How do we counter the negative impression of past regimes?

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.documentariestv.net/history/the-lost-world-of-communism-1-a-socialist-paradise-video_6fb9ce5a9.html

I know it's BBC but it gives a glimpse of the East German regime.

How do we counter the impression left behind by past regimes like the East German one? There was good, but there was a lot of bad because of the paranoid State apparatus.

This documentary though, like most docs made by liberals, skewer the image of East vs. West. The eastern nations were closed off and subject to the internal corruption of their autocratic autarkies. But these nations relied little on imperialism and extreme exploitation on other nations like the West.

Why do bourgeois filmmakers rely so much on the failures of the past regimes, which were obvious because of their closed, paranoid and autarky-like system, yet act like liberal democracies are so "free" regardless of the internal contradictions and reliance on imperialism/subjugation of the global south?

Why is this balance of the historical facts never mentioned?

[Obs]

I think a good strategy is to simply accept differing analyses of historical attempts at socialism, acknowledge both the good and the bad, but to encourage people to look at these states in their respective contexts - for instance, in East Germany's defence, they were constantly under the threat of military invasion, and as such had to resort to extreme measures to stop subversive elements. (Actually, regardless of one's opinion regarding the DPRK, one can't deny that that's almost exactly the same situation they are in.) In the same vein, one can accept that the Soviet Union under Lenin was a very brutal state, but that this was largely necessary to avoid the complete destruction of all that the working class had fought for. Such an approach will lead people to want to take further looks at the history of socialist states, and perhaps accept other versions than the ones they teach in schools.

While adopting this tactic, one could also point out that the emergence of a socialist state today will look nothing like Russia in 1917, and that one can't possibly use states that were dissolved 20 years ago as an example of how socialism will manifest now - point out that there is no blueprint for socialism.

This is what my party and I have been doing thus far, and most people we have talked with, using this tactic, have reacted positively and with more interest than we see some have received who insist on lecturing innocent bystanders about how Great Comrade Stalin was a great man, a hero of the proletariat, who has been slandered by modern capitalist-anarcho-trot propaganda(!), because frankly, this isn't what interests modern workers or has any sort of bearing on their lives.

I expect at least one very enthusiastic flogging from any one of our resident anti-revisionists.

[FreeFocus]

By not associating ourselves with, or identifying as followers of, brutal authoritarian leaders and regimes like Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. That would be a good start.

[Obs]

Pol Pot
Here we go!

[FreeFocus]

Here we go!

Yes, the shitstorm commences!

[RadioRaheem84]

Pol Pot? Communists brought him down. Capitalists later supported the Khmer Rouge's return.

[Pretty Flaco]

Pol Pot? Communists brought him down. Capitalists later supported the Khmer Rouge's return.

And yet there are people on here who seem to think he's worth following.

[Lucretia]

Here's a hint: you don't drone on and on about how they deserved our "critical support."

[Apoi_Viitor]

Hey comrades, I have some ideas.

1. Deny that any mass/systematic slaughter occurred in previous regimes. When someone counters by saying, "Oh but didn't Stalin kill X many people," say either: most of those 'victims' were criminals who deserved it or simply dismiss all claims of mass slaughter as bourgeios propaganda.

2. Claim that there is 'good' and 'bad' in every socialist regime. (note: capitalism is always 100% bad) When someone mentions the fact that an unprecedented number of Chinese peasants starved under Mao, mention that had these citizens lived, they would've had the ability to utilize 'free health care'.

3. Always utilize the 'imperialist' argument. Ex: "Of course North Korea needs concentration camps where they carry out biological testing on their own citizens. At any second they can be attacked by the Amerikkkan imperialist pigs."

4. Create ridiculous conspiracy theories. (Michael Parenti was excellent at this) Ex: "Don't vote, the capitalists rig the voting machines. They killed JFK too."

[Rusty Shackleford]

Here's a hint: you don't drone on and on about how they deserved our "critical support."
we dont need to go around starting conversations about it, but if people ask, we give a a stance on it. it varies by tendency.

simply not talking about it doesnt help at all though.

[FreeFocus]

Hey comrades, I have some ideas.

1. Deny that any mass/systematic slaughter occurred in previous regimes. When someone counters by saying, "Oh but didn't Stalin kill X many people," say either: most of those 'victims' were criminals who deserved it or simply dismiss all claims of mass slaughter as bourgeios propaganda.

2. Claim that there is 'good' and 'bad' in every socialist regime. (note: capitalism is always 100% bad) When someone mentions the fact that an unprecedented number of Chinese peasants starved under Mao, mention that had these citizens lived, they would've had the ability to utilize 'free health care'.

