002: An Assessment Of Lex Fridman’s Podcast With Historian Vejas Viulevicius
A Synopsis:
I became aware of this podcast days before it was released. Lex Fridman gave a slight teaser that he was working on something extensive regarding the rise of extremist ideologies in Europe during the 1900’s.
This podcast was not only 3+ hours, but it was a dense block of hours. If you drifted for a handful of seconds, you were likely to miss something fascinating. I don’t think it’s possible to do justice to the podcast with a high-level summary, so I will link it here and encourage everyone to watch it. I wouldn’t call it time-sensitive, as it is largely a history lesson, but the takeaways are highly relevant to today’s world.
I will recap slightly but then provide my key takeaways, why I think someone should tune into it, as well as what readings it inspired me to work into my reading queue.
The conversation took place with a historian by the name of Vejas Viulevicius. With all due respect to him, I will refer to him as Vejas during this writeup for the purposes of continuity. The man has a mountain of knowledge on nineteenth and twentieth century Central and Eastern Europe and has lectured extensively on it.
This talk focused on a number of key concepts. Out of the gate was an explanation on the roots of Marxism, to include discussion about the Communist Manifesto and how Karl Marx became a prominent thinker. It was important to note that Marxism was supposed to come to its glory in Germany (Marx himself identified as a German to the extent that national identity mattered to him), despite the fact that we associate it most closely with Soviet Russia. Lex and Vejas touched on some of his close associates like his teacher Friedrich Hegel, his partner Friedrich Engels, and the influence he had on figures like Lenin in Russia.
Speaking of Lenin, a deep dive takes place into the rise of the Bolsheviks, which touches on the power vacuum out of World War I. While Anarchism was also relevant in post-World War I Russia, the movement under Mikhail Bakunin lacked the rigidity and discipline (by nature of being anarchists) to mount any successes. A conversation about the transfer of power from Lenin to Stalin was held, which included the relevance of Trotsky (who on paper probably seemed like a more likely successor than the less charismatic Stalin).
Vejas took time to compare the fringe left ideology with the equal-opposite rightwing ideology of Nazism in Germany. It was important to point out that Fascism came to being most notably in Italy before Germany. Anyway, they discussed the notable differences, as well as the similarities despite the fact that the belief structures stood in pure opposition to each other in many ways. Importantly, they Great Terror was discussed, the Soviet Union post-World War II, the questionable beliefs Daryl Cooper presented in a podcast with Tucker Carlson, the post-Soviet era of Russia, as well as the influence of Marxism in other parts of the world. Most notably, Vejas dives into what Communism looked like among believers in the United States, and he discusses China’s interpretation of Communism over the last number of decades.
He closes the discussion with a few important stances about his concerns with modern education. Vejas is concerned with a reduction in actual reading in the current academic climate. It is a concern I share.
My Key Takeaways:
I provided the quick recap to lay the groundwork for my takeaways. As mentioned, no summary could ever do justice to such a deep dive into so many key topics concerning the umbrella being extremist political ideology. I was left with some prevalent thoughts upon reflection of this memorably good discussion though.
Revolution Was a Necessity (And So Was a Break From Known Traditions):
Vejas points out that evolution in itself was not enough to attain full Marxism, according to Karl Marx. For clarity, the envisioned sequence was something like this (the following is a grammatical tragedy but effective for the purposes of getting the point across): Primitive Communism (communities operating more or less in silos) -> Slave Society -> Feudalism (nobles own land, serfs provide labor) -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism (classless society).
