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.'
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.
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.