Why was there no freedom of movement in socialist countries?

[CatsAttack]

title speaks for itself, dont know what else to add to the question.

today in many countries people can easily change city or exit their country at will. why was this not a right for people in socialist countries, why was it so difficult? i think freedom of movement is a basic human right.

[cyu]

How much freedom of movement is there within capitalist corporations? Some would say that the countries that you refer to as "socialist countries" were basically run like a giant corporation.

But if you believe freedom of movement is a basic right, maybe you're talking about http://www.revleft.com/vb/valve-corporation-no-t170623/index.html

[CatsAttack]

How much freedom of movement is there within capitalist corporations? Some would say that the countries that you refer to as "socialist countries" were basically run like a giant corporation.

But if you believe freedom of movement is a basic right, maybe you're talking about http://www.revleft.com/vb/valve-corporation-no-t170623/index.html

freedom of movement in capitalist corporations? what in the hell are you talking about?

[Fourth Internationalist]

There has never been a socialist country nor could there ever be one.

[RadioRaheem84]

He means its difficult as it is in capitalist countries to just pick up and go. Beyond the ridiculous canard that you're free to go anytime you want, your income does keep you planted.

In a communist country they couldn't afford the loss of brain drain or
skilled labor. But that's because the historical development of those nations had them become closed off autarkies in a constant state of war. Because of paranoid politics and bureaucracy they had strict monitoring if who goes in and who goes out.

Do you blame them though? The US gets paranoid and wants to know who's coming in or out because of terrorist threats that pose no real danger to the survival of the country but imagine if there was a bigger nation with unlimited strength and power that openly wished to destroy your society.

Look, when you come in here and ask these questions do you really want to learn or do you just come in to brazenly attack?

[Igor]

There has never been a socialist country nor could there ever be one.

you, i and everyone knows what he's talking about and we don't have to do this in every single thread

[Fourth Internationalist]

you, i and everyone knows what he's talking about and we don't have to do this in every single thread

It's for the hundreds of guests visiting this site and for new leftists. If this was a private, experienced leftist board rather than a public board of both new and experienced leftists, then I would feel no need to make the point I made.

[Brutus]

1) They were suspicious of their citizens, and foreign spies.
2) I doubt it would be in the interests of the bureaucratic clique for their people to see what better standards of living the west had, therefore disillusioning them with their 'socialist paradise'.

[connoros]

The ridiculousness of implicitly rejecting the historical existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat within certain national borders, as well as rejecting the existence of a publicly owned economy in the same, all aside, people did and still do have reasons to escape "communism" that don't quite mesh with the anti-communist sentiment of pro-capitalists, fascists, and hipster leftists. Besieged on all sides by pressure from the more powerful capitalist states, socialist states, both in the true Marxist-Leninist sense (the pre-Kosygin/Liberman U.S.S.R. and Hoxha's Albania) and otherwise (China, Cuba, etc.), necessarily remain highly militant and have often suffered severe economic impairment because of their reservations with the global capitalist system. People weren't trying to escape communism; they were trying to find other parts of a capitalist world system in which they could potentially be afforded more luxury or at least live in close proximity to it. Socialist states couldn't and can't afford to lose people to the temptations of luxury in the struggles against imperialism, even when those struggles became degenerated to struggles between imperialisms, which is why movement was and is so restricted.

[Per Levy]

because otherwise much of the workforce, scientists, engineers and so on would've left the countries for better paying jobs, more freedom and more luxury.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well of course, I need to join in the chorus of people who said that there have been basically no socialist countries. However in China for example, during the Great Leap Forward workers would often move from village to village to work on different projects making the census of that era non-functional. Additionally, during the cultural revolution a fair amount of foreign visitors were allowed into China and in his book The Battle of China's Past Mobo Gao told many stories of intellectuals and students getting paid leave to study in Europe. So I would say that is pretty good freedom of movement.

[RadioRaheem84]

2) I doubt it would be in the interests of the bureaucratic clique for their people to see what better standards of living the west had, therefore disillusioning them with their 'socialist paradise'.


OK first off, this canard of better standards doesn't sit quite well if you look at past human development index reports from the UN during the course of the Cold War. Most if not all of the Eastern Bloc nations had standards on par, a notch below or in some instances surpassing that of Western Europe. These nations far surpassed the living standards in third world nations.

The issue was never about wanting more freedoms in the sense of wanting better living conditions. Not even Cuban refugees escaping Cuba on rickety hand made rafts say this. They insist that the freedoms they sought were economic luxuries, the freedom to pursue great wealth and more freedom of speech.

Because of the highly centralized paranoid state of these autarkic governments, they were suspiscious of anyone and everything. It would be highly annoying even for us true believers to constantly prove our loyalty, deal with the massive bureaucracy that formed as a result of that paranoia and the economic/political isolation, the centralized authority routinely wielded by top brass bureaucrats, the corruption, etc. That alone would make me want to leave.

Now, imagine someone who grew up in the Bloc nations and didn't have a political predisposition to Marxism. To them it would have been a "tyranny". That is why there were a lot of reactionaries in the Bloc nations especially the USSR.