At some point, it would be necessary to have revolution to move the needle. Likewise, a break from known traditions was also a necessity. To this end, Marxism would become and form its own traditions in spite of itself, and when a movement is so obsessed with the idea that it is on the right side of history (a term we hear used at a concerning frequency in a propaganda-like way today), it becomes its own religion…
Ideology as a Religion:
This concept will lead into the idea of discipline and structure, but it warrants its own section. Perhaps not in the spiritual sense, but when assessing how extreme ideologies operate, they parallel the logic which fuels a religion. They require absolute buy-in; they adhere to a set of rules and principles and allow minimal to zero room for deviation; there is a higher being, but in the case of extremist ideology, the higher being is an earthly figure. On that point, North Korea practices what it considers to be Communism. They are more-or-less operate in a dictatorial monarchy, as they are on their third generation of leadership in this regime. The citizens reportedly view their supreme leader in a status which almost transcends the earthly world. It’s kind of wild, to be honest.
When I look at the western world, I’m not obsessed enough to believe that we are on the imminent brink of an extremist takeover. However, there are elements which operate in an almost religious fashion. The celebrants of wokeism on the left have sworn such allegiance to social justice that they have failed to recognize when enough is enough. Some of the topics we debate today are a level I doubt the originators of social justice in the west would celebrate. Meanwhile, cult of personality seemingly affects some on the right. A figure with extremist views could use that in an ominous way (despite edgy and in my opinion senseless rhetoric at times, Trump is not that person).
The Concept of Discipline and Structure:
“He was under Communist discipline for the duration of the war,” Ernest Hemingway wrote in narration of Robert Jordan in his class novel For Whom The Bell Tolls. This was actually a controversial line at the time, but I think that was likely due to a misunderstanding of what it meant. Marxist movements, as they were present in opposition to the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War, were reputable in their discipline when conducting their operations. This holds logic, as a collectivist mindset was front and center in Marxist doctrine.
It was also an advantage for the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War. Bakunin and the Anarchists shared the belief in revolution for the sake of bringing about their own form of a utopia. However, the very nature of such an individualistic belief “structure” lent itself to zero discipline. It is for this reason, as Vejas explained, that Anarchism never got off the ground. It took a rigid buy-in and discipline to succeed in revolution. This took harsh form at times, too. Lenin deprived himself of music and forms of art, for example, in order to maintain a hardness which allowed him to lead a successful effort in coming to power.
Marxism’s Role For Special Figures:
“We are all part of the same hypocrisy,” as Michael Corleone says in one of the early scenes of Godfather II. I also think of the old adage that in Capitalism, man exploits man; in Communism, it’s just the opposite.
I found this theme in the conversation notable though. How an ideology can preach such collectivism and abolition of any class structure, and then carve out special roles for important people to move the needle, I find it to be simply outstanding. Marx was adamant about this in theory. Lenin and Stalin were both emphatic about this in practice. This writeup isn’t intended to be a piece about why I prefer free-market principles to Marxism, but while exploitation is certainly alive and well, so are avenues and opportunities to ascend the class structure.
A great example of this was in the failure of the collectivization of farming. In that industrialization was the objective, the individual farmer did not matter. In fact, superb performance was defamed on an individual level. What this ultimately led to was a lack of incentive for previously known productivity in farming. The factory model miserably failed, and it led to the starvation and death of millions. To bring this full circle, however, the individual did not matter (unless, of course, they were in a special position to advance the cause of Communism. Then they mattered more, but this was not applicable to the individual farmer who more often than was just in the way).
Image Curation:
This was about Stalin in the context of the podcast. Stalin was at one time seen as a bit of an idiot; in fact, he by many measures was. Lenin promoted Stalin within the governmental structure as someone who was a calm voice in hostile situations. While Stalin’s rival Trotsky was the more polished and charismatic of the two, Stalin played an effective role in personnel decisions. Over the course of time, the public image of Stalin became one of being a moderate (I believe the dictator in sheep’s clothing or something along those lines was used at one point in the conversation). We know from historical fact that he was responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
The point is that when an entity controls the narrative, an image can be curated. And we see that today to a lesser extent. I preface by saying that I in no way see Kamala Harris as some Marxist on the level of Stalin or anything like that. That’s delusional, despite the fact that some believe it. What is true, however, is that Kamala Harris was the most unpopular vice president we had seen in a long time. Her botches in the public sphere were exceptional. What she was in charge of seemingly had unfortunate outcomes. When she became the presumptive nominee (without receiving a single primary vote from a citizen of this country), an effort embarked to paint her as some kind of hybrid between Obama and Oprah. While I think the fruits of the effort are starting to yield diminished results, it is amazing what is possible when the narrative can be so heavily influenced by one side.
