I was thinking the other day if 5 years ago you told me I would reading philosophy and part of a fucking book club today I would of laughed in your face… but here I am, read more books this year than the last ten combined and 4 chapters into “Always with Honor”
Haha here I was wondering what happened to Darryl - not complaining but when I started listening to Martyrmade 2 years ago it was such a knockout and now it's kinda all over the place... turns out y'all were just busy reading. And hanging out with Jocko. Don't get me wrong, I get it if you actually read this Darryl - make that cheddar while it's available. And I like the new stuff, support you 100% man. But I do kind of miss the historical stuff, so I'm hoping the Labor series is on par with the earlier works. Knowing you, it will be, I'm sure!!
If it makes you feel any better, I doubt the Memoirs written by P. Wrangel himself cover the details of his death. I guess there could be an afterward or something though. I think you're safe!
I’m not the fastest reader in the world but I like to have several going at once, some sort of fiction usually classic in the evening.. heavier historical/scientific for any day time reading.. inspiration in the morning on occasion ❤️
1. What an absolute badass! General Wrangel was handed the reins of a mostly beaten army, with little more to offer than a glimmer of hope and a promise to preserve national honor.
2. When you consider this story along with what the Soviet Union eventually becomes… its twice as impressive that this man didn't fold up.
I'm about halfway myself at this point and am more and more in awe of this man. First couple chapters I felt he was humble bragging a bit too much, but the more I get "to know" The General to more I realize he is probably even taking less credit than he could. I have so many thoughts and questions but in fear of dropping spoilers I will patiently wait for the podcast episodes to drop before getting into it.
Hey Darryl! Like some have already mentioned, this is my first book club and I wanted som clarity on the pacing. Should we finish the book by Jan 7? Start reading on Jan 7 after the into episode? Read up to a certain point by that date? Thanks!
Some have asked if they have to read the whole book by January 7. The answer is no, though you’re certainly welcome to do so. By January 7, I will be putting out material on background & the first three chapters, and then we’ll be proceeding a couple chapters at a time on a weekly basis.
I voted for Inhuman Bondage but can't complain about this one. Can I just say that I often feel like I live in a world of mindless bullshit, and I really appreciate this. Maybe its just the company I keep.
Someone at work asked me the question “Why doesn’t Communism work?”. It’s been difficult for me to answer this up until maybe a year ago. I feel much more equipped to answer that. I’m hoping this book provides contrast between pre-communism and what the shift to communism looked like, and what pieces had to fall in what place for it to move forward...was it all just the will of the Bolsheviks shoved down the throats of the people? Or was there some nuance? How extensive was internal resistance?
A lot of reasons why communism doesn't work. Ludwig Von Mises called this the Socialist's Calculation Problem; "Without ownership, there is no exchange. Without exchange, there are no prices. Without prices, there is no economic calculation. Without economic calculation, production decisions are made in the dark. When that happens, basic needs go unmet."
Now if you consider the fact that communism is the envious, unimpressive, and meritless person's means of revenge against a system in which they are the slowest gazelle in the herd, you can argue that communism actually "works" exceptionally well because "working" does not mean distributing prosperity- it means tearing down meritocratic cultures.
"Now if you consider the fact that communism is the envious, unimpressive, and meritless person's means of revenge against a system in which they are the slowest gazelle in the herd, you can argue that communism actually "works" exceptionally well because "working" does not mean distributing prosperity- it means tearing down meritocratic cultures." I think that this is an incredible answer. You have a certain turn of phrase that makes the reasoning much more relatable.
I heard a lot during the BLM "Summer of Love 2020" that there was an old African proverb- "A child that is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth."
I picture, what if the slowest 5% of gazelles in the herd understand their precarious position and angrily organize to disrupt the fast healthy gazelles out of spite? They "cry wolf" and make the herd scatter occasionally for no reason, sabotage the group's sparse chances to drink water safely, maybe even trample others' defenseless young. It is not about surviving (although disrupting the natural order may allow a doomed individual to slip past Darwin's programming, that individual is no longer concerned with just skirting by): it's about destruction. It's about kamikaze warfare.
