Ideals of the past—the Roman Empire, the Germanic gods, the feudal Britain featured by fascist-striving novels—gild with emotional glamor the tenets of fascism: that science and machine production are evil, that democracy, peace and the conquest of poverty are futile dreams of a decadent society,

We can see this play out with the Peter Thiel cinematic universe of silicon valley oligarchs. Technology has ceased to be a tool for alleviating human suffering and progress but a stress ball shaped pandoras box that can be wrung out and beaten to open up to a radically changed society. The rate of production can eliminate poverty multiple Earths over but that world no longer has any excess.

Their cry is to “share the wealth,” to start over again that old society of small owners which led to the present-day monopolies and which would lead to them again if it could be revived...

And yet the "Thiel-Musks" of the world don't distinguish themselves from the social democrats/neocons who themselves also envision of turning back the clock of the social genocide perpetrated by the capitalist class and returning to a world where men's ownership of the world was achieved by westward expansion. Both of these reactionary sects of society do not envision the working class as capable owners of history and society, but either as victims or liabilities.

Anyway, sorry for not giving my thoughts earlier, this week was hectic, I should be better next week.

aaaa i managed to catch up today; i hope i'm not 'late'. if i have any thoughts, i'm going to make an effort to share them before i read others' comments. part of my goal with this reading group is both to learn me some history and to get better about sharing my thoughts. i'm exhausted so sorry if my thoughts are disjointed.

i'm coming into this straight from a rereading of Blackshirts and Reds. i expected optimism, and to feel quite melancholic from it with the knowledge of what came next, but if anything i'm always atonished at how much history rhymes.

she talks about people digging into the past for answers to the present and succumbing to doomerism. that's honestly why i'm reading this book. there has been a rapid decline in both health and economy in my social circles, and they've responded by taking to neopaganism and ecofascism (in some cases anarcho-primitivism), or a weird kinda orientalist Liberal-Buddhism lmao, like a FIRE lifestyle centred around minimalism and mindfulness, and passive income grifts. this has only gotten worse with language models eroding all of their thinking skills or training them that everything is made up and that nothing is real anynmore. someone from a periphery country basically said to me recently 'socialism or wealth', like 'if i can't have socialism, then i better be rich.' they don't see that there's no alternative where they alone come out on top.

the following quote reminded me of Red Plenty (one of many books my unmedicated AuDHD brain can't read):

Can man master the machines he has made which today threaten increasingly to enslave him? […] ==productive forces which his science and technical knowledge have released, which seem adequate to abolish poverty, yet which at present give increasing unemployment, economic crises, wars==?

i think about Cybersyn and Aladdin and 'big data'. i used to be a software engineer (the formal methods kind, now i'm several years unemployed) and the amount of expertise and infrastructure that could support the kind of planning cyberneticists dreamed of exists, but it's wasted on skinner boxes for proles and fancy dashboards for wealth managers (EDIT: or weapons systems for hurting people). now that expertise is gone. fake products kept alive by a belief in its potential and not by its capability to do anything it promises, but this belief is considered rational by the fact it takes the form of contracts blessed by civic rituals. in a world ruled by fiction, it's no wonder people think TV is theory and that ancient pantheons or anime tulpa can remake the universe and rescue their spirit or some shit.

brings to mind this quote:

There is a strong tendency to speak of the machine as solving problems, when, in fact, really, it is the program which describes to the machine what the machines do. This is overlooked. I think a great deal of confusion arises from this.

It is not that we do not have adequate machines to solve our problems many times, but rather we lack adequate descriptions of how to solve the problem. And this is a very important point to understand.

— Richard Hamming, Computer And The Mind Of Man, Episode 1: Logic By Machine

this quote most of all stung me a little:

In a world whose economic structure fails to reward honesty and altruism, ==a Marxist would not spend his efforts preaching these virtues==, …

i was raised immersed in a water of hatred; i know the people some have to become to survive. but i've lost my patience for the so many people who still see themselves in the bourgeois and whose entire worldview is countryball, flag emoji and the 'clash of civilisations'. my moral high ground is unfortunately what helped me cope with decades of abuse and it's a hard thing to let go of.

but i did come away from this chapter reminded that we're not stuck on this path. i hope the rest of the book can be as therapeutic.

