I like where you're going with this essay, but I think you pass over one important step toward new thinking too quickly.
. In the earlier days, the USSR by itself was never sufficient to challenge the System because both it and the RoW (Rest of the World) were too weak and overall solidarity was lacking.
Imo this isn't why the soviets we're defeated. Stalinism took over in the late 20s and completely abandoned real Marxism. Had the soviets been able to foster revolution in Germany and china, which it had every opportunity to do, it would have carried out the international function Marx, Lenin and Trotsky all adhered to.
Stalinism was national utopianism which encircled by capitalist society is doomed. It must like capitalism spread over the world to raise man to his destined higher stage or fail. No two options.
I think also this essay could be sharpened by replacing the System with what we know it to be: Capitalism, in particular late stage capitalism or imperialism. That's where we stand.
Thanks for your critique. However, my point wasn't that the Soviets were "defeated" at either of those to moments in time; rather, the combination was too weak and lacked solidarity because many RoW members were under control of the Empire or their former colonial masters.
Good start. Looking forward to how this progresses.
One suggestion: some of Alexander Dugin's suggestions viz finding a Fourth Way after fascism, communism and liberalism have now run their course.
Second, a linguistic quibble re: "What humanity must know is that path wasn’t followed to promote humanity’s interest, but to promote the interests of a very small segment of humanity residing mostly in Western nations—the Plundering/Colonial Nations to be most specific." I suspect this will be coming along later as you drill down in various specific elements in the mix, but I think your starting off saying 'a very small segment of humanity residing mostly in Western nations' is fine, then to extrapolate that the nations in which they resided are 'Plundering/Colonial Nations' goes a little too far. As you no doubt know, life expectancy among the working classes in these 'plundering nations' was often much lower than in the less developed nations. So I think it's more accurate to think and speak about plundering networks or segments or interests or sub-groups or whatever rather than entire Nations, because in nearly every case the same class that was plundering abroad was also squeezing and exploiting at home.
I think this is an important distinction because it will get beyond typical racial, ethnic or nationalistic type discourse which is always too generalist to be of much use. It will also help focus us into considering various mentalities or system structures, specifically what elements make for good and what for bad outcomes.
Thanks for your critique. Without dealing with the specific you mentioned I did suggest and linked to Killing the Host which deals with the class nature of that exploitation. Bastiat's citations also do to an extent, and Luxemburg's work is heavy on class distinction. I hope to do at least one of these weekly. Next weekend will likely be very light since I'll be recovering from my AAA surgery.
(This comment doesn't directly address RR's, but it seems I can post only by replying to a comment.)
Russia's Future Technologies Forum that took place a few days ago focused on the benefits of new technology.
I'm curious as to whether Putin (or any of his senior officials) has publicly discussed strategies to avoid the disadvantages of technology, such as large increases in unemployment or the use of big data to suppress dissent. Have you (Karl) seen anything about this?
That's odd, you ought to be able to comment. Putin and team are very big on education and providing absolutely every Russian the opportunity to show what they can do. And they know that every job, every contribution made is important. Russia is genuinely pursuing a political-economy predicated on People Centered Development in what I'll describe as a comradely form of competition where the aim isn't just to become the best but to elevate others with you--an attitude that's taught in Russia's schools beginning with kindergartens. That also fuels the amazing levels of volunteering seen in Russia. In many ways, the differences between Russia and the West are vast, which IMO is good for Russia.
karl, i think davids question is a very good one, and based on my own observations - i have seen technology replace people over my lifetime.. if we are going to maintain this idea of jobs and people having to work at jobs to stay in the game of capitalism - ever increasing housing prices and etc etc. - we are going to have to find a way to answer the major challenge that technology also brings with it - how do people keep up with the cost of living? of course no one is answering this here in the west, so the question is - what is putin, or china or other places thinking on this, as i am sure it is a major concern for them too?? maybe they avoid the speculative bubble in real estate.. we in the west, and especially here on the westcoast of canada - have not..
