Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
The 1920s avant-garde thought they were helping to make a new world.  They didn't know they were only an exhausted interlude between the trenches and concentration camps/gulags.

So it goes.

Now one of their works sell in an explosion of conspicuous consumption* to multi-billionaires in the financial equivalent of whipping-it-out and seeing whose is bigger for more money than the artists earned in their entire life.

Life in late-stage predatory capitalism.

*  See: Veblen, Thorstein and his often cited, never read, Theory of the Leisure Class -- not to be confused with the never cited, never read Theory of the Leisure Class by Nikolai Bukharin, Bolshevik and Class Traitor who admitted to seeking to assassinate Lenin and Stalin from 1918, murder Maxim Gorky by poison, partition the Soviet Union and hand out her territories to Germany, Japan, and Great Britain while being a degenerate fascist working for the restoration of capitalism, we know his confession was true because we have the documents stating he was not to be tortured, only beaten.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Dec 2nd, 2017 at 02:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hold on there.
< wipes tears >
If it were not for Chomsky citations, Bukharin would be dead to me.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sat Dec 2nd, 2017 at 03:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Without an interest in the Bolsheviks or the minutia of the early history of Soviet Union there's not much point in reading Bukharin.

Unless wading through page after page of this:

No doubt, if we start with the fact that it is only a class theory of the proletariat that can be objectively correct, a mere revelation of the bourgeois character of any specific theory, is, strictly speaking, sufficient to justify its rejection. At bottom, this is a correct attitude, for Marxism claims its general validity precisely for the reason that it is the theoretical expression of the most advanced class, whose "needs" of knowledge are far more audacious than those of the conservative and therefore narrow-minded mode of thought of the ruling classes in capitalist society. Yet it is quite clear that the correctness of this assumption should be proved precisely in the struggle between the ideologies themselves, and particularly, by a logical criticism of the theories of our opponents. A sociological characterization of a certain theory, therefore, does not relieve us of the responsibility of waging war against it even in the field of a purely logical criticism.

--- 1927 Russian edition of The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class

floats your boat.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Dec 2nd, 2017 at 09:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Looks like someone never really studied the Russian history from the Revolution through Stalin. At least there is no question of true authorship of "Theory of The Leisure Class". At least when Lenin copied, copped, J. A. Hobson's "Imperialism" at least it came out in the same year. But then I haven't read anything by Bukharin, so his version may be highly and independently insightful, though I have my doubts. He was a sufficiently significant figure that Stalin worried about him - and that was always a bad thing for the one being worried about.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Dec 3rd, 2017 at 04:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the above could well do with at least one less 'at least'.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Dec 3rd, 2017 at 04:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series