Today in school...

[csquared]

I'm a senior in High School, and today in my AP Euro class we had a substitute who used to live in the Soviet Union. While we were practicing our FRQs him and I had a discussion and I told him was a leftist blah blah, and I asked him what he thought of communism. He said people have a better life here and that we have more personal freedom then the people of the Soviet Union blah blah... After our little discussion i thought two things....one, that I should take what he thinks with a grain of salt because he CAME to America and must like our way of life. And second I thought, the left MUST start from the beginning and not go back to the ethical catastrophe of Leninism and Stalinism. We must create a classless society without having a totalitarian government and people should be allowed to have sex with who they want, travel where they want, etc, etc. please tell me what you guys think of this

[Sadena Meti]

Well your observation that his opinion might not be unbiased, given that he left the country, is a good one.

Similar to the Miami refugees from Cuba.

[csquared]

Well your observation that his opinion might not be unbiased, given that he left the country, is a good one.

Similar to the Miami refugees from Cuba.

what do you think about forgetting the ethical catastrophe of Leninism and starting over?

[Sadena Meti]

Leninism was not a catastrophe (and he only had 7 years between the revolution and his death). Stalinism can be argued that it was (I would make that arguement, others would defend Stalin)

[Revolution starts with U]

Sir, I would kindly ask you to respect my right to free expression. IOW, f'you, don't tell me what to do!
:lol: (get it?)

All kidding aside... there is a long history of anti-authoritarianism amongst the libertarian left (OL's Original Libertaria). Research, my friend.

[#FF0000]

I think it's kinda funny you say that, considering you've got Zizek in your avatar :P

[Revolution starts with U]

what do you think about forgetting the ethical catastrophe of Leninism and starting over?

We shouldn't passively restart away from leninism. Firstly, there were strong currents in the left that opposed it from the start. Secondly, we should actively point out that leninism will and has to hijack the cause for its' own self interest.

[Agent Ducky]

I agree with you, comrade.
We need to learn from USSR's mistakes.

[masty]

you've gotta take what you can from every socialist project you can find. ask your local anarchists about mining dismal historical failures for little gems of praxis.

[csquared]

But if something fails you do not go back to where you failed you go back to the very beginning and begin something new! Thats what the left needs to do today. Lenin even says it is necessary to start from the beginning if something fails and to fully admitting to mistakes:
"Those Communists are doomed who imagine that it is possible to finish such an epoch-making undertaking as completing the foundations of socialist economy (particularly in a small-peasant country) without making mistakes, without retreats, without numerous alterations to what is unfinished or wrongly done. Communists who have no illusions, who do not give way to despondency, and who preserve their strength and flexibly 'to begin from the beginning' over and over again in approaching an extremely difficult task, are not doomed" (and in all probability will not perish).

This is Lenin at his Beckettian best!

[Red Commissar]

Something tells me even if these "mistakes" were corrected, you'd still have people like in the OP who would be opposed to it. Even if the government "respected' these human conditions without seemingly being a "dictatorship", there would be people still opposed to it because of the social changes a revolution entails.

Particularly for those who talk a lot about the "Middle-Class" or the way we live here in America, Communism would probably be disagreeable to them in any way or form.

[csquared]

I think it's kinda funny you say that, considering you've got Zizek in your avatar :P

sarcasm? lol

[csquared]

Something tells me even if these "mistakes" were corrected, you'd still have people like in the OP who would be opposed to it. Even if the government "respected' these human conditions without seemingly being a "dictatorship", there would be people still opposed to it because of the social changes a revolution entails.

Particularly for those who talk a lot about the "Middle-Class" or the way we live here in America, Communism would probably be disagreeable to them in any way or form.

Yes some purges would be necessary but not 20 million. I know communism is more focused on the cause and not the individual ( I am like that too), however people should be allowed to be able to have sex with who they want, and to be able to travel where they want. Do you agree?

