The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 153
Did you know the Soviet Union ran a DEI program exactly like the Woke Marxist one of today? How about Mao’s China? As it turns out, DEI isn’t an American invention. It’s a Soviet invention and Soviet export, designed, outlined, and implemented by Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin in the USSR in the 1920s. The results were predictable, of course: massively increasing ethnic strife arising from within the world’s most widespread Affirmative Action program in history. Russians, then later Han Chinese, then later straight, white, Christian, males in the West, were invited to subjugate themselves to ethnic minorities to accomplish “actual equality,” which we today call “equity.” The full program was called korenizatsiya, and its “diversity” program was called raznoobrazsiya, and its lever was called “Great Russian chauvinism” in the USSR, “Han chauvinism” in the PRC, “white supremacy culture” in today’s West, and “great-power chauvinism” in general. In this groundbreaking episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay explains the korenizatsiya program of Stalin’s USSR and reads excerpts from two of Stalin’s works to flesh it out. Join him to understand how DEI is nothing more than a Bolshevik Communist program we’ve implemented on ourselves. You don’t want to miss it.
Subscribe to the New Discourses Podcast on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, Rumble, Odysee, or by RSS.
Additional episodes of the New Discourses Podcast are available here.
9 comments
Glad you’re talking about this long-neglected sidelight of Soviet Marxism. I devote a section in my book (“Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire”) to the Soviet “Affirmative Action Empire” showing how it led to ethnic cleansing and communal violence.
I also discuss how the Yugoslavs followed the Soviet model, and how that contributed to Balkan genocides.
https://www.encounterbooks.com/authors/jens-heycke/
“One of your best” applies to so many of James’s podcasts, it’s hard to pick. Thanks for outdoing yourself.
A professor once gave, what I felt, a very good definition of “Nationalism.” It’s akin to if one was a religious zealot and the State is one’s religion.
Maybe that professor perceived nationalism as evil, but that just defaults the entire human race to any old elites whim of what we are or where we come from = any old cattle.
And what good is ‘i’m from Earth’ ?
Its useful to people from place X that want to be in place Z when nobody could be bothered to develop X & Z is developed. Its those people who claim to ( the people from Z ) that nationalism is evil.
And a fascist professor will too.
India’s communists are trying the same thing with ‘Hindu chauvinism.’
Yes and the rest of the world make little effort to hide their open racism. In any case ‘Racism’ in the USA UK Canada & Europe is a white of white globalist policy – the white elites of all these nations waging a war ordinary white people.
In another instance – Japan is a officially racist country that will not accept non japanese people in most situations except a large hotel. Its almost impossible to get a job, or admittance to most mainstream social activities as a sign on the wall will politely state. Even so there is not Hate. The japanese still love the rest of the world, its just that they won’t let TROTW take part in the japanese way of life unless they are just business persons or tourists embracing novel things temporarily.
Where did these men derive these Marxist ideas from? Is there ancient roots in religions or philosophies or proto communist tribes?
”Where did these men derive the Maxist ideas from ”
I think you are right ( what you infer is ) yes because the restatements are always twisted Marx. Then again we know ( can know if we wish ) that any set of idea that become influential gets infiltrated by Fascism. In other words anything that becomes popular among ‘the people’ gets appropriated by ‘the elites’ and they rewrite is to suit themselves. I’m not saying Marx is right. However he certainly wasn’t someone who wanted to created more poverty. However Marx probably didn’t hold himself responsible for his ideas & it could be argued that merely to try solve the worlds ill’s ( like a god ) – would guarantee that an abusive version would manifest. Really most people blame Marx not on the basis of his actual ideas. Its more that he had a lot of them & they became well known. << It is from that point that 'DOOM' was ensured as the rich & powerful will just NOT allow anyone to influence the masses except themselves.
Lindsay thinks he hates Marx for instance. He doesn't – quite separate sociological phenomena are responsible & 'Marx' is mixed up in that loosely. After all what isn't loose & undefined with the elites ? They give definition to win elections only. after that theres never any definition.
In that manner James Lindsay is wittering on like an imbecile concerning Marx since 'it' ( the thing thats under his skin ) NOT MARX .
People were listening to Marx and as such hes be taken over and restated by the elites.
Sorry i meant to give further agreement with you :
Whats going on is yet another neo platonist zeitgeist. Marx tried to rewrite that without the aristocrat cats getting the cream. Now THAT was popular / made Marx. The aristocrats were not going to have that & responded with rewrites where they do get the cream. Marx as crass if he believed that these people would ever allow it any other way. And maybe he should not have written it, as paradoxically even that extreme inertia was capable of an outcome closer to what marx discussed // compared to the one that actually occurred.
Theres a lot of social engineers out there determined to keep the pressure groups // like of Lindsay obsessed with Marx. When the literature responsible no longer is Marx the ‘pressure’ is going nowhere and is a joke.