The Rocktober Revolution feat. China Miéville | Chapo Trap House | Episode 110 FULL
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 мар 2021
- buy our book: www.chapotraphouse.com/book
/ chapo-trap-house
/ chapotraphouse
"We attempt to summon the magic reality-bending force of the show to cause Trump to get impeached and get off by testifying against Jared.
Then we talk to novelist China Miéville about his new book “October,” and how Lenin was the first online guy.
Get China's book here: www.versobooks.com/books/2443-october "
#chapotraphouse #chapo
Hell yeah thanks Chris
Australian here. Our head of state is the queen but in terms of the person who acts in the role it is Governor General. We send the Queen a list with one name on it and tell her to pick any name from the list. The Governor General has ceremonial duties plus the power to dissolve parliament, requiring elections to be held.
How'd that work out in '75?
Big China and Chapo fan (tho late to the party) and I hadn't heard this interview before. Oktober is one of my favorite CM books - so concrete and vivid in dealing with the events and characters, it makes you think about what else could have happened for better or worse.
Felix has no choice but to wither in the presence of China’s poppin veins
19:59 for China
Absolutely brilliant interview, as a fellow left geek and history grad this is totally in my wheelhouse. China is a favourite writer of mine; did Chapo ever have him back to specifically talk about Weird/horror/sci-fi fiction? If not, please, please, please do so... :)
5:45 O, yikes. Sorry, Matt.
All hopped up on dream shit and hoping for the best
good ep
Lavrov (in the role of Sonny): “Stalin had FDR, look what I got.”
There is no emancipation from your biology. We are parting ways with history.
In terms of the great men theory of history, I think it's incontestable that the Cuban Revolution wouldn't have come off without Fidel Castro. There would have been no attempted siezure of the Moncada barracks to herald it and no guerilla war initiated after training hundreds of men in Mexico. The revolutionary student factions might have taken up arms, but the poor performance of the Directorio Revolutionario inspires little confidence they would have been successful, and in any case they only acted after Fidel had acted first.
After revolutions, especially with belief in democratic centralism, power may become centralised in the hands of a small clique and/or one man, at which point the question of great man versus material forces and whole classes loses any mystery: the class may have propelled that group to power, but now that they have it, they are in fact the ones making the decisions and determining what changes take place.
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.
23:47
@6:15 “Well fix it at the ballot box.” Matt: “Really” (enter President Biden with a sign that says “Really”) Fin
Biden being elected is not "things being fixed"
King Solomon 🤔😁
It's cute hearing affluent Brooklynites swoon over the idea of a Russian style revolution. I love the show, but come on guys.
How's the grooming going? Couldn't be more think tank funded and aimed at vulnerable youth.
🐿️💭😷
Keep focused on the last administration. don't worry about what's happening now!
Look at all the crazy comments people leave me!
I have stalkers🏋️
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.