[Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

(Thread IKs: dead gay comedy forums)

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

vyelkin posted:

great post

I do agree especially with the waste of human talent part, which was demonstrated quite well with the Red Army. The attitude and disposition of the Party is a great angle to consider, as well - what sort of dissidence was understood to be acceptable and what wasn�t? Theoreticians took a lot of flak for doing their jobs, which necessarily requires divergence of opinion. Or, to put it in a very good example, what made a vast divergence like the NEP able to be worked out in assembly and carried out by a leadership that greatly disapproved of it to the purges in such a small timeframe?

Stalin represented best perhaps the survivalist aspect which, personally, made Stalinism the winning position once Lenin was out of the picture. Leninism (as a party position) was leaning heavily into structural development of the economic forces through a systematic approach, phases of planning increments, shifting the export gains of an extractive economy into heavy industry without compromising internal sustainability. It seems to me that, by economic consequences alone, the NKVD would be far less �necessary� as an instrument of repression, which would effect the party reform much differently.

Then again, speculative history is just a fun sport to play. Had one or two socialists governments happened in Europe - friendly to the USSR - post ww1, the economic game could have been completely different from ground zero

# ? Sep 24, 2022 22:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 14:15

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

vyelkin posted:

there's an argument to be made that while some state violence may be inevitable as it is in any system, the extremes it was taken to under Stalin were extremely harmful to the Soviet project in the long term (leaving aside the regular short-term debate over whether such extremes were necessary for the abrupt industrialization needed to survive WW2). The arbitrary and unaccountable nature of the NKVD led to an orgy of counterproductive violence that went far beyond just removing wreckers or saboteurs or corrupt chinovniki. In fact, the arbitrary nature of the purges meant that wreckers and saboteurs and corrupt chinovniki were if anything more likely to benefit than to be punished, because those were exactly the kind of people interested in score-settling or removing personal enemies or career advancement through eliminating rivals. In addition, it was an enormous waste of resources and human potential to expend so much effort on violence and waste so many human lives in execution chambers and labour camps. Besides the obvious human impact on millions of people and an even greater number of their family members and friends, by all accounts it was also extraordinarily wasteful because forced labour enforced through real or threatened violence tends to be less efficient than just paying people to do jobs that need to be done.

On top of that, there was the long-term brutalization of Soviet society. Many, if not most, if not the overwhelming majority of the victims of the purges were loyal communists or regular Soviet citizens who had no interest in wrecking the Soviet project. Those who were punished for ideological deviations, like being part of a patronage network linked to Trotsky or Zinoviev, tended not to be people actually involved in (usually imaginary) conspiracies against the state or the Stalinist ruling faction, they were just people with different opinions over the best way to build socialism. And I would say most victims of the purges didn't even have that kind of ideological deviation, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. That level of senseless violence directed against society for no apparent reason created some really deep wounds that never healed, and created some very perverse incentives for the post-Stalin Soviet leadership to continue covering up past crimes because any kind of cultural or intellectual opening up inevitably led to parts of Soviet society wanting to confront the Stalinist past, but the longer they covered up the crimes the worse it looked for them when they were revealed and critiqued. That was part of what undermined Gorbachev's popular support: glasnost allowed a real debate over Stalinism for the first time ever (which even Khrushchev didn't allow because the Khrushchev-era leadership were Stalinist cadres who were scared that doing so would undermine their own positions) and the more horrible stuff was uncovered, the more it undermined the system.

