It’s not really about defending the bad stuff. It’s about trying to get some more nuance on perhaps the most propagandized topic of the 20th century.
There are all sorts of interesting discussions to have about the various failings of these countries amongst other leftists who have the relevant context as a starting point for a reasonable discussion.
But when talking to libs/conservatives, they’re coming into the conversation with an already extremely warped, in nuanced perspective. “These are all evil dictatorships that were also super incompetent and that shows why communism is bad.”
Some of the stuff they base this on is either exaggerated or just straight up wrong. Some of it is completely valid criticism, but without the context to understand the issue or provide a useful critique.
How do you have any meaningful conversation about these countries without acknowledging things like:
All of these countries were previously agrarian, un-democratic societies.
Most of them were formerly exploited colonies who had to fight fairly brutal wars for their independence.
Even after leaving, the imperialists kept messing with them through economic and diplomatic isolation and espionage including supporting right wing coups.
We don’t have the counterfactual where we see what these countries would have turned out like without these challenges, but it’s an incomplete analysis to not at least consider the ways which they impacted both their economic success and their political developments. Maybe you could argue there were better ways to respond to all of this, but hindsight is 20-20.
No actual leftists want to have to argue “authoritarianism was good actually.” But it’s hard for the conversation not to appear that way when we’re arguing with people who’ve been conditioned to think they’re somehow as bad or worse than Nazis and ending the thought there.
Great comment! You hit the nail on the head, proper conversation requires a factual starting point, and just conceding to conservatives and other anticommunists off the bat just so they are less hostile to you just hands them free rhetorical wins on that very basis.
I did not call you a conservative, if that’s what you’re implying. My point aligns with theirs, in that demonization of AES is usually a result of accepting bourgeois narratives uncritically. To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves), we need to dispell the thick layers of Red Scare fearmongering first.
Dispelling myths and finding the hard truth is where we can look at what went right and what went wrong, not just agreeing that Socialism is when everyone starves or other such nonsense. Why support an ideology that truly is as bad in practice as anticommunists say it is, after all?
no, i’m not implying that. it would also be fine if you did. depends on the day and topic.
“To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves)”
lol XD it’s saying shit like this that tells me you’re not connected to reality.
even so, i hear what you’re saying. my feedback, as an outsider, is you’re overcompensating. imo, it would go a long way to start with presenting a fair view of a couple pros and cons, acknowledging the concern of your interlocutor. what i see instead, almost universally, is kneejerk defense of AES and leaders, and just telling non-Leftists that they’re wrong, stupid, propagandized.
You’ll find me critical of AES all the time, but I won’t cede ground for what I know to be false just for optics. I take a rigorous approach to rhetoric, I cede no ground that isn’t rooted in fact, and I do my best to encourage accurate critique. When you see me defending AES and seemingly not critiquing them as much, it’s usually in the context of someone repeating the same bog-standard state department anticommunist mythos that have existed for decades, and thus should be treated as such.
Go ahead and ask me for critiques of AES, and I can do so, but I won’t lie about them either.
i wouldn’t say it’s for “optics,” but you have to know your interlocutor. if the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, acknowledging failures openly is more honest and real than dancing about to make excuses for them. owning failings is human, and would be a distinct departure from capitalism, that’s for sure.
but i get you, capitalism as a system is unironically constantly using force to extinguish you. i get it. it’s not an enviable position.
If the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, then I do my best to make sure those abuses are accurately highlighted. Here’s an example of me doing just that. I’m not going to pivot the conversation to a different area just to highlight unrelated flaws, though, that’s off-topic and rhetorically bad. Surely you can see that, right?
Like, yes, Stalin outlawing gay marriage was bad, indisputably. Bolsheviks that were pro-gay marriage like Kollontai should have been listened to. I don’t need to insert that or other critiques into every comment, though.
