Not directly about the bank, but [Insurgent Democracy](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo210283...) is a great read. The Non-Partisan League successfully organized rural farmers against corporate power in the 1910s & 20s. Though they only were in power for a decade or so, their legacy is still quite strong. BND, state hail insurance, and a state-run grain mill to name a few!
I can't handle those sorts of skill/ladder games. They demand too much time to keep up your skill and are clearly addicting. Personally I've found music to play a similar role in bringing that "flow state". Find a practical hobby where your time and effort result in something material rather than digital AND has the added benefit of being sharable with others.
I still enjoy videogames but I essentially only play:
- In person co-op games with friends (smash, mario kart, etc.)
- Challenging single player games (souls-like) where I set a timer somewhere between 30-60 minutes and force myself to stop at the end.
The idea of somebody being a "trained Marxist" is very funny. Personally, I'm a 4th degree Historical Materialist and I'm training for the 2nd level Communist obstacle course
I can see how it's "funny" if one is trying to minimize and deflect, but if they're hanging around characters like maduro then they're probably referring to more than just economic or government theory - these people see themselves as full blown subversive revolutionaries.
And then if you consider the spread of critical theory and postmodernism and the general influence of the Frankfurt school through our institutions, then the overtly "anti-establishment" protesting and rioting spearheaded by BLM and Antifa (which "doesn't exist", "isn't an organization", sure, how typically "revolutionary") starts to look very much like the start of a subversive, insurrectionist ploy, much like that of the bolsheviks that lead to the disaster of a government that my family fled.
And then it really isn't funny to me at all. And it also isn't funny to me when one considers that part of the rise of the Nazi party pre WWII can be attributed the behavior of very similar "revolutionary" communists who also were running destroying businesses and beating up citizens on the street for disagreement. No, I'd say such an overtly insurrectionist movement evolving openly in the US is not funny at all.
I don't think you have much to worry about in the US. From my experience, those who call themselves "Marxist" have a hard time organizing a barbecue, let alone a revolution. They are mostly revolutionary LARPers. I think the internet and media sometimes magnify the size and power of these groups and it warps with our perception of reality. The largest Leninist group in the US is the PSL and they're a joke. A bunch of weirdos with no friends but the ones they found online
I'm yet to see anyone describe themselves as simply a 'trained Marxist' without any indication as to what that might mean specifically, other than these BLM leaders. A 'trained Marxist guerilla'? Sure. A 'trained Marxist economist'? Sure. 'Educatied in Marxism'? Sure. Even just a 'Marxist', sure. But even with the Leninist part (which the quote doesn't specify - there are plenty of non-Leninist Marxists about) it's unclear what it means to be a 'trained' one. It's not as though there's a 'Marxism coach' somewhere who trains you on understanding the significance of the ratio between constant and variable capital or the labour theory of value.
It's hilarious because it's so vague, not because there are guerillas or revolutionaries who have been trained by Marxists in agitprop/organizing/guerilla tactics. In short, what's the difference between being a 'trained Marxist' and 'educated in the works of Marx and Engels'? If I heard someone describe themselves as a 'trained literary critic', I'd think exactly what GP pointed out too.
My comment is just as much a criticism of the vagueness of the BLM leaders as it is the people who accept them at their word without even inquiring into what it means. For all we know, they could literally just be holding a philosophy degree completed with a Master's project in an aspect of Marxist philosophy.
Right, if you haven't seen it it must not exist. Are you from Missouri? If that level of radical skepticism works for you, good on ya. Personally, I don't conflate things that I don't know with things that can't be known.
A trained Marxist is an activist, it's really that simple. The point is not to interpret the world but to change it yada yada yada. A Leninist is a Marxist who believes the proletariat is too economically comfortable to bring about the revolution and therefore an intellectual vanguard of "trained" revolutionaries (marxist activists) are required to lead the way. Time to hit the books!
>Right, if you haven't seen it it must not exist. Are you from Missouri? If that level of radical skepticism works for you, good on ya.
There's no need for a confrontational tone. In the past I've interacted with many Marxists, activists, organizers, and academics. I'm more trying to apply my experience to the topic, not to suppose that nobody describes themselves as a 'trained Marxist'.
>A trained Marxist is an activist, it's really that simple.
Why do we see people describe themselves as 'Marxist activists' etc. more than 'trained Marxists', then? If somebody learned Marxist philosophy in private, does this make them a 'trained Marxist'? Who trained them, in that case?
