Source
r/DebateCommunism•
Onemoagain

Western academia, CIA shills and Communism

🍵 Discussion

Alright, so I've been trying to get informed about Communism on reddit for the last six months or so, and have been finding it extremely infuriating.

I'll start by saying that I haven't read very much Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao/Stalin for the same reasons why I haven't read very much Voltaire, Shakespeare or Montesquieu, or even the Bible (its not particularly easy reading, and translations/modernizations can be full of revisions and biases).

Anyways. In most threads I've been in, without fail, there's someone defending China (past or present), the DPRK, the USSR. To me, a lot of the defenses seem like some hardcore mental gymnastics, and often, I feel like arguments boil down to "what-about-isms" re-Capitalist countries. In many threads, folks will criticize these previously mentioned "communist" states with academic/scholarly sources, and their defenders will reply with stickied posts on r/communism written by u-bumblefuckwhoknowswho. A lot of the time the defenders seem to claim that all of western media/institutions/academia are just CIA shills or are intrinsically biased against communist countries and that sources that come from them cant be trusted for those reasons. Then they turn around and either cite Marx (a western academic that was *very* western afaik) or some random reddit users, or some cheap documentary on youtube in 240p. This makes it very hard for lots of folks coming from a liberal background to learn about this topic on here, because, IMO, reddit communism is kinda on a flat-earth level of sourcing etc.

So I'm wondering if this is just the current state of reddit communism. If I want to be a communist, do I need to wake up and realize that the scientific method I was taught in school is a sham and that the academic and scientific institutions are all biased? Or is there some merit to the western academic community?

And I'm not saying that aren't any biases, or there aren't some bad actors. But I find it troubling that these same people will turn around with either no sources, extremely amateur sources (that reek of flat-earth levels of intellectualism), our Chinese/DPRK/USSR sources as if these countries aren't also playing the same "psy-ops" games.

I hope this doesn't break rules 4 and 5 (which are fairly subjective and probably depend on the mods tolerance). Obviously I'm making a criticism of reddit communism, but it doesnt mean that I'm not here to learn and listen. I am looking to hear people's perspectives and am open to criticism. Thanks yall.

***Edit***
Just want to re-interate that I don't claim to actually know anything. I'm just voicing a criticism, and hoping to get interesting conversation. Also, this post was in response to this thread: ( https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/ec6iuh/if_china_is_communist_then_why_didnt_the_us/fb9ziw5?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x ). It seemed like the "pro-communist" commenter was dismissing the source from the world bank just because it was a western source so it must inherently be pro-west and anti-communism. To a degree that's true. There's a capitalist apriori. But also, the biggest critics of the west and of capitalist countries are probably people in those countries. Different UN organizations and NGOs are always criticizing western countries. Granted there is also a good deal of shall we say corruption going on in the UN that is in favour of the G7 countries.

All this to say that I'm new to this, and I'm taking it slow, and am going to be critical all through my journey with communism, especially when it comes to contemporary geo-political stuff.

Posted Dec 18, 2019, 10:54 PM UTC · edited

3259
Teaiayummi•

The scientific method is not a "sham" but depending on your level of education you may be aware that not all methods of analysis are effective in the same ways as others, particularly when dealing with the world of the subjective (ie: politics, social science, etc). Marxists do not reject scientific analysis, they just also apply dialectical analysis to provide additional insight. This was an aside. Let me get to my actual point:

I'm sure being a liberal learning about Communism is frustrating. I feel for you. I often wish my self study contained less intense philosophical texts and more accessible options. Here is the thing: "reputable" institutions (media or academia) that provide accessible learning like you desire have absolutely no motivation to publish easy to digest Marxist analysis of history, politics, or society.

America won the cold-war, the victor writes the history. A lot of claims about the States you mentioned are often not as scientific as you think they are, and rely on the fact that no one is going to double take. I work in academia, and since the McCarthy era there has been a significant effort to remove Marxist analysis, history, and economics from Universities. Not just classes, but research as well. It is not some tin foil hat conspiracy, it's simple to explain. There aren't socialist stock brokers either. Research and endowments require private donors. There are many decentralized incentives not to publish the work of a communist.