I think what they think is that citizens have bad judgement, so it ends in Maoist policies that sound good but ignore negative externalities. The tragedy of the commons is inevitable is their view.
what i’m saying is, for myself, and at least a few “Left-curious” neo/libs/progs, we don’t want to trade one shit tyranny for another.
and it’s obvious, documented history of some pretty glaring failures in AES. if you like, think of ppl like us as trauma victims. it’s probably true anyway.
it can go a long way to offer the olive branch and reassurance that, yes, you don’t want to just “red-wash” that all away, or that you aren’t just enamoured with Red aesthetic and lip-service while being YET ANOTHER group of mastubatory elitists who will trample the out-group-du-jour given the opportunity.
The problem typically arises from the necessity for confrontation of anticommunist myths about AES. Anyone growing up in the West is bombarded with Anticommunism, and simply being aware that that process exists doesn’t actually make you immune to it. Confronting the myths surrounding Communism is an important first step. “Red-washing” is a much, much smaller problem than you likely realize.
no, it doesn’t seem like that at all. the fact that you, and person above you, think that, is exactly why you’re so far up your own butts that you can’t reach anyone.
This is going to sound incredibly facetious, but I’ve had multiple dozens of people directly thank me for reaching them. I can’t reach everyone, of course, but I know for a fact that I do reach many people, so your assertion that because I can’t seem to reach you that I must not be able to reach anyone is just not true.
I could absolutely be better at reaching people, of course I could, but I also know that different strategies work for different people, and some people simply don’t want to be reached to begin with.
In an ideal world, the Red Scare would not have existed, and we could discuss the genuine merits and struggles faced internally and externally in AES without that clouding discussion. Its why I prefer talking with comrades about the shortcomings in AES, as I know they aren’t doing it to undermine the achievements but to legitimately identify problems to solve.
I think, despite all of the struggles, that I do an okay job with engaging people open to listening.
It’s not really about defending the bad stuff. It’s about trying to get some more nuance on perhaps the most propagandized topic of the 20th century.
There are all sorts of interesting discussions to have about the various failings of these countries amongst other leftists who have the relevant context as a starting point for a reasonable discussion.
But when talking to libs/conservatives, they’re coming into the conversation with an already extremely warped, in nuanced perspective. “These are all evil dictatorships that were also super incompetent and that shows why communism is bad.”
Some of the stuff they base this on is either exaggerated or just straight up wrong. Some of it is completely valid criticism, but without the context to understand the issue or provide a useful critique.
How do you have any meaningful conversation about these countries without acknowledging things like:
We don’t have the counterfactual where we see what these countries would have turned out like without these challenges, but it’s an incomplete analysis to not at least consider the ways which they impacted both their economic success and their political developments. Maybe you could argue there were better ways to respond to all of this, but hindsight is 20-20.
No actual leftists want to have to argue “authoritarianism was good actually.” But it’s hard for the conversation not to appear that way when we’re arguing with people who’ve been conditioned to think they’re somehow as bad or worse than Nazis and ending the thought there.
Great comment! You hit the nail on the head, proper conversation requires a factual starting point, and just conceding to conservatives and other anticommunists off the bat just so they are less hostile to you just hands them free rhetorical wins on that very basis.
you need to know who you are talking to. you’re already assuming a position of hostility and conflict at base.
I did not call you a conservative, if that’s what you’re implying. My point aligns with theirs, in that demonization of AES is usually a result of accepting bourgeois narratives uncritically. To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves), we need to dispell the thick layers of Red Scare fearmongering first.
Dispelling myths and finding the hard truth is where we can look at what went right and what went wrong, not just agreeing that Socialism is when everyone starves or other such nonsense. Why support an ideology that truly is as bad in practice as anticommunists say it is, after all?
no, i’m not implying that. it would also be fine if you did. depends on the day and topic.
