How to talk to people who have lived in "Communist states"

[Invincible Summer]

I've gotten into some internet debates and confrontations in real life about communism, where someone will say they've lived under "communism," and that people "like me" are promoting something that we haven't even experienced, or something to that effect.

Of course, the whole "totalitarianism is not what communism is about" line doesn't exactly fly when someone has such strong personal convictions.

How do we, as leftists, address people with these experiences?

[rednordman]

this is a bit of a controversial one, but you could ask them how there countries are doing now they have 110% capitalism. Most the ones i talk to (mainly from poland) have very low opinion of communism, but at best an extremely cynical opinion of capitalism.

[Kukulofori]

Just explain that what you're fighting for has very little to do with what happened there. The USSR wasn't so much socialism as some dumb thing Lenin made up to kill time while Europe got its shit together.

[pierrotlefou]

Just explain that what you're fighting for has very little to do with what happened there. The USSR wasn't so much socialism as some dumb thing Lenin made up to kill time while Europe got its shit together.
Hopefully you don't explain it to them like that.

[Tatarin]

It also depends on what age they are. If they're quite young, chances are they heard most of what "communism" was by their parents, or just made the worst of it, by comparing for example the number of movies they could watch then and now.

The older ones could be asked about their lives, but specifically what they felt was bad, and what changes they would have done to improve it.

In addition, just as there are "different capitalisms" today they were different "socialisms" during the previous century. A person from "communist" Kambodja probably have much more to be angry about than a person from "communist" East Germany. Just as a high officer in "communist" USSR probably had much to be happy about than a soldier in "communist" China. In contrast, capitalist Norway is a much more pleasant place to live in compared to capitalist Philippines; a capitalist in Philippines is more happier than a worker in Norway, and so on.

[rebelmouse]

people don't like dictatorship, whatever level of economy it had. so i am against Tito in Yugoslavia, even if he could give me 10 000 dollars per month. but if we speak about economy: yes, Yugoslavia had better economic standard than other socialist countries and Yugoslavia had normal economic life or at least life had line of getting better (building after war and constantly 50 years). and yes, Yugoslavia could be today with better life than what we have now when capitalism came. just many people would finiish in prison as before.
me personally, I would be against dictatorship and I would sit in prison, so I would not have anything from good economic standard in Yugoslavia. some of us don't think only about money, and we will be against authorities.

[Budog]

There is a big difference between totalitarianism and fascism and the true communism that Marx and Engles espoused. The corrupt communism of fascists dictators does not have to be the communism of our future. We can take the lessons of the past and apply them to a new communism for future generations to come.

Budog. :cool:

[bailey_187]

The corrupt communism of fascists dictators does not have to be the communism of our future.


Which "corrupt communism" country had a Fascist dictator?



We can take the lessons of the past and apply them to a new communism for future generations to come.

Budog. :cool:

Its funny you say that, because by simply passing past experiences of attempting to build Socialism and Communism of as "no real communism" and "fascist", you yourself are refusing to learn from the past mistakes from attempts at Socialism. I suppose, you, Budog, will know how to avoid the very real challenges presented by building Socialism wont you? Or does Brian Moore know?

[Demogorgon]

"Call it whatever you like, but what I am advocating has nothing to do with what you experienced. Your state used the name Communist to justify its dictatorship, but that does not mean everything grouped under that name is the same, no more than all democracy is what you lived under. After all, your state claimed to be that too".

[chegitz guevara]

They way you deal with such people is to be curious. Ask them about their lives and their experiences. It can't hurt to learn from such folks.

In my experience, most of the people I met from Eastern Europe now living in the U.S., missed socialism. They didn't like the dictatorship, but they don't like the insecurity of capitalism. Even before the wall fell, according to a Nightline episode I watched in the 80s, some 60% of immigrants from the USSR went back because they hated America after living here a few years.

[communard resolution]

this is a bit of a controversial one, but you could ask them how there countries are doing now they have 110% capitalism. Most the ones i talk to (mainly from poland) have very low opinion of communism, but at best an extremely cynical opinion of capitalism.

I've spent my childhood and part of my teenagehood in 'communist' Poland. Consequentially, I have a very low opinion of 'official' communism and a very low opinion of capitalism.

And yes, it is difficult talking to me about it - I get quite aggressive when snide little Stalinists from the West (usually students who never had to work and spoiled brats) try to patronise me about the virtues of the Eastern Bloc. Been there, seen it - and experienced what it's like when arrogant fucks like that are in positions of power.