Oddly, I assume everyone who is a fan of the MartyrMade Podcast has seen Fight Club. No particular reason for this, it just seems like our kind of intrigue, lol. But do you remember the part when Jack/Tyler Durden beats the blonde man's face beyond the point of recognition and says, "I wanted to destroy something beautiful"? It's difficult to describe, but I really feel these two things happen on the same wavelength.
I quote that part of Fight Club way too much. I like to recognize others' beauty, success, fortitude, etc. Then I like to recognize my natural jealousy/envy of it. I say that quote in lighthearted-joking, but I think it's a defense mechanism that helps me to laugh off my perceived shortcomings.
"...sabotage the group's sparse chances to drink water safely..." or just drink water full stop? It's a lot of fun to turn a watering hole into nothing but a pit of mud. That's the wholesale way of bringing an entire group to its knees. And yes, seems like it's worked in the literal sense already. It is about destruction of certain constructs and concepts. I'm not getting what you mean about kamikaze warfare. That is self-sacrifice that is done for a spiritual ideological end (or originally was) or in support of a national purpose. I feel that is different from destruction (of others mostly) for a political or identity ideology.
I have never seen Fight Club, I have a very difficult time with watching certain images when they are the result of brutality perpetrated by one individual against another. "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic," has been attributed to Stalin. In order for me to compartmentalize death, it needs to be at a statistical level.
As for wanting to destroy something beautiful, that valuation would need to be present. For extremists looking to destroy everything as it currently exists in favour of a communist type system, I'm uncertain if that is their motivation. Or maybe that is exactly why: there is something beautiful, someone else has it and I don't, therefore, I am going to destroy it so no one can have it. What doesn't exist cannot be in the hands of the corrupt capitalist, or whatever -ist you prefer. I think that a willful destruction such as described in the FC scene above, that is sociopathic. But then, so may be many extremist groups today
>communism is the envious, unimpressive, and meritless person's means of revenge against a system in which they are the slowest gazelle in the herd
Yes this is the real problem w communism. Even if it was an effective economic system, it would be totally awful and gay.
@Laggy and everyone, I highly recommend the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut, excellent little satire of what really motivates these people.
"Totally awful and gay" is a great description, I agree completely.
"Harrison Bergeron" is a fantastic story, so appropriate to the condition in which we Americans find ourselves today, I'm so glad you mentioned it. The end reminds me of a point Darryl made, I believe in God's Socialist, where he describes someone causing a big scene and making an impassioned speech only to be met by blank stares. Vonnegut was brilliant, and DC is getting there.
I am NOT virtue signalling here and not looking to cause a ruckus. I am wondering if someone can explain to me from which lexical direction "totally awful and gay" works. I am ashamedly revealing an ignorance here and would appreciate some clarification. Perhaps it is directly connected to the short story and I am missing some context?
I'm sorry Michelle, not gay as in homosexual or happy, but as in bad. It's just a juvenile turn of phrase I remember from middle school, it was funny to see it used here in the midst of so much intelligent conversation .
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Ok... according to who? Enforced by who? This can only work if the government sees and controls everything each person does and is ready to take whatever it thinks someone doesn't need away from them. By force, if they don't like it. Inherently totalitarian.
AJ you sum it up nicely, I think this only works in an ideal world where nobody ever has a selfish motive for anything. A single self serving action spoils the whole thing, and that's why a communist system must be so brutally enforced. It seems mindlessly idealistic to me, but I've also not studied the subject in depth so I look forward to the discussion.
- It's all about Revolution and too little about what system it would produce.
- Gnostic (secret knowledge) beliefs can't scale.
- Communism reminds me of Scientology. When you get into the weeds, it gets too fantastical.
- It's really a debased version of Christianity, very close to Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor.
- It's at root, too bossy. Everyone who promotes it thinks that they will be the boss, or very close too. They tend to all fall into murderous infighting.
