Saint-Raphaël's right-wing mayor, no stranger to media stunts, has vowed to 'put an end to the lies about the reality of communist totalitarianism.' In response, the French Communist Party and other left-wing groups denounced the 'revisionism of history.'
Wrong. While a large number of communist labelled regimes were in fact totalitarian regimes (whether they actually were communist is another debate), totalitarianism is not inherent to communism (and it can be argued that a democratic foundation is necessary for communism or that communism is the democratisation of labour). However, fascism is characterised by (among others) an extreme form of authoritarianism (i.e. totalitarianism) that is structured after the Führerprinzip.
Lots of things can be argued in academics. The largest communist experiments have been totalitarian. The idea that democracy is a core component to a communist society is now more commonly referred to as democratic socialism.
Instead of doubling down, why don’t you do some research on Venezuela to understand what context democratic socialism applies to, or literally just look up the structure of any communist party (Hint: its democratic)
Democratic centralism is a Leninist organisational principle of most communist parties, in which decisions are made by a process of vigorous and open debate amongst party membership, and action is subsequently binding upon all members of the party.
Same guy, I made this account when I traveled to China, because HB and .ml are blocked. Ironically, .world isn’t. I stayed because less drama.
Which communist party is or was democratic
Nearly all of them, though in practice there are varying levels of corruption. A Vietnamese is much more likely to say “socialism means our government has to listen everyone” than an American say “democracy means our government has to listen to everyone”. Cuba is a particularly good example of democracy.
You’re doing the same both sides shit as the fascist mayor.
Total control by the working class is not the same as total control by the bourgeois we live under or the total control by fascist weirdos the bourgeois settle for when their system is in crisis.
That totalitarian and authoritarian are dumb words because they equate the working class being in control with the bourgeois being in control. Its as silly as saying we need a healthy balance between tyranny and democracy.
Do you think that you specifically, as a worker, would have more power under totalitarian communism? Your voice and your opinions would be taken into account by the unaccountable leaders? Do you really think you would even be allowed to critique party policy?
I would simply not vote for a leader who I didn’t like.
Your voice and your opinions would be taken into account
The average Chinese or Cuban feels more represented than the average American, in Vietnam it seems like the more rural areas feel strongly represented, while the urban residents are more likely to feel they have no power and the whole system has become rotten.
A few years ago, Cuba had a referendum on a new constitution. After years of local discussions, revisions, and more discussion, they came up with a document that most everyone agreed with, it passed with over 90% support.
That’s a great statistic, >90%. Shows up all over the place in communist literature. I’m sure it’s a sign of a well functioning democracy with diverse opinions represented.
If you think Cuba lied about the 85% turnout and 90% in favor vote, it should be trivial to disprove via statistics. Hell just ask 30 randos how they voted.
I didn’t say they lied. I implied it’s illegal for citizens to disagree. Putin also wins with similar percentages, and maybe there’s some fuckery, but our best evidence is that Putin is similarly extremely popular in capitalist totalitarian Russia.
Looking at the Soviet take in the topic: both were totalitarian, though. I wouldn’t call them “two sides of the same coin” as that mayor, but each on their own used a totalitarian approach to achieve their goals.
In the end it won’t matter much to you if you’re locked up because you have the wrong religion or because you are the wrong social class.
If I was a rich landowner in Soviet Russia or Mao’s China, and I didn’t want to go to jail or be made to wear a silly hat and paraded around town, I would simply not burn my crops and instead support the workers. But maybe I’m just built different.
No, there were definitely mistakes made, which are worth studying. I don’t believe the solution is less worker control, which nearly every western perspective on any such cases aims to make.
Edit: Life and terror in Stalin’s Russia is a pretty good book on the subject.
That sounds like although you see some errors, you overall agree with their approach of totalitarianism?
I don’t believe the solution is less worker control
Was/is there actual worker control in these systems, though? Are the migrant workers from rural areas in China actually in control of the country? How much influence did the ordinary workers actually have on the party elites running the countries in the Soviet Bloc? In the end, the ordinary workers didn’t seem to be so happy with their control, when they opposed and toppled the system.
I have never been to the USSR and its too vast a subject spanning too long a period for me to develop strong opinions, but I know all but the lowest ranking party members had to be elected, and during purges, every member would be tested and their constituents were invited to air any flaws in the members actions or character.
