"Communism sounds great on paper - it just doesn't work in reality!" = most tedious line of conversation EVER?

hey i said creepy internet nazi humor was ok

love that jpg btw

I generally agree with Swat Valley High, to hopefully clarify my point, though: past the cold-war impression of the evil communist boogyman, a lot of young people (for whatever reasons they may have) look at communism as just a punchline, conveniently moving the history of it and theory behind it off to the side. These sorts of attitudes will probably at least annoy dedicated leftists, or people who have had to live through a lot of strife, because it replaces communist thought and history to a joke. I.e. it doesn't just make fun of the idea of it, but also pacifies it, in a way different from just mocking it (where it seems like there still can be an awareness of an actual communism, not just a detached reflection of it (usually the product of the stuff nabisco mentioned upthread, which lends itself to being camped up. Which has not all that much to do with Marxism and gulags, for instance).

Also, I just got the communist-party-as-a-party-joke, so that makes a lot more sense now. I'm not going to criticize you for that shirt, the concert poster I saw yesterday with that image for a background on the other hand. . . (also keep in mind, this is mostly based of pretty specific experience with people I've encountered, who aren't to smart to begin with).

you really think making a joke about communism completely trivializes it?

i mean, couldn't you say that about humourous takes on ANYTHING?

yes and no. I mean certain attitudes behind jokes appear to be more trivializing.

This might be a bit obvious, but if part of your complaint is that people just don't take communism seriously enough as a valid ideology, my response might be that it is sort of up to an ideology to justify itself to people, not the other way around

in america 'dedicated leftists' doesn't suggest 'communist' anymore. this is a good thing...above all for 'dedicated leftists' who want to be taken seriously.

rather, somebody could be a chomsky-reading-hardcore leftist stereotype and still wear/enjoy that t-shirt. how many real marxists are left to be offended by this?? I don't know any and I spend my life in berkeley+san francisco.

does it have to be offensive though? I just think it's a trivializing attitude, on the part of certain people, not necessarily these shirts on their own.

as an economic system, yes, communism has been pretty universally trivialized.

as a GIGANTIC part of 20th century history, I can't imagine it will ever be.

I don't really get your complaint since "lol communism" really entails laughing at the socialist regimes of past and present that were and are really pretty terrible. I am glad Lenin, Stalin etc. are now figures of fun, because they shouldn't be figures of admiration.

On the other hand what this kind of thing does not make fun of, and shouldn't, is certain Marxian concepts, approach to history and society that takes in to consideration economic factors as well as individual agency of politicians and diplomats, the socialist inspired labour movements and workers' rights etc.

One side of my family is in parts very far left-wing, and many of the family friends of my parents were committed socialists/communists. My uncle is a trotskyist and lived in Cuba in the 70s after being exiled from Chile. Two of my cousins grew up for similar reasons in the GDR (and hated it of course). etc. etc. The ones of these who have retained their far-left politics are all very sympathetic and I believe are in it for good reasons. However I am glad that their extreme politics are now discredited and that now their politics are only really reflected in good things: activism that promotes social justice and supports the labour movement, minorities and LGBT rights etc.

yes and no. I mean certain attitudes behind jokes appear to be more trivializing.

― Edward Saroyan, Friday, May 22, 2009 9:11 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i don't get it. you're angry on the behalf of hypothetical communist sympathizers who might not like jokes at stalin's expense because it trivializes marx's ideology? i mean seriously, who is giving marxism a worse name here, stalin or lol jokes people?

i feel like u are kind of trolling here saroyan

Achhh, I'm starting to get as confused as you, really. This started from what I thought was a pretty uncontroversial point which I apparently haven't thought out enough. I promise I'm not trying to troll here, nor am I really angry on behalf of anyone, nor am I trying to defend any aspect of communism (also I think a lot of people generally see stalin and marxist thought to be in the same boat)

fwiw, out of curiosity, I asked my Ukrainian friend if she thought it was funny. does not.

I don't know what else to say, let alone to vindicate my original point, so I'll take any opportunity to sneak out out this debate, but I just think it's a kind of lame humour, and generally empty critique.

okay went to get a second opinion, this time Russian:

Evgenia
of course it is haha
i think ive seen them on the red square

is there nothing more cringe-worthy than the "lol, communism" attitude of certain people today

The other day I saw an Asian guy wearing a shirt with a picture of Mao, and then underneath it said LMAO

This shouldn't push yr buttons, though, cause for all we know he was expressing his genuine and substantive contempt for Maoist ideology, and his opinion that it is ultimately laughable

Also, I just got the communist-party-as-a-party-joke, so that makes a lot more sense now.