So people weren't leaving or trying to leave because of the anti-communist zealots thinking that all these nations were were just evil because of the doctrine of communism and third world living standards. These nations became "dungeons" so to speak because of the historical development of the Cold War. These nations were under constant threat of total elimination to daily life was highly monitored and militarized, not to mention economically isolated which led to strains in certain sectors.

[cyu]

Wait, Rupert Murdoch tells me that Obama is a socialist. I'm living in a socialist country and I didn't even know it!

[baronci]

do u really need to keep making topics with loaded questions or could you just start stating your points outright. this is just subtle trolling.

[Comrade #138672]

Wait, Rupert Murdoch tells me that Obama is a socialist. I'm living in a socialist country and I didn't even know it!Yeah, same here in Socialist Europe, thanks to the EUSSR.

Socialism has never been so easy. I love it. A wet Socialist dream being fulfilled. Marx, Stalin and Hitler (yes, he was a Leftist too, didn't you know?!) would be proud of us.

It's sarcasm. This is what right-wing nuts actually say, though.

[rednordman]

People could move within the warsaw pact countries. It wasn't easy to do, but people definitly did it. I know a few who did.

[RadioRaheem84]

You could say that life today in the US is a bit like living in the USSR and I am not saying that in the typical right wing reactionary line. Minus the fact that we're obviously missing some positive traits of the Soviet system like free healthcare, free housing and education, we are living under a rather militarized paranoid bureaucratic state that has stagnated. Even for true believer conservatives and libertarians it's getting annoying to constantly defend every single little venture the US does not to mention the "corporatism" that is plainly visible. Instead of exhausting it's limits due to political/economic isolation, it's overstretched itself because of imperialism and we're dealing with the major drawbacks.

Life is repetitive, boring and a constant stressful situation with little options offering us a different life. In that regard we're WORSE off than the average Soviet back during the Cold war.

Instead of being bored out of your mind painting walls for the revolution that happened forty years earlier, the average Soviet citizen was probably sick of doing the same work, despite total economic security, for the same pay and probably never experiencing the life of western decadence he saw on TV last night, never even having the chance to aspire to that and if he voices his opposition to the monotonous life he will be hounded by neighbors, watched by the State and labeled reactionary. To even have that problem would have been a dream for a third world peasant, and to me trudging it out at a menial office job it would seem to me a dream to have economic security, but to a Soviet citizen at the time and rightfully so, he would’ve been angered at the lack of real freedom in a supposed socialist paradise. Essentially the Soviet citizen was rightfully demanding more! They didn’t want capitalism, they just wanted freedom, and to some extent they believed the capitalist nations provided that to a greater degree. Some might have thought that while they didn’t agree with cowboy capitalism, that at least they would have been given the chance to own a luxury item.

I remember reading about how Michael Parenti approached an old Soviet head of State planner about why people rejected the Soviet State, and the planner said that it was because they wanted more. He was a head designer of a compact economically and environmentally better sustainable little car during the 80s, and many people rejected it because they thought it was “ugly”. He didn’t understand why they would prefer a gas guzzling luxury car to their environmentally sound efficient little cars. The point was that the propaganda from the West with each layer of Soviet bureaucracy that was dissolving and Western propaganda seeping in, the people demanded more. What the people didn’t understand was that not everyone drove a bad ass car in the West. They weren’t going to get to keep their safety nets and pensions, healthcare, housing, education and other subsidies, and just attach this new freedom to attain wealth and luxuries. They had to earn that in the marketplace and in order to have that chance you had to eliminate the safety nets which posed as a barrier to that chance, according to post-Soviet reactionary planners.
Like the shit Raul Castro is spewing now, things like food rationing lead to dependence on the State supposedly and that has to be eliminated in order to instill a sense of personal responsibility in people. Essentially market logic is all encompassing and it’s literally oil to socialism’s water. We just have the sad luck to be defending an ideology that requires the entire world to turn Red or capitalist nations will always endlessly without ceasing plot to end any alternative.

[Althusser]

You're right!

I'm sure those Indian, Indonesian, etc. factory workers sure are happy about their right to travel to the Caribbean every year. Them Filipino women get to travel all the time... into the world of underground sex trafficking. After all, people are their #1 export. Ahh... capitalism.

[rednordman]

You're right!

I'm sure those Indian, Indonesian, etc. factory workers sure are happy about their right to travel to the Caribbean every year.The same could be said about the eastern european college kids who work at my place for the summer hols. Some are barely even sixteen too. Its almost like child labor.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah I can escape too! I can visit that poor capitalist country to vacation and have them slave away for me at some cheap resort.....and then I come back to my menial job and wish that I could escape for good to that island resort, but I know I can't because in the greater scheme of things, I am bound by income.