Technology replacing people example: Steno Pools. There's an excellent Hepburn and Tracy film on the subject, "Desk Set," from 1957, which is a classic that IMO is still fresh today.
Karl, that's very interesting about Russia's People Centered Development approach. Thanks for sharing.
I actually can type in the comment box of a thread having zero comments, there's just no "Post" button. 8^) Being that I use an old machine running an old operating system and old browser version over a dialup connection, I often have to indulge in workarounds to try to make a website usable.
Russian and Chinese political-economy will be written about quite often and I hope to provide examples from governmental discussions so readers can learn how policy translates into action and how suggestions get incorporated into policy, a process known as direct democracy.
That is a pleasant and surprising read. The essayistic form seems to suit you well, Karl. I saw countless comments on MoA and some pieces on vk, but this strikes me as a wholly different level of presentation - the interweaving of many referenced topics appears almost effortlessly fluent, the tempo is great, and the way you approach the reader in doing this hits a sweet spot of both lightness and sincerity. All things that usually are a bit out of place in a brief, on-topic remark posted in the short-lived forums at the bar. Certainly a succinct brevity of style carries over from there, but this is really on a diffferent level here. It feels like visiting a high-ranking specialist in his bureau, completely immersed doing his thing with routine and elegance, focused on the papers and being polite, even warm, to the visitor at the same time. Chapeau!
Thanks very much for your critique. Composing preambles for transcripts is easy, while four paragraph comments are somewhat harder. Longer essays that remain engaging from start to finish are difficult, and I haven't had a lot of practice at that for years. But style is only part of the chore, getting the content properly presented is just as important. Pepe Escobar told me he liked my style and thought I should have begun this sort of writing several years ago. I told him I needed more practice. He helped build my following at VK. I hope he'll take some time to give me some feedback again. This specific project holds some challenges. This one was easy. Thanks again!
Keep on keepin' on! That's why I was pushing you at MoA fairly regularly to start a substack. This is a good medium for your type of voice and content, IMO, which persiflo above describes better than I ever could.
As a substack reader myself one word of caution (just one man's opinion): if I find a substack is sending several a day or a new one every day I tend to stop the subscription because there is too much incoming - and I subscribe to only about ten authors. I believe there are some options on the platform like: not sending out every piece to subscribers though it will display on the site when they visit, maybe also they have weekly mailings or whatever. Because if you are going to do Breaking News type posts AND in-depth intellectual analysis, the former might put off those interested mainly in the latter. But you're a big boy and can figure these things out yourself of course! Good luck with the surgery...
That's what I understood you to mean, however I think that relationship with the ROW was the natural outcome of Stalin and his way of thinking. It wasn't just one bad guy, but a national utopianism that characterized the dominant caste in the USSR. A million genuine Bolsheviks had to die for this layer to consolidate power.
Worth a deeper consideration in this righteous effort to chart the history of new thinking and where it may emerge today.
The Soviet experience was handicapped in many ways, which is a very long essay in itself. It certainly has affected current Russian and Chinese thought and actions. The USSR's early involvement after WW2 with the decolonization movement and the reaction to it was beneficial to both the movement, USSR, and for current Russian relations with RoW, although it doesn't have quite the level of cred China has, which is okay.
"“We have to change the way of thinking, which is what we’re trying to do today, before we can actually mobilize enough support to change the law.”
Good luck with that. It may well work with the developing nations and nations like China and Russia, but the West is going to fight that to the last Westerner, especially in the US. As I've mentioned in MoA, a lot of people are going to need to be shot in the head before they go down. And that's going to require a lot of people to be willing to shoot people in the head. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh I don't disagree as the West is acting a la Rome. And after Rome collapsed it took it took several centuries for the new thinking to surface only to be suppressed again by the Roman church. Recall which civilization that kept the knowledge and began the new thinking--The Arabs. And they needed to be destroyed because of that. After the clear formation of the two Blocs, I wrote that would likely persist until the end of the century, although most of the Dollar Bloc would have defected by then. There's plenty remaining for the parasites to plunder within the Empire until the required level of solidarity is attained so a revolution can be mounted and won. But that's a different essay.