[Red Commissar]

Yes some purges would be necessary but not 20 million. I know communism is more focused on the cause and not the individual ( I am like that too), however people should be allowed to be able to have sex with who they want, and to be able to travel where they want. Do you agree?

No, you missed the point of what I was saying. Note that I said even if we had a regime that respected these conditions- human rights and social freedoms, there would still be the issue of the social changes that would take place.

There would be business owners that wouldn't agree with it. There would be professionals that would take offense to the need for them to move their careers towards social demands. The kind of home ownership- McMansions in particular- would have to be brushed away and neither would the much cherished small businesses.

This is generally what I associate with what people call the American lifestyle and rights that we apparently have. It's the right to home ownership and "freedom" of employment while not being beholden to anyone else but yourself.

It doesn't matter how much you try to humanize things or say "oh well it was just the fault of Stalinism, it doesn't have to happen that way"- frankly the radicalism and degree of change Communism entails in a capitalist society will turn away people, particular those whose class interests would be threatened. And that means, unfortunately, much of the "Middle-Class" America, the embodiment of the so-called American dream.

[csquared]

I got the point of what you were saying, and I agree with you. How would we deal with the angry business owners? kill them? I just think if we use the same tactics as the Soviet Union did we wont gain enough supporters here in the United States.

[Red Commissar]

I got the point of what you were saying, and I agree with you. How would we deal with the angry business owners? kill them? I just think if we use the same tactics as the Soviet Union did we wont gain enough supporters here in the United States.

I didn't say anything about killing them. However, do you think they would willingly give up such advantages? Some might, others will not. Any more than you will willingly live under a society that you feel will deprive you of things you prioritize.

My point is the "rights" and what not this peer of yours may not just be limited to things like liberties and the freedom to do what you wish with your life, but with petit-bourgeois mentality about middle-class lifestyle too. Don't get your hopes up on thinking that something will out straight avoid the issues that will come to the foreground when the working class takes the initiative.

Even if you do everything "right" with out resorting to the violence that is associated with "Stalinism"- I really don't think that'll solve the issue of opposition to Communism- or Anarchism- in its entirety. This is the challenge we all have to deal with, but I just don't think one shouldn't get their hopes up and think that there'll be universal backing to such a movement- even from people who we think are the ones that would benefit from it the most.

[csquared]

I didn't say anything about killing them. However, do you think they would willingly give up such advantages? Some might, others will not. Any more than you will willingly live under a society that you feel will deprive you of things you prioritize.

My point is the "rights" and what not this peer of yours may not just be limited to things like liberties and the freedom to do what you wish with your life, but with petit-bourgeois mentality about middle-class lifestyle too. Don't get your hopes up on thinking that something will out straight avoid the issues that will come to the foreground when the working class takes the initiative.

Even if you do everything "right" with out resorting to the violence that is associated with "Stalinism"- I really don't think that'll solve the issue of opposition to Communism- or Anarchism- in its entirety. This is the challenge we all have to deal with, but I just don't think one shouldn't get their hopes up and think that there'll be universal backing to such a movement- even from people who we think are the ones that would benefit from it the most.

what would be YOUR solution to counter revolutionaries?

[Lt. Ferret]

Your substitute teacher knows more about the Soviet Union than you ever will.

[csquared]

Your substitute teacher knows more about the Soviet Union than you ever will.

probably since he lived there. thanks captain obvious

[Red Commissar]

what would be YOUR solution to counter revolutionaries?

Mine? I think any revolution that involves me in this endeavor would be bound to fail because I'm already pretty shit at dealing with people.

What you ask is one of the fundamental issues to it, among one of the things that divided Marxists at the beginning of the century. How would the groundwork for socialism be established keeping in mind the social framework that existed? Some felt it would happen on its own gradually and they should use "democratic" means to aid it and promote it until socialism was eventually established. Others felt that it would only be solved through revolution, out of which the issues would be solved during the DOTP.

