3 ms·

I don't usually like to discuss these topics, but I want to point out a few things. First of all, communism and in general left-wing politics are viewed with a

I don't usually like to discuss these topics, but I want to point out a few things. First of all, communism and in general left-wing politics are viewed with a significant bias in the western world, even more in the US. While there have been many societies claiming to be socialist, none would actually qualify from a political theory perspective (it was something more akin to propaganda, e.g. look, we achieved socialism!). Even then, it's worth noting that those societies developed in an environment of extreme hostility from other nations, almost every time during a period of extreme difficulty (e.g. a civil war, right after a long and terrible conflict etc). Coming back to current China, I think Qiu's conclusion can actually make sense if we remove the bias that is normally present in western circles, especially since China's current system, classified by some (especially those that want to make use of the fear of radical left-wing policies) as communism, can also be classified as state capitalism. I don't really think that workers have much power in modern China (this article provides several examples), and I don't see how that could lead you to argue that China needs less communism (as Qiu intends it, that is, characterized by more workers power and less inequality). The only thing I can agree with you about is that Marxist societies, based on a vanguard party with control over everything and everyone, should (one would hope) be now left behind. P.S. your claim that communist societies tend to be run by academics doesn't really hold much water - if you're interested in the russian revolution, consider reading Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution" as an excellent introduction.

Krasnol 7y ago
> First of all, communism and in general left-wing politics are viewed with a significant bias in the western world, even more in the US. They are not being viewed more favorable in former East Block countries either. So what what is left there? > While there have been many societies claiming to be socialist, none would actually qualify from a political theory perspective (it was something more akin to propaganda, e.g. look, we achieved socialism!). Nonetheless those are the societies that are being cherished by the remaining fans of Socialism in the West. Especially in countries like Germany where there is a generation of kids who hear only the good things (everybody had a job!) about the DDR making it look like some kind of paradise (it actually was one in the East Block since everybody else was working to make the DDR look like one). > Even then, it's worth noting that those societies developed in an environment of extreme hostility from other nations Oh please. You can say that about every society. It depends on how much you reach backwards or how much you are ready to ignore. Just like we see the growing ignorance of the evil that was fascism, there will come a time where a growing ignorance of state socialism will become mainstream and I'm afraid of that. I fled this madness once already and since the fans of state socialism today are not even ready to come up with new solutions to the issues this idealism had, there won't be new ideas later.
- legatus 7y ago
  >So what what is left there? You are referencing countries which were either part of the USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), or countries that were part of the Warsaw Pact. While there was still something left after the fall of the USSR (such as free healthcare and education, something rich countries such as the US don't offer, and that most post-USSR countries promptly removed) I agree the Soviet Union left behind a quite terrible legacy. I also believe, however, that it is wrong to argue that every socialist country will share the Soviet fate; the history of the Soviet Union (together with its worst aspects, such as Stalinism and the Gulag system) should be understood in the context of Russian society. Even then, your choice removes from the discussion quite a few altogether different societies, based on radical democracy, such as Republican Spain during the civil war, and the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian Civil war. >Those are the societies that are being cherished by the remaining fans of Socialism in the West. I'm sorry, but I rarely hear someone cheering for the DDR, or for the USSR in general. The legacy of Stalinism is such that the USSR (and its puppet states) are rightfully criticized, apart from a few small and unpopular groups (even in the left as a whole). >You can say that about every society. Republican Spain was challenged by a military general, leading to a conflict (the Spanish Civil War) which ravaged its economy and population. While the democracies (UK, France and US) decided not to intervene (partly because their interests were threatened by many policies of nationalization in Republican Spain), Franco received military help, both in terms of weapons and in terms of personnel from Germany and Italy. The USSR formed as a consequence of the extreme conditions faced by the general population in the aftermath of the First World War, followed by years of Civil War with an ever-decreasing availability of food. Once the Civil War was over, the USSR found itself in a state of constant panic of "capitalist intervention", the Five Year plans (and their horrible consequences) themselves a consequence of Stalin's fear of enemy attack. The Free Territory of Ukraine formed in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War, and lasted only a few years, being destroyed by a Red Army offensive. I'm sorry, but many societies haven't faced such extreme situations, and those that did usually had some kind of allies. I'm sorry if you (as I am, maybe mistakenly, inferring) fled from an East Block country. I'm not arguing the USSR has a positive legacy. I'm simply arguing the western world (and the US in particular) has an extreme bias when it comes to left-wing politics (both the Red Scares come to mind), and that we should attempt to evaluate societies based on what they were, not what they claimed to be. Alternative societies (in particular Republican Spain and the Free Territory of Ukraine) should be evaluated differently from authoritarian countries such as the USSR: one of their main ideals were complete democracy. The fact that they aren't that well known is, in my view, a result of the bias I talk about above. P.S. as for the comment above, my knowledge mostly comes from books, Sheila Fitzpatrick's being one. For the Spanish Civil War there is both Thomas' and Preston's. The historiography of the FTU is, unfortunately, mostly lacking.