The German revolution had clearly failed by 1924. The Chinese Revolution was defeated in Canton in 1927.
The truth is that one form or another of "Socialism in One Country" became inevitable by the mid twenties, when it became clear that the soft underbelly of Imperialism was the empire itself. That process of dismantling the socio-economic structures of imperialism us pretty well what Karl is writing about.
Thanks for responding. I have been reading your comments for years and I believe you really have an interest in understanding all the issues facing humanity. I was very involved in the conservation/ecology movement in the 60’s and 70’s and amazed when it just simply dissolved. Everyone I talked to about it at the time said all the same things you just said in your reply, technology, recycling, sustainability, yada yada. Nothing got better, it all got much worse.
China accomplished what they did by building thousands of coal fired power and they are still building them. They poured more cement in the last 15 years than the whole world poured in history and they are increasing that every year. They consumed more resources than any other country and are increasing that a a steady pace. The model for the BRI, BRICKS+, etc. is not to copy America but it does rely 100% on ramping the energy consumption and resource consumption for billions of people. Billions more cars, electric or otherwise require massive mining, asphalt roads and increasing energy production. Billions more AC units, Billions of new consumers…not only is it an environmental nightmare but it absolutely guarantees global conflict in a race to get the last drop of natural resources.
Recycling is no solution what so ever, it never has been and it never will be. It doesn’t solve anything. It requires almost the same amount of energy as original production and there is a steady decline and loss in the process. Recycling is not bad but it is not a solution, it doesn’t close the loop and make everything ok…not even close. And because everyone is encouraged to believe in the magic of recycling it ends up encouraging more consumption not less.
Incremental improvements in efficiency have never even keep up with increased demand in fact there is much data showing that it increases demand.
I believe that we can have a fair and equitable world without first having everyone going off to a job and buying all the trappings of a decent life destroying the planet in the process.
The problem which no one is talking about is the fact that we still live on a finite planet but for some reason that I can not fathom everyone has collectively dismissed this hard cold fact.
Sure we still have lots of natural resources left but we have used up all the easy to get, cheap stuff and what is left is hard to get, expensive to produce, and way more destructive to the biosphere.
The biosphere is thoroughly saturated with thousands of sources of pollution and it is killing all life, slowly at first but faster all the time. AGW is just one symptom of this pollution but not the only one that can take us out.
So now some 5 billion people are going to rapidly develop all the infrastructure for consuming all of the trappings of a good life, China will open the equivalent of several hundred thousand walmarts all across the global south and as it gets even warmer everyone will crank up a billion or more AC units or just drive around in their cars with the AC on.
Don't just say "yeah but China is promising to do it all sustainably". That is a pipe dream, it is not even remotely possible. We can do better.
Overshoot is an issue but so is providing 6 billion people with a decent level of existence so they can transition to steady-state economies at the beginning of the 22nd Century. Fortunately, emulating the West isn't desired by the vast majority of those 6 billion, and thanks to current technology their nations don't need to follow the same path to industrialization--China certainly hasn't although it began taking that direction but changed. As this series of essays goes forward, the issue of development will be addressed. Much of the consumption done by the "Golden Billion" was quite mindless along with the invention of very ecologically damaging business practices like planned obsolescence. A counter example can be found in Russia where everything made there must be designed to be recycled, whereas where I live within the Outlaw US Empire we're not allowed to recycle glass amongst many other materials. The point of discussion ought to be: Which nation will provide the best example of environmental stewardship?
...and good luck with the surgery, old boy. You're a resource in these times. We need you fit and ready for action!
My wife's with you on that too!
