The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So...

What did you think of Dr Zhivago?


Link to video.

(Really crap voice-over, btw.)

How close is the film to Pasternak's novel?

I thought it was a nice David Lean film.

It's a fantastic novel, and the film is one of my favorites (the one with Julie Christie and Omar Sharif).

Dr. Zhivago is a great movie from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, imo. I use it as a teaching tool as it has many good lessons.

I do as well.

I thought the central message was that individual experience trumps politics of any stripe.

I thought the central message was that people don't have control over their lives. Zhivago's career as doctor, and his happy family life, are both thrown into chaos by the revolution. Zhivago in particular is put in the extremely unfortunate situation of having met and gotten to know very well two women whom he feels could be his "soul mate," so to speak. And even as he tries to escape this chaos his life is thrown further awry. Most of it is his own fault, but he does get dragooned by the Red Partisans, which is hardly his own doing. Strelnikov famously remarks that "the private life is dead in Russia" in response to Zhivago's defense of individualism. Strelnikov himself has his life turned upside down by forces beyond his command: the war drags him away from a happily married life, and puts his wife into the arms of another man. Then the revolution finally steals that wife and family from him entirely, and forces him to make decisions like choosing between shelling the village where he knows she is (well, by that time his ex-wife) and letting white partisans escape. But his reaction is different than Zhivago's. Where Zhivago flees the effects of the chaos, Strelnikov embraces them. That's what that scene where the two meet on the rail car is the best one in the entire movie: it's the clash of two extremes, the one who rebels and the one who embraces. But in the end both fail to control the waves they ride on, despite their best attempts, and at the end of the book, everyone's lives are utterly destroyed. Except Yevgraf. I haven't figured him out yet. I guess, as a Bolshevik, he represents the new order, the only one who actually has control over things amidst the chaos and confusion. Yevgraf always knows exactly what's going on, has a clear head, and acts with purpose.

However, I would not use it as a historical source.

 

[Borachio]

Can't say anything, didn't see this movie.

Interestingly enough, just recently read an article of philologist and journalist who watched three movie adaptations of this novel to make analysis - he writes that David Lean's movie is the worst one, and more so, absolutely awful and catastrophic version, which has nothing to do with the novel.

He said that the image of Varykino homestead from this movie from now on, will be his nightmare until the end of his days

I'm not sure I can explain it, but indeed, this image of "Russian manor" causes mixed reaction of "WTF???" and hysterical laughter.

Fair enough. I thought it was supposed to be a dacha. Or Hollywood's idea of what its audience might think a dacha was.

The onion domes do seem ridiculous now I come to think of it.

I thought the central message was that people don't have control over their lives.

Yes. Indeed they don't. But that's not my point. Which is that people do live individual lives and endure political upheaval in the same way they endure bad weather.

 

[red_elk]

Fair enough. I thought it was supposed to be a dacha. Or Hollywood's idea of what its audience might think a dacha was.

The onion domes do seem ridiculous now I come to think of it.

It's described in novel's text as a manor. And TBH, that image with church domes on a private house, arranged in some strange way, looks like a mockery.
A typical Russian manor:

Spoiler :

Edit:
The film adaptation of Russian classics which I would recommend to watch, is "War and Peace" of Sergei Bondarchuk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(film_series)

 

[Whomp]

I think we can all agree Marx saw capitalism as an enormously productive system which was incapable of standing still.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation, distinguishes the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away. All new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air; all that is holy, is profaned; and man is at last compelled to face, in sober sense, the real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

In this regard, I have great respect for Marx's brilliance.

One of the many things he didn't understand, and those that finger the Marxist rosary, was the economic function of profit. In the economy of "constant revolutionizing of production and uninterrupted disturbance", "everlasting uncertainty and agitation" profit is not a “surplus value" (mehrwert) it ithe only source of jobs for workers and of labor income. No one except the innovator makes a genuine “profit,” and the innovator’s profit is always short-lived. It is the cost of staying in business.

Ultimately, I believe socialist blueprint will happen due to capitalism's success rather than its failure and it will come from the intellectual class rather than some mystical universal class that ends exploitation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not exactly what you mean when you say "profit"?

 

[Cutlass]

I disagree with the notion that we would ever slide into socialism, or something like it, because some intellectual class sold the idea. All of the trends everywhere have been in the opposite direction. The only moves towards socialism I've ever seen have been reactions to failures in markets and revolutionary movements in places that didn't have a developed economy at the time.

 

[Whomp]

What is "it's" Traitorfish?

I'm pretty sure we've never seen the socialist blueprint Cutlass so how do we know?