^^^omg a+++

For the record I've softened on my stance since.

communism, lol

I do, however, resent people who don't mark any difference between communism, lol and socialism, lol.

the spelling, obv

communism fails because it does not go far enough in trying to reshape the possibilities of the human. usually it just results in typical power structures re-asserting themselves under the guise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. under a true collectivism there would be no central leader. every unit of the collective would be plugged in to all the others and have no reason to take orders. decisions would be distributed across the whole, acting as a single brain. to achieve this, advances in technology and social engineering are necessary. communism arose in a period when these advances were unthinkable, so its goals of true egalitarianism were of course in vain.

communism fails because different humans in seemingly similar circumstances will NECESSARILY want and believe radically different things about the fundamental nature of reality. this will remain true no matter how well or poorly educated these humans might happen to be. the vagaries of individual interpretation (even when demonstrably false) will always triumph over mechanistic/demographic assessments of aggregate needs and wants. the human is irrational and self-destructive by nature, and thus cannot be channeled or anticipated by purely rational, appolonian means.

which is why when the technology is perfected, human nature will be improved by us. it will be a long, arduous process resulting in many dead ends and false starts, but it will be achieved.

attempts to modify human behavior have historically been accomplished through flawed means. but the more we lear about the hu8man brain and body, the more we will learn to modify it. human nature is not static or immune to change.

apologies for the glitch--we mean "he more we learn about the human brain and body, the more we will learn to modify it."

I never understood the part about it looking great on paper, to be honest.

rap would sure get interesting in a communist society (I mean I guess The Coup would be the biggest act in the nation).

It'd be interesting to hear Young Jeezy spit "I'm well provided for by the government/Ain't slingin' no crack cuz I ain't got no rent"

I never understood the part about it looking great on paper, to be honest.

Buy a leather bound set of Das Kapital, it looks great on your shelves.

communism fails because different humans in seemingly similar circumstances will NECESSARILY want and believe radically different blablaba.

― having taken an actual journalism class (contenderizer), Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:57 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark

always the most shameful posts, those born of late night drunkenness and SERIUS THOTS

Came across this thread today. Check out commissar17 - not just a Stalin apologist but a big fan of the Taliban, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il. I didn't know people like this even existed anymore.

http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/2271/communists-in-stroud-green/#Item_0

I draw your attention to an excellent pamphlet entitled 'Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union' (available via the Stalin Society website).

my stepfather was a Stalin apologist. it was pretty bracing to actually learn the extent of Stalin's terror after growing up hearing about Comrade S.'s anti-nazi bona fides.

Robert Conquest published this photo in his Stalin bio. I love his caption:

http://visualrian.com/storage/PreviewWM/0047/44/4744.jpg?1259917735

"The next day, Stalin had her father shot"

not a Stalin apologist, but I may have posed as one in conversation before to troll well-meaning liberal anti-communists. in general, though, I don't like talking about dude unless the terms of the debate have been clearly established, or it's just too easy to end up shouting and talking past each other.

a friend of mine once got marked down on a history exam for writing something along the lines of "historians disagree on the extent to which Stalin's economic policies were directly responsible for the famines of 1932-3"; the T.A., apparently missing the irony, circled that sentence and wrote "I don't think they do"

The next day, the T.A. had his father shot.

"I got 40 commies up in here now who kill commies' fathers" - J. Stalin

a big fan of the Taliban, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il. I didn't know people like this even existed anymore.

erm

You must be reading a different Comment Is Free to me. The one I read is full of right-wing trolls and bored cynics.

xpost to aerosmith. Wow. Obviously US communists ignored, forgave or were honestly ignorant of a lot while Stalin was alive but after Khrushchev's denunciation I imagine your stepfather was in a very very small minority.

but I may have posed as one in conversation before to troll well-meaning liberal anti-communists.

Why?

i'm pretty left wing but i think communism looks pretty terrible even on paper.

i know they're not commies, but how bout those semi-socialist germans kicking everyone else's ass financially? go proles!

You must be reading a different Comment Is Free to me. The one I read is full of right-wing trolls and bored cynics.

this one?

guys guys ILX commune is the only way out of this

Came across this thread today. Check out commissar17 - not just a Stalin apologist but a big fan of the Taliban, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il. I didn't know people like this even existed anymore.

http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/2271/communists-in-stroud-green/#Item_0

― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Sunday, 17 October 2010 12:15 (10 hours ago) Bookmark

I'm happy to talk to you (or, indeed, anyone else) about our position regarding the DPRK and Zimbabwe. In the first case, that of North Korea, we recognize it for what it is -- a socialist country which has eliminated the exploitation of man by man and, in case it escaped anybody's attention, the first country to fight U$ imperialism to a humiliating standstill.

Obviously US communists ignored, forgave or were honestly ignorant of a lot while Stalin was alive but after Khrushchev's denunciation I imagine your stepfather was in a very very small minority.

― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Sunday, October 17, 2010 10:24 PM (39 minutes ago) Bookmark

people kept on making excuses way after that. in france 1956 didn't change much: a bigger watershed was the publication of the 'gulag archipelago' two decades later. and a lot of people just get round the problem -- i think i used to, a bit -- by saying it was all stalin's doing or w/e.

what do you mean by "in france 1956 didn't change much"? legitimately confused here.

i think that he was talking about the mindset of French Communists, not that nothing in France itself had changed much in the twenty years after 1956.

yep. obviously there were little modifications, recondite philosophical tinkerings. and you have to come to grips with what maoism meant to mean to french intellectuals in the 60s/early 70s -- probably not a celebration of unnecessary famine, mass murder, work camps, but idk. but from what i've read anyway it was the mid-70s and 'the gulag archipelago' that really tore them away from totalitarian communism; hence the attacks on grand narratives, etc.