I like where you're going with this essay, but I think you pass over one important step toward new thinking too quickly.
. In the earlier days, the USSR by itself was never sufficient to challenge the System because both it and the RoW (Rest of the World) were too weak and overall solidarity was lacking.
Imo this isn't why the soviets we're defeated. Stalinism took over in the late 20s and completely abandoned real Marxism. Had the soviets been able to foster revolution in Germany and china, which it had every opportunity to do, it would have carried out the international function Marx, Lenin and Trotsky all adhered to.
Stalinism was national utopianism which encircled by capitalist society is doomed. It must like capitalism spread over the world to raise man to his destined higher stage or fail. No two options.
I think also this essay could be sharpened by replacing the System with what we know it to be: Capitalism, in particular late stage capitalism or imperialism. That's where we stand.
Thanks for your critique. However, my point wasn't that the Soviets were "defeated" at either of those to moments in time; rather, the combination was too weak and lacked solidarity because many RoW members were under control of the Empire or their former colonial masters.
Good start. Looking forward to how this progresses.
One suggestion: some of Alexander Dugin's suggestions viz finding a Fourth Way after fascism, communism and liberalism have now run their course.
Second, a linguistic quibble re: "What humanity must know is that path wasn’t followed to promote humanity’s interest, but to promote the interests of a very small segment of humanity residing mostly in Western nations—the Plundering/Colonial Nations to be most specific." I suspect this will be coming along later as you drill down in various specific elements in the mix, but I think your starting off saying 'a very small segment of humanity residing mostly in Western nations' is fine, then to extrapolate that the nations in which they resided are 'Plundering/Colonial Nations' goes a little too far. As you no doubt know, life expectancy among the working classes in these 'plundering nations' was often much lower than in the less developed nations. So I think it's more accurate to think and speak about plundering networks or segments or interests or sub-groups or whatever rather than entire Nations, because in nearly every case the same class that was plundering abroad was also squeezing and exploiting at home.
I think this is an important distinction because it will get beyond typical racial, ethnic or nationalistic type discourse which is always too generalist to be of much use. It will also help focus us into considering various mentalities or system structures, specifically what elements make for good and what for bad outcomes.
Anyway... good start. Thank you.
Thanks for your critique. Without dealing with the specific you mentioned I did suggest and linked to Killing the Host which deals with the class nature of that exploitation. Bastiat's citations also do to an extent, and Luxemburg's work is heavy on class distinction. I hope to do at least one of these weekly. Next weekend will likely be very light since I'll be recovering from my AAA surgery.
Wishing you a full and speedy recovery.
ditto your comment... speedy and healthy recovering karl..
(This comment doesn't directly address RR's, but it seems I can post only by replying to a comment.)
Russia's Future Technologies Forum that took place a few days ago focused on the benefits of new technology.
I'm curious as to whether Putin (or any of his senior officials) has publicly discussed strategies to avoid the disadvantages of technology, such as large increases in unemployment or the use of big data to suppress dissent. Have you (Karl) seen anything about this?
That's odd, you ought to be able to comment. Putin and team are very big on education and providing absolutely every Russian the opportunity to show what they can do. And they know that every job, every contribution made is important. Russia is genuinely pursuing a political-economy predicated on People Centered Development in what I'll describe as a comradely form of competition where the aim isn't just to become the best but to elevate others with you--an attitude that's taught in Russia's schools beginning with kindergartens. That also fuels the amazing levels of volunteering seen in Russia. In many ways, the differences between Russia and the West are vast, which IMO is good for Russia.
karl, i think davids question is a very good one, and based on my own observations - i have seen technology replace people over my lifetime.. if we are going to maintain this idea of jobs and people having to work at jobs to stay in the game of capitalism - ever increasing housing prices and etc etc. - we are going to have to find a way to answer the major challenge that technology also brings with it - how do people keep up with the cost of living? of course no one is answering this here in the west, so the question is - what is putin, or china or other places thinking on this, as i am sure it is a major concern for them too?? maybe they avoid the speculative bubble in real estate.. we in the west, and especially here on the westcoast of canada - have not..