Krasnol 7y ago

> First of all, communism and in general left-wing politics are viewed with a significant bias in the western world, even more in the US. They are not being viewed more favorable in former East Block countries either. So what what is left there? > While there have been many societies claiming to be socialist, none would actually qualify from a political theory perspective (it was something more akin to propaganda, e.g. look, we achieved socialism!). Nonetheless those are the societies that are being cherished by the remaining fans of Socialism in the West. Especially in countries like Germany where there is a generation of kids who hear only the good things (everybody had a job!) about the DDR making it look like some kind of paradise (it actually was one in the East Block since everybody else was working to make the DDR look like one). > Even then, it's worth noting that those societies developed in an environment of extreme hostility from other nations Oh please. You can say that about every society. It depends on how much you reach backwards or how much you are ready to ignore. Just like we see the growing ignorance of the evil that was fascism, there will come a time where a growing ignorance of state socialism will become mainstream and I'm afraid of that. I fled this madness once already and since the fans of state socialism today are not even ready to come up with new solutions to the issues this idealism had, there won't be new ideas later.

legatus 7y ago
>So what what is left there? You are referencing countries which were either part of the USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), or countries that were part of the Warsaw Pact. While there was still something left after the fall of the USSR (such as free healthcare and education, something rich countries such as the US don't offer, and that most post-USSR countries promptly removed) I agree the Soviet Union left behind a quite terrible legacy. I also believe, however, that it is wrong to argue that every socialist country will share the Soviet fate; the history of the Soviet Union (together with its worst aspects, such as Stalinism and the Gulag system) should be understood in the context of Russian society. Even then, your choice removes from the discussion quite a few altogether different societies, based on radical democracy, such as Republican Spain during the civil war, and the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian Civil war. >Those are the societies that are being cherished by the remaining fans of Socialism in the West. I'm sorry, but I rarely hear someone cheering for the DDR, or for the USSR in general. The legacy of Stalinism is such that the USSR (and its puppet states) are rightfully criticized, apart from a few small and unpopular groups (even in the left as a whole). >You can say that about every society. Republican Spain was challenged by a military general, leading to a conflict (the Spanish Civil War) which ravaged its economy and population. While the democracies (UK, France and US) decided not to intervene (partly because their interests were threatened by many policies of nationalization in Republican Spain), Franco received military help, both in terms of weapons and in terms of personnel from Germany and Italy. The USSR formed as a consequence of the extreme conditions faced by the general population in the aftermath of the First World War, followed by years of Civil War with an ever-decreasing availability of food. Once the Civil War was over, the USSR found itself in a state of constant panic of "capitalist intervention", the Five Year plans (and their horrible consequences) themselves a consequence of Stalin's fear of enemy attack. The Free Territory of Ukraine formed in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War, and lasted only a few years, being destroyed by a Red Army offensive. I'm sorry, but many societies haven't faced such extreme situations, and those that did usually had some kind of allies. I'm sorry if you (as I am, maybe mistakenly, inferring) fled from an East Block country. I'm not arguing the USSR has a positive legacy. I'm simply arguing the western world (and the US in particular) has an extreme bias when it comes to left-wing politics (both the Red Scares come to mind), and that we should attempt to evaluate societies based on what they were, not what they claimed to be. Alternative societies (in particular Republican Spain and the Free Territory of Ukraine) should be evaluated differently from authoritarian countries such as the USSR: one of their main ideals were complete democracy. The fact that they aren't that well known is, in my view, a result of the bias I talk about above. P.S. as for the comment above, my knowledge mostly comes from books, Sheila Fitzpatrick's being one. For the Spanish Civil War there is both Thomas' and Preston's. The historiography of the FTU is, unfortunately, mostly lacking.