Victims of Communism

[Nicholas Weeks]

Just a reminder that not only Eastern Europe was under the boot, but much of Asia was, and still is.

http://victimsofcommunism.org

[Kim O'Hara]

"Victims"? "Under the boot"?
You're sure you're not being too judgmental here, Nicholas?


Kim

[AlexMcLeod]

"Victims"? "Under the boot"?
You're sure you're not being too judgmental here, Nicholas?


Kim

I'm not sure. Everyone that I've met that lived through the Soviet Union spoke that way of them.

[Kim O'Hara]

That's a much more reasonable statement than Nicholas' implicit declaration that all communist regimes were (and are) always oppressive.

But the Soviet Union was (and is) Communist in name only.


Kim

[AlexMcLeod]

But the Soviet Union was (and is) Communist in name only.

Yes, but the same can be said of every other (national scale) regime that stated the goal of communism.

[Dan74]

I've lived through (the end of) so-called Communism in the USSR, albeit as a child, but let me make it very clear, it was not all bad. This is why there is so much nostalgia back in those parts for 'the good old days'. Of course everything you think was pretty much true - the Communist Party was pretty corrupt, freedom of speech was muffled at best, there were queues and a very limited selection of food and goods available, and as far as private enterprise went, well, it didn't. But... everybody was assured of a job, everybody had a minimum living standard, free medical care, free education, extremely accessible cultural events (like concerts, plays, cinema, etc). This isn't exactly insignificant, is it? Plus, there was a great deal of support given to science and sport. Look it was in many ways a silly system, but not altogether bad.

[treehuggingoctopus]

I've lived through (the end of) so-called Communism in the USSR, albeit as a child, but let me make it very clear, it was not all bad. This is why there is so much nostalgia back in those parts for 'the good old days'. Of course everything you think was pretty much true - the Communist Party was pretty corrupt, freedom of speech was muffled at best, there were queues and a very limited selection of food and goods available, and as far as private enterprise went, well, it didn't. But... everybody was assured of a job, everybody had a minimum living standard, free medical care, free education, extremely accessible cultural events (like concerts, plays, cinema, etc). This isn't exactly insignificant, is it? Plus, there was a great deal of support given to science and sport. Look it was in many ways a silly system, but not altogether bad.

The totalitarian bits were appalling, fullstop (especially in the USSR, goes without saying). Totalitarianism aside, still a mixed bag, but a more decent one than neoliberalism.

I positively yearn for the drab colours and the almost empty shelves so typical of Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1980s.

[mañjughoṣamaṇi]

I've lived through (the end of) so-called Communism in the USSR, albeit as a child, but let me make it very clear, it was not all bad. This is why there is so much nostalgia back in those parts for 'the good old days'. Of course everything you think was pretty much true - the Communist Party was pretty corrupt, freedom of speech was muffled at best, there were queues and a very limited selection of food and goods available, and as far as private enterprise went, well, it didn't. But... everybody was assured of a job, everybody had a minimum living standard, free medical care, free education, extremely accessible cultural events (like concerts, plays, cinema, etc). This isn't exactly insignificant, is it? Plus, there was a great deal of support given to science and sport. Look it was in many ways a silly system, but not altogether bad.

The totalitarian bits were appalling, fullstop (especially in the USSR, goes without saying). Totalitarianism aside, still a mixed bag, but a more decent one than neoliberalism.

I positively yearn for the drab colours and the almost empty shelves so typical of Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1980s.

These sentiments reflect my in-laws' stories about life in the former Czechoslovakia as well. When my father-in-law took me to an abandoned ski chateau in the mountains of Slovakia, formerly nearly free to citizens during communist times, he told me: Kommunisti budovali, kapitalisti ruinovali (The communists built, the capitalists ruined). My in-laws have fared better economically than a lot of people have in the transition, but see a shift in the moral fabric of the culture that they see as an increase in selfishness and a lack of a shared project of society building. Of course there are things they don't miss as well.

[Kim O'Hara]

Ursula Le Guin (daughter of an anthropologist and with a keen interest in cultures and social justice) came up with an apt term for a state like those Eastern-bloc states, a "Bureaucratic" state.
Another term, not hers, is "Command Economy": the state dictates economic activity.
Both, IMO, are more accurate than "Communist", because what matters in such states is that one organisation has complete control. I was going to add "for good or ill" but it's actually for good and ill.