In the end, the ordinary workers didn’t seem to be so happy with their control, when they opposed and toppled the system.
In the end, Yeltsin shot the congress building with a tank to stop them from meeting and carrying out what they were elected to do.
I haven’t had too many political conversations in rural China, but I did see more nostalgia for the past and individual patriotic displays. Mao print mugs aren’t uncommon, but in the city a young person told me it was all passe.
But to answer your original question, the question is like “do you think there can be too democratic of a system?” The alternative to total worker control is partial or total control by the bourgeois or aristocracy or w/e.
In the end, Yeltsin shot the congress building with a tank to stop them from meeting and carrying out what they were elected to do.
That was 1993, so after the coup attempt by the Communist Party and after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. Up until that point, there already had been widespread cracks throughout the entire Union and its bloc - or what was left of it. What happened a few years prior in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square is certainly known to you. Somehow, the average workers were of the opinion that this system didn’t work for them, there was widespread discontent. Isn’t that something that should be considered in a form of reflecting self-criticism, given that officially, the power should be in the hands of the working class.
the question is like “do you think there can be too democratic of a system?”
Imo, there absolutely can be a “too democratic” of a system. If everything is decided by majority alone, there will be very little room for minorities. The real value of a system comes from how minorities are treated in it.
The alternative to total worker control is partial or total control by the bourgeois or aristocracy or w/e.
Yet, in stable democracies, you find awfully few labour camps for political opponents. Why don’t these systems need totalitarianism to be stable and widely accepted by their citizens? Why do these countries regularly score highest in terms of happiness of their citizens?
It all comes down to, do you believe that it’s possible to mislead people? And relatedly, can you deceive a whole population? I have seen so much evidence that propaganda works, living in our shared capitalist hellscape. I cannot see a >90% agreement, on pretty much any question ever formulated, without a loooot of programming. Nothing is ever that popular naturally. These are not populations that are routinely exposed to differing opinions. Totalitarianism, in all it’s forms, has these same indicators: screwy election numbers, cults of personality, government enforced and socially enforced orthopraxis and orthodoxy, etc. It is not a system where you have anything resembling agency.
There are plenty of systems under the umbrella term of “communism,” not all of which are totalitarian. If you’re specifically talking about Marxist-Leninism (the Soviet and Chinese implementation) then yeah fair that sucks, but when you just say “communists” you’re also including folks like council communists.
From my perspective as a radical social liberal, it seems to me that totalitarian and authoritarian outcomes are inherent to any form of socialism which embrace revolution, or the complete replacement of societal institutions, and communism is of course the poster child. This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
When you go back in history, and read letters written by the losers of party power struggles, before they lost, or read accounts of things they said, you will often find their sheer naivety to be striking, I find.
My personal theory is that several of the methods used to come to power, many of the power structures that emerge, and the eventual new institutions that are created, are strong tools for exercising power, while they often only have weak guards to prevent abuses of power. The most cynical members of a party will use and abuse them, they will come to dominate, and they will not get rid of these weaknesses in the system, thereby removing their own advantage in wielding, maintaining and grabbing for more power.
It’s interesting how socialism is an ideology that is very focused on power relations and dynamics (employer vs. employee for instance), presents itself as an equaliser or a liberator of people being subject to others, and has a lot of political theory at its foundation, and yet, it seemingly has such a glaring blind spot of falling victim to itself.
I think everyone on the far left would benefit immensely, from going back and reading a whole lot of early liberal thought about power and the state. From back when it was more just a strand of political theory, than an ideology as such. And when I say they would benefit, I mean it genuinely, in that it would help them ensure that whatever political change they might become a part in bringing about, will be able to serve it’s original goals, rather than quickly become corrupted.
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism. Except, perhaps, if your view is that the state is, and should be total and absolute, then that is of course incompatible with putting restrictions on its power, or dividing it into separate parts that must check each other.
This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
“Whether or not” examples on the “not” part?
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism.
The right to private property and wealth accumulation. Aka the so-called “free” market. Property rights as a core part of liberty (meaning that when you violate someone’s private property you violate their liberty) is an idea at the core of liberal thought. Meanwhile socialist ideologies are all built on the idea of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. This is a fundamental, irreconcilable contradiction.
… different totalitarian concepts.
Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a democracy then by your logic?
