On Communism and Political Ideals

[Alexiev]

I'm reading Secondhand Time by Svetlana Alexievich (in fact, I borrowed my user name from her). Alexievich is the first journalist to win the Nobel Prize in literature. Her specialty is oral history -- interviewing and recording the memories of those who have lived through historic events. She is Belarusian, but is currently living abroad, hving fallen afoul of the Lukashenko government. I haven't read her other books, which include one about Chernoble.

In Secondhand Time former USSR citizens recall the Communist era. Although many of them deplore the oppression and the gulags, others look at the era with nostalgia. In one interview an old man (the interviews were done between 1990 and 2005) recalls the Russian Revolution fondly. He cherished his membership card in the Communist party. This despite the fact that first his wife and then he were sent off to prison camps as being counter-revolutionary during the Stalinist purges. His sin: failing to rat out his wife, even though she was innocent (although her conviction in a purge proved otherwise).

This man and others decry the rise of Capitalism. We used to discuss philosophy, politics and literature -- they say -- and now people talk about buying houses, mortgage and interest rates, and their dull businesses. Sound familiar? in the U.S. it is only too common.

Some of the interviewees bemoan the loss of idealism that accompanied the Communist movement. In the U.S., that seems all too prevalent. The Progressives are too busy whinging to bother picturing a desirable future. The Conservatives have co-opted the dreams, but unfortunately their ideals involve oppressing women and racial and cultural minorities, and promoting dying religions. Perhaps we are too rich and too satisfied with our lives to dream about a halcyon future. Russians (it seems to me, mainly from reading Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Buglakov) have (or used to have) a thoughtful intensity that the good life of Capitalist America has weakened.

Of course the Communist ideals are in opposition to Classic Liberalism, which (per Locke, Mill and Rousseau) emphasized individual rights and freedoms. The commune or collective is more important. Perhaps, however, there is a compromise.

When I was a young man (some time ago now) my elder mentors would tell me, "You young people have your heads in the clouds. When you get to my age, you will learn to drop your ideals and care about practical matters and practical politics."

Strangely, these mentors were lying to me. My ideals are much the same as ever, but my faith in practical politics has vanished. That, perhaps, is what the former Communists are sayijng.

[Gary Childress]

I'm reading Secondhand Time by Svetlana Alexievich (in fact, I borrowed my user name from her). Alexievich is the first journalist to win the Nobel Prize in literature. Her specialty is oral history -- interviewing and recording the memories of those who have lived through historic events. She is Belarusian, but is currently living abroad, hving fallen afoul of the Lukashenko government. I haven't read her other books, which include one about Chernoble.

In Secondhand Time former USSR citizens recall the Communist era. Although many of them deplore the oppression and the gulags, others look at the era with nostalgia. In one interview an old man (the interviews were done between 1990 and 2005) recalls the Russian Revolution fondly. He cherished his membership card in the Communist party. This despite the fact that first his wife and then he were sent off to prison camps as being counter-revolutionary during the Stalinist purges. His sin: failing to rat out his wife, even though she was innocent (although her conviction in a purge proved otherwise).

This man and others decry the rise of Capitalism. We used to discuss philosophy, politics and literature -- they say -- and now people talk about buying houses, mortgage and interest rates, and their dull businesses. Sound familiar? in the U.S. it is only too common.

Some of the interviewees bemoan the loss of idealism that accompanied the Communist movement. In the U.S., that seems all too prevalent. The Progressives are too busy whinging to bother picturing a desirable future. The Conservatives have co-opted the dreams, but unfortunately their ideals involve oppressing women and racial and cultural minorities, and promoting dying religions. Perhaps we are too rich and too satisfied with our lives to dream about a halcyon future. Russians (it seems to me, mainly from reading Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Buglakov) have (or used to have) a thoughtful intensity that the good life of Capitalist America has weakened.

Of course the Communist ideals are in opposition to Classic Liberalism, which (per Locke, Mill and Rousseau) emphasized individual rights and freedoms. The commune or collective is more important. Perhaps, however, there is a compromise.

When I was a young man (some time ago now) my elder mentors would tell me, "You young people have your heads in the clouds. When you get to my age, you will learn to drop your ideals and care about practical matters and practical politics."

Strangely, these mentors were lying to me. My ideals are much the same as ever, but my faith in practical politics has vanished. That, perhaps, is what the former Communists are sayijng.

Good luck in your new studies? I'm sure there are angry spiteful communists out there to be read also. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Alexiev]

Good luck in your new studies? I'm sure there are angry spiteful communists out there to be read also. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Alexievich interviews them, too. I mentioned the idealistic communists because they surprised me (while the ones who hated Stalin did not).

Another interesting book (novel) is Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler. The protagonist is imprisoned and tortured by a clearly Stalinist regime. He is an idealistic Communist, who supports World Revolution -- Stalin, apparently, wanted to consolidate the USSR.

The novel was listed in the top 10 English language novels of the 20th century by Modern Library. Strangely, it was originally written in German. Koestler's live-in English girlfriend translated the book into English while he was writing it. Koestler was a commie himself (and a Jew) and was living in Paris. The original was lost when the Germans invaded, so the English version was published. Apparently the original manuscript resurfaced in Switzerland a couple of years ago.