I'm excited we're all reading this. The introduction and first chapter were kind of exciting to me in terms of the optimism. Sometimes when I'm dooming I slip into Miroslav mode:

But the optimism in the book, of the possibility of changing people by changing a system, brings me back.

Managed to go through Intro and Chapter 1 just now.

I second most comments in this thread appreciating A.L.S.' super clear explanation of Marxism in Chapter 1, it was very easy to read and digest.

Many comments in this thread are also very in-depth and make for good commentary and analysis, please keep them coming! I truly appreciate them.

Finished chapter 1 at first wasn't sure what kind of book this was since I was getting red mars vibes but as I got further into the theory talk I felt more relaxed. Marxian was a new one to me ngl but I think I understand what's it getting at. It def feels apt reading this now gilded age 2 try to "look for a boss" 😔

Already finished the second chapter. I love this. Can't post much in terms of analysis right now, but I'm just thankful for this reading group and to have this book suggested to me. It's easy enough to follow, especially since I can hear the audio book on my way to work and I'll be able to immediately apply what I learned in my two real life book clubs. Because Strong is so great at effortlessly communicating complex ideas in an easy to understand way. If I can mimic just a fraction of this, I'll be able to use this to help the others in my clubs raise their understanding too. The smaller one of my real world reading circles is already Marxist, the larger one, I'm actively on the process of turning Marxist. After we already read one Marxist book, I composed a curriculum of short Marxist texts to read next instead of a whole book as a quick intro to Marxism (informed by Cowbees great list). They'll need to vote on it, but I'm confident it'll be accepted either for this or the next round.

~~A few days late because various IRL things, but I’ll edit this comment later once I’ve gone through the chapter~~ Just finished the intro as well as chapter 1.

There something about the section which talks about how "the mind of our people is changing so fast under the conditions of socialism, that it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to speak with the rest of the world." which gives an immense amount of optimism. Though I'm aware of the folly of the "human nature" argument, pessimism can still start to wear on me if I don't keep in mind how quickly that "nature" can change with a different, less exploitative system.

It also reminds me of that one quote from Omar El Akkad that focuses on how much capitalism is changing the hearts and minds of those in the west.

"It is an admirable thing, in a politics possessed of a moral floor, to believe one can change the system from the inside, that with enough respectful prodding the establishment can be made to bend, like that famous arc, toward justice. But when, after decades of such thinking, decades of respectful prodding, the condition one arrives at is reticent acceptance of genocide, is it not at least worth considering that you are not changing the system nearly as much as the system is changing you?"

I love how easy to digest these concepts are (though I guess the real test of this would be on someone who isn't already familiar with marxism), so maybe I'll be suggesting this book to my friends who are "revolutionarily curious". Excited to read more!

Again, this book proves to be a good sleep aid for the kids, and by the time I finish a chapter they reach sound sleep status!

On to the book:

Intro

I appreciate the contrast between the Soviet and Capitalist world presented through language. The idea that in the capitalist world people talk of "I" and "ME" more than "US" and "WE". I like the kind of humorous examples such as: Ukrainian farmers who never went up in an airplane talk of “our stratosphere records” and “the loss of our Maxim Gorky airplane” as they take up collections to build ten new ones. It had me wonder if this was the case in places like Cuba or China. I also appreciated this paragraph from the intro:

This Soviet world is my theme; I give scant space to those fast disintegrating forces that fought it. I tell not the “whole truth,” for truth is never “whole”; there are always at least two truths in conflict: the truth that is dying and the truth that is coming into existence. American Tories who intrigued for King George had their truth also, but it remains only as piquant sauce to romance; the truth of the Continental armies remained to build the modern republic. They themselves recalled the frozen feet of Valley Forge less as suffering than as heroism; their raids on hungry farms passed into memory not as banditry but as necessity and daring. History’s greatest gift to victors is that not only they, but their truth survives.