That last part is one of the biggest problems. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." Communism is not just a system for one area with defined borders, as much as anarcho-syndicalists like to pretend it can be; it must be for everyone all over. The free-market neighbors WILL be blamed when resources get miscalculated, because communists doctrinally blame voluntary trade for their own supply-chain shortcomings. Never forget that the only reason any civilian in the USSR ever survived was because black markets were more dependable than supermarkets. It's sad that the state was well aware of this, so they kept those black markets secret by force because acknowledging their existence defaulted the state's justification for its authority. Yet without it, there would have BEEN no people to govern.
Humans are neolithically bred to value one another's property or services at different/subjective prices, and communists think they can just wish that away with an infinite supply of altruism in their hearts, or at least their political campaigns. Thus, anyone seen as disrupting their egalitarian utopia must be killed, disappeared, or, more often the case, forcibly reeducated.
It is hive mentality for insects, not men. This was why I loved Darryl's episode titled "The Anti-Humans"
Hayek writes pretty effectively on why it won't work. He approaches it from an economic standpoint and examines the actual mechanics of centrally planned economies vs a more free market system
I bet this book will answer a lot of your questions btw
You might appreciate Secondhand Time by Svetlana Alexievich. It's interviews with normal people who lived though those times, with all sorts of different perspectives.
Because communism only works with ideal people, which people are not. Hence why communism needs to bash people into the shape they need to be in for the flawed system to work. Really the Romans figured this out with the Gracci brothers.
Love the responses. Now I know what to expect ❤️. I’m gonna tangent wildly here. Obviously communism fails at many points. I’m naturally wanting to draw up some of the similarities between CCP and “our system”. Human nature’s penchant for corruption at the management level. I think this is an obvious failure point. Our own system of government and economics is slowly failing because of the same. At least it’s failing the ones it’s purported to serve. As for merit, I like the “Communism was created to serve and reward the merit-crippled individual” take. Our system can somewhat reward laziness. I wouldn’t call food stamps and unemployment and EIC tax credit much of a reward. I could say that our system punishes merit, by way of taxes. Although it rewards excessive merit, in the form of tax loopholes. But I think that without a real “American Dream”, merit is effectively thrown in the trash here. Merit is more than just hard work. You have to be disciplined in all financial respects. You must know intricate navigation of ladder-climbing. I’m pretty sure Daryl spoke about how you can’t really go from poverty class to elite in America. You can really only get up a couple rings. It’s pretty disingenuous to pitch that Bezos is the result of hard work, smart personal financial management, good ideas and luck. Of course with personal work ethic and a little bit of financial smarts, you can be quite a bit better off here than anywhere else...I guess my point is that, our system over here may seem brighter, more dynamic and more fruitful..but it’s still managed by greedy humans and oligarchs that have just as much power than any communist country. And working hard over here is worth less and less...
Jesus, did I subscribe to the Homework Channel? For many years now I've relied on you to do my reading for me.
I was thinking the other day if 5 years ago you told me I would reading philosophy and part of a fucking book club today I would of laughed in your face… but here I am, read more books this year than the last ten combined and 4 chapters into “Always with Honor”
Lol, a lot of truth here
Haha here I was wondering what happened to Darryl - not complaining but when I started listening to Martyrmade 2 years ago it was such a knockout and now it's kinda all over the place... turns out y'all were just busy reading. And hanging out with Jocko. Don't get me wrong, I get it if you actually read this Darryl - make that cheddar while it's available. And I like the new stuff, support you 100% man. But I do kind of miss the historical stuff, so I'm hoping the Labor series is on par with the earlier works. Knowing you, it will be, I'm sure!!
My first book club :) ive always been too antisocial for them up to now. Made an exception for the Martyrmade crowd....
Same..and I admit the book club finally swayed me for a full membership.
Same here!
My first as well. I am excited to have discussions with you all!
Same here. I'm not much as a fanboy in general, but Darryl puts a lot of effort into his publications. Great resource.
Right there with you
Same here. So inspired!