Was it all inevitable even with someone else in charge? Maybe, given the history leading up to Stalin seizing power. There's a famous article by Sheila Fitzpatrick called "The Civil War as a Formative Experience," which argues that the experience of fighting for survival in the first years after seizing power made the Bolshevik leadership learn that their problems could almost inevitably be solved through the escalating use of extreme violence, in addition to remaking the Party from a tight-knit, small revolutionary vanguard into a mass movement built from the ground up to win a war rather than for any peaceful purpose - new Party cadres learned how to be communists in the Red Army, the Cheka, and the requisitioning brigades, and established party leaders learned that those institutions solved their problems. That, combined with their history as a conspiratorial revolutionary party, meant a lot of Bolsheviks, not just Stalin, saw threats hiding in every shadow, found it hard to distinguish the real threats from the imaginary ones, and responded to all perceived threats with the same strategy of violence and coercion. Similarly, there's a book by Julie Hessler looking at the early Soviet economy, making a similar argument: War Communism taught the Bolsheviks that they could solve economic problems with repression and coercion, and that became their emergency management strategy every time they encountered an economic crisis afterwards. Personally I don't think every aspect of Stalinism was necessarily inevitable, because even after Stalin took power you still see high-level Bolsheviks operating with the same information that Stalin had but making arguments that less violent strategies would be more effective, like Bukharin's proposals to make peace with the countryside or the Ryutin Platform calling for undoing the coercive elements of Stalinism near the end of the First Five-Year Plan. But I'm not sure those were ever majority positions, so it's hard to say if a theoretical USSR without Stalin in charge would actually have settled on a more peaceful course of action when it inevitably faced another crisis and a hypothetical different leadership had to decide whether to resort to tried and true methods of violence and coercion or roll the dice on a different strategy.

yeah!

# ? Sep 24, 2022 22:15

Sunny Side Up: Jun 22, 2004; Mayoist Third Condimentist

Cuttlefush posted:

lenin could have posted through it

# ? Sep 24, 2022 22:45

Sunny Side Up: Jun 22, 2004; Mayoist Third Condimentist

War and Pieces posted:

Stalin bungled the Comintern but if he focused too much on that he may have bungled the USSR.

The demise of the CPUSA for example was just as much a reaction to the purge and flip flopping party lines as it was due to Capitalist repression.

Ahhh the CPUSA was a reaction to kruschev�s bullshit speech and all that. Which, whatever your position on revisionism, says a lot about how unsustainable or compromised its structure was. It was all downhill after the new deal anyway.

I�ve been reading a lot and writing a thing about communist (well, ML/M) ethics & morality and every trot thing I come across (regardless that Trotskyism and �Marxian� were all that were acceptable in the late 20th century, talking about the quality of analysis) completely misses the point, like complete �WHIFF!�

# ? Sep 24, 2022 22:52

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

Sunny Side Up posted:

Ahhh the CPUSA was a reaction to kruschev�s bullshit speech and all that. Which, whatever your position on revisionism, says a lot about how unsustainable or compromised its structure was. It was all downhill after the new deal anyway.

folding into the democratic party was the kiss of death

# ? Sep 25, 2022 01:59

Shogi: Nov 23, 2004; distant Pohjola

Sunny Side Up posted:

Edit: https://tinyurl.com/4a8x5pdj (Mega.nz link)

First draft, please please read and let me know if the ideas flow and I haven�t cut too much out.

Thanks for posting this. Having read your digest then the original book, I feel like you retained most of the useful material. Maybe you cut a little too much of the (admittedly often tedious) second half - Liebig, soil exhaustion and the way in which the capitalist mode of production externalises the future are linked in an interesting way if you read between the lines a bit but they barely figured in the digest unless I missed them.

I have mixed feelings about the book as a whole. You're definitely right that it's really good for a quick, clear review of alienation in a philosophical and economic sense. But Saito seems a bit scattergun in what he explains and what he doesn't - he loves using 'economic form determinations' in key passages but I don't think he ever makes any attempt to clarify what the phrase means. The book doesn't seem to be aimed at hardcore specialists so that's a weird decision, especially as it's hard to follow what Saito believes is the *qualitative* difference between precapitalist and capitalist ecological destruction without that definition. Maybe this is a me problem but I'd have preferred more focus on that difference, and ways in which socialism might find a new synthesis that fixes it (cf. Cuban urban farming post Special Period or whatever), and a lot less of the thoroughly researched but utterly arid 'nooooo you can't call Marx a Promethean!!!!!' stuff, which you did an admirable job of cutting down tbf

# ? Sep 27, 2022 11:03

Sunny Side Up: Jun 22, 2004; Mayoist Third Condimentist

Shogi posted:

Thanks for posting this. Having read your digest then the original book, I feel like you retained most of the useful material. Maybe you cut a little too much of the (admittedly often tedious) second half - Liebig, soil exhaustion and the way in which the capitalist mode of production externalises the future are linked in an interesting way if you read between the lines a bit but they barely figured in the digest unless I missed them.

