How'd that work out in '75?

yeah, too often people who learn to think structurally will overcorrect, strip away the element of agency from historical actors and end up with a half-baked determinism about the past, fatalism about the present and, as a consequence, a weird mix of complacency and dread about the future. Classical Marxism obviously had no time for "great men"/"great ideas" historiography, but at the same time it's right there in the opening lines of the 18th Brumaire: men make their own history, although not in circumstances of their own choosing. Sometimes societies are organized in such a way that centralize immense power in the hands of a few individuals. Had Nicholas II somehow turned out a shrewder, more capable ruler, no doubt it would have had some implications for the political landscape. But either way, there were immense social tensions within Imperial Russia that no tsar, no matter how energetic, could overcome. You don't have three revolutions in 12 years unless the systemic rot is deep. Everyone should read Plekhanov's "On the Role of the Individual in History," which deals with exactly this question, seven years before 1905 www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individual.html And of course, the original discussion is focused on Lenin, but since I brought up the relationship between structure and agency as it relates to the person of the Tsar, the chapters sketching out the Romanovs and world of the Imperial court in Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution are also very insightful www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch04.htm

@@janosmarothy5409 If not Castro then another charismatic and talented person would likely have risen from those conditions. Historically though; Castro was there, and that's all you can really say.

@@Sectionmanifold The problem with that its just a unfalsibilble totology. Like If not for Augustus and Ceasar there would have just been other people who created permanent one man rule in the Roman empire. Well why? like what evidence actually suggests that? I can't definitely say that's wrong because what happened happened, but there is really no reason to say its correct either, because its not a real argument its just a like a blanket conceptualization of things without context.

@@Cucumber-ej1pm It's a historiographical question. The strength of your interpretation based on available evidence is either persuasive, or it's not. It's not a math proof and history doesn't do "neutral" points of view. Like, in dealing with what was contingent or not, it's worth recalling that Castro because first and foremost a Cuban nationalist and didn't have his Marxist-Leninist road to Damascus until a full two years after the revolution when it became clear there was no getting out of Washington's crosshairs as long as its economic interests were being impinged upon at that scale. Batista was broadly despised, so revolution was if not inevitable, then at least very probable. But its orientation to Washington or Moscow was more in the air and depended on the how radical the aims of the leadership.

@@janosmarothy5409 Yeah I agree with what you said and your example. I get frustrated with the usual leftist line which is usually "if such an such person did not exist the system would have had to create that person" because it ignores context and quickly becomes fanciful. Like take Martin Luther and the Reformation. If he didn't nail up the 95 thesis, you can't merely say someone else would have, because, at the very least, only a minority of people at the time were literate, a smaller percentage were religious scholars, and not all of them would have had the rhetorical skill and captivating writing style Luther did, so your pool of alternatives is actually very limited. Now obviously one cant ignore forces at work, such as the printing press, and the growing weakness of the pope, but there is a range of contingency wide enough given people's individual circumstances, qualities, goals etc. that you cannot simply assert apriori that what they achieved would have been achieved elsewise without them.

Biden being elected is not "things being fixed"

God Chauncey I know you are an idiot but at least listen to the whole podcast. This is an old episode from 2017. Give me a fig leaf where your deficiencies can be speculated upon, rather than just be known. I'm listening for China.

@@SUPERBURLBOYROY Oh shit I am not going to explain how the internet and video works. My god you are stupid. You are like: "What is this? Voices of the past? Tis Necromancy!" I even said that I'm listening for China and you are too dim to understand. Your stupidity is a choice, not a mistake.

@@SUPERBURLBOYROY Please keep being stupid. I enjoy your gibberish. I don't have the time or inclination to tell you how you are wrong.

I'm gonna be sad when you run out of uppers

@@SUPERBURLBOYROY You are a child, with a child's understanding of things. Your so called criticisms have the weight and merit of fart noises. I enjoy watching you squirm, thinking you are achieving something. Its hilarious.