Makes me think all the stuff about “purity tests” that “the left” gets accused of is pure projection. Because like, setting aside the fact that these people tend to use talking points of events that are exaggerated, distorted, or outright lies about something “communism did,” they are always so quick to attribute any sort of perceived failure under a socialist state to communism, but will drag their feet about ever doing the same with capitalism. I find it goes something like: “If someone dies under capitalism, it’s because human nature is flawed and you can’t prevent all harm, but capitalism is as good as it gets. If someone dies under communism, it’s because communists are always cartoonishly evil no matter how good it sounds on paper and they are simultaneously weak rulers who can’t accomplish anything and totalitarian regimes who monitor every minute of their citizens’ lives and do their best to make it a living hell for no apparent reason.” At least with capital, we can point to a system level motive for exploitation and dominance of others, how the mechanisms of accumulating and holding onto capital are directly tied to that. Where is the motive among communists? If they are as evil as they are made out to be, what is the point of them doing a communism when they can do a capitalism and be praised as “freedom free” while being exploitative of others?
It’s like that line in Blackshirts and Reds (bold emphasis mine):
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
Communist theory and practice actively takes on the idea of being anything but purity, of contending with the “flaws”, so to speak, on a scientific level and working toward better. But it gets characterized as utopian and held to unrealistic standards of perfection because… it has a positive vision for the future? Augh, it makes my head hurt.
Makes me think all the stuff about “purity tests” that “the left” gets accused of is pure projection. Because like, setting aside the fact that these people tend to use talking points of events that are exaggerated, distorted, or outright lies about something “communism did,” they are always so quick to attribute any sort of perceived failure under a socialist state to communism, but will drag their feet about ever doing the same with capitalism. I find it goes something like: “If someone dies under capitalism, it’s because human nature is flawed and you can’t prevent all harm, but capitalism is as good as it gets. If someone dies under communism, it’s because communists are always cartoonishly evil no matter how good it sounds on paper and they are simultaneously weak rulers who can’t accomplish anything and totalitarian regimes who monitor every minute of their citizens’ lives and do their best to make it a living hell for no apparent reason.” At least with capital, we can point to a system level motive for exploitation and dominance of others, how the mechanisms of accumulating and holding onto capital are directly tied to that. Where is the motive among communists? If they are as evil as they are made out to be, what is the point of them doing a communism when they can do a capitalism and be praised as “freedom free” while being exploitative of others?
It’s like that line in Blackshirts and Reds (bold emphasis mine):
Communist theory and practice actively takes on the idea of being anything but purity, of contending with the “flaws”, so to speak, on a scientific level and working toward better. But it gets characterized as utopian and held to unrealistic standards of perfection because… it has a positive vision for the future? Augh, it makes my head hurt.