What qualifies as "reputable" is difficult as well. Institutions with some of the highest paid professionals, large budgets for online catalogs, etc, require funding. These are capitalist institutions. This doesn't mean that everything published is bad, it just means that there is a temptation to rinse, repeat, or stretch many tired ahistoric narratives about the States you mentioned. To the dismay of many Soviet and Polish historians, writing against the accepted doxa seriously harms their reputability as scholars. Reputability relies on anti-communism.

Okay, so what if the accepted doxa is reasonable? What if these things aren't published because they are nonsense!? The difficulty here is that the primary sources from the era seriously contest a lot of the popular narrative. Primary sources like various government forms and legislative minutes (Soviet or American), declassified American intelligence, 1st hand political accounts, published data from the time, etc, contest the doxa. As someone skeptical going into research on this topic I've began to feel as if academics on Soviet History has become about making an anti communist name for yourself, where you pat yourself on the back for inflating political tragedy.

Where does this lead dedicated scholars and impassioned laymen? Archives are difficult to access and share online legally. Archives in Russian, polish, Korean, etc are hard to make accessible. A few awesome people have taken to uploading scans of important records inaccessible to the average public OR searching the internet for the publishings that do exist and the government documents that are somehow published online and creating masterposts where they make that reading more accessible to others.

Genuinely reading and learning about communist history means going through those sources and reading, reading, reading. It will not be easily digestible. If it is, it's not going to be coming from the New York Times but instead some rando with a microphone who has taken from the records what they thought was the best analysis and sharing it with others.

I don't want to be offensive, because I do relate and sympathize with the difficulty. However, if you're serious about studying politics and history you cannot just rely on what is easily accessible. You will have to read theory. You will have to dig for history. You will have to learn the stories of what publishers and academics really did commit brazen acts of academic dishonesty. Reddit threads help direct, you do the reading and thinking yourself. This is not about Western vs. Eastern (although for Chinese academic reliability those perceptions play a role). This is not about a rejection of science. This is about institutional doctrine, capitalism's affects on academia/journalism, and lingering cold war propaganda (which we know the CIA plays a role in. Do some research on "Radio Free", and the National Endowment for Democracy. NGO's have a serious role in cold war and modern politics and a monopoly on information). Edit- fixed a small silly error

25
Teaiayummi•

Also, if you would like some references for some specific historic interests, I would be happy to help if I can. I have amassed a small collection of primary and secondary sources on some issues that I'm happy to share if you have a particular interest in mind. However, that wouldn't be too different than going through the threads on this subreddit and other masterposts to look for them yourself.

7
OnemoagainOP•

I would say that my experience hasnt been that the scientific method is seen as a sham. Just that western scientists are very quickly dismissed, and replaced with communist theorists. Which, dont get me wrong, communist theorists and scientists are great. But you cant say "no theyre capitalist shills under the influence of western intellectual hegemony" and then expect someone to just take you or your's word that your sources are authentic. Theyre not attacking the actual arguments but rather the source, which is a two sided argument that holds just as much weight in a debate, no? So I take issue with the double standard by lots of folks in these subreddits regarding the source of information rather than the validity of the information itself. (Though there is certain people that can inherantly be dismissed, like say Trump, or Shapiro or some other ridiculous pundit, but only because theyve demonstrated that theyre ignorant and untrustworthy.

