How informed of Communism were people in...

[Ismail]

Now, obviously just about everyone in self-described Socialist states whether legit or not (USSR, Albania, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Laos, China, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Cuba, etc) heard of Communism (and by extension Socialism too) but how much did the average citizen know of it? I mean sure, basics are easy (Bourgeoisie is class who exploits working class known as proletariat, bourgeoisie bad, proletariat good) but how much was Communism taught in schools?

I mean, it'd be odd for a Socialist state to just basically wave the red flag around and shout "SOCIALISM!" without anyone having any real idea as to what the hell either Socialism or Communism are except being used as another form of nationalism. Although obviously this is what seems to have happened to a lot of so-called Socialist states by the 80s.

[Prairie Fire]

I guess it depends on the country...

I know that Soviet school children learned a lot about socialist theory and whatnot.

Albania, of course, gave their children thorough socialist education in Marxism-Leninism.

Mao-era China also did not too shabby in this regard.

Everywhere else is not really worth mentioning, as far as I know.

Now, China has morphed Mao into a nationalist leader, insinuating that Deng Xioping was his "right-hand man", and that leaders like Hu Jintao and his predecessor Jiang Zemin were Mao's "legacy"... the Chinese communist party makes a lot of videos about "love your country" and "defend the motherland", but they are militaristsic nationalist shit, devoid of any socialist character (One of my favorites, called "love your country", I think, features an Imperial era Chinese soldier singing. There is no way Mao EVER would have invoked imagery of Feudalism to try and spread primitive patriotism.) They learn a couple songs in primary school, but singing of songs is meaningless; theory is needed to maintain socialism (Most of them forget the songs anyways: I was singing a few bars from "Socialism is good" to my chinese friend, and he recognized it right away, but for the life of himself couldn' sing along, even though he knew the song as a kid).

In Vietnam, at the last party congress of the Communist party of Vietnam, they once again tabled a resolution for party members to be able to own land/property, and maybe even buisnesses. <_< They teach Ho chi Minh&#39;s Heroic personality in school, and the war of occupation, but I seriously doubt that they teach much else. Given that Uncle Ho was mostly a red-streaked nationalist leader from the begining anyways, I guess that this isn&#39;t really retrogression.

In North Korea, well... Juche has allrady assumed a very socially-conservative, nationalistic, even religious character, and all that is taught there is mostly militarist patriotism, "defend the motherland" shit. While one could argue that their education system right now is the closest to teaching actual communism of any other country, as they still have not completely substituted nationalism for socialism yet, it&#39;s still no cigar.

I know Cuba teaches the experiences of their revolution, and a whole shit load of songs, but I can&#39;t say wether they teach much else beyond that (I doubt it).

Ironically, the greatest academic study of Marxism-Leninism doesn&#39;t happen in the communist world; rather, it happens here, in the capitalist world. Back in the days when those countries studied and yearned for communism, they were capitalist too. Maybe you have to go without socialism to appreciate it.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] August 28, 2007, 04:41 am
Now, obviously just about everyone in self-described Socialist states whether legit or not (USSR, Albania, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Laos, China, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Cuba, etc) heard of Communism (and by extension Socialism too) but how much did the average citizen know of it? I mean sure, basics are easy (Bourgeoisie is class who exploits working class known as proletariat, bourgeoisie bad, proletariat good) but how much was Communism taught in schools?

I think it varied. Some people might have studied the theory, but they took it for granted perhaps and never considered its importance. Or people might not have had enough ideological training to become consciously aware of the growing revisionist rot and how to combat it.

Then you have to take into account the official policy of the socialist country in question, like RavenBlade said. Whatever the political program of the state, people learned this in school or in study groups. In the U.S.S.R., for a long time there had been emphasis on the capitalist encirclement. When the Khrushchevites took over, it became "peaceful co-existence of the two social systems," and peace with imperialism was preached as the norm. Eventually, with the Gorbachevites, ideology was thrown out the window.

In China, with Dengism taking firm hold, the educational program emphasizes "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," and "Deng Xiaoping Theory," which are anti-Marxist principles in that they promote a capitalist, reactionary mindset.

If you don&#39;t have the correct line of thought, the majority of your practical activity will suffer. And this is a problem encountered by socialist countries and socialist movements in general.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Those eastern europeans I have talked to (czech, slovak mostly I think) have reffered to the system they lived in as "communism". I think that says it all...


Maybe you have to go without socialism to appreciate it.
I think that is a slightly absurd sentence. To some extent it may be correct in that people will no longer experience the relative horror of capitalist society.