[cyu]

Them Filipino women get to travel all the time... into the world of underground sex trafficking. After all, people are their #1 export. Ahh... capitalism.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, one of the major imports into the American porn industry was Russian women.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yA6CX3pKuhc/UBqFaH4CWWI/AAAAAAAAFjM/K-NCEBMmZDA/s1600/braveheart_freedom.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

No,....LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Old Bolshie]

The exception to the norm being Yugoslavia when in 1964 allowed its workers to emigrate. According to some sources this move was done as a way to control the unemployment rate in the country which was expected to rise after the implementation of the Economic Reform of 1965.

In the early 1970's Yugoslavia had already the second highest emigration rate in Europe and 19.1% percent of the country's labor force was employed abroad. Due to a massive emigration of skilled labor the Government was forced to introduce restrictions in 1972 of the highly trained.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Probably because those supposedly socialist countries had an awful lot to cover up, among other things. Remember that during the Cold War a lot of these nations boasted of technological prowess, a happy and satisfied populace and gleaming modern cities and so on as they raced towards the achievement of communism. In short, they were writing a lot of cheques that they often simply couldn't cash.

[Q]

I posted something a while back (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unemployment-soviet-union-t180906/index.html?p=2622210#post2622210) that may be helpful in understanding this issue:


I'd say those figures are accurate. The USSR had the highest employment rate in the world and this was the result of a social problem, not of "planning".

Soviet society was structured in such a bureaucratic way that planning wasn't possible. Instead you had a target economy (targets not being the same as planning; the latter implies rationality, the former can zigzag as bureaucrats naturally do). Furthermore, there was no competition incentive between firms. So, the capitalist mode of continuous technological revolution wasn't working in the USSR.

When new machinery arrived from, say, Germany the bureaucrats were expecting to increase production with it and, as such, lower working time over time or fill up shortages. From the standpoint of workers though, this just meant higher exploitation, longer working hours in the immediate at a faster pace and with probably the same amount of resources.

So, what you got was this phenomena where new machinery just stood outside the factory, rusting in the snow. Many reports go on and on about this. The bureaucrats just couldn't understand the problem they themselves created. And they came up with solutions that only a bureaucrat can come up with, such as internal passports and closed off cities.

Instead of technological revolution then, to increase production, the USSR relied upon amassing the great countryside to become proletarians. This was the main reason for the collectivisation: To free up a huge number of people for industry. But there was always a shortage of workers. It became normal that the Red Army helped with gathering the harvest, at times even schoolchildren were recruited for such work.

In the 1960's we saw a leveling out of the migration from the rural to industrial areas and this is also where we see the leveling off of the "planned" economic growth, only to continue in inevitable terminal decline since the late 1970's.
(Emphasis added).

So, the USSR had the highest employment rate for reasons that relied on a failed economic model. This made people management a very important issue. This is why you had these severe restrictions on travel.

[tuwix]

title speaks for itself, dont know what else to add to the question.

This title more lies than speaks. That there was no socialist country was poionted out yet. Second lie is that in so-called 'socialis coubtries' there was no freedom movement. For example, in Czechoslovakia there was "Charter 77" that was movement for human rights.

[Leftsolidarity]

There has never been a socialist country nor could there ever be one.

Way to be completely useless and a major asshole. This forum is called LEARNING so unless you want to make a substantial post where you actually explain something, instead of being an asshole just to make yourself feel good, don't post it.

And on top of that, that completely comes down to your tendency of what you would call "socialism" so don't push your tendency as the be-all-end-all where people are coming to learn.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, I have always thought the whole "there's never been a socialist country" line was a cop out. It always seemed to me to be a way in which to deflect any red baiting or to remove socialism from the history of the ML states, which while bad, was never as bad as any right wing zealot made it out to be.

Capitalist apologists sit there and talk about all the time how capitalism is wonderful, innovative, ingenius and is full of liberty, meanwhile people starve, wars are implemented, homeless people in droves, famine, malnutrition, and wage slavery. They can sit there with a straight face and say India is the world's biggest democracy.

These people are delusional so I wouldn't worry too much about what they think when you name the positives of the USSR as well as the bad, and do not try to just write it off as "not socialist". It wasn't really, but given it's historical development, at some points it did try and it did not, when it could've, resorted to total private capitalism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Way to be completely useless and a major asshole. This forum is called LEARNING so unless you want to make a substantial post where you actually explain something, instead of being an asshole just to make yourself feel good, don't post it.

And on top of that, that completely comes down to your tendency of what you would call "socialism" so don't push your tendency as the be-all-end-all where people are coming to learn.

I shall post again why I said it.


It's for the hundreds of guests visiting this site and for new leftists. If this was a private, experienced leftist board rather than a public board of both new and experienced leftists, then I would feel no need to make the point I made.

Probably most of the Marxists on this board share the view that socialism in one country is impossible, and that state capitalist dictatorships were not socialist. Anyone can clearly see my tendency (which was left communist at the time, I have changed it to Luxemburgist). I don't feel it's my responsibility to answer for the numerous tendencies on RevLeft, and I did not say everyone agrees with me. If I did say that, you can gladly point out where I did instead of calling me an a**hole like a child, ironic as I'm the 15 year-old. There is absolutely no need to flame like that. I gave my view, and that is not against the rules. There are hundreds of guests on this site everyday, I want them to see what a lot of the left do think of anti-socialist state capitalist dictatorships. I am tired of everyone who finds out I'm a communist mentioning Stalin. I will do my best to let anyone who can find out that I don't like him or any other nominally socialist regimes. If you think Stalinist Russia or wherever else was socialist, then answer the question with that point of view.