I have mixed feelings about the book as a whole. You're definitely right that it's really good for a quick, clear review of alienation in a philosophical and economic sense. But Saito seems a bit scattergun in what he explains and what he doesn't - he loves using 'economic form determinations' in key passages but I don't think he ever makes any attempt to clarify what the phrase means. The book doesn't seem to be aimed at hardcore specialists so that's a weird decision, especially as it's hard to follow what Saito believes is the *qualitative* difference between precapitalist and capitalist ecological destruction without that definition. Maybe this is a me problem but I'd have preferred more focus on that difference, and ways in which socialism might find a new synthesis that fixes it (cf. Cuban urban farming post Special Period or whatever), and a lot less of the thoroughly researched but utterly arid 'nooooo you can't call Marx a Promethean!!!!!' stuff, which you did an admirable job of cutting down tbf

Wow! Thank you. Glad it was worthwhile. And thank you a lot for the feedback. I agree on the usefulness and meaning of the latter three chapters, but it was exhaustive (lol). I�ll revisit to see if I can capture more of the essence of that portion.

Saito does belabor form determinations, but I do think it is defined? Or maybe yeah he handwaves it a little because there is a bunch of literature out there about it (which I found while searching on an unrelated topic). I am not an academic, so it took me reading and rereading many times to really have a handle on many terms he focuses on and his whole argument�s various throughlines.

Agreed on the audience, too, that�s a strong part of what motivated me to condense it. Is the audience the nascent ecosocialist, the militant ML, the academic �marxian,� or�? I think his focus was purely on a fundamental theoretical level, which he succeeded at, but like you I�m way more interested in contemporary illustration and the application of this new theory. I appreciate its ultimate message and point, and it�s a solid foundation to complement all existing theory (eg analysis of Contradiction), but after the fact it feels like it�s �always already� been obvious that nature should be centered I just didn�t understand how.

He does have a book coming out in English next month which may fulfill some of this gap. The critical reviews I�ve seen of the new book have been thirsty specifically for the background provided by this previous book.

# ? Sep 28, 2022 00:55

Shogi: Nov 23, 2004; distant Pohjola

Sunny Side Up posted:

Wow! Thank you. Glad it was worthwhile. And thank you a lot for the feedback. I agree on the usefulness and meaning of the latter three chapters, but it was exhaustive (lol). I�ll revisit to see if I can capture more of the essence of that portion.

Saito does belabor form determinations, but I do think it is defined? Or maybe yeah he handwaves it a little because there is a bunch of literature out there about it (which I found while searching on an unrelated topic). I am not an academic, so it took me reading and rereading many times to really have a handle on many terms he focuses on and his whole argument�s various throughlines.

No worries, I really like digests and thorough reviews etc because I don't have as much time as I used to and my attention span is shot to poo poo. So it's good to know whether I'm about to waste my time grinding my way through a book I don't have the grounding to understand and having to chase every reference to make sense of it only to find the central thesis is complete shite anyway. Ecosoc is relevant to my interests so your work was helpful to me, and Saito has some surprisingly good little passages on other stuff too despite my whining.

You may be right about form determinations, sometimes it's hard to forget what you came in with and read something with fresh eyes. I did skimread most of it again looking for a definition and I think Saito does *imply* one but without really laying it out the way he does for a few other concepts. I'd like to see more of his opinion on what he'd take and leave from the New Reading of Marx as well, since he bases a fair bit on that without seeming to engage with their ideas on the labour theory of value much (as I understand it anyway, I'm also not a relevant academic and am in fact quite stupid)

# ? Sep 28, 2022 20:11

Sunny Side Up: Jun 22, 2004; Mayoist Third Condimentist

Shogi posted:

No worries, I really like digests and thorough reviews etc because I don't have as much time as I used to and my attention span is shot to poo poo. So it's good to know whether I'm about to waste my time grinding my way through a book I don't have the grounding to understand and having to chase every reference to make sense of it only to find the central thesis is complete shite anyway. Ecosoc is relevant to my interests so your work was helpful to me, and Saito has some surprisingly good little passages on other stuff too despite my whining.