[Durruti's Ghost]

There is a big difference between totalitarianism and fascism and the true communism that Marx and Engles espoused. The corrupt communism of fascists dictators does not have to be the communism of our future. We can take the lessons of the past and apply them to a new communism for future generations to come.

Budog. :cool:

To be fair, fascism and the "communism" (i.e., state-capitalism) of the Leninist states are actually very different. Fascism is the last attempt of the bourgeoisie to retain power when faced by the possibility of a proletarian revolution, and it is characterized by the use of nationalism, racism, and militarism to divide the international working class against itself. It seems to me that state-capitalism, on the other hand, is the product of a proletarian revolution that fails not because it is foiled by the old bourgeoisie, but because of its own flaws; perhaps it is arrested by its own leaders, perhaps material conditions do not allow it to progress, perhaps any of a number of other factors arise to interfere with it. Furthermore, it is not necessarily any better or worse than traditional, free-market capitalism, as evidenced by the material successes of the various state-capitalist systems.

[Invincible Summer]

It also depends on what age they are. If they're quite young, chances are they heard most of what "communism" was by their parents, or just made the worst of it, by comparing for example the number of movies they could watch then and now.

The older ones could be asked about their lives, but specifically what they felt was bad, and what changes they would have done to improve it.

In addition, just as there are "different capitalisms" today they were different "socialisms" during the previous century. A person from "communist" Kambodja probably have much more to be angry about than a person from "communist" East Germany. Just as a high officer in "communist" USSR probably had much to be happy about than a soldier in "communist" China. In contrast, capitalist Norway is a much more pleasant place to live in compared to capitalist Philippines; a capitalist in Philippines is more happier than a worker in Norway, and so on.

I'm not sure if providing them with a "scale of Communism" would be helpful? Or maybe I'm missing the point... but I agree that their age as a context for experience is important.



"Call it whatever you like, but what I am advocating has nothing to do with what you experienced. Your state used the name Communist to justify its dictatorship, but that does not mean everything grouped under that name is the same, no more than all democracy is what you lived under. After all, your state claimed to be that too".

Quote sounds familiar. Where's it from?


I've spent my childhood and part of my teenagehood in 'communist' Poland. Consequentially, I have a very low opinion of 'official' communism and a very low opinion of capitalism.

And yes, it is difficult talking to me about it - I get quite aggressive when snide little Stalinists from the West (usually students who never had to work and spoiled brats) try to patronise me about the virtues of the Eastern Bloc. Been there, seen it - and experienced what it's like when arrogant fucks like that are in positions of power.

What, in your opinion, would be the best way to approach/converse with someone with a similar experience to yours?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think you should try and explain that what you support isn't Stalinism, and the experiences they have had were not in a Communist society but a state capitalist one.

[rednordman]

I've spent my childhood and part of my teenagehood in 'communist' Poland. Consequentially, I have a very low opinion of 'official' communism and a very low opinion of capitalism.

And yes, it is difficult talking to me about it - I get quite aggressive when snide little Stalinists from the West (usually students who never had to work and spoiled brats) try to patronise me about the virtues of the Eastern Bloc. Been there, seen it - and experienced what it's like when arrogant fucks like that are in positions of power.This is an interesting one (no offence). There was once this really nice girl at work who I used to talk too about such things. She always said that he parents always saw the polish peoples repubic as a good thing, as it provided everyone with employment, which as a result help reduce crime. She admitted that there was zero freedom of speech, and that at times there was nothing in the shops, but she said that people found ways around these things (nothing was in supply officially, yet alot of things could be got under the counter/black market).

She also stated how as a child, she could go down to the park on her own and nobody would worry about her. Today, a child in poland could never do this as its too risky (same all over the world sadly though). Also she stated how it was tragic that they fought hard for their freedom and democracy, only for corrupt politicions to argue over where the money should go.

I have heard from numerous people that todays Poland is very expensive and that alot of people there have two jobs. Obviously these are only peoples testimonies, and while I do believe them, I have not been to Poland or live there, so cannot say if it is the majorities perception.

[Искра]

Since I live in this kind of country I will tell you my experience and stuff we use.

I'm member of anarcho-syndicalists organisation, but people here think of us as communists. We really don't mind that, but we choose our words in practice.