The protagonist doesn't want to sign a confession not because he is innocent, but because the confession his torturers want him to sign makes him seem idiotic. He wishes they would accuse him of a decent plot, at least.

[Gary Childress]

Good luck in your new studies? I'm sure there are angry spiteful communists out there to be read also. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Alexievich interviews them, too. I mentioned the idealistic communists because they surprised me (while the ones who hated Stalin did not).

Another interesting book (novel) is Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler. The protagonist is imprisoned and tortured by a clearly Stalinist regime. He is an idealistic Communist, who supports World Revolution -- Stalin, apparently, wanted to consolidate the USSR.

The novel was listed in the top 10 English language novels of the 20th century by Modern Library. Strangely, it was originally written in German. Koestler's live-in English girlfriend translated the book into English while he was writing it. Koestler was a commie himself (and a Jew) and was living in Paris. The original was lost when the Germans invaded, so the English version was published. Apparently the original manuscript resurfaced in Switzerland a couple of years ago.

The protagonist doesn't want to sign a confession not because he is innocent, but because the confession his torturers want him to sign makes him seem idiotic. He wishes they would accuse him of a decent plot, at least.

I read "Darkness at Noon" a long time ago. I recall the part where the protagonist is trying to teach a next-door cellmate how to communicate via tapping against the cell wall so that they are able to communicate. Mostly what I got out of the novel is that the Stalin government really was an atrocious monster. I don't disagree with that assessment. However, I do believe that the communists were justifiably rebelling against a real evil that exists in our world, concentrated power that is acting out in illegitimate ways. Chomsky himself in his later years has made a distinction between authority that is not justified and authority that is. In one recent interview, I saw he was praising Anarchism for its merits in challenging authority to find out if it is legitimate or not. However, I'm not sure to what extent he sees anarchy as the end game for society. I know he seemed to think that the reaction to COVID by the CDC wasn't a terrible thing as many on the right seem to think. I'm not sure how to see Chomsky's position these days but I can see merit to it. Perpetual disagreement for the sake of disagreement doesn't seem like a very worthy thing to aspire to. However, the freedom for any and all to speak out is important. I give Elon Musk points for tearing down the Twitter walls.

[promethean75]

"The commune or collective is more important"

It's like everybody in the world saw 1984 when they were seven and heard that slogan... and now they automatically think it whenever they hear the C word lol.

Please give me an example of something u, as an individual, would not be able to do - a privilege or freedom or right u wouldn't have - or something u wouldn't be able to own, or somewhere u wouldn't be able to go, if the C word (the M word version) became a reality and 'put the collective before u'.

With the exception of employing wage workers as a private business owner... which goes without saying obviously.

[Alexiev]

"The commune or collective is more important"

It's like everybody in the world saw 1984 when they were seven and heard that slogan... and now they automatically think it whenever they hear the C word lol.

Please give me an example of something u, as an individual, would not be able to do - a privilege or freedom or right u wouldn't have - or something u wouldn't be able to own, or somewhere u wouldn't be able to go, if the C word (the M word version) became a reality and 'put the collective before u'.

With the exception of employing wage workers as a private business owner... which goes without saying obviously.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's a basic Marxist principle, and (given my massive ability) perhaps I prefer not to offer quite that much to society. Maybe I like goofing off occasionally.

[Alexiev]

By the way, the chapters in Seocndhand Time I'm reading now are rememberances of the Great Patriotic War (as the Soviets called WWII). The tales are extremely dramatic, and the suffering must have been great (ity's estimated that Soviets lost 8-10 million soldiers killed and 10-15 million civilians. Some of the former soldiers remember the victory with a great deal of pride, and bemoan the younger, capitalist generation for a lack of consideration and respect..

[promethean75]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's a basic Marxist principle, and (given my massive ability) perhaps I prefer not to offer quite that much to society. Maybe I like goofing off occasionally."

Marx, Karl only means there that we shall not expect anyone to do what they cannot do, and what anyone should actually really 'need' should be readily available. And it can be. Plus, the worker would labor far less than he presently does and have plenty of time to goof off.

The future of marxism is the reduction of the work week. It's not about some pipe dream utopia where everything is equal and fair. It's about making widgets

[Alexiev]

Marx, Karl only means there that we shall not expect anyone to do what they cannot do, and what anyone should actually really 'need' should be readily available. And it can be. Plus, the worker would labor far less than he presently does and have plenty of time to goof off.

The future of marxism is the reduction of the work week. It's not about some pipe dream utopia where everything is equal and fair. It's about making widgets

I'm not an expert on Marx. I believe he thought that eventually technology would eliminate much of the need for labor. Nonetheless, the communist principle is that people have a moral obligation to work according to their ability to support the commune. Of course the same is true of the hunters and gatherers I've been lauding in another thread. It's also true that in Capitalist society parents are expected to support their children. For families (and hunter-gatherers who are generally close relatives) this labor in support of the commune is perhaps more natural and more appealing than in large, diverse societies where workers are alienated from their production. Have you ever read George Orwell's essay "Reflections on Ghandi"? Orwell opines that saints (like Gandhi) are required to love everyone equally. But most of us have no desire to be saints. For us love means favoring our children and our wives, and preferring to work for their benefit than for that of some stranger who lives 1000 miles away.