3. Always utilize the 'imperialist' argument. Ex: "Of course North Korea needs concentration camps where they carry out biological testing on their own citizens. At any second they can be attacked by the Amerikkkan imperialist pigs."

4. Create ridiculous conspiracy theories. (Michael Parenti was excellent at this) Ex: "Don't vote, the capitalists rig the voting machines. They killed JFK too."

Surely this is a satirical post? You can't seriously be recommending outright fabrication and lies? We aren't the Right. We don't need to indoctrinate people with BS that runs so counter to how humans would organize themselves and interact with one another naturally.

[RedSonRising]

I think that regardless of your position, an emphasis should be made that describes the history of socialism that is not cut and dry. I do not, for example, think the Soviet Union was a genuine socialist country, however I do tell people that many gains were made under the USSR within Russia and that some historians do classify the structures as representative of the working class, and point out the exaggeration of reported atrocities in Russia and China. There are numerous examples such as Chiapas, Spain, Yugoslavia, Cuba to an extent, where these horrid stories of atrocities with numerous trailing zeros behind the death tolls don't exist and allow for a better starting point of discussion. These societies also had their own weaknesses for which to criticize, but are absent of the typical dictatorial stigma.

Socialism is thought of in more than one way, and has been attempted-and has somewhat succeeded experimentally-in many different ways in many different places. Once you can communicate the depth and diversity within the history of working class movements, the validity of the theory appears more plausible. The more you discuss Vanguard theory vs libertarian socialism and peasant vs industrial emphasis, etc., the more the "it doesn't work on paper" perspective seems silly and thin.

[Rafiq]

Change our name.

Yep, I said it.

I fully advocate changing our name.

Let's use an example: Kindism

We have an Idea called Kindism but it's really Communism in disguise.

We talk about EVERYTHING. Theory of Labor value, ect.

Then, some smartass will be like "Hey, that's Communism, he wants us to live like North Korea!!"

Then, say "But did North Korea have workers control over the means of production? Is north korea a democracy? Does north Korea have free speech" and so on.

This is one of our only chances at winning the masses to our side.

[Impulse97]

The Bad
...for instance, in East Germany's defense, they were constantly under the threat of military invasion, and as such had to resort to extreme measures to stop subversive elements. (Actually, regardless of one's opinion regarding the DPRK, one can't deny that that's almost exactly the same situation they are in.) In the same vein, one can accept that the Soviet Union under Lenin was a very brutal state, but that this was largely necessary to avoid the complete destruction of all that the working class had fought for.

Using brutality to maintain power is never right. What is the point of having a socialist state if you beat and oppress your people? How is becoming a police state beneficial to the working class? The DPRK is a oppressive dictatorship regardless of its socialistic history. They have abandoned all but the last vestiges of communism. They have just as little right to be praised as the Empire and S. Korea do! As much as I loathe the thought of the US and S. Korea taking over the DPRK and turning it into a capitalist state, I loathe the corrupted N. Korean government just as much.

Is real slavery in N. Korea any better than wage slavery in the US and S. Korea?


The Good
...the emergence of a socialist state today will look nothing like Russia in 1917, and that one can't possibly use states that were dissolved 20 years ago as an example of how socialism will manifest now - point out that there is no blueprint for socialism.

This is so true. We need to take mistakes like the SU/DPRK and use them to learn, grow and make a truly free socialist state.
[/rant]:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Obs]

[/rant]:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:
I don't think you're a guevarist.

[scarletghoul]

Change our name.

Yep, I said it.

I fully advocate changing our name.

Let's use an example: Kindism

We have an Idea called Kindism but it's really Communism in disguise.

We talk about EVERYTHING. Theory of Labor value, ect.

Then, some smartass will be like "Hey, that's Communism, he wants us to live like North Korea!!"

Then, say "But did North Korea have workers control over the means of production? Is north korea a democracy? Does north Korea have free speech" and so on.

This is one of our only chances at winning the masses to our side.This is the most stupid ridiculous thing I've ever heard... Yes we should just reject the entire history of our movement.. that will really help us..
Seriously, what an idiot.

No matter what your view of the USSR etc, we have to at least accept this history as our own, as the history of the working class movement.

Also I don't know what its like wherever you are but when I talk to people about communism a lot of them are just curious about what it is, so I tell them and they think it's good. Occasionally someone might mention Russia or Korea etc negatively so I explain the difficulty of these countries' situations, their neglected positive qualities, accept their mistakes, etc.. Being honest about what you think was successful and unsuccessful is the best approach. I also outline the positive points of socialism, using examples like Cuba and talking about full employment, free education, and so on. It's actually great that we have this socialist history as it provides us with rich material for discussion and example. If you're honest about the mistakes and explain how they can be overcome, then people will listen to what you say

the idea of changing our name to somehow snake our way around capitalist propaganda so we can deceive the working class into rising up, thats a fucking idiotic idea.