Wrong. While a large number of communist labelled regimes were in fact totalitarian regimes (whether they actually were communist is another debate), totalitarianism is not inherent to communism (and it can be argued that a democratic foundation is necessary for communism or that communism is the democratisation of labour). However, fascism is characterised by (among others) an extreme form of authoritarianism (i.e. totalitarianism) that is structured after the Führerprinzip.
Lots of things can be argued in academics. The largest communist experiments have been totalitarian. The idea that democracy is a core component to a communist society is now more commonly referred to as democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism isn’t socialism, except with democracy lmao.
Great argument, once again. By the virtue of simply disagreeing with me, you’ve proven yourself smarter. Wonderful job.
Instead of doubling down, why don’t you do some research on Venezuela to understand what context democratic socialism applies to, or literally just look up the structure of any communist party (Hint: its democratic)
Looks at the CCP…
Wow, it’s so Democratic, I say nervously.
Well they regularly act in the interest of the people against the interest of the bourgeois.
But maybe they mostly do what the people want because they just want power and their system rewards that.
Based on recent events, I really don’t know if that’s true.
Hahaha, someone over here thinks that the Chinese Communist Party is actually Communist. But also some how Democratic.
Hahahahahahaha
@Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz @alcoholicorn@hexbear.net
Which communist party is or was democratic?
Democratic centralism
Organization of the Chinese Communist Party
Same guy, I made this account when I traveled to China, because HB and .ml are blocked. Ironically, .world isn’t. I stayed because less drama.
Nearly all of them, though in practice there are varying levels of corruption. A Vietnamese is much more likely to say “socialism means our government has to listen everyone” than an American say “democracy means our government has to listen to everyone”. Cuba is a particularly good example of democracy.
So, just “you’re wrong” again. Great discourse we’re having.
You’re doing the same both sides shit as the fascist mayor.
Total control by the working class is not the same as total control by the bourgeois we live under or the total control by fascist weirdos the bourgeois settle for when their system is in crisis.
You are acknowledging total control in both systems, but are arguing against the word totalitarian to describe them. What is your actual argument?
That totalitarian and authoritarian are dumb words because they equate the working class being in control with the bourgeois being in control. Its as silly as saying we need a healthy balance between tyranny and democracy.
Do you think that you specifically, as a worker, would have more power under totalitarian communism? Your voice and your opinions would be taken into account by the unaccountable leaders? Do you really think you would even be allowed to critique party policy?
I would simply not vote for a leader who I didn’t like.
The average Chinese or Cuban feels more represented than the average American, in Vietnam it seems like the more rural areas feel strongly represented, while the urban residents are more likely to feel they have no power and the whole system has become rotten.
A few years ago, Cuba had a referendum on a new constitution. After years of local discussions, revisions, and more discussion, they came up with a document that most everyone agreed with, it passed with over 90% support.
Could you please cite a source? How much of that is toeing the party line so they don’t get asked out for tea?
That’s a great statistic, >90%. Shows up all over the place in communist literature. I’m sure it’s a sign of a well functioning democracy with diverse opinions represented.
If you think Cuba lied about the 85% turnout and 90% in favor vote, it should be trivial to disprove via statistics. Hell just ask 30 randos how they voted.
I didn’t say they lied. I implied it’s illegal for citizens to disagree. Putin also wins with similar percentages, and maybe there’s some fuckery, but our best evidence is that Putin is similarly extremely popular in capitalist totalitarian Russia.
Looking at the Soviet take in the topic: both were totalitarian, though. I wouldn’t call them “two sides of the same coin” as that mayor, but each on their own used a totalitarian approach to achieve their goals.
In the end it won’t matter much to you if you’re locked up because you have the wrong religion or because you are the wrong social class.
If I was a rich landowner in Soviet Russia or Mao’s China, and I didn’t want to go to jail or be made to wear a silly hat and paraded around town, I would simply not burn my crops and instead support the workers. But maybe I’m just built different.
Hm, but you wouldn’t say that everyone persecuted in China or the Soviet Union deserved said persecution, would you?
No, there were definitely mistakes made, which are worth studying. I don’t believe the solution is less worker control, which nearly every western perspective on any such cases aims to make.
Edit: Life and terror in Stalin’s Russia is a pretty good book on the subject.
That sounds like although you see some errors, you overall agree with their approach of totalitarianism?