People in Croatia have different opinion towards our "communist" era. In Istria people are yugonostalgic, so when we talk with people there we talk about libertarian communism and we make critics of authoritarian communism. People accept that and join us or just support us. So, here we don't have problems with communism.

In part of Croatia from which I am, Slavonia, we use different approach. We don't talk about communism since, Slavonia was front line in Civil war. We talk about workplace organising.

This two approaches work.

But, I would really like to tell you something. It's stupid that people, which never experienced authoritarian communism and state capitalism to talk with people who have that experience and tell them how Marxists-Leninist state is good. You have to be completely retarded to do that, or you have to have 14 years and internet communist. Off course, liberals and capitalists made that period look like some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah, but that's no excuse for internet commies to teach people how life in USSR (or in Yugoslavia) was beautiful. People experienced that, and now they are experiencing capitalism. "From one evil into another."

[Demogorgon]

Quote sounds familiar. Where's it from?

Me. I wrote it there and then. Though I, and others, have obviously said things to that effect many times.

[Invincible Summer]

Since I live in this kind of country I will tell you my experience and stuff we use.

I'm member of anarcho-syndicalists organisation, but people here think of us as communists. We really don't mind that, but we choose our words in practice.

People in Croatia have different opinion towards our "communist" era. In Istria people are yugonostalgic, so when we talk with people there we talk about libertarian communism and we make critics of authoritarian communism. People accept that and join us or just support us. So, here we don't have problems with communism.

Interesting that you can even have that debate (libertarian vs authoritarian). Most people I've encountered don't have that "nostalgia," and are pretty adamant that the "communism" they experienced is the communism.


In part of Croatia from which I am, Slavonia, we use different approach. We don't talk about communism since, Slavonia was front line in Civil war. We talk about workplace organising.

Interesting. I'm not sure if I'd be able to talk about workplace organizing, as usually the situations I end up in are direct discussions about so-called communism and communism.



But, I would really like to tell you something. It's stupid that people, which never experienced authoritarian communism and state capitalism to talk with people who have that experience and tell them how Marxists-Leninist state is good. You have to be completely retarded to do that, or you have to have 14 years and internet communist. Off course, liberals and capitalists made that period look like some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah, but that's no excuse for internet commies to teach people how life in USSR (or in Yugoslavia) was beautiful. People experienced that, and now they are experiencing capitalism. "From one evil into another."

Oh totally. I never tell people who hated the PRC that they are wrong, and that it was a benevolent communism paradise. I may ask them why they believe so strongly that the "communism" they experienced was terrible, and may challenge their understanding of communism, but never argue that their experience is invalid.

[Искра]

Interesting that you can even have that debate (libertarian vs authoritarian). Most people I've encountered don't have that "nostalgia," and are pretty adamant that the "communism" they experienced is the communism.
"Nostalgia" arn't you from Canada? :confused:
Its not debate libertarian vs. authoritarian it's more like they (Istrian people) talk about Tito and about social democracy, and we tell them fuck this, fuck that, this is the way we need to organise, because, because and because, and this way is not good because, because and because. And people say aha.


Interesting. I'm not sure if I'd be able to talk about workplace organizing, as usually the situations I end up in are direct discussions about so-called communism and communism.
Key is to never mention word communism. If you do you'll fuck up. Ocasionaly some smarter guys/girls will say oh, this is communism, and then you say no, it's not and you give them critics of authoritarian communism (Stalinism). I don't give a fuck about word, or I care about are ideals.

[Kayser_Soso]

Good lord, all these attempts to explain away real-world socialism with buzzwords like totalitarian, authoritarian, etc. have no resonance with regular people, much less workers.

You could start by looking up recent surveys in former-Communist countries where a majority of certain populations said they preferred to live under their (corrupted) version of socialism. There was a recent survey in former East Germany on this subject and supposedly the pro-DDR percentage was as high as 70%, which might suggest that it is more than just nostalgic old folks. More importantly, the DDR was in fact a pretty damn screwed up state, but the fact is that it did some things extremely well.

You have to point out to these people that while they may not have enjoyed the regime they lived under, many people did, often times many more. If you scour the internet, you will find thousands of people, who for various reasons, tell you why life in America, Britain, or wherever is intolerable. Can this then be used to invalidate capitalism the same way these people are trying to do with socialism? Of course not.