[Rafiq]

This is the most stupid ridiculous thing I've ever heard... Yes we should just reject the entire history of our movement.. that will really help us..
Seriously, what an idiot.

No matter what your view of the USSR etc, we have to at least accept this history as our own, as the history of the working class movement.

Also I don't know what its like wherever you are but when I talk to people about communism a lot of them are just curious about what it is, so I tell them and they think it's good. Occasionally someone might mention Russia or Korea etc negatively so I explain the difficulty of these countries' situations, their neglected positive qualities, accept their mistakes, etc.. Being honest about what you think was successful and unsuccessful is the best approach. I also outline the positive points of socialism, using examples like Cuba and talking about full employment, free education, and so on. It's actually great that we have this socialist history as it provides us with rich material for discussion and example. If you're honest about the mistakes and explain how they can be overcome, then people will listen to what you say

the idea of changing our name to somehow snake our way around capitalist propaganda so we can deceive the working class into rising up, thats a fucking idiotic idea.


If the working class rises up, they will then find out what utter bullshit the capitalists were teaching them, once they get in power.

You obviously are not a Materialist.

Our goal is to get the working class into power, not to be proud of our all-glorious history..

History is really just that, History.

We can talk about History once we obliterate Capitalism.

The most important goal we have is empowering the working class and destroying Capitalism.

If you are too caught up in those wonderful Red Army Choir songs and cool looking Che T-Shirts along with appealing Soviet Uniforms, than you aren't a Materialist.

If it means empowering the working class, I for one would be the first to change our name.

Our History is not necessarily important today.

We don't have the time to be Historians.

We need to empower the working class.

[scarletghoul]

Well good luck empowering the working class when they don't even know the name of what they're doing.. If youre not willing to fight bourgeois propaganda how the fuck are you gonna take out the bourgeois state. seriously. Revolution requires the balls to stand up for yourself and attack the enemy head on. If you can't do that with a single word, instead trying to worm around out of fear of being called a nasty communist, then you are incapable of anything significant.

And in case you didn't notice, there are workers' revolutions going on right now in the world, under the banner of socialism and - yes - communism.

As I said before, most people I've talked to seem pretty cool with the idea of socialism/communism. I don't know if your approach is off or if you're just talking to middleclass kids or what, but in my experience the working class is absolutely receptive to the idea of communism.

[RedSonRising]

If the working class can't become organized and educated enough to get over a stigmatized label, then there's not really all that much going on, is there?

[RadioRaheem84]

Hey comrades, I have some ideas.

1. Deny that any mass/systematic slaughter occurred in previous regimes. When someone counters by saying, "Oh but didn't Stalin kill X many people," say either: most of those 'victims' were criminals who deserved it or simply dismiss all claims of mass slaughter as bourgeios propaganda.

2. Claim that there is 'good' and 'bad' in every socialist regime. (note: capitalism is always 100% bad) When someone mentions the fact that an unprecedented number of Chinese peasants starved under Mao, mention that had these citizens lived, they would've had the ability to utilize 'free health care'.

3. Always utilize the 'imperialist' argument. Ex: "Of course North Korea needs concentration camps where they carry out biological testing on their own citizens. At any second they can be attacked by the Amerikkkan imperialist pigs."

4. Create ridiculous conspiracy theories. (Michael Parenti was excellent at this) Ex: "Don't vote, the capitalists rig the voting machines. They killed JFK too."

Let's just call bullshit on this post and move on.

Anyways.....

[RadioRaheem84]

If you are too caught up in those wonderful Red Army Choir songs and cool looking Che T-Shirts along with appealing Soviet Uniforms, than you aren't a Materialist.


Cool looking Che shirts? You think most comrades are stuck on aesthetics?

C'mon man. I think that people have more of a historic, materialist perception of what really happened to the former regimes than to just want acceptance into the mainstream political discourse.

The imperialist argument, as another comrade in here indicated, is not a canard. It is a real historical reality. To joke around and think that it's some sort of excuse used by MLs for the behavior of past regimes is spurious and ignorant.


"Don't vote, the capitalists rig the voting machines. They killed JFK too."


Liberalism, much? Get the fuck outta here with that nonsense. The smoke screen of militant liberalism is funny.

[Milk Sheikh]

It's simple, really. Never argue in favor of socialism in the beginning. Instead, point to the failures of capitalism and especially to the person's (the person you're addressing) condition and how capitalism is responsible for that. Then it'll be easy to offer an alternative and also tell them that yes, socialist regimes did make mistakes, but we must learn from history. That's the only way society evolves and nothing can be too perfect.