Who was right? The former like to claim they were because of the "failures" of the latter- but I think both ends were found wanting. I personally lean more towards the latter. But even if things went off without a hitch- does that mean it will be unopposed? I think even if you guaranteed press freedoms, LGBT rights, civil rights, freedom of speech and what ever else- you'd still find those that would have opposed it because they had their land confiscated and collectivized. Those who lost their factories. Those who had their shops eventually liquidated. The professionals who now found that they would serve a public good rather than their narrow interests. Those would naturally be deprived of their old livelihood, and rather than accepting the new, would be opposed to it until the new order fell.

The general point I was getting at- if you think the bulk of the Soviet Union's problems (or other self-proclaimed socialist states, for that matter) was the issues with various personal liberties- and by correcting those it would make it more palatable- then that is just a road to more disappointment. It doesn't matter how much you try to sugarcoat it to some, it is not worth it. You might expand to more to progressives- but at the end of the day you would still have opposition.

I've had different experiences with former Soviet residents. Some hated it, some feel nostalgic for it. I don't really take the word of one over the other. Those who "hated" it tend to do so because they envied the middle-class life style they saw develop in the "West". Those who feel nostalgic for it tend to miss the social nets and various public programs, not "socialism" as we might see it. Others get into some unsavory things- nationalism mainly. I really don't see how anything would have been different from the "ethical failure" of Leninism and Stalinism if someone else did it-regardless if we saw anarchists pulled off a revolution, if syndicalists made a successful one, or what ever tendency or group did their thing. You would still have people opposed to it because they felt it infringed on some "liberty" of theirs- be it property ownership, religion, how they treat employees, culture, etc.

[csquared]

Mine? I think any revolution that involves me in this endeavor would be bound to fail because I'm already pretty shit at dealing with people.

What you ask is one of the fundamental issues to it, among one of the things that divided Marxists at the beginning of the century. How would the groundwork for socialism be established keeping in mind the social framework that existed? Some felt it would happen on its own gradually and they should use "democratic" means to aid it and promote it until socialism was eventually established. Others felt that it would only be solved through revolution, out of which the issues would be solved during the DOTP.

Who was right? The former like to claim they were because of the "failures" of the latter- but I think both ends were found wanting. I personally lean more towards the latter. But even if things went off without a hitch- does that mean it will be unopposed? I think even if you guaranteed press freedoms, LGBT rights, civil rights, freedom of speech and what ever else- you'd still find those that would have opposed it because they had their land confiscated and collectivized. Those who lost their factories. Those who had their shops eventually liquidated. The professionals who now found that they would serve a public good rather than their narrow interests. Those would naturally be deprived of their old livelihood, and rather than accepting the new, would be opposed to it until the new order fell.

The general point I was getting at- if you think the bulk of the Soviet Union's problems (or other self-proclaimed socialist states, for that matter) was the issues with various personal liberties- and by correcting those it would make it more palatable- then that is just a road to more disappointment. It doesn't matter how much you try to sugarcoat it to some, it is not worth it. You might expand to more to progressives- but at the end of the day you would still have opposition.

I've had different experiences with former Soviet residents. Some hated it, some feel nostalgic for it. I don't really take the word of one over the other. Those who "hated" it tend to do so because they envied the middle-class life style they saw develop in the "West". Those who feel nostalgic for it tend to miss the social nets and various public programs, not "socialism" as we might see it. Others get into some unsavory things- nationalism mainly. I really don't see how anything would have been different from the "ethical failure" of Leninism and Stalinism if someone else did it-regardless if we saw anarchists pulled off a revolution, if syndicalists made a successful one, or what ever tendency or group did their thing. You would still have people opposed to it because they felt it infringed on some "liberty" of theirs- be it property ownership, religion, how they treat employees, culture, etc.

What do you think about a group of intellectuals making all the decisions for the country? Do you think they would know what is best for the people and that it will eventually lead to real communism where there is no state, money , politics?

