships; the Russians sent the Cossacks. When its colonial subjects revolted, as Georgian workers and peasants had during the 1905 Revolution, the tsar, as we’ve seen, agreed to a few minor reforms but ultimately crushed the uprising and reverted to the old system of colonialism.

Every colonial relationship in history has involved cultural domination, namely the imposition of language, religion and way of life on the subjugated peoples. In the Russian Empire, there were numerous other religions apart from the Russian Orthodox church. None of these were respected. The Catholics in Polish Russia were persecuted. The Jews were hounded wherever they were found, especially in the Ukraine. The Muslims were treated as enemies of Christian civilization. And those elements of the population who believed in their own family gods and traditional religion were the most despised of all, in the same way that European missionaries came to Africa and denounced African religion as devil worship and black magic. […] When faced with a more technologically advanced culture, such groups were victims of genocidal policies.

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Russian colonialism doesn't change the importance of settler-colonialism in general and specifically in the US. The USSR was built on a basis of national liberation, and not on the "Great Russian" identity which would be analogous to the US identity here.

Another difference is that the US is entirely settler colonial, a whole country founded solely by settlers, while the Russian empire's colonies were all still tied to the metropolitan core in western Russia. The US was created through a revolt of the most reactionary settlers that wanted autonomy from Britain. The path forward for North America is strictly decolonial.

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 34 points 8 months ago (6 children)

the basis is capitalist

And also settler-colonial, which is a very important factor when it comes to culture in this sense.

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 8 months ago

I agree, and when talking about consumerism, I'm always reminded of these two great essays on it:

https://redsails.org/women-and-the-myth-of-consumerism/

https://redsails.org/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/

Also, Marx's own view of consumption is that it's a real social need which capitalism itself restricts only to the bourgeoisie (we could also add the labour aristocracy) while the vast majority cannot engage in consumption like they need to. Of course, the goal here isn't a form of bourgeois luxury, but the ability of everyone to live a fulfilling life.

IMO communism will not prevail through celebrating austerity

Exactly, and there was quite a big debate around this in the early years after the October revolution and the founding of the USSR (as there seems to be every time a revolution manages to survive the initial time of great crisis and then needs to build up the forces of production and increase quality of life). After the horrors of WW1 and the civil war, both caused by capitalism, there was a long period of crisis which meant that no one really had a lot, and the little that people had, they had to all share equally. It was a sort of rationing program that was necessary during the wars. This, however, cannot be continued forever, and both Lenin and Stalin (and others) understood this. It's why the NEP was necessary, but these decisions caused outcry from some Soviet and even Wester European socialists who didn't understand the actual situation, but clung on to an abstract principle.

From Losurdo's 'Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend':

In the climate of horror at the carnage caused by capitalism and the auri sacra fames [accursed hunger for gold], a religious distrust of gold and of wealth as such is reproduced, alongside the idealization of poverty or at least of scarcity, understood and experienced as an expression of spiritual fullness or revolutionary rigor. And Stalin felt compelled to emphasize a central point: “It would be absurd to think that socialism can be built on the basis of poverty and privation, on the basis of reducing personal requirements and lowering the standard of living to the level of the poor”; instead, “socialism can be built only on the basis of a vigorous growth of the productive forces of society” and “on the basis of the prosperity of the working people,” for that matter, “a prosperous and cultured life for all members of society.”

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 8 months ago

Don't know about the 1789 revolution, but Marx wrote 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte' (about the 1848-1852 situation in France), and 'The Civil War in France' (about the commune).

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago

I appreciate you reposting these threads to lemmygrad now as the twitter algorithm usually seems to not want to show them to me.

[–] cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago

This article by Fayez A. Sayegh is an excellent account of the history of zionism and the earlier periods of colonization in Palestine:

https://redsails.org/zionist-colonialism-in-palestine/

 

The whole article is quite funny, especially the lists of most used tankie words, or the branding of foreignpolicy as a left-wing news source.

 

In this article, through the critique of Cohen's work, Sayers describes in a very clear fashion the differences between mechanical materialism and dialectical materialism, and the differences between analytical and dialectical thinking in general. I think it's a great resource for people wanting to learn or better understand dialectics and dialectical materialism.

 
view more: next ›