Lastly, don't forget that this is the internet, and many times people could just be lying to you. Often times their experience might be extremely embellished. For example- I lived under Communism could mean "I spent a year in Poland shortly after the fall of the Soviet bloc."

Regardless of your political strain, nobody- and I mean NOBODY, intends to repeat the exact actions of the Bolshevik revolution, or any social revolution before that(I am hoping I am right on this assumption), so it is really irrelevant.

[Искра]

I was talking about talking to workers in real life.

[Kayser_Soso]

I was talking about talking to workers in real life.

In Croatia? Well as you know Tito's "self-management" was a complete joke. One British business journal in the late 40s or 50s remarked that Britain was "more socialist" than Tito's Yugoslavia. That may be an exagerration, but there is a kernal of truth to it. Before the war was over, Tito met with British delegates in secret and pledged that he would keep Yugoslavia out of a socialist bloc. He continually received billions in aid, including military aid as well.

I am sure you are also familiar with the face that while SFRY had very high standards of living in some places, the wealth distribution around the country was quite poor in other places.

[Искра]

In Croatia? Well as you know Tito's "self-management" was a complete joke. One British business journal in the late 40s or 50s remarked that Britain was "more socialist" than Tito's Yugoslavia. That may be an exagerration, but there is a kernal of truth to it. Before the war was over, Tito met with British delegates in secret and pledged that he would keep Yugoslavia out of a socialist bloc. He continually received billions in aid, including military aid as well.

I am sure you are also familiar with the face that while SFRY had very high standards of living in some places, the wealth distribution around the country was quite poor in other places.
:confused:
I live here I know this things.

But this what you said has nothing to do with things I said.
This threads name is: How to talk to people who have lived in "Communist states" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/talk-people-have-p1576232/index.html#post1576232), so I told how do I and people form my organisation approach to people here, since people here have experienced "communist state".

[Invincible Summer]

"Nostalgia" arn't you from Canada? :confused:
I don't understand. If you are referring to the fact that Canada is capitalist and there are multitudes of immigrants, that is true. However, the people I've talked to in real life don't seem to be nostalgic of their former "communist" home, other than the fact that it was "home."

Some of them, when they mention the social progress and such from their "communist" home, they also say that Canada provides the same, if not better because there is more "freedom" here.


Its not debate libertarian vs. authoritarian it's more like they (Istrian people) talk about Tito and about social democracy, and we tell them fuck this, fuck that, this is the way we need to organise, because, because and because, and this way is not good because, because and because. And people say aha.

Ahhh I see. It's good that you've got some organization(s) that are active amongst the working class. Around here, there's not too many parties/groups/etc that are radical, or at least not imo.



Key is to never mention word communism. If you do you'll fuck up. Ocasionaly some smarter guys/girls will say oh, this is communism, and then you say no, it's not and you give them critics of authoritarian communism (Stalinism). I don't give a fuck about word, or I care about are ideals.
It's not that I automatically say "What do you think about communism?" The situations arise usually when the topic of communism or soviet states is already in the air. Therefore, it's hard to avoid the "c-word."

But I do agree with you overall though - if possible, it's best to just talk generally about egalitarianism and such.



Good lord, all these attempts to explain away real-world socialism with buzzwords like totalitarian, authoritarian, etc. have no resonance with regular people, much less workers.
I think that's selling them a bit short, don't you think?




You have to point out to these people that while they may not have enjoyed the regime they lived under, many people did, often times many more.
"Hey man, you don't like tacos, but ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE DO, so... yeah."

I get your point, but I don't think actually telling people this will help anything.


If you scour the internet, you will find thousands of people, who for various reasons, tell you why life in America, Britain, or wherever is intolerable. Can this then be used to invalidate capitalism the same way these people are trying to do with socialism? Of course not.
So, thousands of people - most likely working-class - denouncing capitalism isn't valid in showing how unwanted it is? Or is it because it isn't "real capitalism?"



Lastly, don't forget that this is the internet, and many times people could just be lying to you. Often times their experience might be extremely embellished. For example- I lived under Communism could mean "I spent a year in Poland shortly after the fall of the Soviet bloc."
I am also talking about in real life, but point taken.


Regardless of your political strain, nobody- and I mean NOBODY, intends to repeat the exact actions of the Bolshevik revolution, or any social revolution before that(I am hoping I am right on this assumption), so it is really irrelevant.
What is irrelevant? People associating the communist movement today with older revolutions that didn't quite pan out? I think it is quite relevant in that it's damaging to the left's "PR" so to speak.