[RadioRaheem84]

Give the kid a break. I mean 15 years old? That's amazing. At fifteen I was doing jack squat and cared nothing about world affairs.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Give the kid a break. I mean 15 years old? That's amazing. At fifteen I was doing jack squat and cared nothing about world affairs.

Eman, a user here, is 13. I wasn't even a socialist until I was 14.

[goalkeeper]

Sad to see that the "whataboutery" form of argument to defend the horrors of Soviet and Warsaw pact states didnt die with them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sad to see that the "whataboutery" form of argument to defend the horrors of Soviet and Warsaw pact states didnt die with them.
:rolleyes: Oh lord, the "horrors" talk to me sounds like people really buy into the whole reactionary propaganda about the former ML States. They weren't Nazi Germany or even anything like client states the US supported during the Cold War. They weren't socialist paradises that were bastions of freedom and caved into the paranoid war state mindset of the Cold War but this talk about the horrors, the utter horrors as if they were Suharto's Indonesia.

[connoros]

:rolleyes: Oh lord, the "horrors" talk to me sounds like people really buy into the whole reactionary propaganda about the former ML States. They weren't Nazi Germany or even anything like client states the US supported during the Cold War. They weren't socialist paradises that were bastions of freedom and caved into the paranoid war state mindset of the Cold War but this talk about the horrors, the utter horrors as if they were Suharto's Indonesia.

What pains me is when people calling themselves socialists and Communists just regurgitate Western propaganda verbatim and dedicate all their theoretical work to explaining away historical socialist endeavors as "not really socialist." Stuff like that always makes me recall something about a Scotsman. We don't really get anywhere trying to appeal to bourgeois sentiment by "denouncing" some of the very people who've made the greatest strides in the historical socialist endeavor. Some suggest that making sure we talk about how "evil" Stalin was every couple of sentences will get more people to accept Communist ideology, but what eludes them is that we socialists denounce Hitler much the same way and still people will insist that Hitler was a Communist!

[o well this is ok I guess]

tell any migrant worker or refugee claimant that they're free to come and go as they please, and see what they think

[RadioRaheem84]

What pains me is when people calling themselves socialists and Communists just regurgitate Western propaganda verbatim and dedicate all their theoretical work to explaining away historical socialist endeavors as "not really socialist." Stuff like that always makes me recall something about a Scotsman. We don't really get anywhere trying to appeal to bourgeois sentiment by "denouncing" some of the very people who've made the greatest strides in the historical socialist endeavor. Some suggest that making sure we talk about how "evil" Stalin was every couple of sentences will get more people to accept Communist ideology, but what eludes them is that we socialists denounce Hitler much the same way and still people will insist that Hitler was a Communist!

Fucking A, comrade. Well said. :cool:

[goalkeeper]

:rolleyes: Oh lord, the "horrors" talk to me sounds like people really buy into the whole reactionary propaganda about the former ML States. They weren't Nazi Germany or even anything like client states the US supported during the Cold War. They weren't socialist paradises that were bastions of freedom and caved into the paranoid war state mindset of the Cold War but this talk about the horrors, the utter horrors as if they were Suharto's Indonesia.

Please tell me where I even attempted to compare them to Nazi Germany?

You sound like a bad regurgitation of Michael Parenti. Reading a few accounts of how crime was low and unemployment was low and bullets no longer found their way into the back of your head so often after the 1950s does not make you some sort of authority of the Warsaw pact states that you can accuse others of buying " into the whole reactionary propaganda about the former ML States".

Life in the Warsaw pact states was shit - fucking shit; its still shit now post-Warsaw, difference is the idiots here don't bother defending them. Someone was talking about trafficked Russian women; shall we say to this "no, but what about the trafficked children of South East Asia, they're fate is worse"? It's the same sort of reasoning you idiots are using.

To top it off you finish your paragraph with another example of WhatAboutery.

[goalkeeper]

What pains me is when people calling themselves socialists and Communists just regurgitate Western propaganda verbatim and dedicate all their theoretical work to explaining away historical socialist endeavors as "not really socialist." Stuff like that always makes me recall something about a Scotsman. We don't really get anywhere trying to appeal to bourgeois sentiment by "denouncing" some of the very people who've made the greatest strides in the historical socialist endeavor. Some suggest that making sure we talk about how "evil" Stalin was every couple of sentences will get more people to accept Communist ideology, but what eludes them is that we socialists denounce Hitler much the same way and still people will insist that Hitler was a Communist!

What pains me is American teens on the internet thinking that the Eastern Bloc states was somehow positive. Sure, social development was taken, but when you put it into the context of post-ww2 Europe with the Welfare states of most of Europe, it is not particularly significant. The Eastern Bloc and its social welfare state still succumbed to the crisis of capital in the 1970s.