Technology replacing people example: Steno Pools. There's an excellent Hepburn and Tracy film on the subject, "Desk Set," from 1957, which is a classic that IMO is still fresh today.
Karl, that's very interesting about Russia's People Centered Development approach. Thanks for sharing.
I actually can type in the comment box of a thread having zero comments, there's just no "Post" button. 8^) Being that I use an old machine running an old operating system and old browser version over a dialup connection, I often have to indulge in workarounds to try to make a website usable.
Russian and Chinese political-economy will be written about quite often and I hope to provide examples from governmental discussions so readers can learn how policy translates into action and how suggestions get incorporated into policy, a process known as direct democracy.
That is a pleasant and surprising read. The essayistic form seems to suit you well, Karl. I saw countless comments on MoA and some pieces on vk, but this strikes me as a wholly different level of presentation - the interweaving of many referenced topics appears almost effortlessly fluent, the tempo is great, and the way you approach the reader in doing this hits a sweet spot of both lightness and sincerity. All things that usually are a bit out of place in a brief, on-topic remark posted in the short-lived forums at the bar. Certainly a succinct brevity of style carries over from there, but this is really on a diffferent level here. It feels like visiting a high-ranking specialist in his bureau, completely immersed doing his thing with routine and elegance, focused on the papers and being polite, even warm, to the visitor at the same time. Chapeau!
Thanks very much for your critique. Composing preambles for transcripts is easy, while four paragraph comments are somewhat harder. Longer essays that remain engaging from start to finish are difficult, and I haven't had a lot of practice at that for years. But style is only part of the chore, getting the content properly presented is just as important. Pepe Escobar told me he liked my style and thought I should have begun this sort of writing several years ago. I told him I needed more practice. He helped build my following at VK. I hope he'll take some time to give me some feedback again. This specific project holds some challenges. This one was easy. Thanks again!
Keep on keepin' on! That's why I was pushing you at MoA fairly regularly to start a substack. This is a good medium for your type of voice and content, IMO, which persiflo above describes better than I ever could.
As a substack reader myself one word of caution (just one man's opinion): if I find a substack is sending several a day or a new one every day I tend to stop the subscription because there is too much incoming - and I subscribe to only about ten authors. I believe there are some options on the platform like: not sending out every piece to subscribers though it will display on the site when they visit, maybe also they have weekly mailings or whatever. Because if you are going to do Breaking News type posts AND in-depth intellectual analysis, the former might put off those interested mainly in the latter. But you're a big boy and can figure these things out yourself of course! Good luck with the surgery...
That's what I understood you to mean, however I think that relationship with the ROW was the natural outcome of Stalin and his way of thinking. It wasn't just one bad guy, but a national utopianism that characterized the dominant caste in the USSR. A million genuine Bolsheviks had to die for this layer to consolidate power.
Worth a deeper consideration in this righteous effort to chart the history of new thinking and where it may emerge today.
The Soviet experience was handicapped in many ways, which is a very long essay in itself. It certainly has affected current Russian and Chinese thought and actions. The USSR's early involvement after WW2 with the decolonization movement and the reaction to it was beneficial to both the movement, USSR, and for current Russian relations with RoW, although it doesn't have quite the level of cred China has, which is okay.
"“We have to change the way of thinking, which is what we’re trying to do today, before we can actually mobilize enough support to change the law.”