Very excited about this. I just found out that Wrangel was murdered 5km from where I live. It's a small world, after all.
Isaac, spoiler warning before this type of post man. I had no knowledge of this story.
If it makes you feel any better, I doubt the Memoirs written by P. Wrangel himself cover the details of his death. I guess there could be an afterward or something though. I think you're safe!
literally made me laugh out loud!
Lol
Wikipedia. Spoiler Alert: the bad people win.
Ordered book!
If I’m one of the lucky 10 just pass it on.
“ First episode/discussion group will be on January 7, 2021!”
Will we be breaking this up into sections? Or will this discussion cover the entire book…
What I’m really trying to ask is…
Do I need to have the book finished by 1/7 😁
Currently reading both Tolstoy & Solzhenitsyn, I’m thinking I will need to focus my reading if I’m to kill it by the deadline, if that’s necessary 🧐
I have heard reading more than one book at a time is a sign of intelligence. 👊
I’m not the fastest reader in the world but I like to have several going at once, some sort of fiction usually classic in the evening.. heavier historical/scientific for any day time reading.. inspiration in the morning on occasion ❤️
This is a good question, was just wondering the same thing, Christmas with kids takes up the entire month of December.
I’m halfway through this book…
1. What an absolute badass! General Wrangel was handed the reins of a mostly beaten army, with little more to offer than a glimmer of hope and a promise to preserve national honor.
2. When you consider this story along with what the Soviet Union eventually becomes… its twice as impressive that this man didn't fold up.
Great pick!
I'm about halfway myself at this point and am more and more in awe of this man. First couple chapters I felt he was humble bragging a bit too much, but the more I get "to know" The General to more I realize he is probably even taking less credit than he could. I have so many thoughts and questions but in fear of dropping spoilers I will patiently wait for the podcast episodes to drop before getting into it.
Hey Darryl! Like some have already mentioned, this is my first book club and I wanted som clarity on the pacing. Should we finish the book by Jan 7? Start reading on Jan 7 after the into episode? Read up to a certain point by that date? Thanks!
I scanned the comments and replies...any answer to this yet?
Hi, from the "update" substack topic:
Some have asked if they have to read the whole book by January 7. The answer is no, though you’re certainly welcome to do so. By January 7, I will be putting out material on background & the first three chapters, and then we’ll be proceeding a couple chapters at a time on a weekly basis.
Reading + podcasts = self development
I voted for Inhuman Bondage but can't complain about this one. Can I just say that I often feel like I live in a world of mindless bullshit, and I really appreciate this. Maybe its just the company I keep.
Already getting “mission creep”
And yes, Rasputin ( an early reference to him in book) is distracting .
Almost want to relisten to Dan Carlin on him in his WWI series
Fascinating person
One of my favorite history podcasts, "The Rest is History," did an episode on Rasputin just yesterday. It was a great refresher on the man.
Excited, normally too introverted to take part in stuff like this. But Im looking forward to this alot. Much love DC
Who won the free books darryl 👀
Someone at work asked me the question “Why doesn’t Communism work?”. It’s been difficult for me to answer this up until maybe a year ago. I feel much more equipped to answer that. I’m hoping this book provides contrast between pre-communism and what the shift to communism looked like, and what pieces had to fall in what place for it to move forward...was it all just the will of the Bolsheviks shoved down the throats of the people? Or was there some nuance? How extensive was internal resistance?
A lot of reasons why communism doesn't work. Ludwig Von Mises called this the Socialist's Calculation Problem; "Without ownership, there is no exchange. Without exchange, there are no prices. Without prices, there is no economic calculation. Without economic calculation, production decisions are made in the dark. When that happens, basic needs go unmet."
Now if you consider the fact that communism is the envious, unimpressive, and meritless person's means of revenge against a system in which they are the slowest gazelle in the herd, you can argue that communism actually "works" exceptionally well because "working" does not mean distributing prosperity- it means tearing down meritocratic cultures.