1
Teaiayummi•

Hmmm I kind of think you're connecting two unconnected things. Communist theorist's analysis can be utilized to gain insight on Communist history. They are not in direct competition to the idea of "western" academia. Or science. If there is a discussion regarding data achieved through the scientific method, you'll likely see comparison between different political scientists experiments and outcomes. Irregardless of western vs. eastern, and often sometimes even irregardless of communist vs. liberal (although anti communist work is often not upheld by communists for obvious reasons). Are you confusing Academic institutions from America, the UK, Australia, etc as inherently scientific? Where does communist theory come in? The explanation around why an event occurred OR why we may have misconceptions about it now is super ripe for Hitmat. This is a good way to apply theory. Where do the accusations come in? Really depends on the claim. After a while, even if you know the institution that originally published a faulty ahistorical work, the misinformation spreads like wildfire. Then you have all of these published works that contain a bunch of cold war claims that no one has seriously verified. As I wrote above, in academia they celebrate these claims as a social norm. There is a BIG and ever-growing circle of academics and journalists cashing out on that social ticket. As I mentioned above, institutionally they exist to write work for wealthy private donors, that's how the system works. That work gets weaponized by various NGOs (funded by the wealthiest on the globe AND very often the CIA or US government) or by the US state department. A very good example of this is the State Department's odd myth about Cuban Super Sonic Magic Brain Melting weapons. It's absurd, I'm sure there was some academic fuck who was willing to write about its plausibility, even though of course the Cuban government denies it because it's absurd. The US government uses it to push for tightening the embargo, increasing political tensions, and further global slandering to threaten legitimacy (particularly in Latin America). We know the US role in geopolitics. We know the CIA role. And we know the roles of NGOs. I'm not surprised that teenagers on Reddit don't give the greatest insight on such complicated issues, however, that's not an excuse not to be diligent in reading and learning. When you say that Shapiro or Trump has demonstrated they are ignorant and untrustworthy, you are making the same claims. You just have read and been able to educate yourself on why that's the case. It's easier when left liberals (both capitalists) have political competition there and pour money into journalistic and academic campaigns to highlight that fact. No one is going to do the easy work for you here, unfortunately. And while there are plenty of threads on this subreddit that are filled with immature junk, there are plenty of patient and informed MLs there making such reading more accessible.

1
Bytien•

The real joke is that you cant discuss the USSR or maos China on terms of "what happened and why" because people will without hesitation blow a gasket about "apologism" and "what about ism"

Academia really is a mess, and theres extensive academic works on this ranging from philosophy to history to sociology and so on. Philosophy of science is a good place to start. That doesnt mean all academia bad and all basement work good, it means you need to understand the contradictions at play before you can meaningfully evaluate things. The biggest ideological factor that influences the way liberals see the world is the assumption that things work according to their purpose. If I really started challenging you on why should we like academic sources it's way way way harder for you to defend than your gut instinct tells you it is.

Also just step away from history, it's the most cloudy area and not hy accident. Always keep learning.

13
OnemoagainOP•

Honestly, I want to step away from the word academic. I used it because science seemed too intimidating, but fuck it, its what I meant.

Now, science is definitely useful (in theory). It's predicated on a methodology that assures its reproducible, falsifiable, empirical, objective, and observable. By following these guidelines, one, in theory, puts a failsafe into their work that assures that people who look at the methodology will be able to see how you got to your conclusion and either know you're right, or see you're wrong by getting different results when reproducing it.

That being said, science doesn't deliver exact answers (obviously). And we shouldn't worship at the throne of science as some all knowing force, that just because something is "scientific" that it's inherently true. It's sticky because the way science is taught is mainly through vulgarization, sound bites, pithy quotes etc.. Due diligence isn't really taught, critical thinking isn't really taught. So it's hard for people to actually be science minded. It's more convenient to just take "science's" word for it.

Honestly, I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say that scientific sources are important in that if they are truly scientific, then they should be reliable. And that it's important to check sources, and read through as much as possible.

3
redbichon•

I agree with u/Bytien and u/Teaiayummi.

Just to pitch in a few thoughts.

This definition of 'scientific' as 'reproducible, falsifiable, empirical, objective, and observable' does not necessarily clash with Marxism.

So far as I understand things, it was Karl Popper who emphasised falsifiability in the 'hypothetic-deductive methodology'. In this approach, the scientist creates a hypothesis that can be proved wrong. Then come experiments, which try to disprove the thesis. Every time the thesis is not disproved, we can be more and more confident that it is correct or, in Popper's words, the 'closest approximation of the truth' that we can find at any given time. (He discusses these points in Objective Knowledge and The Poverty of Historicism.)

Popper's main argument, beside this contribution, was against historicism. By this he meant: we cannot predict the future on the basis of what has happened in the past. For instance, just because a child born under the Leo star sign goes on to rule a kingdom does not mean that other children born under the same sign will go on to be great leaders or display similar characteristics. All good so far. And to this extent, Popper still seems spot on.

The problem is that Popper's notion historicism is a diversion. This becomes clear when taking a longer view of his The Open Society and its Enemies.

