I would like to say I’ll take a look, but i won’t. I don’t have the time right now. I did search it and it seems like it has to do with voting in a communist country?
He studied Lenin’s notes about voting in Russia before the revolution and compares it to today. I get it. I never get to read half the stuff I’d like to. He also spoke on the Upstream podcast if you have time.
👍 You clearly think rationally, so if you have any recommendations for reading, YouTube, listening, I would appreciate it. I enjoy learning about how the world works.
I don’t really have anything but my own thoughts and Libertarian stance, which by some of the comments I’ve received is “irrational”.
The podcast was interesting.
What I learned though, is that Lenin viewed voting as a gauge for the uprising/physical violence in the “streets” and not as exercising actual political power. His thought seemed to be the only way to make political change is with violence or the threat of violence or mass labor strikes.
The podcast only touched on the political-fetishism you had mentioned, but I guess the guest on the show is writing a book on that.
Which I have no idea if it is out yet.
Also, according to the podcast, there has to be a party that represents the common worker. Without it there no voice of the people.
Lastly, the talked about how you needed to have a party at the ready for the discontent voters. They used the BLM, Railway strikes, etc and how the movement(s) fizzled out due to not having a place (party) to channel their energy through. Then the current parties just had to say the right things to sway them and thus derailing any momentum.
Thats just my 2 cents.
You pretty much summed it up. I found it interesting how Nimtz explains it. He parallels how the government in Russia compares to what we’re seeing in America now. Upstream has some elevated conversations. I don’t agree with many, but I appreciate different points of view.
August Nimtz wrote a book about this, it’s called “voting fetishism.”
I would like to say I’ll take a look, but i won’t. I don’t have the time right now. I did search it and it seems like it has to do with voting in a communist country?
He studied Lenin’s notes about voting in Russia before the revolution and compares it to today. I get it. I never get to read half the stuff I’d like to. He also spoke on the Upstream podcast if you have time.
The Podcast I can get behind. I’ll give that a shot.
Upstream deserves praise. It has some intelligent conversations, not just dictations.
*Currently 32 mins into the 55min episode and liking the format so far.
👍 You clearly think rationally, so if you have any recommendations for reading, YouTube, listening, I would appreciate it. I enjoy learning about how the world works.
I don’t really have anything but my own thoughts and Libertarian stance, which by some of the comments I’ve received is “irrational”. The podcast was interesting. What I learned though, is that Lenin viewed voting as a gauge for the uprising/physical violence in the “streets” and not as exercising actual political power. His thought seemed to be the only way to make political change is with violence or the threat of violence or mass labor strikes. The podcast only touched on the political-fetishism you had mentioned, but I guess the guest on the show is writing a book on that. Which I have no idea if it is out yet. Also, according to the podcast, there has to be a party that represents the common worker. Without it there no voice of the people. Lastly, the talked about how you needed to have a party at the ready for the discontent voters. They used the BLM, Railway strikes, etc and how the movement(s) fizzled out due to not having a place (party) to channel their energy through. Then the current parties just had to say the right things to sway them and thus derailing any momentum. Thats just my 2 cents.
You pretty much summed it up. I found it interesting how Nimtz explains it. He parallels how the government in Russia compares to what we’re seeing in America now. Upstream has some elevated conversations. I don’t agree with many, but I appreciate different points of view.