"Now if you consider the fact that communism is the envious, unimpressive, and meritless person's means of revenge against a system in which they are the slowest gazelle in the herd, you can argue that communism actually "works" exceptionally well because "working" does not mean distributing prosperity- it means tearing down meritocratic cultures." I think that this is an incredible answer. You have a certain turn of phrase that makes the reasoning much more relatable.
I heard a lot during the BLM "Summer of Love 2020" that there was an old African proverb- "A child that is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth."
I picture, what if the slowest 5% of gazelles in the herd understand their precarious position and angrily organize to disrupt the fast healthy gazelles out of spite? They "cry wolf" and make the herd scatter occasionally for no reason, sabotage the group's sparse chances to drink water safely, maybe even trample others' defenseless young. It is not about surviving (although disrupting the natural order may allow a doomed individual to slip past Darwin's programming, that individual is no longer concerned with just skirting by): it's about destruction. It's about kamikaze warfare.
Oddly, I assume everyone who is a fan of the MartyrMade Podcast has seen Fight Club. No particular reason for this, it just seems like our kind of intrigue, lol. But do you remember the part when Jack/Tyler Durden beats the blonde man's face beyond the point of recognition and says, "I wanted to destroy something beautiful"? It's difficult to describe, but I really feel these two things happen on the same wavelength.
I quote that part of Fight Club way too much. I like to recognize others' beauty, success, fortitude, etc. Then I like to recognize my natural jealousy/envy of it. I say that quote in lighthearted-joking, but I think it's a defense mechanism that helps me to laugh off my perceived shortcomings.
"...sabotage the group's sparse chances to drink water safely..." or just drink water full stop? It's a lot of fun to turn a watering hole into nothing but a pit of mud. That's the wholesale way of bringing an entire group to its knees. And yes, seems like it's worked in the literal sense already. It is about destruction of certain constructs and concepts. I'm not getting what you mean about kamikaze warfare. That is self-sacrifice that is done for a spiritual ideological end (or originally was) or in support of a national purpose. I feel that is different from destruction (of others mostly) for a political or identity ideology.
I have never seen Fight Club, I have a very difficult time with watching certain images when they are the result of brutality perpetrated by one individual against another. "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic," has been attributed to Stalin. In order for me to compartmentalize death, it needs to be at a statistical level.
As for wanting to destroy something beautiful, that valuation would need to be present. For extremists looking to destroy everything as it currently exists in favour of a communist type system, I'm uncertain if that is their motivation. Or maybe that is exactly why: there is something beautiful, someone else has it and I don't, therefore, I am going to destroy it so no one can have it. What doesn't exist cannot be in the hands of the corrupt capitalist, or whatever -ist you prefer. I think that a willful destruction such as described in the FC scene above, that is sociopathic. But then, so may be many extremist groups today
>communism is the envious, unimpressive, and meritless person's means of revenge against a system in which they are the slowest gazelle in the herd
Yes this is the real problem w communism. Even if it was an effective economic system, it would be totally awful and gay.
@Laggy and everyone, I highly recommend the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut, excellent little satire of what really motivates these people.
"Totally awful and gay" is a great description, I agree completely.
"Harrison Bergeron" is a fantastic story, so appropriate to the condition in which we Americans find ourselves today, I'm so glad you mentioned it. The end reminds me of a point Darryl made, I believe in God's Socialist, where he describes someone causing a big scene and making an impassioned speech only to be met by blank stares. Vonnegut was brilliant, and DC is getting there.
I am NOT virtue signalling here and not looking to cause a ruckus. I am wondering if someone can explain to me from which lexical direction "totally awful and gay" works. I am ashamedly revealing an ignorance here and would appreciate some clarification. Perhaps it is directly connected to the short story and I am missing some context?
I'm sorry Michelle, not gay as in homosexual or happy, but as in bad. It's just a juvenile turn of phrase I remember from middle school, it was funny to see it used here in the midst of so much intelligent conversation .
The best simple answer I've heard was:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Ok... according to who? Enforced by who? This can only work if the government sees and controls everything each person does and is ready to take whatever it thinks someone doesn't need away from them. By force, if they don't like it. Inherently totalitarian.
