New Soviet Man vs Trigglypuff

From time to time I have marveled at how the Left has changed over the years – basically, from steel-driving commies to gender-bender commies.  Which leads me to wonder what  would happen if, via some mechanism built of ivory and twisted crystal rods, they were ever to meet.

The imagination reels.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to New Soviet Man vs Trigglypuff

  1. Space Ghost says:

    Spandrell calls the new Left “Bioleninism”

  2. akarlin says:

    They already met in the late 1930s. That’s perhaps the one thing one can toast Stalin for.

  3. Coagulopath says:

    It happened on the other side, too. The Übermenschen of Nazi Germany have been replaced by pudgy, sunlight-averse basement dwellers who spend their days denying the existence of the Holocaust on 4chan. Come on, guys. Real Nazis would look upon the Holocaust as their greatest achievement!

    • R. says:

      Well that’s what I always used to tell nazis but they’re too much into the conspiratorial mindset to acknowledge reality.

      On the other hand, sure there’s basement dwellers and losers but Nazis have some capable invididuals with them, for example Weev, whose exile from the US is becoming ever more interesting, supposedly he’s had to remove himself from Croatia? and was last claiming to be living in Transnistria..

    • Thersites says:

      Around the typical internet Nazi, there hangs the distinct odour of someone who would have been enthusiastically purged during the Night of the Long Knives.

  4. Greying Wanderer says:

    the Bolsheviks had both but Stalin eventually got rid of the Trigglypuffs cos they completely wrecked Soviet society – i guess it’s not really surprising that people can forget the reasons behind traditional behavior until they stop doing it and…”oops!”

    • Great article, still relevant today.(Try replacing “bourgeois” with “patriarchal”) It demonstrates that with the communists the rot wasn’t just in their economics, it was total. Stalin might have been less crazy in that particular area, but in others he was just as bad, for instance, the demolition of churches peaked under his leadership.

  5. moscanarius says:

    “That’s not what real Marxism is about!”, they said to each other simultaneously…

    • Ursiform says:

      Both with some justification …

      • moscanarius says:

        True, I’m just having fun picturing they playing their usual not-true-Marxist game in such a setting.

        • Jim says:

          By definition “true Marxism” is that which results in an utopian society (whatever that is). So it’s a tautology that “true Marxism” leads to an utopian society.

      • "True" Marxism says:

        True Marxism is primarily that the “contradictions” of Capitalism will eventually drive the working mass to immiseration (through accumulation of capital, technological substitution of labour and increased worker productivity) and the mass working class then react in revolutionary action to take over society.

        Marxism of the old school Russian Commie or Chinese form where a bunch of urban intellectuals who have read Marx seize power on behalf of a mass of peasants and push them through mass industrialisation (with less improvement in welfare and GDP than almost all alternative scenarios on record, assuming similar starting human capital) indeed doesn’t look anything like Marxism.

        Still less does anything like the recent Left, which generally does not make any case for the actual current or imminent economic oppression of the masses whatsoever (as opposed to absolute minoritarianism). There is nothing common other than the idea of dialetic class struggle (with a completely different definition of class as structured by race and gender, rather than economic role) and the Enemy is your friend and We are the enemy.

        But then nothing could be like true Marxism, until such time as urban working classes are immiserated by the “contradictions” of Capitalism, which is looking to happen roughly never.

  6. harpersnotes says:

    Weak political movements seek to expand their political influence by being welcoming to marginalized groups, a ‘big tent’ effect. Then in the final step to domination they shed many groups, often turning on them. (Mussolini and The Italian Futurists comes to mind.) There are exceptions, but that’s the usual pattern. It was the 1972 Presidential election rout that led to Democratic Party identitarianism. (As ever, see Robert Strauss’s book The Whole D*mn Deal.) The current Democratic Party leadership is depressingly unimaginative, run mostly by those who rose to power in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 rout. Old politicians fighting old elections.

  7. Warren Notes says:

    You could say the same thing, though, about Conservatives. Imagine the hard-boiled civil rights opponents of yesteryear – some of them proud segregationists – also nationalistic, fiercely anti-Communist, and committed to “fiscal responsibility.” How would they get along with the “Conservatives” of today, with their need for open borders to please the Chamber of Commerce, their indebtedness to China, and their perennial acquiescence to levitation of the debt ceiling?

  8. The Z Blog says:

    The reason for this shape-shifting is that the American Left has always been a moral crusade. They inherited from their forebears the belief in communal salvation. Economics was always just a bolt-on accessory that they used out of convenience. I scan the Progressive sites and think tanks for material. There are rumblings of a shift toward populist economics now. They think it will help win votes.

  9. spandrell says:

    There’s plenty of old leftists who were the labor-activist sort of commie and now are of the muslim-friendly gender-bending type. And they see no contradiction whatsoever in what is just, ultimately, agitation for its own sake.

    As Space Ghost was so nice to link to me at the top, I have written at length on this topic, and you might find it worthy of your time. There’s a couple of further posts on the topic:

    • Yes, I don’t think the cultural and intellectual contradictions matter as much as they should. Communists have been holding mutually-exclusive ideas for decades. I do agree with the commenters who believe that might change if they were to mutually approach domination. There might be blood then, and I’m not sure the steel-driving commies would win, being taken by surprise and all.

  10. catte says:

    If the Norks ever open up we might see some approximation to this in reality.

  11. Eli says:

    Are the actual workers in Silicon Valley as culturally left wing as their leadership would imply? If they are, isn’t that different from 50 years ago?

  12. kot says:

    They’re leftists in the sense that catholics are monotheists and democrats are pro-slavery.

  13. epoch2013 says:

    That would be a simple and short encounter. There were more leftists in the Gulag than in present day universities.

  14. epoch2013 says:

    During the Prague Spring of ’68 all kinds of bands, based on the hippy and protest movement sweeping the West sprang up. One of them, based on Frank Zappa’s Mothers of Invention, was called Plastic People of the Universe. After the crushing of the Prague Spring they surprisingly managed to perform for a while.

  15. CJ says:

    I have an Internet acquaintance who, after drifting from light conservationism/centrism to hardcore Stalinism, came out as bisexual and is now a transsexual.

    I’m pretty sure if he lived in Stalin’s Russia he would been gulag’d, at the very least.

  16. cthulhu says:

    Maybe we need a new Bulgakov to transmute “Heart of a Dog” to, say, “Ovaries of a Man”…

  17. Commissar Goodthink says:

    The New Soviet Man would swiftly recognize Trigglypuff as a “useless eater” and a good source of much-needed calories, which were always in short supply in the gulag.

    One whack to the back of the head with a brick, and Trigglypuff would provide 30 days’ worth of fat-rich food for the “zeks” (Soviet hard-labor convicts).

  18. aciddc says:

    Hmm I don’t think there’s really anything to the idea of this transformation. Leftists in the west have always been a very culturally progressive group. And indeed the early Bolsheviks were very culturally progressive for Russia. That just didn’t end up being the dichotomy between the US and USSR because Russia started out so much more conservative, and even reversed some of the early liberalization once things got more totalitarian.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s