I was reading a (bad) essay on Mao Zedong by Zizek a while back, and this bit from him by it always stuck with me.
Zizek is literally quoting *Robert Conquest* (lol), but what made an impression was that the idea of the "subkulak" was so easily dismissed: lacan.com/zizmaozedong.h…
Like, what American in 2020 has *not* heard the mocking expression "temporarily impoverished millionaire" in reference to those poor souls who spend their days defending Jeff Bezos, ineptly imagining they are defending their own future hoard of money?
The Soviet Union was collectivizing the farms for a very good given reason, and they faced stiff opposition from the elite of society, who had no concern for the well-being of the country as a whole and looked out only for its own interests.
And the wannabe-elite!
I didn't mix up my Venezuela and Ukraine resources, I'm making a simple point: far from a very region-specific, dated, and difficult-to-understand phenomenon, when you strip away the term "kulak," you find something that you're already very familiar with!
There's few billionaires out there, but there's a big stratum of "upwardly mobile" people all over the world.
People who seem themselves as more deserving than their peers, local übermen.
The US seems to recruit from this core for Regime Change efforts.
Far from this being a unique, quintessentially Peruvian experience, impenetrable to outsiders (not only to Peru, but to its upper crust)... I see it absolutely everywhere.
Venezuelans I met in university, Canadians I met throughout, Chinese and Desi people, etc.
What I'm saying here is *the exact opposite* of what Cultural Anthropologists like Wilfred Chan and Claire Wordley are saying.
They insist "don't compare two countries, don't pretend you can understand Bolivia or Hong Kong."
Like, don't be chauvinistic and pretend you've seen it all before. We need to appreciate historical, geographical, cultural, linguistic differences always.
However, other societies aren't alien and opaque to us. A lot of dynamics are universal, just express differently.
Of course!
I think the goal of the wealthy "expats" is to use sanctions to destroy the quality of life of those who stayed behind, in order to radicalize them and recruit them into regime change operations.
The way I understand Marx and Engels' project, they were following the natural sciences in trying to come up with basic rules undergirding the dynamics and evolution of all human societies.
Academic elites insisting you cannot understand another country are the opposite of M&E.
Anyway, that's it for thoughts! Thanks for reading.
I will append interesting posts as they come along:
toads from the AP and The Economist are furious that China has a large Uyghur population from which to draw positive testimony to counter their latest wave of atrocity propaganda
"how *dare* China present happy Uyghurs to oppose our angry, CIA-funded, regime-change Uyghurs!? 🤬"
It's becoming fashionable for some Online Communists to speak derisively of how other Online Communists do too much theory, not enough organizing.
I think the opposite is the case. People don't even agree on what to think of China!
Assata's writing on the subject is insightful:
First of all, this is Twitter.
You should be doing one of two things: sharing interesting theory, or telling people *precisely* what exciting initiative they should get involved with.
The much more common and vague "organize!" is reminiscent of liberals yelling "learn to code!"
In 1934 he was interviewed by the extremely famous "Shakespeare of science fiction," H. G. Wells. The questions Wells posed Stalin may as well have been posed by anxious, liberal me. redsails.org/stalin-and-wel…
The dismissive understanding of identity as trap parrots the position of its alleged opponents and simply gives it a negative meaning:
one can’t be [X] and be anything more than that at the same time; one can’t be [X] and understand anyone who is not [X] or anything else beyond being [X], because others’ human experiences are so opaque, and yours to them.
fun fact: this is close to a complete list of countries I use to convince people that the US props up puppet states at the same time it chokes the life of socialist ones to promote a bullshit idea that Capitalism > Socialism
you missed Israel and Saudi Arabia (vs Iran) though.
People don't like feeling left out; like their thing is uncool or unpopular or below consideration.
So I think socialism would fare better in popular communication if people focused less on responding to and engaging with liberals, and more on intra-communist dialogue.
Nuance is a weapon, and we should notice when we are told that "socialism" should be a big indistinct blob, whereas we must adhere to an exacting taxonomy whenever we refer to liberals and conservatives and alt-right and fascists and so on.
Speaking as a newbie: whenever I saw communists dialogue in public, even in disagreement, it made communism seem vast and historical and inspired curiosity.
Whereas e.g. refusing to take sides on "China" for the sake of "unity" made it seem opportunistic and cobbled together.