 

[Cutlass]

How do we know that there is a blueprint? Or that it would be worth the paper it was written on if there was?

 

[Traitorfish]

What is "it's" Traitorfish?

"Clear", sorry- too much typing, too little paying attention!

 

[Whomp]

Universal class is part of that blueprint and it is childish thinking. You always have the principal agency issue.

 

[Cutlass]

Universal class is part of that blueprin

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

 

[Whomp]

A class which would act in the interest of all. The Marxist blueprint which promises paradise on this side of the grave to its followers.

Sent from my using Tapatalk

 

[Cutlass]

A class which would act in the interest of all. The Marxist blueprint which promises paradise on this side of the grave to its followers.

Sent from my using Tapatalk

But why are you concerned with it? I mean, being concerned with socialism taking over in the US is probably even less likely than Sharia law taking over in the US. You may be able to make any number of arguments about why it is bad, and that's fine. But I don't see any argument in favor of actually being concerned about it, `cause it ain't gonna happen. And I really don't see any validity to the argument that it might happen. It's just so trivially fringe that I can't see any point to worry about.

The internal danger to American prosperity and liberty is from the right, not from the left. And the right has won every battle in your adult lifetime. You and I were small children the last time the left won a significant battle in the, not just the US, but in the Western world. Hell, man, we were small children the last time the center won a significant battle in the Western world.

The only shot that socialism has to be relevant in the developed world at all in the foreseeable future is for the right to so completely ruin the West that socialism looks good in comparison. Now they've gone a long way down that road already. And they continue to win even now, when the natural outcome of conservative policies are doing immediate and obvious damage to most people and the country as a whole.

So given that conservatism has won this much, done this much damage, and still continues to win, why even be concerned about socialism at all?

 

[aelf]

I think we can all agree Marx saw capitalism as an enormously productive system which was incapable of standing still.
In this regard, I have great respect for Marx's brilliance.

One of the many things he didn't understand, and those that finger the Marxist rosary, was the economic function of profit. In the economy of "constant revolutionizing of production and uninterrupted disturbance", "everlasting uncertainty and agitation" profit is not a “surplus value" (mehrwert) it ithe only source of jobs for workers and of labor income. No one except the innovator makes a genuine “profit,” and the innovator’s profit is always short-lived. It is the cost of staying in business.

The problem with the profit motive is it's simply the lowest common denominator. I think there's something to the rhetoric, no matter employed by whom, that capitalism is "spiritually impoverished".

Sure, the profit motive is easy to grasp. That's why it's so popular and can motivate lots of people no matter who they are or where they come from. But this is also its weakness. As it is, for many profit and its resulting wealth are merely a means to an end. Indeed, common wisdom and at least one sacred text say that wealth or money is merely a tool or servant.

However, so powerful and so absolute it has become in its role as a universal medium, that men whose occupations are simply to accumulate it have become dominant in our well-ordered, modern societies - so much so that we have to play by their rules or be deprived of much of what we want. The means becomes an end in itself. Thus, from the obsession of the few, money has effectively become the obsession of the many.

You may be satisfied with a society so enslaved by money and profit, but some people aren't.

A related point: One fatal flaw of the profit motive is its inability to deal with long-term, bigger issues that are not easily perceptible or predictable to an individual's economic calculation. It remains to be seen if capitalism will be able to muster enough innovation to stave off a major environmental catastrophe in the not-too-distant future, for example. And, from what I've seen (like the recent NASA report), the emerging consensus in the scientific community seems to be pessimistic about the prospects. And we haven't seen enough motivation on the part of major corporations and capitalist governments to take meaningful action either.

Ultimately, I believe socialist blueprint will happen due to capitalism's success rather than its failure and it will come from the intellectual class rather than some mystical universal class that ends exploitation.

I guess if you could call "having served its purpose and made itself obsolete" a success, I'm sure many Marxists would agree with you.

 

[Whomp]

As I look out my window on my ride home...(on the brown line) I contemplate both of your comments.

Cutlass-- my intent is not to argue left or right..I don't really bother with those kind of things. To your point, I don't believe socialism is anywhere in the near future.

I was addressing the principal agency issue.

Aelf--gtg. Another day but quickly what does climate change have to do with this particular conversation?

 

[dexters]

The internal danger to American prosperity and liberty is from the right, not from the left. And the right has won every battle in your adult lifetime. You and I were small children the last time the left won a significant battle in the, not just the US, but in the Western world. Hell, man, we were small children the last time the center won a significant battle in the Western world.

The IMF agree. To be frank, the 'right' namely the super rich class who continue to hold undue influence in US politics is dangerous to American prosperity and political stability.