[Kayser_Soso]

:confused:
I live here I know this things.

But this what you said has nothing to do with things I said.
This threads name is: How to talk to people who have lived in "Communist states" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/talk-people-have-p1576232/index.html#post1576232), so I told how do I and people form my organisation approach to people here, since people here have experienced "communist state".


Well I don't know what job you do, but one thing that no worker wants to hear is- "Hey, don't blame me us for the aspects of socialism you didn't like- all those socialist revolutions of the 20th century weren't actually socialist at all!" I'm just sayin'.

[manic expression]

In my opinion, it's something you have to feel out with each individual. In my experience, most will be largely apolitical and will have no problem talking about their perspectives. I really enjoy those discussions, as it's a time to put politics in the backseat, ask questions and listen. If you run across someone who's actively anti-socialist, it depends on your ideology and approach so I can't offer general advice to any leftist, but it's always important to make your points count: stick to the facts and the statistics, they're your best weapons; further, always keep a cool head (unless you're pressing home an important point).


But, I would really like to tell you something. It's stupid that people, which never experienced authoritarian communism and state capitalism to talk with people who have that experience and tell them how Marxists-Leninist state is good. You have to be completely retarded to do that, or you have to have 14 years and internet communist. Off course, liberals and capitalists made that period look like some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah, but that's no excuse for internet commies to teach people how life in USSR (or in Yugoslavia) was beautiful. People experienced that, and now they are experiencing capitalism. "From one evil into another."

I'm glad this has been brought up, because it's something every socialist from a capitalist country will have to contend with.

My response to this is that if we were to limit our positions to what we've experienced ourselves, none of us could have an opinion on 99.9999% of human history, much less the vast majority of current events. By the same logic, since I haven't lived under an absolutist monarch, how could I ever criticize the institution? Flipping that around: since I've never been the direct beneficiary of Doctors Without Borders, how could I support the work of that organization?

The fact is that we all create opinions and beliefs about things that we haven't "lived", it's simply unavoidable. Now that isn't to say that personal experience isn't valuable, it definitely is. Also, someone who makes incorrect assumptions about a life s/he has never seen is a worthy target of such criticisms (like the German SPD supporter I met a month ago who kept telling me how great life is in the US...I set his ass straight real quick). However, if someone supports their opinions with facts, statistics, reasonable arguments based on this evidence and the reflections of those who have lived that life, then that is something to be taken quite seriously. Remember, against a reasoned and informed position, the "you haven't lived it" argument makes very little headway on its own.

(Note, this isn't really directed toward Jurko, it's meant to address a charge that comrades can expect to encounter as supporters of socialism)

[RadioRaheem84]

My parents believe they lived under socialism while Allende was in power in Chile. They remember the long lines, the protests by workers on the ports, the land reforms, etc. Even if they are left of center politically, they still think that Pinochet (while a bastard) kept Chile from becoming a Cuba.
They don't realize the internal and external struggle Allende had to go through to get even a proposal on the table. The way the US government orchestrated events to as Nixon put it, "squeeze him". Divestment of companies, the cutting off of aid, causing riffs between the workers all laid the groundwork for the military to find Allende in breach of the Constitution.

Most people from Communist and Socialist countries don't realize the role that business played in squeezing their movements. In Soviet Bloc countries they didn't realize the massive state capitalist bureaucracy they were under.

But then again, a Guatemalan peasant would've thought Soviet Poland or Hungary was a paradise by comparison.

[blake 3:17]

To the OP: Do you want to convince these folks of anything? If you are, then what?

[Kayser_Soso]

My parents believe they lived under socialism while Allende was in power in Chile. They remember the long lines, the protests by workers on the ports, the land reforms, etc. Even if they are left of center politically, they still think that Pinochet (while a bastard) kept Chile from becoming a Cuba.
They don't realize the internal and external struggle Allende had to go through to get even a proposal on the table. The way the US government orchestrated events to as Nixon put it, "squeeze him". Divestment of companies, the cutting off of aid, causing riffs between the workers all laid the groundwork for the military to find Allende in breach of the Constitution.

Most people from Communist and Socialist countries don't realize the role that business played in squeezing their movements. In Soviet Bloc countries they didn't realize the massive state capitalist bureaucracy they were under.