[Jose Gracchus]

the idea of changing our name to somehow snake our way around capitalist propaganda so we can deceive the working class into rising up, thats a fucking idiotic idea.

Funny enough, Upton Sinclair's gubernatorial run had him reflect that the biggest problem he'd had in America running under "socialism" was how badly branded the bourgeois media had already rendered it. He ruefully noted his better performances under the End Poverty in California ticket.


"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

[Rafiq]

Well good luck empowering the working class when they don't even know the name of what they're doing.. If youre not willing to fight bourgeois propaganda how the fuck are you gonna take out the bourgeois state. seriously. Revolution requires the balls to stand up for yourself and attack the enemy head on. If you can't do that with a single word, instead trying to worm around out of fear of being called a nasty communist, then you are incapable of anything significant.


That's the thing, we can't fight bourgeois propaganda. Fact is that word has been fucked for the past fifty years and if we use it there is still that barrier of propaganda installed in them that we cannot smash down. I don't care if I'm called a 'nasty communist'. We need to win the masses to our side and if people like you are carrying giant Kim Jong Il flags that's not going to work.




And in case you didn't notice, there are workers' revolutions going on right now in the world, under the banner of socialism and - yes - communism.


Yeah, in third world countries where the propaganda machines were not as strong...

And, not to be a dick, but from what it sounds, the Nepalese Maoists and Indian Maoists will probably end up with the same thing other Maoists did... capitalism.

Vangaurdism doesn't work and history has shown that.






As I said before, most people I've talked to seem pretty cool with the idea of socialism/communism. I don't know if your approach is off or if you're just talking to middleclass kids or what, but in my experience the working class is absolutely receptive to the idea of communism.


That's wonderful, but real people act hostile toward the Idea when they first hear the name.

They probably forget everything you told them a couple weeks later, too.

The working class is hostile toward the word, and you can't change that. He will go on the internet or watch Glenn Beck and then realize you were an American hating snake wanting to destroy his beautiful country.

Then he is going to read a book called: The Fallacy of Marxism and he's going to start thinking you are full of shit, Communism failed everywhere, ect.


We don't fucking have time to explain to people all that jazz, we don't have to explain everytime that there never has been Communism, we don't have to explain it doesn't mean having a dictator!

We don't have time for that, they will get bored instantly!

You obviously are not looking in the interest of the working class, you are looking in the interest of an Idealogie. Which is why you look at everything from a biased point of view, it's like a religion to you actually.

You need more Materialism.

[Rafiq]

Cool looking Che shirts? You think most comrades are stuck on aesthetics?

C'mon man. I think that people have more of a historic, materialist perception of what really happened to the former regimes than to just want acceptance into the mainstream political discourse.

The imperialist argument, as another comrade in here indicated, is not a canard. It is a real historical reality. To joke around and think that it's some sort of excuse used by MLs for the behavior of past regimes is spurious and ignorant.


You are missing the point.

Nobody is accepting the mainstream political discourse, the problem is that the masses can't.


We can't educate all of the masses, we need them to be pissed off for revolution.


Almost any Idealogy can be bent to our will, as CaptianZinn once pointed out.

[RadioRaheem84]

Funny enough, Upton Sinclair's gubernatorial run had him reflect that the biggest problem he'd had in America running under "socialism" was how badly branded the bourgeois media had already rendered it. He ruefully noted his better performances under the End Poverty in California ticket.

This is true but even running under another party name has been fouled now as the media has branded anything having to do with being anti big business as socialist. They shifted political discourse so far to th right that being a soc dem is too radical. Soc dems like Bernie Sanders think they're socialists. Democratic Socialists like Chavez are seen as the reincarnation of Lenin by the press.

What are we to do when the press has rendered political discourse to complete banality?

[RadioRaheem84]

Have we thought about the fact that maybe the problems were also due to a rather traditionalist, paranoid beuracracy?

When I read stuff about the old regime leadership they remind me a lot of American politicians too; rather conservative and traditional, nationalist and extremely paranoid of enemy infiltration.

Their treatment of homosexuals, artists, and other people was appalling and not progressive.

Michael Parenti wrote about how ignorant of Marx a lot of the Soviet leaders he met were and how extremely reactionary and racist the Soviet intellectuals were, ready to bow down to US power anytime.

He continues by saying that the fate of whistleblowers was the same as in the US. I mean the people and leaders were cynical of leftism and pined for the consumer cornucopia of the West. Western propaganda about freedom and everyone owning a nice car and big house was powerful enough to penetrate through Soviet propaganda.

But the point is that people wanted more democracy and the security of the former blocs.

I think that we have a chance to finally do that in this era.