This, as well as the opening of the intro I think we can all relate to:

We who go back and forth between the Soviet world and the world of capitalism—not only in space from New York to Moscow but also in spirit from intimate life with Soviet people to intimate life in America—feel keenly this difficulty. Important words like freedom, democracy, dictatorship have different meanings on different sides of the border.

This, conflation of words is something we struggle with even today. Here, she's talking about a physical pace, but even in today, once you've entered into the mental space of the Soviet world, into the world of Marxism, this definitional crisis is something you have to struggle against. Freedom, democracy, dictatorship, all words we've spent countless hours of our lives attempting to explain from the Marxist perspective to our liberal friends, neighbors, and acquaintances.

It's funny how much of this book just rhymes with our current experiences. The analysis doesn't change all that much, because the form hasn't changed all that much, what has changed is the content that makes up that form. The intro really sets up the optimistic tone of the next chapter (and I'm sure, the whole book) with For this war differs from other battles in that all men, even the conquered foes, are absorbed into the ranks of the conquerors—joint heirs to all the fruits of victory. I think we know though from history, that not all conquered foes became joint hairs to the fruits of victory, but this was published in 1936, and the "Great Purge" would begin the same year. Now, I know very little about that period of history, only that the purges were very likely driven by paranoia, and in some cases, a great lack in direct communications between local leaders and Moscow. I recall from an episode of the AES Podcast, where they had a revisionist soviet historian on, and he talked about the lack of telegraph communications in the nation. He had mentioned that old newspapers existed in archives with notes scrawled on them by local leaders regarding news from Moscow. Implying that, instead of direct orders, many local leaders were inferring orders based on what they could read in the news.

Chapter 1

I do appreciate a good Marx quote. In fact, I really enjoyed the interweaving explanations about the Marxist world view within this chapter.

The philosophic basis of Marxism is “dialectics,” which views every reality, whether of nature, the mind, or society, as in process of continual change through the development and clash of “inner contradictions.” This theory applied to the study of history shows how economic, political and social systems are constantly changing, at times slowly, at times by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions. American capitalism of the Civil War period is not the capitalism of today. The democracy of the New England town-meeting is not the democracy of the modern imperial nation. They may be called by the same but names deceive; the thing changes even while you look at it to disdain or admire. Even your disdain and admiration changes, the meaning of your words and concepts. What was true, right, desirable yesterday may not be true, right, desirable tomorrow. Systems have their day and cease to be.

This I feel calls back to the above discussion about language, how, over time these things develop and change. The development of these things, phenomenon, and ideas though changes the content of them, even if the label we apply to that content, or its form, are entirely different.

[...] For Marx the fundamental thing about any human society is not its system of ideas or religions, nor the form of government nor the nature of its family life. These things are important but derivative. They are determined by the ways in which human beings get food, clothing, shelter, by the stage of their advance and the tools they use in these fundamental operations. In a world whose economic structure fails to reward honesty and altruism, a Marxist would not spend his efforts preaching these virtues, but in creating an economic system where honesty really prospered, where each man’s success must be [built] on the success, rather than the ruin, of others. The new economic system would make new people; under it, education in the new ideals would be swift and hopeful.

This is such a great distillation of what Marxism is attempting to analyze and put into the world. Telling someone that "Capitalism engenders a set of social relations that we are all adherent to" or some other variation is almost meaningless to most people. But, telling them our world is structured "by the ways in which human beings get food, clothing, shelter" should get them thinking in ways my previous example wouldn't.

Marx finds the key in his theory of “class struggle.” Man’s science and invention create new ways of production, and these in turn create new “classes” of human beings, i.e., groups of people who have different and conflicting relations to production. Between these classes a struggle goes on around the ownership of the process of production, which is the means of life.

Again, just a good summation of how class struggle drives history forward. I really enjoy the last sentence too, describing the "process of production" as the "means of life", because it's true! All production, to some extent, is in service of providing the "means of life", and what those means are changes based on the level of technological achievement of a given place and time. Cars were once a luxury and a novelty, but through the development of the process of production of cars, cars eventually were elevated to the status of "means of life". Once you wouldn't or even couldn't work more than a few miles from where you live, now, that's almost unheard of, and having a car is broadly the only way to sustain your life under our current arrangement.

