Michael Parenti - Overthrow of Communism

[ВАЛТЕР]

An excellent lecture by Michael Parenti discussing the problems created by the collapse of the Eastern Block in Eastern European countries.





7YSGjwV3TKY

[Q]

Old video. Dutch subtitles are using "alternative spelling", like "kommunisties" instead of "communistisch". This was popular among the left in the 1970's. This talk seems to be somewhere in the early 1990's (since it's about the fall of 'communism'), so that's just sad.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Or the bloke who wrote the subtitles was dyslectic.

Edit:
The whole writing -ies instead of -isch, is something that gets really annoying when you're trying to read some left-wing material in Dutch.
Unfortunately most of the things from, for example, Hoxha in Dutch was published by, mainly, Maoists who did the whole -ies thing.
Which is the reason I barely ever read stuff in Dutch.

[Q]

Otherwise a good lecture. Some comments:

- At about 18 minutes: Parenti argues that the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist (ok, agreed) and implies that it therefore was socialist (if imperfect). A rather sloppy argument. What defines socialism then, besides a lack of capitalism? He doesn't explain.

- At about 23 minutes: He gives a good description of the "siege mentality" that got over the USSR and, consequently, the leninist (stalinoid/trotskyist) left worldwide: "we can't have disagreements, that would only invide the enemy". This culture is surely something we still face and need to overcome.

- From 28 minutes onwards: He accurately describes the inherent issues with the USSR economy: The bureaucracy, the target quota, the disincentives to invest in more efficient production... This is a main reason for Hillel Ticktin to describe the USSR as a "non-mode of production" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html) (note: as opposed to the capitalism-socialism dichotomy I criticized above).

- At 1:15 he makes a good appeal for more democracy: "Humans are aweful and far from perfect, therefore we need democracy and political organisation". Lovely :)

Also, this should be in /Theory or /History

[hetz]

The whole writing -ies instead of -isch, is something that gets really annoying when you're trying to read some left-wing material in Dutch.
Unfortunately most of the things from, for example, Hoxha in Dutch was published by, mainly, Maoists who did the whole -ies thing.
Which is the reason I barely ever read stuff in Dutch.
Why did they do that?
Out of nationalism, in order to sound less German-like or what?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why did they do that?
Out of nationalism, in order to sound less German-like or what?

No.
It was a left-wing thing.
It was to make it easier for workers to learn to read and write.
-isch sounds like -ies, so they thought that if you wrote the words the same as they sound it would be easier.
A problem I see is that it makes the old books very outdated.
I also think it is somewhat of an elitist-attitude.

[Q]

Why did they do that?
Out of nationalism, in order to sound less German-like or what?

To make things more "simple". I believe the reasoning was that the official spelling was "too bourgeois" or some dumbfuck reason.