The Weaponization of Science:
Science was an engine in Marxist ideology. If a dictator needed to move the needle on a particular initiative, they would claim its brilliance in the name of science. They could tailor the science to their benefit, however. It was in the name of science that Marxism would lead to an end of wars and poverty. That inequalities due to class structure would cease was claimed in the name of science, as Vejas suggests. Farming tactics often required (flawed) scientific claims to push collectivization.
As Lex suggests, science is a beautiful thing. As a believer in Catholicism, my deity is incomplete without it. It would be unintelligent to think otherwise. However, when alternative points of view are suppressed for the purposes of convenience, and those same claimants are defamed or worse, dangerous trends can start. Authoritarian trends can start, and this has been concerningly apparent even in the west.
Vejas’ Message To Students Today
His one word was “read.” He meant it literally. While audiobooks, ebooks, cliffnotes have their place, nothing replaces the ability to get into the mind of a writer more than reading their literal words on a physical page.
When I reflect on my own time in undergrad…dammit I wish I would have been more committed to this idea! I’m an avid reader today. I wasn’t so much when I needed to be for academic purposes, and it was the difference in just getting by academically and truly immersing myself in order to have a transcended level of understanding and critical thinking. So to ANYONE reading this far into this entry, of any age of predicament, read. There is no substitute.
Why You Should Watch:
I actually don’t recommend having this one play while you’re working out, mowing the lawn, or engaging in some other activity. It requires committed attention. That said, if you want to understand Marx and the origins of Marxism, as well as the origins of Fascism (for that matter), tune in.
If you are curious about The Great Terror and how it led to the deaths of millions, tune in. Similarly, you’ll learn how Mao yielded similar tragic outcomes in China. There is a wealth of knowledge to gain regarding extremist pockets around the world, how propaganda was such an essential element of these movements, and how they have shaped modern society. To the extent that one is able, this podcast allowed me to enter the minds of Lenin, Stalin, Marx and his partners, as well as several others and understand what they were thinking in their respective times of relevance.
Using the history of Russia, you’ll be able to view today’s occurrences in Eastern Europe with an added element of knowledge. Putin is his own figure, but he is not completely disconnected from the past leaders of his country (and Vejas touches on this).
Most importantly, I think a hidden lesson in all of this is how to ensure we avoid a broad return to such dark times (although I have some concern). There are also plenty of takeaways I’m omitting, but at some point a blog becomes too long. 🙂
We are also left with a litany of readings which are probably worth checking out.
Referenced Readings Worth a Look:
Reinhold Niebuhr, “The Religion of Communism”
Eric Voegelin’s poems about political religions, wrote for LSU. Ideologies understood in religious terms.
“Doctor Zhivago” by Boris Pasternak: sweep of contending forces in a power vacuum
Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s “What Is To Be Done” which is a utopian novel about revolutionaries and how they should act with one another in non-traditional ways to usher in revolution.
Lev Kopelev: soviet author with a memoir about Soviet times
Orlando Figes “The Whisperers” about private life in Stalin’s Russia
Leszek Kolakowski: Main Currents Of Marxism
Whittaker Chambers: Witness…story on Soviet Spies in the U.S.
Robertson Davies: wrote novels in magical realism. Influenced by Jung in philosophy, but in literature, he created stories which blended mythical with brutal realism. Painted Canada and Europe as he knew it. He is likely best known for his “Deptford Trilogy,” as well as an epic beard, for what it’s worth.