She continues:

Thus at different stages of human history new classes arise from new ways of working and the struggle between them produces social change. Modern capitalism has not done away with class antagonisms, but it has this distinctive feature—it has simplified them. “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into . . . two great classes directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat,”8 those who live by owning and those who can live only by selling their labor power, by seeking a boss.

I like this framing of "selling their labor power" as "seeking a boss". She uses it earlier in the chapter when talking about the financial crisis (another historical rhyme) "Millions of the middle class were thrown into the same abyss of ruin with millions of wage-workers; they wait together on bread-lines, study together the government relief programs, hunt together for a boss. [...] most put their trust in bosses, someone who owns and will give them access to the means of production and of life." People might say they are "looking for work" or "looking for a job" but there is a neutrality in those phrases that seems to not exist in "seeking a boss". I bet, if asked, most people would cringe at the question "Are you looking for a boss?". The answer to that question is "no", and the fear of having a boss is what dominates the minds of the middle class, the petite bourgeoisie.

Between these two remain for a time the middle classes, distraught survivors of those small property owners and independent craftsmen who once embodied the demand for private property against a feudal past. They suffer deeply under advancing capitalism which dislodges them steadily and painfully into the ranks of hired hands. They struggle against their fate, but their strivings are confused, for their instinctive desire is to go back to small scale property. Their cry is to “share the wealth,” to start over again that old society of small owners which led to the present-day monopolies and which would lead to them again if it could be revived. The right to private property was once revolutionary pledge of freedom, but this also has changed with the passing of history. Private property in farm plots and hand tools freed serfs from feudal masters; private property in steel mills creates a new slavery. Even small ownership today, wherever it survives or comes into being, is at the mercy of large scale finance.

Uh-oh, I hit the character limit! Cont...

Come! Let's read and discuss This Soviet World.

ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.

This was a formative book for me. The descriptions of the fundamentally different nature of society and its people when they are united towards the common advancement of all will probably never stop being an inspiration and guiding star... It reminds me of this turn of phrase another writer uses, describing her goal as not merely providing for basic needs more effectively, but reshaping ourselves into "more human humans", capable of even greater degrees of love and care for each other.

I encourage people to read the intro before chapter one.

Summary: soviets think in "we", capitalists and those under capitalism think in "me" and "they"

This has been a somewhat tough read, thanks to hindsight. It's a little disheartening hearing reading something written in 1936. It shows such an optimism and brightness of the early USSR, it's really sad seeing such hope for the future.

In terms of ideas brought up by the text, I like the discussion of how a person in the USSR reacts differently to the world around them compared to someone living in a capitalist country. Thinking how good fortune is a good thing "for us"(the people) instead of wanting it for "themselves."

Makes me really think about the ways I talk about things and consider things, even to myself, and the issues I have with getting things done. Doing things "for the money" is always such an empty, hollow goal, the idea of doing things for others, to help people, to make them smile, that's what makes people thrive.

Two paragraphs in and already the quotes are amazing

And Soviet officials are not always helpful in making their acts intelligible; they often assume that only deliberate malice can doubt them and that the only needed explanation is the appropriate citation from Marx.

Make that the tagline for a whole week on hexbear lol. Reminds me of Huey Newton:

I dissuade Party members from putting down people who do not understand. Even people who are unenlightened and seemingly bourgeois should be answered in a polite way. Things should be explained to them as fully as possible. I was turned off by a person who did not want to talk to me because I was not important enough. Maurice just wanted to preach to the converted, who already agreed with him. I try to be cordial, because that way you win people over. You cannot win them over by drawing the line of demarcation, saying you are on this side and I am on the other; that shows a lack of consciousness. After the Black Panther Party was formed, I nearly fell into this error. I could not understand why people were blind to what I saw so clearly. Then I realized that their understanding had to be developed.

Some other quotes I found amazing:

For this war differs from other battles in that all men, even the conquered foes, are absorbed into the ranks of the conquerors—joint heirs to all the fruits of victory.

