37:30 - I love Cutrone dropping Lacan's "father or worse" (le père ou pire), it's so relevant, the American Left (and Right) is definitely going through some neurotic/perverse/psychotic mad hatter reshuffling today
In my case - as an aging boomer - it was reading Debord that led me out of a 60s-style hyper liberal anarchism into an appreciation of Marx. From there and through a lifetime of watching the final dissolution of the post-1917 Left I've been led inexorably back to Lenin. Weird innit. Thanks Chris...
@@sublationmedia thanks! If you could do the most recent one with Spencer L and the one about the LA riots that would be much appreciated. I look forward to listening!
1:02:18 "We communists are all dead men on leave."/"Wir Kommunisten sind alle Tote auf Urlaub." - Eugen Leviné (head of the Second Bavarian/Munich Soviet/Council Republic)
26:39 *What communist countries criminalized abortion?!?!* China, the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, East Germany, North Korea. Communists legalize it. Where have they ever made it illegal when it was previously legal?
What Stalinism represented was a belief in a type of secular messianism, in which state actors were assumed to possess perfect information ("all-knowingness"), thus centrally planned economy would be from this standpoint far more efficient than the market economy. What happens is with the fall of the Soviet regime, there is major disillusionment not simply with this particular implementation of "messianism on earth", but messianism in general. It was the ultimate God-that-failed moment. The task of communist reconstruction today is to assume that that no human actor can possess *idolatrous* perfect information (have to assume a fairly high level of individual ignorance about how society actually functions), this is where a return to Leninism is simply not useful. It is still rooted on the assumption that human actors can achieve "God's" vantage point (i.e. "idolatry) through a particular political organizational form.
Cutrone seems like a smart guy but has an annoying rhetorical style where he asks vague questions he always answers for himself lol. It’s just grating because tonally he always sounds like he’s in disagreement and rhetorically doesn’t treat the recording as an equal exchange. Just bugged me
Agreed. I've listened to a good bit of Cutrone... right back to his early platypus days. And he's always had that slightly dejected, and yet simultaneously overconfident/self-convinced, tone. It's like a jaded schoolteacher sighing aloud about the many years he's had to repeat straight-forward multiplication tables to the brainless dolts at the back of the room... all the while knowing they'll never "get it". Tis a shame.
@@Hic_Rhodus I have no patience for this kind of criticism, it's like an online dating fantasy - "he should be very tall, a surgeon, a pro athlete, who works construction, knows how to kickbox, paints portraits, has a mansion, is sensitive and has lots of free time to spend with me". You can't ask for personable, amicable, kind and generous unless the guest is otherwise fairly dull or useless. At least this guy is intelligent, has convictions, is engaging, has nuance, and a fairly unique accounting of the american and European left. It's asking too much that he also be sociable, like-able or humble or whatever.
@@emilianosintarias7337 It has little or nothing to do with wondering if Cutrone would write a good tinder profile. I couldn't care less whether he's personally an absolute twat or good husband-material. I do, however, care very much about rhetoric and its role in radical left theory. Not as a secondary issue... or an irrelevant aside. But as the crucial substantive ingredient in the building of a mass transnational revolutionary movement. Some may be convinced by Cutrone's rhetorical performance and approach. Others like myself or Adrian above, might find his rhetorical strategies problematic and ultimately counter-productive. They may work against bringing about the ends he yearns for... and seem highly unlikely to prompt the mass actions he is pleading for. (None of that means I personally dislike the guy... or think he's not an interesting, well-read, guy. Hence my "Tis a shame.")
@@emilianosintarias7337 Since Cutrone's goal seems to be educational, though, possessing these attributes is important to help bridge the gulfs between the instructor and the students.
So when the host of the channel brought up the "unintended consequences" of autonomy and the guest says it was "predictable"...that was really annoying. He interrupted the guy to say it and the way he said it made it seem like he thought the first dude didn't know. I know it may just be that he was qualifying and this is beneficial to the audience, to know that it was both unintended and predictable and was in fact, predicted. But to interrupt the first person's flow to offer that qualification is annoying. Plus just because one person predicts doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. And apparently not enough people either knew about it or understood how to avoid the prediction to stop it from being fulfilled. I just notice this a lot with conversations especially with knowledgeable people. Bro hold it in. I'm 17 min in, I'm pretty sure I caught other interruptions and I know there will be more. But damn it someone tell him. I hate hearing convos that go like this even if the info is good.
There's not a single reason why every one of these segments shouldn't begin with a booming "YOU'RE NOW IN THE CUTRONE ZONE"
absolutely none.
Guess he took your suggestion to heart!
What are listening to these days Janos?
Best guest.
Doug, please remind CC he needs to write his book on the death of the left.
Love you both! Keep up the good work.
That Freudian slip at 40:38 was precious
37:30 - I love Cutrone dropping Lacan's "father or worse" (le père ou pire), it's so relevant, the American Left (and Right) is definitely going through some neurotic/perverse/psychotic mad hatter reshuffling today
In my case - as an aging boomer - it was reading Debord that led me out of a 60s-style hyper liberal anarchism into an appreciation of Marx. From there and through a lifetime of watching the final dissolution of the post-1917 Left I've been led inexorably back to Lenin. Weird innit. Thanks Chris...
I wonder what Chris thinks of Christopher Lasch?
The Ghost of Kiiiv Debord disturbed the beginning of the broadcast.
