Comradeship // Freechat

2159 readers

8 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Dealing with the "blah blah so and so fled communism" talking point (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If there's already been discussion on this at length that someone knows of, feel free to link me.

I've been thinking this over because it's one of those recurring talking points that comes up. I may have even talked about it here before in passing, but I don't remember for sure.

But I wanted to talk about the core of how BS it is and the main way I see it get used. Which is that of someone saying "my [relative] lived in [socialist state] and fled it", or they will leave out the first part and just say "people lived in [socialist state] and fled it." And then the implication or outright stated, "Why aren't you taking this as proof that communism bad? Clearly communism bad!"

The primary way I've seen people counter this is pointing out that those who were fleeing were sometimes, well... members of the former exploiting class. Which is true.

But I'm not sure the talking point is even worth entertaining to that degree. Because like:

As far as I've seen, nobody provides actual hard numbers on people "fleeing communism" relative to other situations where people flee a conflict or just leave a country to go to another one in general. In fact, it's often an anecdotal claim about a single person: "My relative."
Is there even such a thing as a major conflict/upheaval in a country at scale where it was possible for people to flee and nobody fled? Like big change can be scary and it's always going to be somewhat disruptive of status quo, even if it's an overall benefit going forward. Not to mention major changing of hands of power usually involves some violence.

So this leads me to: what is supposed to be different about communism that makes people "fleeing it" special? I've yet to see any explanation on that and so it makes me think that may be a point to push back on with people. That rather than even talking about the nature of why, first ask how it is supposed to be a special kind of "fleeing".

And also, when it's purely anecdotal, asking why they are supposed to be taken seriously over the opinions of the millions (or more) of people who make up X socialist state. In that regard, it sounds a lot like the "one of my closest friends is [racial minority] trope" in that they are sort of implying the people are monolithic and one or a few can speak for all of them.

Thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

The quote

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

-- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.