Cuba, I believe, came the closest even though it had many of the same faults as the rest but it was the most progressive of the States and offered a glimpse of what real socialism can look like.

What's happening in Venezuela should be supported. If people knew about the stuff going on there, people would have a different view.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

It's simple, really. Never argue in favor of socialism in the beginning. Instead, point to the failures of capitalism and especially to the person's (the person you're addressing) condition and how capitalism is responsible for that. Then it'll be easy to offer an alternative and also tell them that yes, socialist regimes did make mistakes, but we must learn from history. That's the only way society evolves and nothing can be too perfect.

This is the way to start, keep it simple in the begininng talk about the basics like; "Dont you want to get paid for all things you don on your job and dont you want to work for the benefits of your community rather then for some fews profits?"
Gon on with; "Why does over one billion people have to starv when we are producing enough food to feed 12 billion people" And remmeber that the borgeous propaganda are always trying to make a direct connection with socialism and the bad shit that has been done in the name of socialism, never accept that. One history book i once read when i was 14 said that the european labour movement had strong conections with anti-semitism and therefor was partly responsible for the holocoust, genius.

About the documentarys of 'The lost world of communism' i saw all the episodes in july, i had hope for thisone because it said that the material was mostly collected among ordinary people, showing theire daily life. I got really disapointed when i realized that it wasnt just the ordinary black-white propaganda, but also even worse then usual. First the people in the doc where far frome ordinary (working class) but high-elite actors and music producers or some few individuals that had faced terrible experiences that had nothing to do with the regime (exept one). Anyway the doc followed a historical time-line but without telling anything about the countries developments to give the impression that nothing good ever happend there or maybe to give the picture of that the system where stagnated. One of the critics against the Causcescus where that they where ugly, what a high level of criticism! (Observe that i dont try to justify Romanias regime, since i know it was one of the most failed attempts to build socialism)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Liberalism, much? Get the fuck outta here with that nonsense. The smoke screen of militant liberalism is funny.

Actually, I was just paraphrasing some of Parenti's ideas...

But going back to your original question, I think there can be two ways to address this dilemma. The approach you take is entirely dependent upon your opinion of the previous existing socialist states. On one side, there are people like you, who argue that most previous socialist revolutions were genuine in nature, and established a legitimate socialist government. However, for various reasons, they functioned less than optimally.

The other side argues, that while most socialist revolutions were genuinely willed by the masses, they established only an aesthetically socialist government, not an actual socialist state.

So if we accept the first approach, we should be concerned with pointing out the difficulties and material conditions surrounding previously existing socialist states, while denouncing the radical excesses of their paranoid state apparatus'.

But if we accept the second approach, we should be concerned with disassociating ourselves with existing models of socialism, pointing out why the model we advocate for is not 'the soviet model' - basically, trying to point out that socialism can be 'libertarian' or non-oppressive.

[RadioRaheem84]

The other side argues, that while most socialist revolutions were genuinely willed by the masses, they established only an aesthetically socialist government, not an actual socialist state.

This is my point, though. I defend the past regimes from the excess of propaganda that makes them out to look like the most hellish places on earth but not because they were genuinely socialist.

Both points are correct though as a response.

The first thing we should do is say that we are not recreating the Soviet model. Denounce it, but for the sake of the historical record, not in the same vein as the capitalists do; which is to caricature it as akin to Nazism.

[Kaze no Kae]

How do we counter the impression left behind by past regimes like the East German one?
By acknowledging that it's not just an 'impression', but despite the often exaggerated or fabricated villification by the Western media and history syllabuses (and the ways in which they are sometimes better than market capitalism, for example the free utilities in the USSR), that so-called "Communist" Stalinist regimes are/were exploitative and authoritarian if not totalitarian, and disowning them.


Surely this is a satirical post? You can't seriously be recommending outright fabrication and lies? We aren't the Right. We don't need to indoctrinate people with BS that runs so counter to how humans would organize themselves and interact with one another naturally.
That was my initial reaction too but I'm almost certain it was satire. Wouldn't necessarily come across as satirical to someone who didn't have experience of the left though


Change our name.
Not necessarily a bad idea to be honest, sounds silly but the meaning of the word "communism" is pretty much thoroughly changed in the public consciousness, and that's one of the main reasons I identify more often as a socialist than a communist (which admittedly also has some association with Stalinism and to a lesser extent with 'Social Democratic' parties which don't even really deserve to be called social democratic), and why I usually affix 'libertarian' to it. In fact, the only significant reason I pay any attention at all to trying to reclaim the 'socialist' or 'communist' tradition rather than just dropping the terms in favour of a euphemism is that so many people just wouldn't go along with it.


the idea of changing our name to somehow snake our way around capitalist propaganda so we can deceive the working class into rising up, thats a fucking idiotic idea.
It's not deception. Words are just sounds that we use to communicate ideas, so if what someone understands by a word is different to what you're trying to communicate by using it then it only makes sense to use a different word. We are what we consider to be the meaning of the word 'communist'; if we tell people who think 'communist' refers to Stalinist and Maoist regimes and their supporters that we're not what they consider to be the meaning of the word 'communist' then we're being entirely truthful.