The Marxist take a different approach, of 'historical materialism' (HiMat). There are different views on what Marx actually meant by this. For Marxist-Leninists and Maoists, HiMat is the application of 'dialectical materialism' (DiaMat) to society. In Marx's words, the task is to turn Hegel's dialectics on its head. In this respect, Marxism focusses first and foremost on the material world. Marxism is nothing if not based on 'empirical, objective' reality. In terms of being 'observable', Marxists try to drill past the appearance of things, and into the 'contradiction in the very essence of objects'.

Importantly, while the theory does get more complicated, DiaMat means an analysis of 'relations' and 'processes'. It does not just mean looking at past events to determine the future. But, looking at modern society as relations and processes means looking at how today's society developed from previous society and, crucially, will develop into yet a different society in future.

Popper seems to equate HiMat with historicism. This makes it easy to dismiss HiMat and DiaMat. It also makes it easy to dismiss Marxism as not-scientific. This rests on a false equivalence, and also ignores the fact that Marxism builds on Darwin's theory of evolution. The claim to falsifiability, in this respect, is a bit of a red herring.

There are 'Western' Marxist scientists, such as JBS Haldane. (Aside: What is Einstein's theory of relativity if not an understanding of the universe as relations and processes?)

In sum, Marxism still insists on science.

​

EDIT: Toned down my critique of Popper. I had painted him and others with too broad a brush.

2
OnemoagainOP•

Oh dont get me wrong, I totally agree. I think I wasnt totally clear in my post either.

My main issue is the double standard that I see in these subs in regards to sources. For example, in a discussion on whether or not China is actually socialist or not, user A gives some sources showing how workers rights are better in China than the US (which tbf isnt saying much). More precisely, User A was talking about work week, their sources claiming that China was at an average of 47 odd hours, just above the US at like 44hrs average. User B offers some sources that counter User A's, from OCED(?), that puts the US at 38hrs and the OCED average at 36hrs. User A claims that these sources are heavily biased against China. But whats the resolution to User A's problem then? If we're going to play the game of dismissing a source just because on the surface it appears that it has a bias, then in this day and age we'd never find a good source.

Theyre making an attack on the source itself rather than the data, informationn or arguments that it puts forth. And this attitude, ive found, is very prominent in these subreddits, and turns off alot of folks who are very new to socialism because from the outside everything seems very standoffish, exclusive and heady.

1
Bytien•

If it's true that us is sub 40, which I doubt, it would be on the back of precarious under employment like uber drivers or shift workers that middle management fucks by keeping them at 39 so as to not have to pay benefits.

If you stay in the game you'll quickly find source seeking falls apart. We arent playing perfect information games like chess, we're playing poker and you learn more from the feints and posturing than from the actual cards being held.

1
Bytien•

Good post thanks. Popper falls into a trap that's endemic in the western tradition. They have no foundational way to traverse contradictions so as soon as they see one, as popper did in diamat, their only impulse is to blow the whole thing up and try to make a new system that will completely avoid the contradiction. Which is inherently faliable because the contradiction has ontological existence and is part of the material real that we're seeking to explain. By running away from the ability to verify, corroborate, or update our theories we end up in a hole where nothing new can grow, nothing can develop except in the direction of withering and being blown away in the wind.

1
Bytien•

I agree with most of this, still recommend philosophy of science if youre interested as it does have fundamental issues, and there are strong marxist arguments relating to it. see this essay or podcast episode with its author wherein they argue marxism is a science

1
OnemoagainOP•

Ill look into this! Thanks.

2
Lord_Artem17•

I don’t know too much about China nor DPRK, but defending early USSR is quite easy in my opinion. Especially when liberals talk about Stalin murdering over ten million people. The archives were opened in 1989 and there is legitimate evidence of correct amount of victims.

I would recommend reading this: http://home.ku.edu.tr/~mbaker/cshs522/GettyNumbers.pdf

6
OnemoagainOP•

Thanks, Ill check that out for sure when I have time. I just started Wage-labour and Capital today actually, so I'll be working through that first probably.

The most frustrating thing through this is not being able to find great "western" historic/academic sources that are more or less "fair", and only finding really amateur sources from really pro-USSR folks.