Kim

[Ayu]

Some people from the former east block grew to real haters of communism. They are not a minority.
The drama is to observe how they make a U-turn to the very opposite worldviews like racism and catholicism. They still didn't leave the adherence to totalitarian power structures.
I think, this is because democracy is something we have to learn as kids. Countries that become democratic over night have difficulties to use this new political tool correctly.

[mañjughoṣamaṇi]

Some people from the former east block grew to real haters of communism. They are not a minority.

Actually, according to many surveys, the real haters are in fact a vocal minority. Most people when surveyed, including the former DDR according to one recent survey, have views ranging from the much more tempered to the nostalgic.

[Ayu]

Some people from the former east block grew to real haters of communism. They are not a minority.

Actually, according to many surveys, the real haters are in fact a vocal minority. Most people when surveyed, including the former DDR according to one recent survey, have views ranging from the much more tempered to the nostalgic.

Okay, from a certain viewpoint you are right. 24% of the population are still a minority. But they are many people though. They are not a rarity.
In the former DDR/GDR (German Democratic Republic) there have been also good things and it's no crime to be romantic about them. But it is very dangerous to believe: the government was against Nazis, hence Nazis and racism must be a good thing in general. If 24% of the East-German population believe in such slogans, I find it quite frightening.

[Dan74]

There is of course such a thing as a totalitarian mindset characterised by the love of strong central power, decisive ruthless measures, conformism and hatred of pluralism, etc. Not that these attitudes are exclusive to former Communist states. And lets not think that Western mindset is so great. Consumerist, apathetic, cynical, immoral, ignorant, fearful of passion except in bed, self-indulgent and self-loathing, etc etc That's how some Russians characterise what they find in the West. It is perfectly fine to criticise especially when backed up by evidence, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking our system(s) are necessarily superior.

Mind you, I don't cry any tears over the fall of the USSR, it was a far cry from the freedom-loving egalitarian proletarian state, the utopia that drove many turn of the century revolutionaries. But TBH I do sometimes despair over this strange dystopia that we in the West believe is the best we can do.

[mañjughoṣamaṇi]

Okay, from a certain viewpoint you are right. 24% of the population are still a minority. But they are many people though. They are not a rarity.
In the former DDR/GDR (German Democratic Republic) there have been also good things and it's no crime to be romantic about them. But it is very dangerous to believe: the government was against Nazis, hence Nazis and racism must be a good thing in general. If 24% of the East-German population believe in such slogans, I find it quite frightening.

I agree. I find the historical revisionism that seems to be going hand in hand with a rise in fascist sentiment in Europe and the states quite troubling. I guess the only thing I would say is that is certainly isn't limited to former Warsaw pact nations.

[ratna]

It is perfectly fine to criticise especially when backed up by evidence, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking our system(s) are necessarily superior.

I heartily dislike participating in political discussions, but I just have to put my personal view out here. Like you, I spent my youth in the USSR (or, more correctly, in a country occupied by the USSR). I, too, have plenty of pleasant memories, but I also saw enough to understand that if I had had to spend my whole adult life under this vile theater of the absurd, I would probably have ended up killing myself. It is my view that the Western system(s) are definitely superior. Not perfect, but superior overall. If one's inclinations are toward Socialism, OK, the Nordic versions of it are much superior. The USSR may have succeeded in filling people's bellies (for a while, anyway), but overall the system was a tragic waste of human potential that's just not worth nostalgizing.

R

[Malcolm]

That's a much more reasonable statement than Nicholas' implicit declaration that all communist regimes were (and are) always oppressive.

But the Soviet Union was (and is) Communist in name only.


Kim

Communism decsribes the end goal of Marxist Socialism, communists are those who believe in that goal.

[Dan74]

It is perfectly fine to criticise especially when backed up by evidence, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking our system(s) are necessarily superior.

I heartily dislike participating in political discussions, but I just have to put my personal view out here. Like you, I spent my youth in the USSR (or, more correctly, in a country occupied by the USSR). I, too, have plenty of pleasant memories, but I also saw enough to understand that if I had had to spend my whole adult life under this vile theater of the absurd, I would probably have ended up killing myself. It is my view that the Western system(s) are definitely superior. Not perfect, but superior overall. If one's inclinations are toward Socialism, OK, the Nordic versions of it are much superior. The USSR may have succeeded in filling people's bellies (for a while, anyway), but overall the system was a tragic waste of human potential that's just not worth nostalgizing.

