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.'
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?
When a liberal country says this, the only minority they’re protecting is the capitalist class.
Are China and Vietnam less democratic because they grant autonomy and special representation to minorities? I wouldn’t say so, because democracy means rule by the people and those people’s unique situations mean they’re affected differently by the same rules, so its more democratic for them to have their own institutions and protections.
Honestly I am divided on the subject; you have a hmong sending their children out to beg or dance on a school night, its the end result of a cascade of social failures. I don’t think it could be solved by giving the minority fewer tools to deal with it.
few labour camps for political opponents
All prisoners are political.
But also spending a few months working alongside the people you’re supposed to represent is an ideal punishment for failures to represent them, IIRC both president Xi and his father were purged at various points.
Imagine if the people of Arizona/WV could have recalled Kyrstyn Synoma/Manchin and sent them to plant trees for 6 months in 2020.
When a liberal country says this, the only minority they’re protecting is the capitalist class.
Yet, in modern democracies in Europe you have protective clauses granting special rights for minorities. Both the Soviet Union and China meanwhile are/were extremly keen on streamlining the local culture under the roof of Russian/Han leadership. If the system works so well for the average worker, why the need to suppress local cultures, languages, religions…? Be it in Sinkiang or in Tibet. Why do the Chinese think that the Han culture is surpreme to all the other cultures on current Chinese territory if the common struggle of the working class knows no (cultural) borders?
All prisoners are political.
Yet you won’t find that many people in stable democracies that are imprisoned for their political views, not to mention labour camps. In the totalitarian states, however, both a far more common.
But also spending a few months working alongside the people you’re supposed to represent is an ideal punishment for failures to represent them, IIRC both president Xi and his father were purged at various points.
The big question remains whether these potential purges were actually initiated by the people (the masses) or by the party (the elites). The fundamental dilemma remains whether the interest of the party is actually equal with the interest of the people, despite the omnipresent label that the elites act on behalf of the masses. In case of the Soviet model implemented in their bloc, the verdict of the people actually living under it have been rather clear: the vast majority of people having lived in such a system and managed to overcome it absolutely don’t want to go back to it. Shouldn’t that make one wonder?
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 can’t imagine anything that 90+% of people would agree on?
Because I sure can.
People need to be fed, have a place to sleep and hide from nature.
And what agency do we have now in the west? Can we stop the climate catastrophy? PFAS and microplastics from entering our bloodstream? The US couldn’t even stop a fascist takeover.
I very much dislike people who try to paint politics as an opinions game, while foregoing the basic function of state as caring for its citizens.
I very much dislike people who don’t realize that agency and democracy are the foundational human right, the one from which all other rights stem. Without the ability to play the “opinions game”, as you call it, whether or not you go hungry is up to the leadership, not you. If you don’t have a right to your own opinion, you do not have any control. It’s pretty fucking simple. You can’t make things better without agency. Nothing will ever get better by just passing the buck to totalitarian leaders and hoping they fix everything for you.
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?
When a liberal country says this, the only minority they’re protecting is the capitalist class.
Are China and Vietnam less democratic because they grant autonomy and special representation to minorities? I wouldn’t say so, because democracy means rule by the people and those people’s unique situations mean they’re affected differently by the same rules, so its more democratic for them to have their own institutions and protections.
Honestly I am divided on the subject; you have a hmong sending their children out to beg or dance on a school night, its the end result of a cascade of social failures. I don’t think it could be solved by giving the minority fewer tools to deal with it.
All prisoners are political.
But also spending a few months working alongside the people you’re supposed to represent is an ideal punishment for failures to represent them, IIRC both president Xi and his father were purged at various points.
Imagine if the people of Arizona/WV could have recalled Kyrstyn Synoma/Manchin and sent them to plant trees for 6 months in 2020.
Yet, in modern democracies in Europe you have protective clauses granting special rights for minorities. Both the Soviet Union and China meanwhile are/were extremly keen on streamlining the local culture under the roof of Russian/Han leadership. If the system works so well for the average worker, why the need to suppress local cultures, languages, religions…? Be it in Sinkiang or in Tibet. Why do the Chinese think that the Han culture is surpreme to all the other cultures on current Chinese territory if the common struggle of the working class knows no (cultural) borders?
Yet you won’t find that many people in stable democracies that are imprisoned for their political views, not to mention labour camps. In the totalitarian states, however, both a far more common.
The big question remains whether these potential purges were actually initiated by the people (the masses) or by the party (the elites). The fundamental dilemma remains whether the interest of the party is actually equal with the interest of the people, despite the omnipresent label that the elites act on behalf of the masses. In case of the Soviet model implemented in their bloc, the verdict of the people actually living under it have been rather clear: the vast majority of people having lived in such a system and managed to overcome it absolutely don’t want to go back to it. Shouldn’t that make one wonder?
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 can’t imagine anything that 90+% of people would agree on?
Because I sure can.
People need to be fed, have a place to sleep and hide from nature.
And what agency do we have now in the west? Can we stop the climate catastrophy? PFAS and microplastics from entering our bloodstream? The US couldn’t even stop a fascist takeover.
I very much dislike people who try to paint politics as an opinions game, while foregoing the basic function of state as caring for its citizens.
I very much dislike people who don’t realize that agency and democracy are the foundational human right, the one from which all other rights stem. Without the ability to play the “opinions game”, as you call it, whether or not you go hungry is up to the leadership, not you. If you don’t have a right to your own opinion, you do not have any control. It’s pretty fucking simple. You can’t make things better without agency. Nothing will ever get better by just passing the buck to totalitarian leaders and hoping they fix everything for you.