I will say that I haven't done a ton of research, since school is a full time job, on top of my actual full-time job. I'm still learning and discovering. I have read some pretty interesting stuff that has dispelled some fairly widespread myths about different communist states. But when it comes to the stickier stuff, and the more modern geo-political stuff, especially in regards to China (Tienanmen, Uighurs, and anything relating to the DPRK) people seem to get more emotional than rational. Maybe it's because they see China as fighting a "righteous" (for lack of a better term) uphill battle against Western Capitalism, and they feel the need to like, defend this last bastion of communism. Maybe that's just ignorant condescension talking though.

My main prickly point when interacting with folks about communism on Reddit is that there isn't a short supply of critics of capitalism, the US, or the west even within those bodies. I'd say their biggest critics are homegrown, and aren't even that far left. But there seems to be very little criticism coming from within communist circles, which urks me.

(also just an aside... Is China even *really* communist?)

4
Lord_Artem17•

About USSR couple of respected historians come to mind: Arch Getty, Roberth Thurston and Douglas Tottle. Grover Furr also comes to mind but I’ve heard that he is one of “Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong” guys, so Idk.

I myself began to study China only recently so I simply haven’t studied enough to make a full conclusion, but here’s a link with good information: https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/c2b6z5/china_megathread_everything_controversial/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

2
OnemoagainOP•

Awesome thanks!

2
redbichon•

To add a point about Grover Furr…

I heard the same criticisms about Furr and 'Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong', but this does not hold up in Khrushchev Lied.

One of Furr's main conclusions is that we cannot trust what Khrushchev said about Stalin. This means we cannot form an accurate picture of Stalin until we re-assess in light of the fact that so much of what we think we know of him is based on Khrushchev's Secret Speech. So Furr calls mainly for a re-evaluation of Stalin in that book.

2
Lord_Artem17•

Oh no, I didn’t mean it like that. Is it just me, but I thought that everyone knew that Khruschev lied on XX congress of CPSU about Stalin’s crimes...idk Kruschev just blamed Stalin for his own crimes

1
Quirky_Rabbit•

In most threads I've been in, without fail, there's someone defending China (past or present), the DPRK, the USSR.

It's important for us to defend Actually Existing Socialism, or AES. The main reason is that they provide examples of how socialism/communism could work, which is the evidence some people want. I'd draw a parallel to, for instance, someone back then pointing to a missile and saying "space travel is possible".

The USSR wasn't perfect. China isn't perfect. We can (and do) have discussions on the nuances. However, at the end of the day, we will still stand behind AES and defend it from attacks from the MSM, corporate funded think tanks, and the people who aren't open to sources other than these. China especially poses the largest coherent threat to US hegemony in the modern day, and since US hegemony majorly props up capitalism, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is what is meant by "critical support". It goes beyond saying "I support X" by adding "I support X while being aware of and able to criticise its flaws, and being open to adjust my opinions as new evidence arises". You may not always see le Redditors calmly explain that, but I can assure you it's there. Of course the dogmatists who uncritically support X exist too, and it takes knowledge and experience to be able to accurately spot them. My point is that there's probably more going on behind the scenes (behind the thinking) than can easily be expressed in a Reddit comment.

6
OnemoagainOP•

Thats all well and good, but in the (very little) time on here that Ive spent, I havent seen a good demonstration as to how China is actually socialist. Second highest global billionaire count + what appears to be a defacto political aristocracy that holds onto power and the detriment of the people.

If you have a good source on chinese political history, Id love to read it (yes even if youd think id disagree with it). So far Ive read Michael Löwy's book on Che Guevara, and started wage-labour and capital.

1
therealwheeze•

I've been trying to get informed about Communism

Oh, have you?

I haven't read very much Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao/Stalin

Oh, I guess you haven't.

If it's too inaccessible, find a way to make it make sense. Take notes in the margins, look for reader's guides or discussion forums, read summaries, etc. You're not going to learn about communism on reddit in any meaningful way.

2†
OnemoagainOP•

"discussion forums"

"You're not going to learn about communism on reddit in any meaningful way."

Okay...

4
therealwheeze•

I meant discussion forums that are specifically concerning the communist texts, context which I think was obvious from the rest of what I said.