You may be right about form determinations, sometimes it's hard to forget what you came in with and read something with fresh eyes. I did skimread most of it again looking for a definition and I think Saito does *imply* one but without really laying it out the way he does for a few other concepts. I'd like to see more of his opinion on what he'd take and leave from the New Reading of Marx as well, since he bases a fair bit on that without seeming to engage with their ideas on the labour theory of value much (as I understand it anyway, I'm also not a relevant academic and am in fact quite stupid)

Honestly for me I see my hardheaded stupidity as an advantage because I know if I�m being honest I have to really, really engage with concepts to actually understand them.

I agree after revisiting it seems like he dances around clearly defining Form in Ch3 and seems to define Social Forms, but I think he does paint a whole picture through contrasting examples and distinguishing Content and Material (I guess?).

Yeah I am hoping his new book is more practice than theory or at least useful in application.

# ? Sep 30, 2022 13:07

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 60 days!

do you want to play a game?

# ? Sep 30, 2022 14:06

MLSM: Apr 3, 2021; by Azathoth

Would this thread recommend Louis Althusser, specifically his books For Marx and Reading Capital? I know the dude was crazy and killed his wife but I keep seeing his works recommended on places like verso and others.

# ? Sep 30, 2022 17:37

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

croup coughfield posted:

do you want to play a game?

Train just had a pretty good interview on Radio War Nerd, if that's not where you heard of this

# ? Sep 30, 2022 18:28

HiroProtagonist: May 7, 2007

MLSM posted:

Would this thread recommend Louis Althusser, specifically his books For Marx and Reading Capital? I know the dude was crazy and killed his wife but I keep seeing his works recommended on places like verso and others.

Althusser is imo good for understanding how base informs superstructure and vice versa as a cycle and the ideological apparatuses that are created as a consequence of that interaction, rather than originating solely from the base mode of production.

I haven't read the two you mentioned, but would recommend Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses because it informs applications of Marxism to media in capitalist society in particular, but also how the orientation and character of every institution within a society is compelled to push in more or less the same direction.

Makes a great pairing with Parenti's Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media. Structuralist Marxism is handy for that purpose.

# ? Sep 30, 2022 19:32

Sunny Side Up: Jun 22, 2004; Mayoist Third Condimentist

HiroProtagonist posted:

Althusser is imo good for understanding how base informs superstructure and vice versa as a cycle and the ideological apparatuses that are created as a consequence of that interaction, rather than originating solely from the base mode of production.

I haven't read the two you mentioned, but would recommend Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses because it informs applications of Marxism to media in capitalist society in particular, but also how the orientation and character of every institution within a society is compelled to push in more or less the same direction.

Makes a great pairing with Parenti's Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media. Structuralist Marxism is handy for that purpose.

Thank you for this, I�ve avoided Althusser because of the weird dogmatism of his prot�g�s Badiou and Ranciere (edit: and the murder), but I am super duper interested in Invented Reality so I�ll give it a whirl.

# ? Sep 30, 2022 20:54

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

at times it really feels like althusser is struggling to reconcile the typical western view of stalin with actual marxist history rather than be like "oh yeah it's propaganda" but he has a lot of good stuff

# ? Sep 30, 2022 21:56

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

Sunny Side Up posted:

Thank you for this, I�ve avoided Althusser because of the weird dogmatism of his prot�g�s Badiou and Ranciere (edit: and the murder), but I am super duper interested in Invented Reality so I�ll give it a whirl.

Badiou and Ranci�re are good though (esp the former)

Althusser is pretty good in Marxist aesthetics as well

# ? Oct 1, 2022 03:09

tristeham: Jul 31, 2022

MLSM posted:

Would this thread recommend Louis Althusser, specifically his books For Marx and Reading Capital? I know the dude was crazy and killed his wife but I keep seeing his works recommended on places like verso and others.

for marx is good

# ? Oct 1, 2022 03:39

samcarsten: Sep 13, 2022; by vyelkin

i am demanding the ultimate marxist take: can one apply the dialectic to Tolkiens works?