[psgchisolm]

probably since he lived there. thanks captain obviouswrong branch. He's Lieutenant obvious:lol:.

[Red Commissar]

What do you think about a group of intellectuals making all the decisions for the country? Do you think they would know what is best for the people and that it will eventually lead to real communism where there is no state, money , politics?

I don't really see how that is relevant to the topic. My point is no matter how you decide to hash it, pitch it to people, or implement it, there will be people inherently opposed to socialism in any shape or form- much less Communism. There is no way around that, and it isn't as easy as casting off "Leninism" or *insert ideology* of some sort as a failure and going back to square one. It's a good thing to be skeptical and take what lessons we can from an ideology or movement, while being critical of parts that could have been done differently. That is why I'm a "non-doctrinaire" Marxist, as are other people on this site.

However I think we must realize that the core of all this entails the social framework we know will be changed- there will be people who think that embodies their "rights", or what makes this country great. There's nothing you can do to word it or implement it that would make them think differently.

Hell, even if you go and implement the full deal with letting people do what they want- you'll get another set of people out of the woodwork deriding the revolution for "social" or "cultural" degeneration. That they're trampling on "family values" that made the country great. There's no easy way around this.

[ComradeMan]

what would be YOUR solution to counter revolutionaries?

Give them a free ticket for Miami! :laugh:

[Viet Minh]

however people should be allowed to be able to have sex with who they want

Between consenting adults (ie post-puberty) yes, but if you're talking about the concept of free love much of that is a patriarchal construct, possibly more damaging to women than the 'institution' (read penitentiary) of marriage.

[JustMovement]

Obviously in a revolution there will be people who are turned off no matter what. Some will be capitalists, some petite-bourgoise, some social conservatives. And you know what? Some will be people who want to live in a society where you can become exceedingly rich, or terribly poor, and in some ways that is a legitimate personal choice. They should be free to leave and find a society more to their liking.
However this was not the case in the USSR. In the USSR there were people who were executed because of their political leanings, some of them communists, some of them not. There were families imprisoned, who died in work camps, becaues of their background before the revolution. The were those who were apolitical, and were killed over things that were whispered in some policeman s ear. For supposed communists, people who are meant to be representatives of working people, I find not very responsive to what ordinary people are saying. If a guy is a substitute teacher they are hardly the heights of the bourgoise, listen to what he says.
In my opinion, one of the reasons that by the 70s and 80s the USSR was relatively conservative in social matters compared to the west, was the restriction on civil liberties. Without extensive protection of the freedom of speech, and of the right to organise and demonstrate, people could not rally around issues such as LGBT rights, reproductive rights, feminism, racial equality, etc.

[Red Future]

Obviously in a revolution there will be people who are turned off no matter what. Some will be capitalists, some petite-bourgoise, some social conservatives. And you know what? Some will be people who want to live in a society where you can become exceedingly rich, or terribly poor, and in some ways that is a legitimate personal choice. They should be free to leave and find a society more to their liking.
However this was not the case in the USSR. In the USSR there were people who were executed because of their political leanings, some of them communists, some of them not. There were families imprisoned, who died in work camps, becaues of their background before the revolution. The were those who were apolitical, and were killed over things that were whispered in some policeman s ear. For supposed communists, people who are meant to be representatives of working people, I find not very responsive to what ordinary people are saying. If a guy is a substitute teacher they are hardly the heights of the bourgoise, listen to what he says.
In my opinion, one of the reasons that by the 70s and 80s the USSR was relatively conservative in social matters compared to the west, was the restriction on civil liberties. Without extensive protection of the freedom of speech, and of the right to organise and demonstrate, people could not rally around issues such as LGBT rights, reproductive rights, feminism, racial equality, etc.

The last 3 were enshrined in Soviet Law ..that there should be sexual , social and racial equality though.

[csquared]

Thanks guys, im just new to radical politics this year. So be patient with me