Hey Doug can you please upload some of these recent interviews to the podcast? I need some to listen to on the road!
This has been uploaded to the podcast. Which other ones do you want me to upload? I'll upload all of the ones you ask for.
@@sublationmedia thanks! If you could do the most recent one with Spencer L and the one about the LA riots that would be much appreciated. I look forward to listening!
@@charlesrodriguez3571 I'll upload those in the morning. Hope that's soon enough and thanks for listening.
@@sublationmedia thanks Doug love ya!
We all need to forget the term "unintended consequence", instead, we should be using "embedded circumstance".
Men Dough looks defeated and simmering when Chris said we won't be as motivated.
Great conversation! We need more Marxist intellectuals like Doug and Chris
1:02:18
"We communists are all dead men on leave."/"Wir Kommunisten sind alle Tote auf Urlaub."
- Eugen Leviné (head of the Second Bavarian/Munich Soviet/Council Republic)
wonder what CC thinks of Elena Louisa Lange's new edited volume "The Conformist Rebellion"
26:39 *What communist countries criminalized abortion?!?!*
China, the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, East Germany, North Korea. Communists legalize it. Where have they ever made it illegal when it was previously legal?
USSR in the 1930's.
@@almanacofsleep Thank you.
1951 - list of reasons to terminate was expanded
[1953 - Stalin's death]
1954/55 - decriminalized/legalized
Deep Deep Cutroneian contraianism in this video
What Stalinism represented was a belief in a type of secular messianism, in which state actors were assumed to possess perfect information ("all-knowingness"), thus centrally planned economy would be from this standpoint far more efficient than the market economy. What happens is with the fall of the Soviet regime, there is major disillusionment not simply with this particular implementation of "messianism on earth", but messianism in general. It was the ultimate God-that-failed moment. The task of communist reconstruction today is to assume that that no human actor can possess *idolatrous* perfect information (have to assume a fairly high level of individual ignorance about how society actually functions), this is where a return to Leninism is simply not useful. It is still rooted on the assumption that human actors can achieve "God's" vantage point (i.e. "idolatry) through a particular political organizational form.
Well i guess communism ended up happening , as Cutrone 's mic could only sound that choppy if we're receiving his signal from the year 2099.
Chris watches Zer0 B66ks so I guess we're not gonna see him back on this channel.. that's unfortunate.
Can humans ever not hold sometype of religon?
Yeah but, Roul Vaneigem was so much more entertaining. Though really they needed each other.
Cutrone seems like a smart guy but has an annoying rhetorical style where he asks vague questions he always answers for himself lol. It’s just grating because tonally he always sounds like he’s in disagreement and rhetorically doesn’t treat the recording as an equal exchange. Just bugged me
Agreed. I've listened to a good bit of Cutrone... right back to his early platypus days. And he's always had that slightly dejected, and yet simultaneously overconfident/self-convinced, tone. It's like a jaded schoolteacher sighing aloud about the many years he's had to repeat straight-forward multiplication tables to the brainless dolts at the back of the room... all the while knowing they'll never "get it". Tis a shame.
@@Hic_Rhodus I have no patience for this kind of criticism, it's like an online dating fantasy - "he should be very tall, a surgeon, a pro athlete, who works construction, knows how to kickbox, paints portraits, has a mansion, is sensitive and has lots of free time to spend with me". You can't ask for personable, amicable, kind and generous unless the guest is otherwise fairly dull or useless. At least this guy is intelligent, has convictions, is engaging, has nuance, and a fairly unique accounting of the american and European left. It's asking too much that he also be sociable, like-able or humble or whatever.
@@emilianosintarias7337 It has little or nothing to do with wondering if Cutrone would write a good tinder profile. I couldn't care less whether he's personally an absolute twat or good husband-material. I do, however, care very much about rhetoric and its role in radical left theory. Not as a secondary issue... or an irrelevant aside. But as the crucial substantive ingredient in the building of a mass transnational revolutionary movement. Some may be convinced by Cutrone's rhetorical performance and approach. Others like myself or Adrian above, might find his rhetorical strategies problematic and ultimately counter-productive. They may work against bringing about the ends he yearns for... and seem highly unlikely to prompt the mass actions he is pleading for. (None of that means I personally dislike the guy... or think he's not an interesting, well-read, guy. Hence my "Tis a shame.")
@@emilianosintarias7337 Since Cutrone's goal seems to be educational, though, possessing these attributes is important to help bridge the gulfs between the instructor and the students.
@@Hic_Rhodus there is zero intent or chance here for using these types of conversations for building mass movements. that isn't what they are for
So when the host of the channel brought up the "unintended consequences" of autonomy and the guest says it was "predictable"...that was really annoying. He interrupted the guy to say it and the way he said it made it seem like he thought the first dude didn't know.
I know it may just be that he was qualifying and this is beneficial to the audience, to know that it was both unintended and predictable and was in fact, predicted.
But to interrupt the first person's flow to offer that qualification is annoying.
Plus just because one person predicts doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. And apparently not enough people either knew about it or understood how to avoid the prediction to stop it from being fulfilled.
I just notice this a lot with conversations especially with knowledgeable people. Bro hold it in. I'm 17 min in, I'm pretty sure I caught other interruptions and I know there will be more. But damn it someone tell him. I hate hearing convos that go like this even if the info is good.
Look to your pronouns. Have we progressed? Who? How old? Where? By what measure? Freedom from, freedom to, freedom objective?