[Crimson Commissar]

By acknowledging that it's not just an 'impression', but despite the often exaggerated or fabricated villification by the Western media (and the ways in which they are sometimes better than market capitalism, for example the free utilities in the USSR), that so-called "Communist" Stalinist regimes are/were exploitative and authoritarian if not totalitarian, and disowning them.
Implying that the USSR and other communist regimes are worse than capitalism is, in my opinion, reactionary. They were not perfect, but fucking come on, they were a HELL of a lot better than this capitalist shit hole we live in today. The world would be a much better place if we still had a USSR leading the fight against capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Totalitarian?

Sigh, not this again.

Is there some sort of reconciliation people desperately want with the mainstream?

Do you feel left out Kaze?

I didn't word my my OP to mean that the injustices of the past regimes were merely impressions, but that the lasting impression on people's minds is some sort of Nazi like regimes with "totalitarian" impulses.

Would you use that same language against the US which uses it's influence and muscle to subjugate millions across the globe to submit to global capital? Even if you dismiss the internal contradictions in the US, what makes you think it's not anymore "totalitarian" just because it doesn't internally oppress citizens but does abroad?

It's stuff like this that we should be challenging and what irks me about today's leftists. They easily capitulate to the liberal-ish good state vs. bad state dichotomy based on a shallow view of the country.

The US can support hundred of dictators, help run thousands of sweatshops, quell hundreds of liberation movements, openly engage in wars killing millions, all to give global capitalists more markets, yet the "totalitarian" label would never be used against it considering we can go to the movies, shop and dance (things that can be done even in despotic regimes).

But we witness the internal corruption and decay of state capitalist governments, the submission to paranoia after years of invasion, economic blockade, terrorism, internal infiltration, propaganda, Cold War, etc. All of this included with the lack of real democratic sub-structure led to these nations eking out only a meager living standard for their citizens, but one that was still enough to change the dynamics of global policy.


Somehow I fail to see how someone with a supposed materialist perspective could even subscribe to beliefs in "totalitarianism".

[syndicat]

Why is this balance of the historical facts never mentioned?

why do you want to defend repressive bureaucratic class regimes? this is like asking, What can we do to counter negative information about capitalist regimes? there is "some good" also in some capitalist regimes that have developed welfare states, various forms of popular rights. but we're not interested in defending a regime where the capitalist class is dominant. so why the interest in defending regimes where there was a dominating, exploiting bureaucratic class and the working class was repressed?

[Jose Gracchus]

Have we thought about the fact that maybe the problems were also due to a rather traditionalist, paranoid beuracracy?

When I read stuff about the old regime leadership they remind me a lot of American politicians too; rather conservative and traditional, nationalist and extremely paranoid of enemy infiltration.

Where did the bureaucracy originally come from? Once upon a time the progressives in the party were replaced with your typical stodgy, hierarchy-conscious, leader-following, ritual-worshiping, fearful-of-the-masses middle and upper management of every hitherto known state apparatus. Why?

Perhaps the nature of the regime, including the social and economic relations within it, are to blame. Whenever people who adhere to a Leninistic line start talking about the USSR and its allied and puppet states, all of a sudden discussions of the political, cultural, and social content of the management becomes legalistic and quite frankly naive. "We have bad party recruiting", "not enough workers", ad nauseum. It is frankly quite un-Marxist; one gets the impression when reading The Civil War in France, and how Marx talks about how even Proudhonists and Blanquists carried out good policies and advanced the position of the class even though their ideological and individual make-up was programmatically "incorrect" or flawed, that this is not the kind of take Marx himself would have had on the degenerated workers' states/state capitalisms/class societies of a new type/red bureaucracy/not-quite-correctly-implemented-and-unlucky wondrous workers' states.

What is the basis for them becoming another paternalistic, cloistered, insulated-from-mass-influence, conservative, and power-jealous elite? Bad policies taken top-down by the more-or-less self-selecting palace-intrugue-style-politics party and state elite? Does anyone really believe that if a workers' government in the enduring known format was created, that it would remain full of vitality of young and progressive activists? Its a symptom. These are gravely flawed organizations of power.


Their treatment of homosexuals, artists, and other people was appalling and not progressive.