2
OnemoagainOP•

Ah, sorry I didnt get that. But it does make more sense. Do you have any good recommendations? I've started reading Wage-Labour and Capital today actually, so a study guide to that could be cool.

And I just want to make myself clear: I don't claim to be informed. I'm trying to get informed, but not like super actively. Between school and work (two full time jobs), its hard to find more mental energy to try and decipher 19th century texts at 10pm on a Wednesday. That's just where I'm at.

2
Nonbinary_Knight•

So basically you can't be arsed to actually research what you're trying to document yourself on (communism), and for some reason you expect its sworn political enemies to provide easily digestible, truthful and unbiased accounts of its historical trajectory?

And on top of all of that you still think you have a better grasp on the subject than the original authors, the people who study it for years often DAILY, and the peoples who have built whole nations based on its principles?

And you dare compare us with flat-earthers?

You're the very model of an ignorant liberal - completely intoxicated with cultural hegemony and unwarranted self-importance, either utterly devoid of class consciousness or willfully rapacious.

1†
OnemoagainOP•

Woah okay, so right out of the gate you're coming at me with an "us versus them" stance. I wasn't coming after you per say.

I'm not claiming to be informed, at all. I thought I made that pretty clear, especially when I said that I was starting out by getting my information from Reddit. Personally, the way that I like to learn about stuff is by talking with people who are "in the know" that might be able to point me towards good sources and the like. This might be lazy, I don't know. So my instinct was to go to reddit, just like it was when I wanted to learn about film photography. At the very least, it got me interested in this philosophy/social science that isn't taught at all where I live.

Now my critique/complaint was maybe poorly expressed, or maybe you just flat out disagree and hate me for it. Either way, I hope you'll let me re-iterate it.

So basically first off, I have found a lot of the "myth debunking" on r/communism in particular to be kind of amateurish (and I say this obviously as someone who is also an amateur, I'm not speaking with any authority here. This is reddit for christ's sake). It often links to reddit posts that seem to be essentially argumentative essays, with very little sources. The sources they do have tend to be either tangentially related to the topic, or tend to be equally unsourced news articles from various outlets (large and small, main stream or not).

Secondly, in conversation (on reddit), I've found a lot of folks to be on the one hand criticizing any sources provided by communist-critical folks as biased/brainwashed/psyops kinda deal. Which, granted, there is an anti-communist bias in the west. But you're telling me that data on China from the world bank that was compiled by chinese economist is biased? Shit- maybe. But then on the other hand they don't really provide sources to back up their arguments/claims or will post stuff from communist news letters or analysts. Which is FINE. But you can't play the brainwash/propaganda/psyops game if you aren't gonna give it a fair shake on both sides, right? In such a highly contentious geopolitical landscape (china V Us etc.), it's hard to claim that either side is necessarily the perfect, honest, altruistic good guy.

Finally, lots of reddit communists seem to have a really hard time admitting any fault. We know the US is sketchy. Yo, fuck the US, and their imperialism, and their neo-fascism, and everything else. There's so much wrong with the US. Fuck the west, and all of the theft and imperialism it was built on. But maybe fuck China a little bit too?

​

I just want to leave you with this: I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. I'm just an angry 20 something Canadian worker who's looking for answers. I'm just trying my best to do my due diligence, and not get roped into some miracle ideology without it actually being a miracle ideology.

5
Nonbinary_Knight•

Woah okay, so right out of the gate you're coming at me with an "us versus them" stance. I wasn't coming after you per say.

An "us versus them stance" is built into Marxism since it's an explicitly classist theory. Also you can very well imagine that if you went into a discussion space for economic liberalism saying that liberal economics are tantamount to astrology, you'd catch flak.

Now my critique/complaint was maybe poorly expressed, or maybe you just flat out disagree and hate me for it. Either way, I hope you'll let me re-iterate it.

No, I don't hate you for it, even if my words are harsh; it's just that liberals making unsound political judgements is a common theme because political liberalism is sailing by the seat of your pants.

I have found a lot of the "myth debunking" amateurish [...] (This is reddit for christ's sake). It often links to reddit posts that seem to be essentially argumentative essays, with very little sources.