# ? Oct 4, 2022 17:17

MLSM: Apr 3, 2021; by Azathoth

samcarsten posted:

i am demanding the ultimate marxist take: can one apply the dialectic to Tolkiens works?

The haradrim are lumpenproles

tristeham posted:

for marx is good

should I read this one before his book on Capital?

# ? Oct 4, 2022 17:25

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

samcarsten posted:

i am demanding the ultimate marxist take: can one apply the dialectic to Tolkiens works?

UNUSED AUDIO COMMENTARY BY HOWARD ZINN AND NOAM CHOMSKY, RECORDED SUMMER 2002 FOR THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (PLATINUM SERIES EXTENDED EDITION) DVD, PART ONE

# ? Oct 4, 2022 17:29

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 60 days!

thesis: gondorism
antithesis: sauronism
synthesis: sarumanism

# ? Oct 4, 2022 17:32

Comrade Koba: Jul 2, 2007

gondor and rohan represent the feudal mode of production while mordor/isengard are industrial capitalists

therefore the complete victory of sauron is an historical inevitability

# ? Oct 4, 2022 18:15

samcarsten: Sep 13, 2022; by vyelkin

Comrade Koba posted:

gondor and rohan represent the feudal mode of production while mordor/isengard are industrial capitalists

therefore the complete victory of sauron is an historical inevitability

and yet, the text presents us with his defeat and destruction.

# ? Oct 4, 2022 18:17

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

tristeham posted:

for marx is good

for marriage advice is bad

# ? Oct 4, 2022 22:11

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

samcarsten posted:

i am demanding the ultimate marxist take: can one apply the dialectic to Tolkiens works?

i believe that's the idea behind The Last Ringbearer

# ? Oct 4, 2022 22:12

War and Pieces: Apr 24, 2022; DID NOT VOTE FOR FETTERMAN

Comrade Koba posted:

gondor and rohan represent the feudal mode of production while mordor/isengard are industrial capitalists

therefore the complete victory of sauron is an historical inevitability

Technically Rohan is nomadic not feudal

# ? Oct 4, 2022 22:17

Maximo Roboto: Feb 4, 2012

Gondor isn't feudal either it was a Byzantine analogue not western European.

quote:

Tolkien had far more imagination than most of those who followed him. A common criticism of the worlds described in fantasy novels is that they are �just like mediaeval Europe, only with magic�. They have knights on horseback, an aristocracy of nobles under a king, and so on, coexisting with magicians, fantastical creatures and items of cosmic power beyond belief.

You won't find any of these feudal European elements in Gondor. The only identifiable vassal state of Gondor is Dol Amroth, otherwise the kingdom is unitary. The army of Gondor fights on foot, even the nobility like Aragorn and Boromir. Faramir rides a horse during his retreat from the Pelennor wall, but he doesn't participate in cavalry charges, despite what Peter Jackson may have shown you. The couched lances of Arthurian tradition are strictly a Rohirrim technique. In fact there are references to there being only one company of cavalry in the entire army of Gondor.

# ? Oct 4, 2022 23:06

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

samcarsten posted:

i am demanding the ultimate marxist take: can one apply the dialectic to Tolkiens works?

tolkien was a racist catholic reactionary hth

# ? Oct 4, 2022 23:27

Maximo Roboto: Feb 4, 2012

Scouring of the Shire was literally a counterrevolution against a redistributionist regime that enacted rationing wasn't it

# ? Oct 4, 2022 23:28

tristeham: Jul 31, 2022

MLSM posted:

The haradrim are lumpenproles

should I read this one before his book on Capital?

i haven't had the courage to the read the commentary on capital yet, it's really long and looks overly complicated.