Michael Parenti wrote about how ignorant of Marx a lot of the Soviet leaders he met were and how extremely reactionary and racist the Soviet intellectuals were, ready to bow down to US power anytime.

Again, are we going to just ask questions pissing in the wind, or scrutinize the causes?


He continues by saying that the fate of whistleblowers was the same as in the US. I mean the people and leaders were cynical of leftism and pined for the consumer cornucopia of the West. Western propaganda about freedom and everyone owning a nice car and big house was powerful enough to penetrate through Soviet propaganda.

Whose fault was that? Are we blaming the workers and their stupidity?

As for the OP's question: it might help to take a categorical stand for open democracy (competitive fair, free elections open to the universal suffrage and freely-formed organizations who wish to agitate for electoral outcomes), against one-party-states, and for the broadest political liberties, for starters. These should be made with as little qualification as possible.

A more convincing humanism, and formal organization and representation of consumer interests in the economy, rather than leaving it a stochastic process of leaders trying to keep political discontent down, and enterprises hoarding goods to bribe their workers to come to work with would be nice too.

[Jose Gracchus]

This is true but even running under another party name has been fouled now as the media has branded anything having to do with being anti big business as socialist. They shifted political discourse so far to th right that being a soc dem is too radical. Soc dems like Bernie Sanders think they're socialists. Democratic Socialists like Chavez are seen as the reincarnation of Lenin by the press.

What are we to do when the press has rendered political discourse to complete banality?

This was always the case. There have always been the most hysterical attacks on the organization of workers; business unionism as late as the Red Scare was identified as identical with communism at times. There's no escape from portrayal in the bourgeois media. Developing a political alternative in the modern day presupposes breaking a monopoly on political consciousness furnished by bourgeois media.

[FreeFocus]

Here's the thing:

In the US and other capitalist states, you don't eat, but if you do, you can live on to have access to information, you can do productive things that interest you, you can have fun, and to some extent, fulfill part of your potential.

In the USSR and other Stalinist states, you eat, but you won't be doing much else.

Capitalism is awesome if you're part of the bourgeoisie. Stalinism is awesome if you're a bureaucrat. Not much of a choice. To some extent, imperialism is the cause for some of the paranoid totalitarianism of Stalinist states (yes, totalitarianism. Capitalism is totalitarian too because it affects every aspect of life). I think the degenerated revolutions that produced these regimes might have happened anyway, because the vanguards seizing power don't relinquish that power without a fight.

The Soviet Union made some important gains, and under Lenin, there were some impressive democratic developments. But under Stalin and after, there isn't a whole lot to view positively. The SU lent support to guerrilla movements resisting imperialism, that was a good thing. But did it do it out of altruism? I don't think so. They did it out of strategic considerations, what would expand the SU's influence. There were movements that they also threw under the bus, like in western and southern Europe after WWII.

I think that the model of statist communism has been discredited, and we're seeing that with the nature of leftist developments today. Very few movements are seeking to establish Stalinist regimes; they are taking a more libertarian approach. Even looking at Venezuela, support is being given on the local, communal level, support is being given to communes, and peoples' militias are being formed (you can debate about whether or not the militias are just an extension of the state though).

[Manic Impressive]

I like this I'm not sure who originally said it but here's Barry's version


"When Capital and the Ruling Classes apologize for the genocide of the American Indians, Colonialism, the 14 hour day, the 7 day working week, Children in coalmines, the Opium Wars, the Massacre of the Paris Commune, Slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, Apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Trench Warfare, Mustard Gas, the Soviet intervention, Aerial Bombing, lynchings, the Great Depression, Hunger Marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, the Rape of Nanking, the Second World War, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Racism, the Mafia, Nuclear Weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, Blacklists, Thalidomide, the Arms race, Plastic surgery, poverty, Environmental Degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, Guatemala, Malaya, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Palestine, Iraq, the Exxon Valdez & BP oil spills, Indian peasant suicides, trade in human body parts, Deforestation, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, the Destruction of the Ozone Layer, Exploitation of Labor and the murder of over 50 million Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then-and only then-will I consider apologizing for the errors of socialism."

[Kaze no Kae]

Implying that the USSR and other communist regimes are worse than capitalism is, in my opinion, reactionary
And that, in my opinion, is bullshit. But I didn't say state-capitalism - or whatever you want to call the system used by those regimes - is worse than market-capitalism, I said on average, it's roughly on a par.


Totalitarian?

Sigh, not this again.
The totalitarian bit was a reference to the DPRK specifically.


Is there some sort of reconciliation people desperately want with the mainstream?
Yes. If we want to actually change anything we have to convince people of our ideas, and in order to do that we have to speak in language they understand. I don't know, maybe achieving change isn't your priority, maybe your priority is to wax lyrical about theoretical correctness or something.