[connoros]

What pains me is American teens on the internet thinking that the Eastern Bloc states was somehow positive. Sure, social development was taken, but when you put it into the context of post-ww2 Europe with the Welfare states of most of Europe, it is not particularly significant. The Eastern Bloc and its social welfare state still succumbed to the crisis of capital in the 1970s.

It's not particularly significant that the entire region was rapidly industrialized until such time as its standards of living were comparable to that of the United States? That its productive capacity rivaled that of the bourgeois West? That, in Hoxha's Albania, illiteracy was abolished and it was the first wholly electrified state in history? That religious violence, which now causes one in every four Albanian deaths, was unheard of during Hoxha's time? That the Soviet Union abolished homelessness and unemployment? That the rights of women and their role in society was expanded? That income inequality was minimized in many places? That the Soviet Union enjoyed consistent economic growth except during the war years? That they beat the Nazis? That the reason welfare states exist to this day is because of the pressures put on the West by the East to compete with their comprehensive welfare? None of this is any kind of significant? No, you're right; the Eastern Bloc wasn't any kind of positive or significant whatsoever.

I'm twenty-three, by the way.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's not particularly significant that the entire region was rapidly industrialized until such time as its standards of living were comparable to that of the United States? That its productive capacity rivaled that of the bourgeois West? That, in Hoxha's Albania, illiteracy was abolished and it was the first wholly electrified state in history? That religious violence, which now causes one in every four Albanian deaths, was unheard of during Hoxha's time? That the Soviet Union abolished homelessness and unemployment? That the rights of women and their role in society was expanded? That income inequality was minimized in many places? That the Soviet Union enjoyed consistent economic growth except during the war years? That they beat the Nazis? That the reason welfare states exist to this day is because of the pressures put on the West by the East to compete with their comprehensive welfare? None of this is any kind of significant? No, you're right; the Eastern Bloc wasn't any kind of positive or significant whatsoever.

I'm twenty-three, by the way.

Exactly.
What matters to these detractors is not that people were clothed and fed (without the need to resort to imperialism) but how cool and relevant they sound to their liberal friends.

And what the fuck is wrong with sounding like Michael Parenti? He is a sound progressive leftist voice who critiqued the bad elements of the communist countries and praised the positive elements.

The Warsaw Pact nations were varied but all of them either were on par, excelled or were just a notch below the Western European nations in the human development index studies provided by the UN. Their lack of overall freedom and general stagnate economies were due to their political isolation, wartime state of affairs and economic autarky. What they managed to do though was amazing in terms of living standards for people that were under the boot of fascists, imperialists or feudal warlords.

[Fourth Internationalist]

What pains me is American teens on the internet thinking that the Eastern Bloc states was somehow positive. Sure, social development was taken, but when you put it into the context of post-ww2 Europe with the Welfare states of most of Europe, it is not particularly significant. The Eastern Bloc and its social welfare state still succumbed to the crisis of capital in the 1970s.

I'm an American teen on the internet and I don't think the Eastern bloc states were anything positive. :)

[Leftsolidarity]

I gave my view, and that is not against the rules.

Actually that's the exact point I'm making, you did break forum rules. One liners like that (particularly in learning) are against forum rules.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Actually that's the exact point I'm making, you did break forum rules. One liners like that (particularly in learning) are against forum rules.

Then give me a verbal warning so that I will not use one line to explain my views instead of calling me useless and an a**hole ie flaming, which is also against the rules.

[cyu]

The Eastern Bloc and its social welfare state still succumbed to the crisis of capital in the 1970s.

The thing is, nobody in a position of power really knows what they are talking about (either that, or they don't actually have the power to implement what they want to implement). They're all just making it up as they go along - whether they are in nominally "capitalist" or "communist" nations.

The main difference between those "making it up as you go along" policy makers is that communists in theory have supporting the masses as one of their goals, while capitalists have no such limitations - their only real limitation being pissing off so many poor people that they get guillotined.

[Ismail]

Al Szymanski in his Human Rights in the Soviet Union does give a historical overview of the "freedom to emigrate," and notes that it was the development of capitalism in places like Britain which created a surplus population of ex-peasants who were obliged to emigrate elsewhere for work because they could not be maintained at home, where they helped form the reserve army of unemployed. From this grew the "freedom" to emigrate.

He notes that, "There are substantial reasons why 'the right to emigrate', together with the right to publicly express political ideas contrary to the official ideology have historically been the two most generally restricted 'rights'; both directly affect the common economic health and ideological security. Labour - the source of all wealth - is a vital national resource. If a substantial portion of a country's population, or a substantial proportion of those with specific vital skills, were to leave a country, its overall economic situation would be substantially weakened. Since the purpose of any state is to advance the welfare of that class which controls the wealth of any country, it thus follows logically that no state will allow the exit of any substantial portion of its population, unless the economic and political costs of maintaining it within the national boundaries exceed the costs of allowing to leave." (pp. 23-24.)