Between these two [classes] remain for a time the middle classes [...]. They suffer deeply under advancing capitalism which dislodges them steadily and painfully into the ranks of hired hands. They struggle against their fate, but their strivings are confused, for their instinctive desire is to go back to small scale property. Their cry is to “share the wealth,” to start over again that old society of small owners which led to the present-day monopolies.

The paragraph relating to the middle class was really well put! I had an argument with a relative on how owning stuff (talking about private property, in this case, landlords) is a way to not only allow some to extract from others, but gives the illusion that the workers are able to escape their plight whilst in the capitalist system.

Thinking about the title, This Soviet World implies a sort of familiarity and tangibility, a sense of being at hand, very much with the zeitgeist. It could be The Soviet World, but that reads like a memorandum from George Kennan circa 1950- “The Soviet World seeks the free world’s destruction.” Strong talks early on about how people conceptualize eachother. In the Great Depression-era US, the unemployed ask, “If it gets any worse, they’ll have to do something.” She rightly considers this a statement of alienation. There’s a divide between I/They/Us that betrays class society. Soviet people would ask what we are to do in response to a challenge, and that’s why it’s This Soviet World.

The book evocatively takes you to that moment, where “questing hope that hardly yet dares call itself belief” stands. It’s not a history or a prose but one of those lovely primary sources that isn’t afraid to document and analyze and actively be a part of ongoing events. Living in the long 20th century, the weight still feels heavy and heavier when it comes to every attempt against that hope. “For this war differs from other battles in that all men, even the conquered foes, are absorbed into the ranks of the conquerors—joint heirs to all the fruits of victory.” It’s hard to read in the wake of the Cold War. Colonial war, total war, nuclear war, psychological war, while the process of one class asserting itself over another is so, the 20th century’s global anticommunist dirty war lingers, Killing Hope (Blum 1995).

“What happened to that faith in inevitable progress? If it still survives in some circles as a despairing habit, elsewhere it has been replaced by belief in inevitable doom. ‘Inevitable drift to fascism,’ ‘inevitable twilight of the West,’ ‘the old standard of prosperity can never return,’ are phrases common on lips that not long since hailed inevitable advance [of progress under capitalism].” The fact that such a passage can be read as a contemporary commentary proves the mission of that Soviet project is not irrelevant.

I spoke on this in the megathread, but one thing I greatly appreciate about this work is the beginning portion, talking about how the soviet people saw societal advancement and wealth as an advancement for all, and not just for someone to get wealthy off of. This is the real dichotomy presenting a communal spirit, in embryo.

As for the first chapter, I think Strong did an excellent job showing a big-picture anecdote, where people are being remade in the Soviet Union, and then connecting that to an excellent overview of Marxism. This is the pedagogical expertise of Strong and the utility of her works in action. She bridges the gap between curious onlooker and the communists in a way that she is uniquely equipped to handle, as someone a part of both worlds.

Loved reading this, and I can't wait to continue with you all!

A leading Russian Communist said to me a year ago: "The mind of our people is changing so fast under the conditions of socialism that it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to speak to the rest of the world. We find it harder to understand them, and they us".

Seeing this on the first page struck me as opening with how different people are in a socialist society compared to a capital society; it made me think about how reading socialist theory, books and people's experiences of socialism does really change you even while living in a capitalist society. That when educating yourself from a radical perspective its difficult to the point of frustration when you are surrounded with media proclaiming capitalism as the only system despite it collapsing around us; and socialism as failed yet the material conditions are constantly proving that socialism is the only system that succeeds.

I think Strong opening on this quote sets up the book to make sure that we are both aware of what socialism is capable of but also that most of the world is still living in capitalist society and to not disconnect from that, especially when living in capitalist countries.

Still got the rest of the first chapter to read, this is just my analysis from the introduction.

From the intro

The difference appears in the use of pronouns.

Oh no. Nobody warned me that this book was WOKE

meow! ✨

Strong makes an interesting point that ideas of socialism inevitably arise after the bourgeois revolution, with comments how "abolition of poverty [is] already technically possible" and references to the productive forces "released" by "science and technical knowledge" which "seem adequate to abolish poverty, yet which at present give increasing unemployment, economic crises, and wars."