Would you use that same language against the US which uses it's influence and muscle to subjugate millions across the globe to submit to global capital? Even if you dismiss the internal contradictions in the US, what makes you think it's not anymore "totalitarian" just because it doesn't internally oppress citizens but does abroad?
I use the same language against the US - and more to the point, international capitalism - where it's appropriate. And the concerted attempts by capitalist education, media etc to misrepresent and marginalise left thought and action could indeed be validly categorised as totalitarian. I'm not sure that the traditionally totalitarian methods of regime A make regime B which supports it totalitarian in the same way, but certainly imperialist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Judging by UN data, living standars in the east under the bloc were relatively the same as the West. In some cases, better. The main difference is that the east did it with relatively little to no use of imperialism or subjugation of other lands. It was rather their closed autarkik systems that did them in yet brought about an entire global change in how states deal with development. This was positive, even Chomsky agrees with that.

Anything to champion in the West, Syndicat, was due to class struggle not anything inherent in the Western system. Most progress came from deliniating from the original tenets whereas in the East, problems arose due to revisionism.

[Rafiq]

And I'm sure the east would have done even better if more workers democracy was involved in the system.

You notice that the Capitalist nations only get out of their shit holes when they start implementing Ideas from Socialism. Take for example, FDR.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Soviet Union was criticised for persecuting idiots like Solzenhytsin (oh fuck off i'm not spelling your name correctly, ****) on the grounds of anti-state activity.

What grounds does the US have for persecuting people like Julian Assange? Nothing but national security. They are hypocrites and their behaviour is much akin to that of the USSR on this question.

However, we shouldn't engage in ridiculous acts of doublethink or moral relativism to try and defend every aspect of the former USSR, GDR and so on. It has been shown that people who try to justify and defend things like the purges in the USSR and the wall in the former GDR just come across as outlandish clowns and ideological numbnuts.

We should try and provide an accessible peoples' history of these nations. The good, the bad and the ugly. The problem many on the left make is that they allow their sectarian notions of loyalty to or against a cause to cloud their better historical judgement. The 'Stalin' debate is one such example. People feel the need to either defend the guy to the hilt or denounce him as a totalitarian baby-eating dictator. The truth is that he was neither a saint nor the devil, but somewhere in between and it is our job to provide a balanced history of such people and the like. Currently, for me, this is one of the areas where the left, in general, falls far short.

[Sir Comradical]

Never fall back on the argument of "well, America does bad stuff to", because then you're assuming that the person you're talking to automatically supports US imperialism. Just don't do it, it's just wrong.

[Thirsty Crow]

J
Anything to champion in the West, Syndicat, was due to class struggle not anything inherent in the Western system. Most progress came from deliniating from the original tenets whereas in the East, problems arose due to revisionism.
Pardon? Problems in the socialist bloc arose due to...a complex of ideas?
Not concrete material processes?
Please, explain your point becuase, quite frankly, it seems like a legitimately idealist position.

[Jose Gracchus]

The Soviet Union was criticised for persecuting idiots like Solzenhytsin (oh fuck off i'm not spelling your name correctly, ****) on the grounds of anti-state activity.

What grounds does the US have for persecuting people like Julian Assange? Nothing but national security. They are hypocrites and their behaviour is much akin to that of the USSR on this question.

However, we shouldn't engage in ridiculous acts of doublethink or moral relativism to try and defend every aspect of the former USSR, GDR and so on. It has been shown that people who try to justify and defend things like the purges in the USSR and the wall in the former GDR just come across as outlandish clowns and ideological numbnuts.

We should try and provide an accessible peoples' history of these nations. The good, the bad and the ugly. The problem many on the left make is that they allow their sectarian notions of loyalty to or against a cause to cloud their better historical judgement. The 'Stalin' debate is one such example. People feel the need to either defend the guy to the hilt or denounce him as a totalitarian baby-eating dictator. The truth is that he was neither a saint nor the devil, but somewhere in between and it is our job to provide a balanced history of such people and the like. Currently, for me, this is one of the areas where the left, in general, falls far short.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn is hardly an archetype of the Soviet suppression of political and individual liberties, and this thing deserves to be pointed out. The USSR banned formal organizing for any political outcomes outside the palace intrigues of the Kremlin, including but not limited to "incorrect" brands of socialism. Many of us in the USSR would've been subject to legal action for what we say and do on this very site. This very site couldn't have existed. To act like it was all about Alexandr Solzhenitsyn is ridiculous; if Julian Assange was extradited to the U.S. and imprisoned, I think we'd at least be permitted to publish and read and distribute (though the bourgeois would certainly not lend its hand so much) his book on what being an American political prisoner is like.