# ? Oct 4, 2022 23:32

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

MLSM posted:

The haradrim are lumpenproles

the haradrim are an obvious allegory for filthy mohammadins because tolkein is a reactionary who mourns the loss of empire

# ? Oct 4, 2022 23:58

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

the haradrim are an obvious allegory for filthy mohammadins because tolkein is a reactionary who mourns the loss of empire

which is funny as hell with the random luddite poo poo he occasionally indulges in. i guess what i'm saying is that if he were alive today tolkein would be an anarcho-natoist

# ? Oct 5, 2022 00:15

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

a guy who's ideal involves going "back to the land" and rejecting modernity? come to think of it, aren't those hobbits awfully fond of genealogy? hmmmm

Tankbuster posted:

lol it was literally stealing from an agricultural commune to feed it's occupiers.

lmfao what commune

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 has issued a correction as of 00:24 on Oct 5, 2022

# ? Oct 5, 2022 00:20

Tankbuster: Oct 1, 2021

Maximo Roboto posted:

Scouring of the Shire was literally a counterrevolution against a redistributionist regime that enacted rationing wasn't it

lol it was literally stealing from an agricultural commune to feed it's occupiers.

# ? Oct 5, 2022 00:23

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 60 days!

hobbits

# ? Oct 5, 2022 02:48

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfG0USvDTew

The CGTN mega projects documentaries are pretty good "How It's Made" type videos but updated for conditions in China ~2019.

# ? Oct 5, 2022 03:12

Comrade Koba: Jul 2, 2007

samcarsten posted:

and yet, the text presents us with his defeat and destruction.

tolkien was a bourgeois reactionary, of course he would draw the wrong conclusions when presented with material facts :smuggo:

# ? Oct 5, 2022 04:09

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

tolkien was not bourgeois, he really hated bourgeois society and its values. he just was, as has been noted, deeply reactionary and idealised peasant/gentry village society before widespread industrialisation rather than some form of proletarian egalitarian society

the shire is pretty clearly a harmonious pre-enclosure agricultural society, for instance, where everyone knows and accepts their place and social bonds are strong enough to sustain rich and poor alike without too many explicit rules. the scourging introduces bourgeois technology and individualism to the shire, and it's very traumatic for the inhabitants. this is not entirely without historical merit - industrialisation and proletarisation *were* pretty harrowing processes, even when it happened relatively smoothly.

# ? Oct 5, 2022 11:10

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

V. Illych L. posted:

tolkien was not bourgeois, he really hated bourgeois society and its values. he just was, as has been noted, deeply reactionary and idealised peasant/gentry village society before widespread industrialisation rather than some form of proletarian egalitarian society

the shire is pretty clearly a harmonious pre-enclosure agricultural society, for instance, where everyone knows and accepts their place and social bonds are strong enough to sustain rich and poor alike without too many explicit rules. the scourging introduces bourgeois technology and individualism to the shire, and it's very traumatic for the inhabitants. this is not entirely without historical merit - industrialisation and proletarisation *were* pretty harrowing processes, even when it happened relatively smoothly.

yeah the scouring is basically him dreaming about how wonderful it would have been for the peasants to successfully resist enclosure and industrialization so they could remain in their agrarian idyll forever

through a simplified marxist lens, the scouring is feudalism successfully resisting the onset of capitalism but in an idealized fantasy world where feudal society has no downsides

# ? Oct 5, 2022 12:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 14:15

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

V. Illych L. posted:

tolkien was not bourgeois, he really hated bourgeois society and its values. he just was, as has been noted, deeply reactionary and idealised peasant/gentry village society before widespread industrialisation rather than some form of proletarian egalitarian society

the shire is pretty clearly a harmonious pre-enclosure agricultural society, for instance, where everyone knows and accepts their place and social bonds are strong enough to sustain rich and poor alike without too many explicit rules. the scourging introduces bourgeois technology and individualism to the shire, and it's very traumatic for the inhabitants. this is not entirely without historical merit - industrialisation and proletarisation *were* pretty harrowing processes, even when it happened relatively smoothly.

Yes. Marx discusses the yeomanry and their displacement in Vol I Ch 27.

# ? Oct 5, 2022 15:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

«‹›395 »