Given a huge increase in productivity of use-values resulting from modern industry, there were two perceptions about the abundance of use values, based on the observer's class position:

• To the bourgeois, the possibility of immense personal wealth not known in prior epochs.
• To the proletarian, the possibility to reduce working hours and increase the general standard of living.

On this second point, I think this is the essential basis of modern socialism. Certainly there were historical, "primitive" forms of "communalism" or society founded on common property. But this bourgeois era of human history entails a specific form of this idea, called socialism, which is intrinsically linked to the abundance deriving from modern industry. It is worth pausing to contemplate a world prior to modern industry, because it was not always technically possible to produce so much that a high standard of living is possible for every human being. Only when this is possible, ideas of socialism proliferate.

The myth of property remained long after the reality had vanished. Millions of these salaried people still felt that they owned something—no longer a store, a small workshop, an unencumbered farm, but savings in stocks, bonds, insurance—which lifted them somewhat above the ranks of laboring hands. Crashingly the world economic crisis destroyed this illusion.

Feels eerily similar to the present day in the US, in which many workers trust their retirement to the stock market. If any revolution comes to the US, I think it would necessarily be tied to a crash that wipes out savings similar to this. That would shatter the illusion of the petty bourgeois and professional-managerial class.

General thought about the first chapter is that Strong's writing style is pleasant and evocative. I think this will be an enjoyable book and an easy page turner; thanks for recommending this one.

Now to review some of my highlights.

The opening pages of the introduction effectively put to words some of the intangible benefits of a socialist society. It is not merely an economic problem but a problem of society, and humanity more generally. "But their individuality is expressed not by possessions and polish but by the various ways in which men create." In their daily life, the Soviets attempted to live for themselves, and their own futures, with an independence and clarity of purpose not known to their capitalist counterparts.

"The regimentation of life by property is my next shock in the capitalist world." Not much to add except that I think most Marxists can relate to the inability to ignore this once you notice it.

I appreciated Strong's unpretentious explication of the dialectical attitude: "I tell not the 'whole truth,' for truth is never 'whole'; there are always at least two truths in conflict: the truth that is dying and the truth that is coming into existence." How good is this line! In a few words it summarizes the kernel of the dialectic, how it allows us to grasp concepts in their instability and dynamism.

Out of the whole of this week's reading, this part struck me the hardest:

It was then that my companion said: 'I think that Dnieprostroy has answered the question that brought me to Russia.'

'What question?' I asked.

'Whether the world is to be changed by trying one at a time to improve human beings or by changing the social environment that makes human beings.'

This line was timed well after the opening line of the introduction which described the difficulty of the Soviets speaking the 'same language,' so-to-speak, as the capitalist world. Pedagogy is central to Marxism for this reason. It is not enough to have the best theory of society. We must also have the best theory about how to teach these ideas our fellow citizens, how to understand their position, not paternalistically, but as peers, or as Paulo Freire puts it, as "co-producers of knowledge." And everyone who has ever explained the rules of a game to a friend knows well that, eventually, the agreement is made to "just play a round and you'll get what I mean." It is deeply frustrating sometimes, to try to convince someone of an insight you feel so strongly; to feel a guilt, as though if you could only explain it better that your friend will understand what you mean. But sometimes it does not matter, there may not be any set of words that will make a person understand. Only experience can.

I have some critique of Strong over a few lines which, I think, indicate some level of West-centrism or Orientalism. For example:

Their situation is the more distressing because for most of our Western world the past hundred years has been what John Strachey aptly calls the 'century of the great hope.' [...] Especially America— where [there was] a continent-wide expansion into lands of vast wealth [...] Did not the great lands of America [...] offer the basis for a good standard of life for everyone—an 'American standard'?

This part, at face value, is factual — this is how the US proletariat understood their existence in the country. But I think, during Jim Crow when this book was written, it is unfortunate that Strong does not connect this apparent prosperity (for whites) to chattel slavery and indigenous genocide.

Furthermore, this line rang Orientalist to me:

Even today, do not hundreds of millions of people—those great suppressed races of the East—find life's processes so fundamentally evil that their essential faith is Buddhism in which Nothingness is bliss?