On the other hand, in a socialist society, workers hold political and economic power. A socialist society will reflect the interests of the proletariat.

Now, I am pretty sure (though I have no evidence) that workers in most of the leninist states did not feel they held power. Maybe at first, but eventually the bureaucracy and the people were seperated even more.

I think your sentence reflect the fact that these so-called "socialist" societies were not socialist.

[Janus]

but how much did the average citizen know of it?
Well, in the PRC, there were courses on dialectics and political theory at school (the former was required even in college). Of course, much of the political theory was centered around Mao&#39;s ideas but most students generally gained a good grasp of socialism/communism.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The bigger question is, did they get a good enough grasp to come to the conclusion that the socities they lived in didn&#39;t match up with their studies?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Mrdie+August 28, 2007 10:41 am--> (Mrdie &#064; August 28, 2007 10:41 am) Now, obviously just about everyone in self-described Socialist states whether legit or not (USSR, Albania, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Laos, China, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Cuba, etc) heard of Communism (and by extension Socialism too) but how much did the average citizen know of it? I mean sure, basics are easy (Bourgeoisie is class who exploits working class known as proletariat, bourgeoisie bad, proletariat good) but how much was Communism taught in schools? [/b]
I will speak from the perspective of Romania, but I believe the same is true for most of Eastern Europe.

The average citizen did not have a good education in Marxism and did not know very much beyond the basics you just mentioned. Marxism-Leninism was taught as a required class at high school level and higher, but the methods by which it was taught made the subject unappealing and boring to most students. Basically, students were required to memorize and regurgitate various Marxist or Leninist texts, with no effort being made to ensure that they actually understood the content or gave it any thought.

In Romania, during the later years of Ceausescu&#39;s presidency (late 70s and throughout the 80s), things got even worse, as classical Marxist texts were played down and students were increasingly required to memorize Ceausescu&#39;s speeches instead.

The only good thing that can be said about education in Eastern Europe is that Marxist texts were widely available for anyone who wanted to read them, but the education system seemed to be almost intentionally designed to make sure most people found Marxism boring and not worth their time.


Originally posted by Juan Sin [email protected]
The bigger question is, did they get a good enough grasp to come to the conclusion that the socities they lived in didn&#39;t match up with their studies?
Yes, many people did. However, most of them came to the conclusion that if reality does not match up with Marxist principles, then Marxism itself must be somehow flawed (though they could not tell you exactly what the flaws are).

This happened because the authorities went to great lengths to stress the idea that the society we lived in was the only possible result of Marxism. Any interpretations of Marxism that diverged from the party line were edited out of history. For example, most people in Eastern Europe have never even heard of Trotsky.

And this is also the reason why revolutionary politics has not experienced any kind of revival in Eastern Europe since 1989. From 1948 to 1989, governments made every effort to convince people that the existing system was the only possible kind of non-capitalist society, and that the only available choice was between stalinism and capitalism. After 1989, the new capitalist governments have of course made similar efforts to preserve the same myth.


RavenBlade
Ironically, the greatest academic study of Marxism-Leninism doesn&#39;t happen in the communist world; rather, it happens here, in the capitalist world. Back in the days when those countries studied and yearned for communism, they were capitalist too. Maybe you have to go without socialism to appreciate it.
First of all, there was never such a thing as the "communist world." A correct description would be "those countries that followed the Soviet model of development and called themselves socialist."

It is actually true that more academic study of Marxism took place outside those countries than within them. But the reason for that is because the countries in question taught Marxism-Leninism as dogma rather than science; you were not encouraged to understand anything, but rather to quote Marxist texts to support whatever point you were trying to make.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I know Cuba teaches the experiences of their revolution, and a whole shit load of songs, but I can&#39;t say wether they teach much else beyond that (I doubt it).

Why do you doubt it? Do you base this on anything, or just &#39;bellyfeel&#39;?

Of course communist theory is taught in Cuba. Those in the youth wing of the CP learn more than others, but everyone is educated in it... Not to mention that education itself is organized in a materialist fashion.


For example, most people in Eastern Europe have never even heard of Trotsky.

Really? Proof?


Those eastern europeans I have talked to (czech, slovak mostly I think) have reffered to the system they lived in as "communism". I think that says it all...

What does it say? That they are adapting the common language of the countries they now live in, where people refer to the former socialist countries as communist?

I know communists and non-communists from the former socialist countries in Europe, and they clearly know the difference between socialism and communism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 06, 2007 07:12 am

For example, most people in Eastern Europe have never even heard of Trotsky.