AJ you sum it up nicely, I think this only works in an ideal world where nobody ever has a selfish motive for anything. A single self serving action spoils the whole thing, and that's why a communist system must be so brutally enforced. It seems mindlessly idealistic to me, but I've also not studied the subject in depth so I look forward to the discussion.
Here's my 2 cents:
- It's all about Revolution and too little about what system it would produce.
- Gnostic (secret knowledge) beliefs can't scale.
- Communism reminds me of Scientology. When you get into the weeds, it gets too fantastical.
- It's really a debased version of Christianity, very close to Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor.
- It's at root, too bossy. Everyone who promotes it thinks that they will be the boss, or very close too. They tend to all fall into murderous infighting.
That last part is one of the biggest problems. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." Communism is not just a system for one area with defined borders, as much as anarcho-syndicalists like to pretend it can be; it must be for everyone all over. The free-market neighbors WILL be blamed when resources get miscalculated, because communists doctrinally blame voluntary trade for their own supply-chain shortcomings. Never forget that the only reason any civilian in the USSR ever survived was because black markets were more dependable than supermarkets. It's sad that the state was well aware of this, so they kept those black markets secret by force because acknowledging their existence defaulted the state's justification for its authority. Yet without it, there would have BEEN no people to govern.
Humans are neolithically bred to value one another's property or services at different/subjective prices, and communists think they can just wish that away with an infinite supply of altruism in their hearts, or at least their political campaigns. Thus, anyone seen as disrupting their egalitarian utopia must be killed, disappeared, or, more often the case, forcibly reeducated.
It is hive mentality for insects, not men. This was why I loved Darryl's episode titled "The Anti-Humans"
Hayek writes pretty effectively on why it won't work. He approaches it from an economic standpoint and examines the actual mechanics of centrally planned economies vs a more free market system
I bet this book will answer a lot of your questions btw
You might appreciate Secondhand Time by Svetlana Alexievich. It's interviews with normal people who lived though those times, with all sorts of different perspectives.
Because communism only works with ideal people, which people are not. Hence why communism needs to bash people into the shape they need to be in for the flawed system to work. Really the Romans figured this out with the Gracci brothers.
So true. Dan Carlin covered this in Fall of the Republic series.
Love the responses. Now I know what to expect ❤️. I’m gonna tangent wildly here. Obviously communism fails at many points. I’m naturally wanting to draw up some of the similarities between CCP and “our system”. Human nature’s penchant for corruption at the management level. I think this is an obvious failure point. Our own system of government and economics is slowly failing because of the same. At least it’s failing the ones it’s purported to serve. As for merit, I like the “Communism was created to serve and reward the merit-crippled individual” take. Our system can somewhat reward laziness. I wouldn’t call food stamps and unemployment and EIC tax credit much of a reward. I could say that our system punishes merit, by way of taxes. Although it rewards excessive merit, in the form of tax loopholes. But I think that without a real “American Dream”, merit is effectively thrown in the trash here. Merit is more than just hard work. You have to be disciplined in all financial respects. You must know intricate navigation of ladder-climbing. I’m pretty sure Daryl spoke about how you can’t really go from poverty class to elite in America. You can really only get up a couple rings. It’s pretty disingenuous to pitch that Bezos is the result of hard work, smart personal financial management, good ideas and luck. Of course with personal work ethic and a little bit of financial smarts, you can be quite a bit better off here than anywhere else...I guess my point is that, our system over here may seem brighter, more dynamic and more fruitful..but it’s still managed by greedy humans and oligarchs that have just as much power than any communist country. And working hard over here is worth less and less...
FYI “A disease in the public mind” is free on Audible for members
Thanks Mike T this is nice to know.
January 7 is my Christmas! ☦️ 📕🎁☺️
Are you selecting the 10 random people from all your subscribers or just those who voted?
Good question.
Does anyone know if the first podcast episode on this book is still planned to drop today? I'm almost too excited to wait!