>A Leninist is a Marxist who believes the proletariat is too economically comfortable
I know it's a technicality, but this is not the reason behind the vanguard party. The idea of a proletariat which is too comfortable with capitalism is more of a Frankfurt School flourish on Marxism, and bypasses Lenin entirely. The vanguard party, at least in Leninist theory, is not a specially trained force of revolutionaries, but a party (in the normal sense of the word) open to anyone to join. It's not a group of trained revolutionaries (and perhaps you recognize this by the fact you put 'trained' in quotes). In theory, the vanguard party could be completely transparent (in the sense of not even being a formal party, but encompassing all who share in the ideals), or even non-activists (such as academics) and untrained people (such as those who have come accross Marx without any outside influence or instruction) could be a part of it.
Obscuring 'trained Marxists' into 'Marxist activists' requires a non-obvious interpretation of 'trained' and 'activism' which misses out on the nuance of both. An activist for animal rights along Peter Singer's philosophy is not a "trained utilitarian", nor even a "trained animal rights activist". An an activist for Stallman's free software philosophy is not necessarily a "trained free software activist". If all 'trained Marxists' are 'Marxist activists', then the obverse would have to be true as well, but I can think of many 'Marxist activists' who have a very poor grasp on Marx and Engels, to the point where it would be farcical to call them 'trained Marxists', much in the same way a 'trained programmer' who can barely write more than a fizzbuzz would be a farcical designation.
People can be trained guerillas, trained activists, etc. - because those are things you do, and the origin of the knowledge is inherently practical and handed down by someone external. Marxism, however, does not provide practical guidance (at least not in any sense, as Marx admits, to be relevant after he initially wrote the Manifesto). It's theory, and you're reading 'activists' into it in a way that has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of 'training' or 'activist'.
This is the point of the Leninist party politics. It is the activist embodiment of Marxism. The Frankfurt School was trying to understand why the revolution had only occurred in Russia despite the predictions of Marx's theory. Their reasoning was post-hoc rather than strictly causal but it is the reason given to account for the failure of the proletarian class to rise up in class consciousness and the justification for a vanguard to lead the way. It remains Leninist despite the involvement of the Frankfurt School. In fact, it really proves the point. The training is literally training in revolutionary tactics. Peter Singer qua philosopher us not an activist, but of course there are trained activists in the animal rights movement who are trained in tactics to promote an agenda rooted in utilitarian reasoning. Sorry for the snark but you seem to be engaging in a bit of casuistry or being willfully obtuse about the ordinary meanings of activist and training.
It's not as funny when you get to live under the rule of well trained Marxists. Hundreds of millions of them have been produced over the last century. Look into a history book or just ask around.
It turns out that some genocidal ideologies are too hard to let go, we managed with Nazism pretty well but Marxism is taking some time. Cambodia under Pol Pot should have been enough.
Indeed it is surprising, but I think it's because communism wasn't put on trial when the Soviet Union collapsed. There weren't courts punishing gulag wardens and KGB officers for torture, murder, and everything else under the sun. Everything was forgiven for the sake of peace, but everyone learned the wrong lesson. Which is why when "nationalism" is mentioned, people think of Nazi germany, but when "socialism" is mentioned, today's youth especially wants to think of Sweden. The crimes of Nazi Germany are regularly mentioned in popular culture, but those of Communists not so much, though they're more contemporary, lasted much longer, and arguably affected a lot more people.
Why is this funny to you? There are many Marxist organizations in the world, surely some of them focus on organizing considering that one of the core ideas of many Marxist and “post”-Marxist intellectual currents (like critical theory) is proletarian or some other sort of revolution.
Recently read both Legacy of Ashes and The Jakarta Method. The declassified documents directly from the CIA should damn them to the grave. The United States in the post WW2 period turned rightful fear and skepticism of the USSR into violent paranoia, subverting democracy anywhere people dared assert control over natural resources or accept participation of socialist/communist political parties.
Whether they did it at the direction of business interests isn't too important. The result of a bloody Cold War in the 3rd World was a cheap non-unionized labor force where organizing for better wages and conditions is dangerous and often illegal.
A better world was possible. The Non-Aligned Movement attempted to thread the needle between the US and the Soviet Union, but the CIA's mission was to make sure there was no 3rd option.