He notes that the most important rights are those within the country itself: right to a job, right to national equality, etc. The "right to emigration" is not only a concept contained within capitalist ideology, but is also cynically used by its ideologists, for whom emigration from their own countries, as centers of imperialism, is of no consequence, though they have (and continue to) imposed travel restrictions on various countries.

With the rise of Soviet revisionism restrictions on travel were eased as part of the introduction of the USSR into the world capitalist system, although Szymanski, an apologist of said revisionism, tries to present this as a good thing.

[LOLseph Stalin]

In capitalist countries you can really only travel if you have money. I don't really see too much of a difference here. Also, I do believe that Eastern Bloc citizens could travel around anywhere in the Eastern Bloc. That's more than what can be said in capitalist countries except for perhaps the EU.

[Ace High]

Yeah, I don't understand how the government has the right to force people to stay in the country. If it is a successful revolution, the people will want to stay anyway. If they leave, you know it was a failure.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yeah, I don't understand how the government has the right to force people to stay in the country. If it is a successful revolution, the people will want to stay anyway. If they leave, you know it was a failure.

Not necessarily. Oftentimes capitalists will offer incentives for people to defect; they were notorious for this in Germany.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Guys enough with these 'Travel in the NATO states was hard. They were also bad' arguments. It doesn't excuse the fact that the SSRs, a supposedly 'socialist oriented' bloc, forcefully detained civilians within their borders.


In capitalist countries you can really only travel if you have money.

It was the same more or less for the Eastern bloc. This doesn't diminish the point made by the OP at all.


I don't really see too much of a difference here. .

The difference is that people still had the ability to travel, despite it costing them money. In the USSR, travel to non-aligned countries wasstrictly prohibited. Couple this with the fact that the Eastern Bloc was supposed to be a hub for leftist politics there is a big, big difference, and I find it a little worrying that you don't see that.

[Ace High]

Not necessarily. Oftentimes capitalists will offer incentives for people to defect; they were notorious for this in Germany.

Sure, but still, you respond by not allowing the people to leave? We are supposed to be helping our people, so we should treat them with respect. The heads of state in a leftist government are supposed to act on behalf of everyone. As a representation of the collective consciousness of the masses. So their wishes should be respected if they want to leave regardless of their reasons.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The difference is that people still had the ability to travel, despite it costing them money. In the USSR, travel to non-aligned countries wasstrictly prohibited. Couple this with the fact that the Eastern Bloc was supposed to be a hub for leftist politics there is a big, big difference, and I find it a little worrying that you don't see that.

I don't think people from the west could freely travel into the Eastern Bloc either. This wasn't limited to socialist countries.

[RadioRaheem84]

Let me go to Cuba right now.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

In any case, when we achieve socialism we won't be worrying about freely moving within or between countries, because we have no need of the nation state - workers will have the world and we will roam as we please.

[TheIrrationalist]

I don't think people from the west could freely travel into the Eastern Bloc either. This wasn't limited to socialist countries.

Maybe that is because the Soviet Union also prohibited moving in. Though there was limited tourism from the West to the Eastern Bloc countries.

[ComradeOm]

Let me go to Cuba right now.But you can move to New York or LA without the use of an internal passport and other bureaucratic checks. Right?

[Questionable]

The amount of idealism in this thread is shocking (Well, maybe not so much). Rather than analyzing the 'freedom of emigration' in its socio-historical context as Szymanski attempted to do in true Marxist fashion, we have people elevating this 'freedom' to an ahistorical platform, treating it in a pseudo-religious manner, an unbreakable principal which must not be violated in any circumstance, similar to how liberals treat 'freedom of speech' when discussing the USSR (Still not too surprising since most users here are really radical liberals who sprinkle some Marxist-sounding rhetoric onto their words).


If it is a successful revolution, the people will want to stay anyway. If they leave, you know it was a failure.

This is naivety, plain and simple. While there is still a capitalist encirclement of socialist countries, to imply that the bourgeoisie won't use psychological means just as readily as military means is a grave mistake. It is well-documented that the West German government was stealing highly-skilled labor from East Germany with promises of a better life under capitalism, thereby sabotaging the construction of socialism in the bombed-out country. It is also well-documented that a common CIA tactic was to bring pro-capitalist propaganda into socialist countries.


Couple this with the fact that the Eastern Bloc was supposed to be a hub for leftist politics there is a big, big difference, and I find it a little worrying that you don't see that.

No, it was supposed to be a hub for the construction and continuation of socialism. Considering the fact that your leftist politics amount to little more than radical liberalism, what with your idealistic treatment of the 'rights of man,' it does not surprise me that you would chafe with Soviet policy, because your views are tainted with bourgeois influence.


We are supposed to be helping our people, so we should treat them with respect.

What respect and for whom? If you ask the capitalists, this respect manifests itself in allowing people to own their own businesses, to hold reactionary opinions, to protest against the socialist government; in other words, "respect" is allowing anything that undermines the proletariat state.


The heads of state in a leftist government are supposed to act on behalf of everyone.

No, they're supposed to act on behalf of the interests of the proletariat class.


So their wishes should be respected if they want to leave regardless of their reasons.

