if by “free” you mean anyone being able to broadcast whatever they want, no, that has never been the case; media roughly adheres to the interests of the state, and a socialist state represents the workers
A socialist state represents the vast majority of the people; just like a bourgeois state censors workers acting against the interests of the big bourgeoisie, a socialist state censors capitalists and people who (knowingly or not) act in their interests, potentially with some concessions to demands from other countries. As long as classes exist, a state will exist, and that state will naturally have a monopoly on what is (legally) allowed to be published
A socialist state represents the vast majority of the people
That is correct, in theory. In practice all the people from socialist states who I met in person and asked about it, did not feel represented at all, on the contrary, they hated socialism, primarily for the very low quality of life and instead they hyped american capitalism because of the abundance of consumer products it generates. It was quite a surprise for me as a young and naive, politically left person but who am I to argue with people who actually have the real life experience of living in a socialist state.
As long as classes exist, a state will exist, and that state will naturally have a monopoly on what is (legally) allowed to be published
If that statement is based on the assumption that there are still classes in socialist states too, I fully agree with it.
As long as classes exist, a state will exist, and that state will naturally have a monopoly on what is (legally) allowed to be published
If that statement is based on the assumption that there are still classes in socialist states too, I fully agree with it.
It’s actually based on the opposite. Marx discussed this in depth and Lenin clarified and expanded on it in State and Revolution, which is honestly a must read and is really quite brief and a lot of fun to read.
The state arises from class antagonisms. The state is a means with which one class oppresses the others. The withering away of the state can only be achieved by reducing and ultimately eliminating classes and thus the class antagonisms which gave rise to the state in the first place.
What a nascent socialist state must do therefore, is establish the working class as the dominant class, and work to eliminate class antagonisms through, among other things, the elimination of private property and the class it creates. Preventing reactionaries from having a platform is one of the tools a state can and must use to help achieve this goal, just as the violent silencing of the working class in capitalist regimes is a tool used to maintain the hegemony of the capitalist class.
That all sounds good and I believed it myself until I talked to workers who actually lived in socialism/communism. I asked people from Poland and Vietnam about it and they all agreed on hating their lives in a non capitalist country and hyped american capitalism. I was shocked and surprised but that is what they told me. Of course asking a few people is not representative at all but it for sure changed my view to hear it from people who actually experienced it.
I talked to a native Chinese woman who said that China is not a communist country.
… while her family worked for a state owned corporation, retired at 55, has amazing medical insurance, and is receiving a pension three times their salary.
She also claimed that there’s a lot of competition for jobs in state owned companies because they pay a lot more, have more stable employment, and better benefits than privately owned companies.
… while saying that China is successful because they transitioned to a free market economy with minimal gov intervention.
Like… yes, it’s important to get others opinions. But… also understand that the people you ask… may not have the full picture.
Most people who actually lived in Eastern Europe during the socialist years still say life was better back then, even considering the capitalist road “market reforms” of the 80s.
Current socialist nations show overwhelming popular support for the way their countries are run, even as per polls by western institutions.
I have also heard about the horrors of socialism from plenty of eastern Europeans. Most weren’t born until the nineties, the decade of capitalist looting of their countries after the socialist states were illegally overthrown. Others were just children when the wall fell.
Of course some hype US capitalism, the US has spent and continues to spend unbelievable sums propagandizing people on the idea that consumerist capitalism is the holy grail. Unlimited quantities of consumer goods was for example the only thing US vassal West Germany could show to the revolutionary East and say “hey look life is better here,” so that’s what they did. Then the west annexed the east and the easterners found out pretty quick it was all just lies.
I don’t know if you’re aware, but there are plenty of people living in capitalist countries who hate their jobs. And what’s more, there are plenty of people who can’t even get any jobs and are forced to live in horrific conditions.
I don´t doubt that at all, I live in a capitalist country myself and have hated all my jobs with very few exceptions. However, it came as a surprise to me that when I congratulated a Vietnamese dude on Vietnamese independence day, to hear from him that he would have preferred the US to win the war because he thought then his life would have been better. That kind of experience is what I was trying to express.
In practice all the people from socialist states who I met in person and asked about it, did not feel represented at all, on the contrary, they hated socialism, primarily for the very low quality of life and instead they hyped american capitalism because of the abundance of consumer products it generates
Who were these people? Did they grow up and work during the socialist period in the country/countries in question? Were their parents workers or capitalists? It’s easy to find someone from any socialist or previously socialist country who will denounce its government, either for legitimate reasons, out of ignorance, or for personal gain. We have people on this instance who live/lived in a socialist country, with a very different perspective
If that statement is based on the assumption that there are still classes in socialist states too, I fully agree with it.