Was/is there actual worker control in these systems, though? Are the migrant workers from rural areas in China actually in control of the country? How much influence did the ordinary workers actually have on the party elites running the countries in the Soviet Bloc? In the end, the ordinary workers didn’t seem to be so happy with their control, when they opposed and toppled the system.
I have never been to the USSR and its too vast a subject spanning too long a period for me to develop strong opinions, but I know all but the lowest ranking party members had to be elected, and during purges, every member would be tested and their constituents were invited to air any flaws in the members actions or character.
In the end, Yeltsin shot the congress building with a tank to stop them from meeting and carrying out what they were elected to do.
I haven’t had too many political conversations in rural China, but I did see more nostalgia for the past and individual patriotic displays. Mao print mugs aren’t uncommon, but in the city a young person told me it was all passe.
But to answer your original question, the question is like “do you think there can be too democratic of a system?” The alternative to total worker control is partial or total control by the bourgeois or aristocracy or w/e.
That was 1993, so after the coup attempt by the Communist Party and after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. Up until that point, there already had been widespread cracks throughout the entire Union and its bloc - or what was left of it. What happened a few years prior in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square is certainly known to you. Somehow, the average workers were of the opinion that this system didn’t work for them, there was widespread discontent. Isn’t that something that should be considered in a form of reflecting self-criticism, given that officially, the power should be in the hands of the working class.
Imo, there absolutely can be a “too democratic” of a system. If everything is decided by majority alone, there will be very little room for minorities. The real value of a system comes from how minorities are treated in it.
Yet, in stable democracies, you find awfully few labour camps for political opponents. Why don’t these systems need totalitarianism to be stable and widely accepted by their citizens? Why do these countries regularly score highest in terms of happiness of their citizens?
It all comes down to, do you believe that it’s possible to mislead people? And relatedly, can you deceive a whole population? I have seen so much evidence that propaganda works, living in our shared capitalist hellscape. I cannot see a >90% agreement, on pretty much any question ever formulated, without a loooot of programming. Nothing is ever that popular naturally. These are not populations that are routinely exposed to differing opinions. Totalitarianism, in all it’s forms, has these same indicators: screwy election numbers, cults of personality, government enforced and socially enforced orthopraxis and orthodoxy, etc. It is not a system where you have anything resembling agency.
There are plenty of systems under the umbrella term of “communism,” not all of which are totalitarian. If you’re specifically talking about Marxist-Leninism (the Soviet and Chinese implementation) then yeah fair that sucks, but when you just say “communists” you’re also including folks like council communists.
From my perspective as a radical social liberal, it seems to me that totalitarian and authoritarian outcomes are inherent to any form of socialism which embrace revolution, or the complete replacement of societal institutions, and communism is of course the poster child. This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
When you go back in history, and read letters written by the losers of party power struggles, before they lost, or read accounts of things they said, you will often find their sheer naivety to be striking, I find.
My personal theory is that several of the methods used to come to power, many of the power structures that emerge, and the eventual new institutions that are created, are strong tools for exercising power, while they often only have weak guards to prevent abuses of power. The most cynical members of a party will use and abuse them, they will come to dominate, and they will not get rid of these weaknesses in the system, thereby removing their own advantage in wielding, maintaining and grabbing for more power.
It’s interesting how socialism is an ideology that is very focused on power relations and dynamics (employer vs. employee for instance), presents itself as an equaliser or a liberator of people being subject to others, and has a lot of political theory at its foundation, and yet, it seemingly has such a glaring blind spot of falling victim to itself.
I think everyone on the far left would benefit immensely, from going back and reading a whole lot of early liberal thought about power and the state. From back when it was more just a strand of political theory, than an ideology as such. And when I say they would benefit, I mean it genuinely, in that it would help them ensure that whatever political change they might become a part in bringing about, will be able to serve it’s original goals, rather than quickly become corrupted.
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism. Except, perhaps, if your view is that the state is, and should be total and absolute, then that is of course incompatible with putting restrictions on its power, or dividing it into separate parts that must check each other.
“Whether or not” examples on the “not” part?
The right to private property and wealth accumulation. Aka the so-called “free” market. Property rights as a core part of liberty (meaning that when you violate someone’s private property you violate their liberty) is an idea at the core of liberal thought. Meanwhile socialist ideologies are all built on the idea of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. This is a fundamental, irreconcilable contradiction.
Here’s another dumbass