This essentially amounts to surrendering in the face of the bourgeoisie. If a counter-revolution takes place, then the socialist state must simply bow out of history, because they have "failed the test" and must capitulate to imperialism.

No thank you. I'd rather fight for our gains against bourgeois influences.


Maybe that is because the Soviet Union also prohibited moving in. Though there was limited tourism from the West to the Eastern Bloc countries.

This policy was likely due to the fact that Western spies crossing the border freely was a very real problem until the wall went up, and even then some.

[cyu]

Again from http://www.revleft.com/vb/valve-corporation-no-t170623/index.html

Valve has no formal management or hierarchy at all.

it takes new hires about six months before they fully accept that no one is going to tell them what to do, that no manager is going to give them a review, that there is no such thing as a promotion or a job title or even a fixed role

if they decide that they should be doing something different, there’s no manager to convince to let them go; they just move their desk to the new group (the desks are on wheels, with computers attached) and start in on the new thing.

[RadioRaheem84]

But you can move to New York or LA without the use of an internal passport and other bureaucratic checks. Right?

If the US had the revolution, the civil war, WWII, and the Cold War all wrapped up in to one continuous events spanning only 20 years instead of close to 200, then experienced political and economic isolation, blockade and terrorism, then had shortages and shortfalls and all sorts of economic factors that restricted freedom of movement, I would understand the problem a bit better than just explaining away the fact that living in the USSR sucked because those countries were just brutal, niothing more.

That is what all the answers to the OPs loaded question are all about. Just right off the bat insisting that everyone else is just coming up with excuses for the former ML nations and the reason they were such losers in the end is because they were revisionist and they sucked.

Did anyone ever stop to think the revisions came through the course of the historical development and the realities they had to face. Not that revisionism is good or that we should excuse that revisionism but that it's more nuanced a subject than just writing these nations off as being tyranical for tyranical's sake.

The above poster is right, too many leftists these days are afraid to do the math, the research and to analyze the history as to why the ML nations sucked, instead they just act like liberals and resort to chucking them out because they didn't measure up to universal liberal standards.

These nations weren't like a US client state, not by any means. Their lack of democratic measures stemmed from the realities of shortages, stagnation, chronic problems, state of constant war, political double standards in the international scene, economic blockade, constant economic and political sabotage, terrorism, espionage, inner corruption, autarky, revision after revision, counter revolution, reactionaries, and finally the threat of total war and annihilation. Name me one ML nation that did not experience this from capitalist, imperial or fascist countries?

These nations did not fail because they were train wrecks waiting to happen started by greedy bloodthirsy power hungry men. These nations failed and succumbed to the terror, violence and political economic conditions the capitalist nations put them through.

The same fate happens to movements in the US that want radical social change. The Black Panther Party started off a wonderful organization and thanks to the likes of COINTELPRO became an organization mired in drugs, gangs, survivalist mentality, inner corruption, infighting, and sabotage. The leaders ended up exiled, jailed, strung out or dead.

[Questionable]

Again from http://www.revleft.com/vb/valve-corporation-no-t170623/index.html

Valve has no formal management or hierarchy at all.

it takes new hires about six months before they fully accept that no one is going to tell them what to do, that no manager is going to give them a review, that there is no such thing as a promotion or a job title or even a fixed role

if they decide that they should be doing something different, there’s no manager to convince to let them go; they just move their desk to the new group (the desks are on wheels, with computers attached) and start in on the new thing.

Did you post this is the wrong thread? Or are you really trying to draw a comparison between a video game company and the competition of international geopolitics between capitalist and socialist states?

[cyu]

It's an example of "freedom of movement" within a company.

This is obviously not the standard structure within most companies in capitalist economies. As mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism - what if "normal" capitalist companies became so powerful that they took on the role of nation-states? What would "freedom of movement" be like within those "companies"?

[Questionable]

It's an example of "freedom of movement" within a company.

I'm still not sure I understand. Is this just a subject you're interested in talking about, or are you suggesting this as a model for socialist nations?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well the reason for the lack of freedom of movement within the USSR in the 30's was because people were starving out in the countryside but would probably overburden the USSR's urban areas which were being fueled by the grain requisitions of the day, were they to move. So all bureaucratic wranglings over movement were helpful in that regard.

I'm not sure what the status on intra-USSR movement after that time period was, though.

[cyu]

Is this just a subject you're interested in talking about, or are you suggesting this as a model for socialist nations?

If you don't like it, point out what you think is wrong about it. If you like it, how would you apply it to scenarios beyond the example here? If you're unsure whether you like it or not, how would you modify it into something you would support?

[Questionable]

If you don't like it, point out what you think is wrong about it.I didn't say I liked it or disliked it. I just don't see how there's any way to compare it to the mechanics of running a socialist state in the midst of aggressive capitalist encirclement. This is like me posting about how my landlord doesn't care if I move all my furniture into another apartment without telling him (which is false), therefore states should be run like my apartment building. It's apples and oranges. There is nothing in common between the USSR and a modern software design company.