Really? Proof?
I speak only from personal experience, which is of course imperfect. However, as long as we have no actual statistical data on Eastern Europeans&#39; knowledge of Marxism, anecdotal evidence is the best we can do.

I am Romanian and have lived in Romania most of my life; I also have friends from Bulgaria, Ukraine and Slovakia. And I can tell you that among all the people I know from Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Slovakia, only one had ever heard of Trotsky before I asked them about it. And that one person knew about Trotsky because he is politically involved and it is his hobby to study 20th century history.

Also, I would caution you that politically active people are not a representative sample of the general population.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Right, no one is saying they are. I said "I know communists and non-communists"...

I have anecdotes, you have anecdotes. With both of those together, and &#036;2.75, I can buy a turkeyburger.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Fair enough; with no hard data available, we could say that it is impossible to tell how informed people in Eastern Europe are/were regarding Marxism.

But that wouldn&#39;t be terribly helpful, would it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No more (or less) helpful than blanket statements based solely on our personal experiences with personal acquaintances.

[Floyce White]

The problem with using personal anecdotes is that it assumes that more raw information is the same as better analysis. Not true at all. For instance, I find that immigrants from Mexico and Central America tend to be much more informed about history and class issues than do immigrants from socialist countries. That&#39;s probably because land travel is cheaper and the US-Mexico border can be crossed illegally, so more land travelers are working class.

I perceive their information to be better because the opinions of other lower-class people tend to be compatible with my opinion as a lower-class person.

Generally speaking, I take more seriously the anecdotal evidence presented by experienced activists. They tend to know how to use various forms of evidence to support an argument--that is, for an educational or propaganda purpose. This differs from armchair chatters who use anecdotes to get up a rousing debate for amusement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:55 am
I guess it depends on the country...

I know that Soviet school children learned a lot about socialist theory and whatnot.

Albania, of course, gave their children thorough socialist education in Marxism-Leninism.

Mao-era China also did not too shabby in this regard.

Everywhere else is not really worth mentioning, as far as I know.

Now, China has morphed Mao into a nationalist leader, insinuating that Deng Xioping was his "right-hand man"
In response to both you and CEA, I would actually argue that Lenin himself was transformed into some sort of nationalist hero (betcha nobody in Soviet ML high school would dare talk about revolutionary defeatism, and that all WWI talk would be reduced to "socialist revolution," "imperialism," and "anti-imperialism").

Lots of Soviet speeches focused on the "socialist Motherland," and whenever they talked about Lenin, more and more emphasis was placed on "anti-imperialism" and "international friendship."

Good to hear Edric on his personal experiences, as well.


In the U.S.S.R., for a long time there had been emphasis on the capitalist encirclement.

Too bad there was too much emphasis on building "socialism in one country" :P

[Dimentio]

Communism and marxism is so thoroughly discredited that those names are largely expired. Hence, if we are going to make any progress, we need a new - untainted - name.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:55 am
Communism and marxism is so thoroughly discredited that those names are largely expired. Hence, if we are going to make any progress, we need a new - untainted - name.
I used to think that, a few years ago, until I realized that the bourgeois media would still portray us as "evil commies" no matter what name we chose for ourselves... and besides, I wasn&#39;t able to come up with any good names. :P

What new label would you suggest? "Technocracy," I suppose, but "technocracy" also carries a negative connotation in many circles.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:55 am
Communism and marxism is so thoroughly discredited that those names are largely expired. Hence, if we are going to make any progress, we need a new - untainted - name.
I would disagree with you on Marxism. A lot of people still describe themselves as Marxist today and are not attacked such as people who describe themselves as Marxist-Leninist or Maoist.

In fact it is "Marxism-Leninism" and "Communism" that has been tainted the most by the experiences of Stalinism.

Socialism, Marxism, are both good terms to describe oneself politically. Marxism-Leninism is redundant anyway. Lenin himself referred to himself as a Marxist at all times. Trotskyist is also redundant, in my opinion. The only times I will use either of those terms is around people who know more about leftist politics than the average person and would like to know my position on several issues such as the USSR.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:25 pm
Communism and marxism is so thoroughly discredited that those names are largely expired. Hence, if we are going to make any progress, we need a new - untainted - name.
O, be some other name&#33;
What&#39;s in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other word would smell as sweet;

Shakespeare :P

[George]