But then again, a Guatemalan peasant would've thought Soviet Poland or Hungary was a paradise by comparison.

Of course they realized there was a state capitalist bureaucracy in the USSR. The people wrote thousands of letters to media publications and even directly to Molotov, Manlenkov, even even Josef Stalin. They voted in elections to oust careerist bureaucrats, such as in 1937. After the death of Stalin, the bureaucrats were not longer suppressed but favored- yet people responded to the Khruschev-Kosygin-Brezhnev reforms with strikes, demonstrations, etc. The main problem is that most people were not able to fully understand the political change the state went through. That is why many publications act as if the Soviet system, after industrialization under Stalin, remained relatively unchanged until Perestroika. Even a cursory but detailed look at the workings of the Soviet economy and state shows this to be ridiculous.

You other point here however is an excellent one- that external governments and blocs immediately put pressure on any government that even slightly goes against their interests. This obviously creates problems within that country, which are then blamed on the regime rather than those that blockaded it, subverted it, threatened to attack it, etc.

[RadioRaheem84]

Shouldn't it also be noted that most dissidents at the time of the USSR were actually just protesting for more participation in the economy rather than have it being run by bureaucrats? I highly doubt that any of them, at least NONE that I know of (except Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik) wanted an American system of economics.

The same is happening in China. Most of the democratic opposition there is also against the economic reforms that have displaced millions of rural Chinese in favor of the emerging urban upper class. Yet, the western media solely focuses on the anti-CPC aspect of the demonstrations.

[Kayser_Soso]

Shouldn't it also be noted that most dissidents at the time of the USSR were actually just protesting for more participation in the economy rather than have it being run by bureaucrats? I highly doubt that any of them, at least NONE that I know of (except Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik) wanted an American system of economics.

The same is happening in China. Most of the democratic opposition there is also against the economic reforms that have displaced millions of rural Chinese in favor of the emerging urban upper class. Yet, the western media solely focuses on the anti-CPC aspect of the demonstrations.

People protested for a variety of reasons. People even protested de-Stalinization. It actually caused riots in Tblisi. The problem was, political education had declined, thanks to the war mainly, and the Soviet people(and in much of the bloc) were presented with a false dichotomy of the American system or the current Soviet system, which continued to reform toward the market under Kosygin and Brezhnev(in some People's Democracies, socialism was never even established as the ruling classes had never even be fully expropriated e.g. Romania).

Of course there were other voices, such as the Albanian and the Chinese sides, but American propaganda was more prevalent and powerful.

[Glenn Beck]

Good lord, all these attempts to explain away real-world socialism with buzzwords like totalitarian, authoritarian, etc. have no resonance with regular people, much less workers.

RiseLikeLions replied:

I think that's selling them a bit short, don't you think?On the contrary, I've never seen the "not true communism!" approach work except with young people and educated middle class liberals, most people quite rightly perceive it as disingenuous waffling and an insult to their intelligence. It just doesn't pass the average person's bullshit detector and I take the fact that I used to take such an approach seriously at one point as evidence of my former gullibility and indoctrination with ideology, not of the veracity of this argument. It is far more desirable to soberly and honestly explain the shortcomings of historical leftist movements in context and to explain why what happened happened rather than to focus on disassociating oneself from things that one finds difficult to talk about because of the general perception. This is generally perceived as cowardly and unconvincing, given that the average person has no incentive to take you at your word that you and a handful of your buddies represent "real socialism" and everyone else is some kind of freak.

[Durruti's Ghost]

RiseLikeLions replied:
On the contrary, I've never seen the "not true communism!" approach work except with young people and educated middle class liberals, most people quite rightly perceive it as disingenuous waffling and an insult to their intelligence. It just doesn't pass the average person's bullshit detector and I take the fact that I used to take such an approach seriously at one point as evidence of my former gullibility and indoctrination with ideology, not of the veracity of this argument. It is far more desirable to soberly and honestly explain the shortcomings of historical leftist movements in context and to explain why what happened happened rather than to focus on disassociating oneself from things that one finds difficult to talk about because of the general perception. This is generally perceived as cowardly and unconvincing, given that the average person has no incentive to take you at your word that you and a handful of your buddies represent "real socialism" and everyone else is some kind of freak.

