WIsh my intro to marxism class had been taught by Chris... Really appreciate the no BS straightforward exposition.

cutrone is just an theoretical athlet. awesome. thank u very much

Talk 00:00; Q&A 25:25

This is great except that DSA is heavily divided as well. The compromise/ with Socialist Alternative shows Trotskyist sympathy from part of the DSA, wish that was talked about at least because I find it interesting

Chris Cutrone da Marxist 🐐

Would the writings of Gunther Anders (and maybe even Marcuse) on technology be somehow tainted by this Heideggerian view of technology? Anders in particular is certainly skeptical of the possibility of conscious political control over the bomb, which he views as a force in it self, as an object whose telos is to be used

Fucking great!

We need Cutrone to go on The Adam Friesland Show -- tap into the army of internet edgelords resentful against liberalism

Important: the state cannot "wither away" on its own, which Marx and Lenin both understood. It can only be accomplished from below, democratically, starting with the initial revolution where the people disband the standing army and replace it with the armed masses of the people, and replace the police with a proletarian-controlled police force made up of proletarians. 33:25 It's an orthodox Trotskyist position? I made that distinction before I'd ever read any Trotsky, and I didn't start out with any exposure to Trotsky, only Marx/Engels and Lenin. It can be a Trotskyist position AND an objective position, too; two things can be true at the same time. Stalin doctored the writings of Lenin, and even historic pictures, so that his own ideas would be "supported." So Trotskyist position or no, it's still correct. 44:00 ish One of the identifying features of Lenin's ideas was bottom-up democracy, with the party primarily acting as organizers and advisors to the Soviets. When he says that "at the end of the day, it's up to the people, so the Stalinist party just gave up when the people said they didn't want it," that's pure BS. It was a combination of the people not really having the promised democracy of Lenin, and the systematic sabotaged from above in collaboration with foreign capitalists over many years. When the Stalinist party "gave up," what it really did was ensure that the ruling elite in the party gave its own people a leg-up in buying up all of the industry from the state at criminally low prices. What it really did was give organized crime a major role in the economy. Not because the people said "we want this," but because of ongoing propaganda from outside, and top-down, often corrupt, and often oppressive governance from inside. 47:00 This is a really weird argument to make. "They had democracy, but they just didn't have much, and they didn't have rights against the State." That's...basically saying they don't actually have democracy, hence "undemocratic." If the people are oppressed but have the right to vote for who some of their oppressors will be, then that's like saying a person in prison exists in a democracy because they get to choose which of their jailors will be beating them today. It's a very "weird" argument to make, and is better called "faux democracy." It's basically just an oppressive republic, and what's interesting is that people call THAT "communism" or "socialism," when it bears no resemblance to any conception of either of those things that Marx, Engels or Lenin ever made. Not even Mao. The ideas put forward by Marx/Engels and Lenin were what defined their ideas, not how those ideas were carried out, or how the various world powers worked to undermine them. 52:00 What is this nonsense? I realize that I don't know everything, but "these other parties disagreed with Lenin, so they blew up a building and tried to assassinate some Bolsheviks, and that's what led to the Red Terror"? No, the White Terror led to the Red Terror. The Red Terror started THREE MONTHS after the White Terror, and was directed largely at legitimate counter-revolutionaries. I suggest reading John Rees's "In Defense of October" for more on this, including quotes from first-hand accounts, communications and orders. And put into context, ALL OF THIS, from 1917 to the end of the civil war, was done under literal blockade by the European countries, amidst an invasion by several countries, during yet another famine. All of those things were massive contributors to the "but not after 1918" that he mentioned for why things changed. After the civil war, all of those things remained except the invasion. There's just so much left out, and so much that's questionable/twisted, that I have a hard time taking him seriously. There's good information in here, and good analyses, but also bad.

Is chris an accelerationist? Just curious as ive seen a lot of marxists who are now

Lenin was great

Too much facts too little substance.