Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
A curated history from the mouths of the elites does not make good data. We can all see how the scions of the plutocrats in the US massage the truth and tell us we have never had it so good while we all know full well this is not the life we are actually living. This is not new, in fact it is as old a practice as history itself and the written word. We find fragments of the truth hidden in every nation from ancient Sumeria to Rome, to our present day. I’ll put my faith in the stories of the small people who lived to tell the tale, thank you. It may not make for as compelling reading, but there’s a truth there you won’t find in official statements and official narratives.
Anna Louise Strong was an American journalist, not an “elite.” She traveled the USSR, US, and PRC, reporting on the ground. Trusting only anecdotes that conform to your own beliefs, rather than historical record and journalism, doesn’t seem to be very effective historiography.
On the contrary, a lot of journalists have a research bias toward institutional narratives crafted by governing insiders. It does make for a lot less work to draw from official sources since they’re the natural convergence point for diverse data sources, but it is subject to elite distortions. They might not consider themselves elite, but those of us in information industries have to work much harder to maintain an unvarnished connection to the vox populi, especially when researching questions the authorities don’t want the answers to, or at least don’t want to become common knowledge. Developing a rich historiography of a stratified society has always been a problem and has always favoured the elite classes, precisely because of sociological forces that suppress an accurate account of the underclasses. And yes, the CPSU just as the CPC are today do in fact constitute an elite class under a Marxist analysis. I’ve met far to many ".ml"s who aren’t even willing to acknowledge that much. I doubt even the CPSU itself would contest that description, describing it as a necessary, if ultimately temporary intermediate step.
Social sciences are nowhere near as clean as you’re implying and the standards of evidence you’re applying demonstrate a weak understanding of the subject. Historians have long acknowledged “history” favours the elite because their records and narratives are the ones that tend to get preserved, and you would know that if you were applying honest academic rigour to the problem.
“Elite class” isn’t a thing in Marxist analysis. Classes are relations to ownership of the means of production, administrators in socialism share the same relations to ownership as the rest of the working class. Your skepticism towards journalists and hard data is unfounded, your skepticism of anecdote should be far more so.
The hell it isn’t. You haven’t got the foggiest clue what Marx wrote do you. Let me guess you read the manifesto and thought you were an edgy contrarian didn’t you. Marx wrote a library of works on relational ethics and sociology, as well as economics. If you think he stopped at ownership you have barely scratched the surface. As bad as the capitalists that read Wealth of Nations and didn’t bother to read the rest of Smith or the other capitalist thinkers.
I’m skeptical of everyone. They all tell the truth in their own way, and dismissing anyone outright is foolish, but it’s important to know their blind spots as well. I was raised in a firehose of lies and half truths. From every side of the argument, the ones I’m most sympathetic to included. I can feel the spin on your take from your take a thousand miles away.
Marx never once mentions an “elite class,” because class is based on relations to ownership of the means of production, not arbitrary vibes. Marx mentions the ruling class, which is the class in society that controls the commanding heights of the economy and the state, but this is not a class in and of itself but merely a descriptor for the actual underlying class that does, such as capitalists or workers. I’ve read the Manifesto, sure, but a lot more than that, and not once did Marx separate from materialism and enter vibes-based analysis like you allege.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and I’m done discussing it with someone who doesn’t live in the real world.
I know what I’m talking about, and the fact that you cannot actually counter what I said but instead attack me directly is evidence that it’s yourself that doesn’t know. Ignorance isn’t a sin, to learn is to grow.
Consider who you’re taking to. This clown is shoved so far up Russia’s ass there needs to be a procedure named after them.