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/debunk

Just the first section is loaded with TWENTY-NINE (29) books versus NINE (9) journalistic articles, I don't think your assessment holds very tight.

Books that are directly available for you to download, no commercial peddling here.

My personal entry-level recommendations: Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti, and The Triumph of Evil by Austin Murphy. Both of them written in english in the late 20th century, and not incredibly long.

Also, do you even realize the impossible gauntlet of offhand disqualifications that we're put through at every step?

When communist workers bother to gather first-hand-experiences, and sources, it's "amateurish".

When communist scholars bother to gather arguments and sources, it's "going against academic consensus".

When communist journalists bother to gather first-hand experiences and arguments, they're either "paid by [insert even slightly socialist country]" or the subjects they're studying are "brainwashed".

When leading communist theorists bother to write volumes upon volumes they're "flat earthers" or "an outdated theory" - nevermind that the social problems it deals with are still present and in not just in full force, but even worse than they were back in Marx's or Lenin's time.

The icing on the cake is that all of this applies not just to communists, but also to whomever is not an anti-communist

In such a highly contentious geopolitical landscape (china V Us etc.), it's hard to claim that either side is necessarily the perfect, honest, altruistic good guy. Finally, lots of reddit communists seem to have a really hard time admitting any fault.

No communist claims that any of such entities is a perfect, honest, altruistic good guy, except as a joking exaggeration (Not irony - exaggeration).

This is the doctrine of Critical Support, which means upholding something even though you have critiques towards it (possibly even scathing critiques).

Problems and shortcomings of socialism are discussed with those who would solve them by improvement, not with those who want to use them as a pretext to destroy the socialist gains of the working class, which is something that happens constantly.

I'm just trying my best to do my due diligence, and not get roped into some miracle ideology without it actually being a miracle ideology.

Aversion to reading books is not "due diligence", uncritically accepting the ideological framework put in place by capitalists and their sycophants (you know, the same people that would rather pay you much less and have you lack access to anything, see your downstairs neighbors) is not "due diligence".

2
OnemoagainOP•

Youre completely right, I didnt seem to give that master thread a fait shake. What probably happened was that I erred towards the easier reading material (i.e. the somewhat amteurish news articles) and found them lackluster, and allowed that to mark my impression of the sub.

I will say however, that I find it hard to see China as a force of good. Lots of human rights watch orgs and journalists who have track records calling out human rights violations just as much in the US as elsewhere are saying that China is up to some shit. Plus, China admits and is proud of the fact that 60% of its GDP comes from private businesses (which make up only like 30% of the businesses in the country). Fine, maybe its an actually existing socialist country. But maybe its a really shitty one and should be reformed/revolutionized just as much as the west. Imo, China's short comings arent a fault of socialism, but rather maybe caving gradually to western hegemony. Free healthcare and socialization of enterprises is good. But ethnic re-education and the proliferation of a defacto-ruling political and capitalist class is bad.

Fwiw, I probably dont read enough on the subject to actually have an opinion. But thats why Ive tried to come to these subs: to have people guide me towards good or accessible information. Unfortunately I tend to get alot more "read these 29 books and come back then" or "get out of here you liberal swill ".

1
Nonbinary_Knight•

I honestly recommend those two books I told you, if you want something more easily digestible, Michael Parenti has several conferences uploaded to youtube, and he is quite a lively, funny speaker.

1
ClockworkJim•

Leftist Reddit is the only place I know where you get insulted when you ask someone for help understanding 160 year old political philosophy.

There's a thing that conspiracy theorists too, I first heard it termed "death by footnotes". it's when they give you about 800 footnotes and sources that they tell you you have to read before you can understand what they're talking about. And when you go to those 800 footnotes, they in turn have another 800 foot pounds. And so on and so forth and so on and so forth. And you're supposed to take it as 100% fact without any scrutiny whatsoever.

Your best bet is to try the anarchists subreddits. They're a little easier to understand. They acknowledge the flaws in believing any official state propaganda no matter the source.

0†
OnemoagainOP•

Yes!! Any recommendations for anarchist subs? (Sorry comrades).