“To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves)”
lol XD it’s saying shit like this that tells me you’re not connected to reality.
even so, i hear what you’re saying. my feedback, as an outsider, is you’re overcompensating. imo, it would go a long way to start with presenting a fair view of a couple pros and cons, acknowledging the concern of your interlocutor. what i see instead, almost universally, is kneejerk defense of AES and leaders, and just telling non-Leftists that they’re wrong, stupid, propagandized.
You’ll find me critical of AES all the time, but I won’t cede ground for what I know to be false just for optics. I take a rigorous approach to rhetoric, I cede no ground that isn’t rooted in fact, and I do my best to encourage accurate critique. When you see me defending AES and seemingly not critiquing them as much, it’s usually in the context of someone repeating the same bog-standard state department anticommunist mythos that have existed for decades, and thus should be treated as such.
Go ahead and ask me for critiques of AES, and I can do so, but I won’t lie about them either.
that’s good. don’t lie, have standards.
i wouldn’t say it’s for “optics,” but you have to know your interlocutor. if the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, acknowledging failures openly is more honest and real than dancing about to make excuses for them. owning failings is human, and would be a distinct departure from capitalism, that’s for sure.
but i get you, capitalism as a system is unironically constantly using force to extinguish you. i get it. it’s not an enviable position.
If the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, then I do my best to make sure those abuses are accurately highlighted. Here’s an example of me doing just that. I’m not going to pivot the conversation to a different area just to highlight unrelated flaws, though, that’s off-topic and rhetorically bad. Surely you can see that, right?
Like, yes, Stalin outlawing gay marriage was bad, indisputably. Bolsheviks that were pro-gay marriage like Kollontai should have been listened to. I don’t need to insert that or other critiques into every comment, though.
I think what they think is that citizens have bad judgement, so it ends in Maoist policies that sound good but ignore negative externalities. The tragedy of the commons is inevitable is their view.
i hear what you’re saying.
what i’m saying is, for myself, and at least a few “Left-curious” neo/libs/progs, we don’t want to trade one shit tyranny for another. and it’s obvious, documented history of some pretty glaring failures in AES. if you like, think of ppl like us as trauma victims. it’s probably true anyway.
it can go a long way to offer the olive branch and reassurance that, yes, you don’t want to just “red-wash” that all away, or that you aren’t just enamoured with Red aesthetic and lip-service while being YET ANOTHER group of mastubatory elitists who will trample the out-group-du-jour given the opportunity.
The problem typically arises from the necessity for confrontation of anticommunist myths about AES. Anyone growing up in the West is bombarded with Anticommunism, and simply being aware that that process exists doesn’t actually make you immune to it. Confronting the myths surrounding Communism is an important first step. “Red-washing” is a much, much smaller problem than you likely realize.
cool bro. you do you. you’re just not the guy i’m looking for, i guess. maybe the next one.
What would the person you’re looking for, so to speak, do that I’m not?
be an an anti-communist.
Seems like it, sadly.
no, it doesn’t seem like that at all. the fact that you, and person above you, think that, is exactly why you’re so far up your own butts that you can’t reach anyone.
This is going to sound incredibly facetious, but I’ve had multiple dozens of people directly thank me for reaching them. I can’t reach everyone, of course, but I know for a fact that I do reach many people, so your assertion that because I can’t seem to reach you that I must not be able to reach anyone is just not true.
I could absolutely be better at reaching people, of course I could, but I also know that different strategies work for different people, and some people simply don’t want to be reached to begin with.
they would be able to engage me, the human in front of them, without all the baggage of the movement establishing preconceptions.
In an ideal world, the Red Scare would not have existed, and we could discuss the genuine merits and struggles faced internally and externally in AES without that clouding discussion. Its why I prefer talking with comrades about the shortcomings in AES, as I know they aren’t doing it to undermine the achievements but to legitimately identify problems to solve.
I think, despite all of the struggles, that I do an okay job with engaging people open to listening.
well, you didn’t here.
I don’t see how that’s the case, but okay!