Good luck with that. It may well work with the developing nations and nations like China and Russia, but the West is going to fight that to the last Westerner, especially in the US. As I've mentioned in MoA, a lot of people are going to need to be shot in the head before they go down. And that's going to require a lot of people to be willing to shoot people in the head. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh I don't disagree as the West is acting a la Rome. And after Rome collapsed it took it took several centuries for the new thinking to surface only to be suppressed again by the Roman church. Recall which civilization that kept the knowledge and began the new thinking--The Arabs. And they needed to be destroyed because of that. After the clear formation of the two Blocs, I wrote that would likely persist until the end of the century, although most of the Dollar Bloc would have defected by then. There's plenty remaining for the parasites to plunder within the Empire until the required level of solidarity is attained so a revolution can be mounted and won. But that's a different essay.
The German revolution had clearly failed by 1924. The Chinese Revolution was defeated in Canton in 1927.
The truth is that one form or another of "Socialism in One Country" became inevitable by the mid twenties, when it became clear that the soft underbelly of Imperialism was the empire itself. That process of dismantling the socio-economic structures of imperialism us pretty well what Karl is writing about.
Thanks for responding. I have been reading your comments for years and I believe you really have an interest in understanding all the issues facing humanity. I was very involved in the conservation/ecology movement in the 60’s and 70’s and amazed when it just simply dissolved. Everyone I talked to about it at the time said all the same things you just said in your reply, technology, recycling, sustainability, yada yada. Nothing got better, it all got much worse.
China accomplished what they did by building thousands of coal fired power and they are still building them. They poured more cement in the last 15 years than the whole world poured in history and they are increasing that every year. They consumed more resources than any other country and are increasing that a a steady pace. The model for the BRI, BRICKS+, etc. is not to copy America but it does rely 100% on ramping the energy consumption and resource consumption for billions of people. Billions more cars, electric or otherwise require massive mining, asphalt roads and increasing energy production. Billions more AC units, Billions of new consumers…not only is it an environmental nightmare but it absolutely guarantees global conflict in a race to get the last drop of natural resources.
Recycling is no solution what so ever, it never has been and it never will be. It doesn’t solve anything. It requires almost the same amount of energy as original production and there is a steady decline and loss in the process. Recycling is not bad but it is not a solution, it doesn’t close the loop and make everything ok…not even close. And because everyone is encouraged to believe in the magic of recycling it ends up encouraging more consumption not less.
Incremental improvements in efficiency have never even keep up with increased demand in fact there is much data showing that it increases demand.
I believe that we can have a fair and equitable world without first having everyone going off to a job and buying all the trappings of a decent life destroying the planet in the process.
The problem which no one is talking about is the fact that we still live on a finite planet but for some reason that I can not fathom everyone has collectively dismissed this hard cold fact.
Sure we still have lots of natural resources left but we have used up all the easy to get, cheap stuff and what is left is hard to get, expensive to produce, and way more destructive to the biosphere.
The biosphere is thoroughly saturated with thousands of sources of pollution and it is killing all life, slowly at first but faster all the time. AGW is just one symptom of this pollution but not the only one that can take us out.
So now some 5 billion people are going to rapidly develop all the infrastructure for consuming all of the trappings of a good life, China will open the equivalent of several hundred thousand walmarts all across the global south and as it gets even warmer everyone will crank up a billion or more AC units or just drive around in their cars with the AC on.
Don't just say "yeah but China is promising to do it all sustainably". That is a pipe dream, it is not even remotely possible. We can do better.
Overshoot is an issue but so is providing 6 billion people with a decent level of existence so they can transition to steady-state economies at the beginning of the 22nd Century. Fortunately, emulating the West isn't desired by the vast majority of those 6 billion, and thanks to current technology their nations don't need to follow the same path to industrialization--China certainly hasn't although it began taking that direction but changed. As this series of essays goes forward, the issue of development will be addressed. Much of the consumption done by the "Golden Billion" was quite mindless along with the invention of very ecologically damaging business practices like planned obsolescence. A counter example can be found in Russia where everything made there must be designed to be recycled, whereas where I live within the Outlaw US Empire we're not allowed to recycle glass amongst many other materials. The point of discussion ought to be: Which nation will provide the best example of environmental stewardship?