0
Teaiayummi•

No one is insulting this person because they're asking for help. Some folks are being less than graceful in reminding this person that it is unreasonable to desire and demand a certain level of academic legitimacy out of Reddit forums as opposed to reading the actual work itself. I think it's telling that the pitch for anarchism here is that they'll have to think about it less. We should be encouraging them to think about it more. That's somewhat different than accessibility as well. The gripe is that the easier to understand digestible content isn't always published by "reputable" western institutions. At some point if you want rigorous academic legitimacy to what you're learning about (which is commendable) you have to do the hard reading. Liberalism allows you to feel like a reputable expert in politics when you simply consume their digestible products. Marxism doesn't give you that option.

0
ClockworkJim•

the picture anarchism is that they do not treat official Soviet documents as holy writ. And that they do not treat any official state documents as holy writ.

Honestly, a lot of the energy I feel from Reddit communist is the same kind of energy I get from conspiracy theorists.

0
ClockworkJim•

Congrats.

You're part of the problem.

3
Nonbinary_Knight•

Maybe your problem.

Excuse me while I wipe my ass with your feelpinions

0†
ClockworkJim•

You sound exactly like flat-earthers.

instead of suggesting writings by black panthers, or modern socialists that might have a good bearing upon the modern world instead of dense 19th century writings specifically tailored towards Western European industrialism that were only translated into English and barely touch upon racial problems in modern-day America, you proceed to sound like an ass.

I'm a leftist despite people like you. Not because of them.

2
Nonbinary_Knight•

I'm not an american and as such I'm not going to give an american's suggestions.
You're perfectly free to make them, and should.

> dense 19th century writings

I guess The Origin of Species should be cast into the fire, too?

Also Lenin, Stalin and Mao wrote in the 20th century.

0
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
100862233•

R/communism is a little bit Tankie. But generally speaking alot of "atrocities" were blown out of proportion. I won't go over the millions of inaccurate information about the past just look at present. For example you constantly see in the west say shit like how China is worst human rights abuser extermination camp or genocide then you look on the fucking Wikipedia China has better human rights and liberties index score than India and Russia (both are supposed to be capitalist liberal democracy!) Yet China is something the worst offenders of Human rights!?

-2†
OnemoagainOP•

I mean, you were probably exaggerating, bu I would never say that China is the worst in regards to human rights. Maybe Fox news or some shit does, but I don't see that drivel peddled very often in such categorical terms.

What I find frustrating with a lot of the discourse in lefty reddit/twitter is that as soon as someone comes for China there's bound to be someone coming back around and pointing at some other western/capitalist liberal democracy. But I have no problem criticizing my country, or other western capitalist countries. They suck, they're evil, they've oppressed the world over. Now can we also have a little chat about the Uighurs or something? Cause I'm all for seizing the means of production and hauling out the guillotine that I built in my dads garage- but not if we're just going to be creating more of the same.

(also, is present day China even really communist? What with having the second most billionaires in the world following the US?).

5
RedWingedKea•

Not everyone here supports China. I want to have well informed opinions about them in order to help combat propaganda against them but other than that I have no love for the capitalists in Bejing.

And yeah your right in a sense, you cant redirect criticism away from one country to another, but you can point out hypocrisy where it exists. A liberal who supports western style capitalism while critcising China for 'human rights abuses' is being a hypocrit and needs to be called out.

2
OnemoagainOP•

A liberal who supports western style capitalism while critcising China for 'human rights abuses' is being a hypocrit and needs to be called out.

100%, and vice versa. If I criticise China its not because I prefer the west, but because Im worried that theyre westernizing or are bad in other ways.

2
OnemoagainOP•

That, and its because, if we do revolutionize and go socialist I want to know that it wont turn out to be like modern China (or at least how China is portrayed).

2
IdiomasyEscalada•

Communism is not limited to the 20th century governments who implemented it. I highly recommend you read "The Conquest of Bread", by Peter Kropotkin. It's not a difficult read, and while written before the advent of the USSR, it clearly rejects the path of an authoritarian government implementing communism.

-3†
Nonbinary_Knight•

...Kaoth? ·___·U

-1
typhoid-fever•

ye 99% of the people on here are feds spreading disinfo. same as any community based around a radical ideology

-5
OnemoagainOP•

Wut?

1
typhoid-fever•

stfu shill

1