In respose to the original question, in the 1950&#39;s in my country (Hungary) a lot of peasants and workers were given a chance to go to attend college. The colleges they attended put a great emphasis on maxist theory and the workers movement. Even as late as the 1980&#39;s when i went to grade school, we studied the worker&#39;s movement and marxism.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 14, 2007 03:34 pm--> (Edric O @ September 14, 2007 03:34 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 10:55 am
Communism and marxism is so thoroughly discredited that those names are largely expired. Hence, if we are going to make any progress, we need a new - untainted - name.
I used to think that, a few years ago, until I realized that the bourgeois media would still portray us as "evil commies" no matter what name we chose for ourselves... and besides, I wasn&#39;t able to come up with any good names. :P

What new label would you suggest? "Technocracy," I suppose, but "technocracy" also carries a negative connotation in many circles. [/b]
Technocracy is not so disliked as used as a scape-word for everything that people does&#39;nt like. Socialists are calling neoliberalism "technocracy" and neoliberals are calling socialism "technocracy". Since it is so vague and imprecise, and has never been attempted at implementation, it is actually a strength.

But it is probably a bad name for a mass-movement. Socialism, ecologism or symbiosism, or whatever, might work better.

[p.m.a.]

This (http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/FrmIntIndex1.htm) is a political-economy textbook issued by the Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciencies of the USSR in 1954. While I have really only browsed over it, it seems to go through traditional Marxist economics. That is, Marx&#39;s materialist outline of history, and the critique of Capital. It then goes into the transition into "socialist" USSR, and the history of their building their economy. But, as can be expected for a state-capitalist-issued textbook, its based upon masturbatory quotations from Lenin and other CPSU high officials, with little economic analysis involved.

So much of the philosophical basis for how we conceive of communism is derived from Marx&#39;s early humanistic writings, which unfortunately were mostly unearthed &#39;til well into the twentieth century. By the time the 1844 Manuscripts, for example, were published in 1932, the Soviet Union was far beyond repair. I&#39;m sure, then, most people were communists by default, without being thoroughly Marxist in their outlook and theories.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 03:34 pm
What new label would you suggest? "Technocracy," I suppose, but "technocracy" also carries a negative connotation in many circles.
"Creepy" describes it better.

Luís Henrique

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:23 am
This (http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/FrmIntIndex1.htm) is a political-economy textbook issued by the Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciencies of the USSR in 1954. While I have really only browsed over it, it seems to go through traditional Marxist economics. That is, Marx&#39;s materialist outline of history, and the critique of Capital. It then goes into the transition into "socialist" USSR, and the history of their building their economy. But, as can be expected for a state-capitalist-issued textbook, its based upon masturbatory quotations from Lenin and other CPSU high officials, with little economic analysis involved.

So much of the philosophical basis for how we conceive of communism is derived from Marx&#39;s early humanistic writings, which unfortunately were mostly unearthed &#39;til well into the twentieth century. By the time the 1844 Manuscripts, for example, were published in 1932, the Soviet Union was far beyond repair. I&#39;m sure, then, most people were communists by default, without being thoroughly Marxist in their outlook and theories.
I looked over the textbook and it seems, like you said, pretty basic traditional Marxist economics. I didn&#39;t really get to skim through enough to see their take on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, on monopoly, etc, but i assume they have alot of Lenin views, since i noticed quite a few quotes from him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I guess nobody read this section of the textbook:

The Development of the Marxist Political Economy of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin. The Working-out of a Number of New Propositions in the Political Economy of Capitalism by J. V. Stalin (http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/FrmIntIndex1.htm)

:D

Or this (http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/FrmIntIndex1.htm):


On the basis of generalisation from the experience of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R., Stalin worked out a number of problems of the political economy of socialism. Proceeding from Lenin’s teachings, Stalin, in his reports to Party congresses and conferences, in his works Problems of Leninism, Economic’ Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., etc., showed concretely ways and methods of socialist construction, of effecting the socialist industrialisation of the country and the collectivisation of agriculture. Basing himself on the fundamental principles laid down in the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, Stalin formulated the basic economic law of socialism and the law of planned, proportionate development of the national economy.

In the works of Stalin there are to be found his further elaboration of Lenin’s propositions on the methods of socialist management, on the necessity of utilising the law of value and money, on economic accounting, on the. principle of the personal material interest of the workers in the results of their labour, on the superiority of the socialist system of economy over the capitalist system.

Stalin developed and made concrete Marxist-Leninist teachings on the transition from socialism to communism: on the State under communism, on the effacing of the essential differences between town and country and between mental and physical labour.

[p.m.a.]

No, it&#39;s just every time the name "J.V. Stalin" pops up, I am so confounded that my brain cannot operate normally to continue reading.