The only shot that socialism has to be relevant in the developed world at all in the foreseeable future is for the right to so completely ruin the West that socialism looks good in comparison. Now they've gone a long way down that road already. And they continue to win even now, when the natural outcome of conservative policies are doing immediate and obvious damage to most people and the country as a whole.

I grew up in the 80s and frankly don't get this socialism vs capitalism stuff. To me it's all a continuum. Not a revolution. We have objectively quite a bit of socialism in our institutions. The debate is how much more and where and I think that's a winnable argument for the American left.

On a macro level, no one has been able to show how a capitalisst economy is objectively worse. It creates a lot of wealth which can do a lot of good. As opposed to an economy that creates very little wealth with everyone suffering equally. The most recent attempts towards 'degrowth' and 'zerogrowth' seems more like fantasy schemes by those who have lost the economic debate trying to reframe the argument to their liking. A lot of the degrowth movements motivations (simple rural living, low population density, opposition to technology, relying on community) just won't work for significant amounts of 7 billion people on this planet, so I've taken to calling them the New Amish instead.

So given that conservatism has won this much, done this much damage, and still continues to win, why even be concerned about socialism at all?

Depends on how you frame it I think the economic debate is settled but on a number of social issues, the left is winning again.

And the coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives that have held American politics hostage is doomed to irrelevance as a regional southern party at this rate given shifts in demographics.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

The point about wealth being capable of doing good is one thing, but that is NOT what is happening. Wealth is created by labor... ergo, profit, as you call it, which is really surplus value, is just unpaid labor.

Under capitalism, that goes to the slackers, the owners. Under socialism, that goes to society.

 

[dexters]

The point about wealth being capable of doing good is one thing, but that is NOT what is happening. Wealth is created by labor... ergo, profit, as you call it, which is really surplus value, is just unpaid labor.

Under capitalism, that goes to the slackers, the owners. Under socialism, that goes to society.

I think the problem here is that you're making a value judgement in a vacuum. In a perfect world it is valid, but the world is not perfect.

No doubt labour is difficult and back breaking, but without the profit motive there is no incentive to deploy resources effectively so the extra wealth is lost.

Society has largely agreed we rather have a capitalist system to generate that extra wealth for 'slackers' as you say, and tax some of that to redistribute to labour who makes up the rest of society. And labour too can in turn put some of that money in the system and 'slack'.

I see the divide as largely how much of that excess wealth should be divided and the relative imbalance of power and policy priority of the wealthy in their ability to change policy through influence.

 

[Agent327]

Not to mention the 'slackers' are also the investors. And as a rule the 'slackers' put in more hours than labour (they don't adhere to such niceties as an 8-hour workday). So I'd say that concluding that wealth is just unpaid labour is a bit...off. It's a point of view, to be sure, but that's just what it is: one point of view.

Interestingly, the former Soviet societies had more slackers than your average Western society - they were just called apparachiks. (And yes, that is obviously also a simplification.)

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I think the problem here is that you're making a value judgement in a vacuum. In a perfect world it is valid, but the world is not perfect.

No doubt labour is difficult and back breaking, but without the profit motive there is no incentive to deploy resources effectively so the extra wealth is lost.

Society has largely agreed we rather have a capitalist system to generate that extra wealth for 'slackers' as you say, and tax some of that to redistribute to labour who makes up the rest of society. And labour too can in turn put some of that money in the system and 'slack'.

I see the divide as largely how much of that excess wealth should be divided and the relative imbalance of power and policy priority of the wealthy in their ability to change policy through influence.

In bold is pure propaganda...

a. I am talking about the real workd, where, really, 85 individuals own more than the lowest-income 3-1/2 billion.

b. "Profit" is only a motive for profiteers. Regardless of what you may have thought of the USSR, but in less than 30 years, they went from being behind the wooden plough to the atomic age without the dominance of the profit motive... no so for US. Okay, so, maybe China is bringing in capital... but capital is not synonymous with profit. And Chinese laborers' industrial wages have gone up 19% annually since 2010. This is something China will have to deal with as it tries to quiet the wealthy beasts who have opportunized off of thus... can't wait.

c. Cuba... their production and dustribution is also socially-owned, and they are a happy people. in spite of a 48-year economic blockade and thousands of US-sponsored acts of terror and sabotage.

But you are correct that, since all wealth is created by labor, the divide is "how much of that excess wealth should be divided and the relative imbalance of power and policy priority of the wealthy in their ability to change policy through influence. "

Because, under socialism, the creators of wealth get to decide, not the slacker class.... sorry, the wealthy non-working leeches...