My position on 'freedom of movement' is illustrated by Ismail's post and my own. It's an artificial bourgeois construct made for purpose of sustaining capitalism, similar to freedom of speech or press. Therefore, there is nothing for me to like or dislike or modify about how Valve treats its employees, as if such a thing were relevant in the first place.

[cyu]

I just don't see how there's any way to compare it to the mechanics of running a socialist state in the midst of aggressive capitalist encirclement.


It's true that you can't really expect behaviors to be the same between times of peace vs war. I would expect pretty large differences between what people do in times of transition away from capitalism and what they do decades after the end of capitalism.

That said, there are also different strategies in reaching the same goal. Some actions will serve as better propaganda in the wider world than others. Some actions will work better on a pragmatic level than others. Some actions may fight back capitalist intrusion in the short-term, while end up losing the wider war. Others may be temporary set-backs that ultimately lead to a larger step toward the end of capitalism.

What is the best policy to follow? It's not always easy to judge. But we have to judge anyway. Personally if a pro-capitalist argues that there was no freedom of movement in self-proclaimed socialist nations, I would push them to reconcile their ideology with the amount of freedom to move around within capitalist corporations. If a pro-capitalist argues for freedom of speech, I would push them to reconcile their ideology with non-disclosure agreements employees are forced to sign by their employers. If a pro-capitalist argues for freedom of the press, I would push them to reconcile their ideology with the lack of democracy within media organizations in capitalist countries.

[ComradeOm]

If the US had the revolution, the civil war, WWII, and the Cold War all wrapped up in to one continuous events spanning only 20 years instead of close to 200, then experienced political and economic isolation, blockade and terrorism, then had shortages and shortfalls and all sorts of economic factors that restricted freedom of movement, I would understand the problem a bit better than just explaining away the fact that living in the USSR sucked because those countries were just brutal, niothing moreAh, so it was okay for the Soviets to reintroduce Tsarist-era internal passports and to place bureaucratic controls on their citizens' movements... because they'd had a rocky beginning? How unfortunate. Like an X Factor contestant, I guess that there's absolutely no deficiency that can't be handwaved away by a sob story. Tightly controlling your population's movements? That's okay because half a century ago you had a revolution and famine!

On a serious note, it should be painfully clear just how facile it is comparing travel restrictions in the US and USSR. For the former you look for exceptions and for the latter you roll out the apologias and strawmen. All to avoid the simple and obvious truth: the Soviet Union imposed far more restrictive barriers to its citizens' travel. Avoiding or trying to talk your way out of that simple point is simply lazy and poor quality thinking


That is what all the answers to the OPs loaded question are all about. Just right off the bat insisting that everyone else is just coming up with excuses for the former ML nations and the reason they were such losers in the end is because they were revisionist and they sucked.

Did anyone ever stop to think the revisions came through the course of the historical development and the realities they had to face. Not that revisionism is good or that we should excuse that revisionism but that it's more nuanced a subject than just writing these nations off as being tyranical for tyranical's sake. I'm confused. Are you accusing me of being a Stalinist? Or somehow being unable to comprehend nuances in Soviet history?

[RadioRaheem84]

Ah, so it was okay for the Soviets to reintroduce Tsarist-era internal passports and to place bureaucratic controls on their citizens' movements... because they'd had a rocky beginning? How unfortunate. Like an X Factor contestant, I guess that there's absolutely no deficiency that can't be handwaved away by a sob story. Tightly controlling your population's movements? That's okay because half a century ago you had a revolution and famine!

On a serious note, it should be painfully clear just how facile it is comparing travel restrictions in the US and USSR. For the former you look for exceptions and for the latter you roll out the apologias and strawmen. All to avoid the simple and obvious truth: the Soviet Union imposed far more restrictive barriers to its citizens' travel. Avoiding or trying to talk your way out of that simple point is simply lazy and poor quality thinking

If you had actually followed what I said you would've figured out that I wasn't excusing the practice but explaining to you in a more nuanced manner why the USSR resulted to doing stuff like that and not that it was actually a good thing or something that needed to be done. Just that it happened and it was more likely to poor decisions due to X factor rather than the simple canard that the USSR was just a revisionist sucky regime like some do in here.

I brought up the US restrictions as a way to say that the US is not in some better scenerio to act like it's travel freedoms infinitely better. The US can impose some strict rules too on people.

It wasn't to compare the two as though one was better than the other.

Learn to follow.



I'm confused. Are you accusing me of being a Stalinist? Or somehow being unable to comprehend nuances in Soviet history?


Stalinist, no. I am not even a Stalinist. I am very critical of the former ML nations. I think they royally fucked up but that these nations were victims of capitalist aggression. That is why I chose the analogy of the Black Panthers or leftist movements that degenerated after a plethora of reasons which one of the primary being total aggression. I just never start off with the premise, like a lot of leftists do these days by dismissing the ML nations because they do not meet some idealistic standards they think are Communist. These types say Communism/socialism offers this or that so by just a carefree surface level observation the USSR and Co. did not meet those standards so I will just chuck them to the side and start afresh by telling people that, " those nations were not communist because communism means this or that X idealistic notion".