I think there's a distinction that needs to be made here. When I say, for example, that the system in place in the USSR wasn't "true socialism", I'm not saying Lenin or even Stalin weren't socialists. Nor am I saying that Leninists aren't socialists. I am simply saying that they, historically, failed to implement socialism. If socialism is defined as workers' control of the means of production, I don't really see how one could argue against this point. Do you think the workers were in fact in control of production in the former Soviet Union?

[Invincible Summer]

I think there's a distinction that needs to be made here. When I say, for example, that the system in place in the USSR wasn't "true socialism", I'm not saying Lenin or even Stalin weren't socialists. Nor am I saying that Leninists aren't socialists. I am simply saying that they, historically, failed to implement socialism. If socialism is defined as workers' control of the means of production, I don't really see how one could argue against this point. Do you think the workers were in fact in control of production in the former Soviet Union?

This is sort of what I was getting at - by explaining how these "communist states" were not truly communist by way of describing democratic worker control, etc, I think the "average worker" should be able to understand. I was not advocating bludgeoning someone over the head with a denunciation of various factions.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yes they were. It was a dictatorship of the workers till Stalin. It was after Khrushchev and other revisionists that the dictatorship of the proletariat was demolished to restore capitalism.

How would the average worker go about exercising control over production? What organs were in place for them to affect their working conditions and the goals of their labor? In what ways did they have any more control over productive processes than they would have had under US-style free market capitalism?


But anyway, you seem to miss the point that national liberation is another important goal in the path towards workers' control, for example, the case of Cuba. Communism cannot be achieved overnight magically.

Um...I actually wasn't talking about national liberation or Cuba. At all. I was talking specifically about the Soviet Union. I disagree with your conclusions about national liberation struggles, obviously; however, I don't see what this has to do with the situation in the USSR. Would you care to elaborate?

[RadioRaheem84]

Well those nations the flew the banner of socialism during the Cold War also called themselves Democratic. Were they democratic? No, and anyone can agree with that. Does that mean that democracy is a failure too? The capitalists just like to propose that socialism failed when those said nations were neither socialist nor democratic.

The Second world thrived under a model that relied heavily on the state sector to develop production and industry. That system works well over a wholly free enterprise economy like those of the third world. Even the United States and the Western Powers used a developmental strategy in protecting, regulating and subsidizing businesses. Although most of this was through legislative control rather than full control at the hands of the state. This was the first world model.

We cannot deny, no matter how much the first world proponents chatter against us, that the Second Model the USSR and Co. pursued pushed their nations from the Third World to the Second. That's what made it so appealing to the third world. Even when third world nations wanted to adopt the first world strategy (develop their nations resources and industry from within), they were stopped by the US and the Western Powers. So the USSR became a de facto ally in the third world.

To a peasant in third world Asia or Latin America, a Soviet Bloc Nation would have probably been a paradise to him by comparison.

Point is, the development of those nations like USSR from a piss poor agrarian feudal society to an economic powerhouse in a matter of decades is astonishing, when compared to the centuries of development under the industrial revolution and beyond the Western powers went through. This fact alone should not be diminished. I know that the counterargument is that it required a massive slave labor force and millions perished as a result, but what was developed in a span of say 25-30 years was less destructive than several centuries of free enterprise.

Overall, though I do not think that it can be safely said that the USSR was 'true socialism'.

[Durruti's Ghost]

The average worker as an individual is not going to own bits and pieces of the economy. That is mutualism and is not what Marxists fight for. The workers as a class owned the means of production and production was not meant for profits but for the purpose of use by the workers. This is what the lower stage of communism looks like as opposed to the higher stage of production where there are no more expropriators and no more state. Of course, anarchists disagree with Marxists on this.

I'm not really talking about workers owning bits and pieces of the economy (although I would tentatively consider this a somewhat acceptable arrangement, at least at the very beginning of socialism immediately following the revolution)--I'm talking about economic democracy, with each worker either having partial control over the factory he/she works in OR having a say in every part of the economy to the extent that it affects him/her. Show me how this--which IS supposed to be a key feature of the lower stage of socialism--was in place in the Soviet Union.


However the fact remains that for the workers and other oppressed people of the Soviet Union, it was a massive improvement compared to the exploitative and competitive economy and culture of the western capitalist countries. Unless you're suggesting that workers are better of under capitalism than under Soviet rule, I don't see how you can oppose the Soviet Union.

