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.'
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.
You can just go to Cuba and ask them. Don’t book a flight from America or mention that you did or the US state department might cause problems, but its not like 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.
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?
https://ash.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf
But the og source is just talking to people who live in China, either in China or traveling to nearby countries.
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.
You can just go to Cuba and ask them. Don’t book a flight from America or mention that you did or the US state department might cause problems, but its not like 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.