R

Fair enough, Ratna. It is hard for me to gauge which system wastes more human potential. Even here in Australia which some say is closer to those Nordic social democracies than to the US, there is a huge section of the population that miss out on most of the opportunities this society purportedly offers. We have a fast-growing number of the homeless, poor, illiterate, depressed, suicidal, mentally ill, addicts, people who spent most of their life in jail simply because there is nothing for them 'on the outside'. I was probably not really aware of all the social problems that were there in the USSR, due to my age and little publicity that was given to them, so it is likely that I don't have an objective picture. And yet, it appears to me that unless you happen to be in the minority 'who've made it' in the West, the rest of the society is engaged in a constant stressful struggle just to provide some stability and necessities for their families. Serving in whatever meaningless capacity, at a whim of psychopathic bosses, doing long hours and barely able to be with their partners and children. Isn't this a tragic waste of human potential?

[DGA]

That's a much more reasonable statement than Nicholas' implicit declaration that all communist regimes were (and are) always oppressive.

But the Soviet Union was (and is) Communist in name only.


Kim

Communism decsribes the end goal of Marxist Socialism, communists are those who believe in that goal.

Correct. The USSR represented one attempt to realize that goal. The Soviets failed utterly, as did the Maoists; what they did achieve can best be described as state capitalism. (I'm following Raya Dunayevskaya's account here.) I think this is Kim O'Hara's point.

With regard to Mr Weeks' claim: It pays to work from concrete historical examples. Which is more oppressive: Chile under the socialist Popular Unity government (democratically elected) of Salvador Allende, or Chile under the CIA-installed-by-force pro-capitalist junta of Augusto Pinochet?

It's true that many who have called themselves communists have done terrible things to others in the name of realizing a just society, a communist utopia. Meanwhile, here's what globalized capitalism gets you:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/ ... ng.society

[DGA]

It is perfectly fine to criticise especially when backed up by evidence, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking our system(s) are necessarily superior.

I heartily dislike participating in political discussions, but I just have to put my personal view out here. Like you, I spent my youth in the USSR (or, more correctly, in a country occupied by the USSR). I, too, have plenty of pleasant memories, but I also saw enough to understand that if I had had to spend my whole adult life under this vile theater of the absurd, I would probably have ended up killing myself. It is my view that the Western system(s) are definitely superior. Not perfect, but superior overall. If one's inclinations are toward Socialism, OK, the Nordic versions of it are much superior. The USSR may have succeeded in filling people's bellies (for a while, anyway), but overall the system was a tragic waste of human potential that's just not worth nostalgizing.

R

Yes, the "Western system" is much better... for those living in "Western" countries. The problem is that the material comfort and ease of those in the global north (Europe, North America, &c) is a direct function of the impoverishment of the global south. You don't get the wealth and power on display at the Davos WEC without billions of bodies in squalor globally.

I'm not defending the Soviet system at all. I merely want to put the celebrations of neoliberal capitalism as the omega point of history in context.

[ratna]

Fair enough, Ratna. It is hard for me to gauge which system wastes more human potential. Even here in Australia which some say is closer to those Nordic social democracies than to the US, there is a huge section of the population that miss out on most of the opportunities this society purportedly offers. We have a fast-growing number of the homeless, poor, illiterate, depressed, suicidal, mentally ill, addicts, people who spent most of their life in jail simply because there is nothing for them 'on the outside'. I was probably not really aware of all the social problems that were there in the USSR, due to my age and little publicity that was given to them, so it is likely that I don't have an objective picture. And yet, it appears to me that unless you happen to be in the minority 'who've made it' in the West, the rest of the society is engaged in a constant stressful struggle just to provide some stability and necessities for their families. Serving in whatever meaningless capacity, at a whim of psychopathic bosses, doing long hours and barely able to be with their partners and children. Isn't this a tragic waste of human potential?

Not denying it -- the problems you describe are real. And yet here we are, discussing the Dharma with fellow Buddhists, reading Dharma books, attending authentic Gurus' teachings. We take these freedoms for granted, but in the USSR, any one of those things could have landed you in the KGB interrogation room. This was in fact the experience of one of my Buddhist Studies professors. (His own Guru, a Buryat Lama, was not so lucky -- he died in a Siberian prison camp.)

R