Life probably was better for the average worker under the Soviet Union than under free-market capitalism (particularly in areas subject to imperialist rule, such as South America or India). Life is also better under Swedish social democracy than under American free-market capitalism. That doesn't make Sweden socialist, though, does it?

[Durruti's Ghost]

What do you mean when you say "show you"? I cannot take you back in a time machine to the USSR and "show you". It's a figure of speech. Don't be obtuse.


All we have is the records and histories of that time. You can start here (http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/economics/statistics/index.htm) to learn about the Soviet Union.

I'm familiar with the history of the Soviet Union. However, I am not going to search for evidence to prove your own point for you. If you hold that economic democracy existed in the USSR, locate and post the evidence that indicates this to be the case.


Where did I say the USSR was socialist because workers had it good? It was socialist because it had a dictatorship of the proletariat.

You didn't. However, you did say that you couldn't see how I could oppose the Soviet Union if it had better conditions than free-market capitalist countries. I hold that I oppose all non-socialist systems, whether their conditions are better or not (although obviously I prefer capitalist systems with better conditions to capitalist systems with worse conditions). The presence of a dictatorship of the proletariat--which would indeed make the USSR a socialist state--is what I am asking you to prove.

[Durruti's Ghost]

:rolleyes:Its clear that in spite of the achievements of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, anarchists or Trotskyists never considered supporting it. That doesn't matter because the most advanced class conscious workers all over the world supported it. I don't think any kind of evidence is going to convince idealists because they don't believe in analyzing the world from a materialist and empirical viewpoint.

Because all anarchists and Trotskyists are necessarily idealist and never consider the materialist analysis of history as something that might be useful, right? :rolleyes:


The problem is that you have a particular anarchist petty-bourgeois model of "workers' control" that involves small capitalists and a market and is never going to happen.Untrue. My preferred model of workers' control features neither small capitalists nor a market and is entirely centered around the second form of economic democracy I listed.


The Leninist model is for the working class led by a Leninist party to expropriate the expropriators (done), seize control over the means of production (done) and abolish private property (done). This is exactly how it was done in Lenin's and Stalin's time.Although you still haven't provided any evidence that the workers had control of the means of production for the vast majority of Soviet history after, say, the early 1920s (I contend that workers' control did indeed exist early on).


You can read Shiela Fitzpatrick's The Russian Revolution or John Reed's Ten Days That Shook The World for an introduction.I will.


We also have the tremendous results achieved by this: the rapid industrialization and the defense of the free world from fascism which won't matter to hard-headed idealists, but is something materialists would be impressed by.I am impressed by both of these achievements; I just don't consider them sufficient to constitute socialism. Also, one must take into account the costs at which these achievements were bought.


In that case, even if you think the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin was "state capitalist" you should support it.;)Compared to the brutality of imperialist free-market capitalism, I do. Compared to Swedish-style social democracy or, better yet, genuine socialism? Not so much.

[RadioRaheem84]

In that case, even if you think the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin was "state capitalist" you should support it.;)

Yeah if the choice at the time was between the second world and the third world, of course! But not over the Social Democracies of Western Europe.

[Kayser_Soso]

I think there's a distinction that needs to be made here. When I say, for example, that the system in place in the USSR wasn't "true socialism", I'm not saying Lenin or even Stalin weren't socialists. Nor am I saying that Leninists aren't socialists. I am simply saying that they, historically, failed to implement socialism. If socialism is defined as workers' control of the means of production, I don't really see how one could argue against this point. Do you think the workers were in fact in control of production in the former Soviet Union?


Under Stalin, the means of production were socially owned, or collectively owned. Means of production were not commodities, plans were set to fulfill needs rather than producing commodities, and labor power was also not a commodity. Workers in the Stalin time(and for some time after) had access to panels where they could bring up grievances with managers, but managers did not have this same right. So with all this taken together- yes, the Soviet Union under Stalin was socialist. Maybe not your IDEAL socialism, and not mine- but we don't really get the choice of what conditions may come about after a revolution in a particular place.

I notice how much anarchists love to hammer the point that Marxism-Leninism "failed" to establish socialism, Communism, whatever. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a chainsaw- anarchists couldn't even establish a society stable enough to last. And even then they resorted to everything they condemned other factions for doing- collaborated with the state, participated in elections, conscripted people, requisitioned goods from peasants by force, and executed people- often without any trial whatsoever.

So it's like this anarchists- we both built planes, and ours eventually crashed. Yours never got off the damn runway.