When contemporary Marxists use the term “socialism”, we’re not referring to communism, which is classless and therefore stateless by definition. Communism has never been implemented, and cannot be implemented as long as imperialism remains a threat. Classes remain in every socialist country (Cuba, China, the DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos), and they will exist for the foreseeable future. The fundamental difference between a socialist state and a capitalist state is which class they represent
Did they grow up and work during the socialist period in the country/countries in question?
Yes, they did.
Were their parents workers or capitalists?
Workers
We have people on this instance who live/lived in a socialist country, with a very different perspective
I don´t doubt that, individual perspectives differ. Especially regarding the example of Cuba and it´s history it´s totally believable, considering how people had to live there under US American colonization until the revolution. However a lot of Cubans also decide to leave Cuba because of the living conditions socialism created and I am not talking about the Bacardi family but the poor people who swim to Florida on an old inner tube.
When contemporary Marxists use the term “socialism”, we’re not referring to communism, which is classless and therefore stateless by definition. Communism has never been implemented, and cannot be implemented as long as imperialism remains a threat. Classes remain in every socialist country (Cuba, China, the DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos), and they will exist for the foreseeable future. The fundamental difference between a socialist state and a capitalist state is which class they represent
Thank you for the elaboration! This definition makes sense to me and I agree with it.
However a lot of Cubans also decide to leave Cuba because of the living conditions socialism created
Socialism in Cuba did not worsen living conditions by any metric. The reason for harsh living conditions during the special period was the dissolution of its biggest trading partner (the USSR) and the disgusting blockade enforced by the US, which continues to this day. Socialism is the reason why Cubans has far better access to education, healthcare, housing, etc. compared to people in most capitalist countries; imperialism is the reason why Cuba has been unable to thrive, and the fact that it’s survived and is doing relatively well despite the ongoing genocide is a testament to the superiority of socialism
The reason for harsh living conditions during the special period was the dissolution of its biggest trading partner (the USSR) and the disgusting blockade enforced by the US, which continues to this day.
You are right, the trade blockades are the main reason for the economic situation in Cuba. I knew that already and I wonder why I did not remember it in this context. Thank you for reminding me.
In practice, when they transition to a capitalist system, their conditions ended up being worse off, and wanted to transition back.
They wanted the security provided by communism and the luxuries from capitalism. But they soon found out that the ability to make a living is much more important than purchasing luxury goods
As Parenti said, capitalism achieved in 5 years what communism couldn’t achieve in 50; make communism look good.
In practice, when they transition to a capitalist system, their conditions ended up being worse off, and wanted to transition back.
Yes, for example I have read that this is a known phenomenon in older generations among the population of the former GDR. Sadly the younger generations in eastern Germany instead often show the opposite reaction to their shitty life in capitalism and turn into neonazis.
They wanted the security provided by communism and the luxuries from capitalism. But they soon found out that the ability to make a living is much more important than purchasing luxury goods
I´m sure that for a lot of people it is like that. However, I will also never forget the polish people I talked to who hated communism and hyped capitalism, while their living conditions in capitalism were obviously fucking horrible. I lived with them and there were moments when I could not believe I was still in an EU country. On the other hand we should also consider that the state of Poland as it is today is a result of both political systems.
As Parenti said, capitalism achieved in 5 years what communism couldn’t achieve in 50; make communism look good.
I would argue that it is significantly more free in socialist countries, because you have the opportunity to learn about capitalism and communism. You get stories about the struggles of the working class in mainstream media, and develop class consciousness.
Whereas in capitalist countries, you only get to hear one side, and media is only created to support the ideologies of the regime.
You ever wonder why Hollywood movies are so formulaic and repetitive? It’s because they all follow the monomyth story structure, to subliminally promote capitalist ideals and individualism.
It’s not until that you understand the purpose of propaganda, the organization of propaganda, and the propaganda model, that you can appreciate how prevalent it is and how difficult it is to escape it.
You get stories about the struggles of the working class in mainstream media, and develop class consciousness.
True but at the same time you don´t read particularly much about corrupt communist party bigwigs in socialist media, do you?
Whereas in capitalist countries, you only get to hear one side, and media is only created to support the ideologies of the regime.
I agree with that but do you seriously believe that´s any different in socialism?
You ever wonder why Hollywood movies are so formulaic and repetitive? It’s because they all follow the monomyth story structure, to subliminally promote capitalist ideals and individualism.
Of course, that is trivial.
It’s not until that you understand the purpose of propaganda, the organization of propaganda, and the propaganda model, that you can appreciate how prevalent it is and how difficult it is to escape it.
Agreed, all states do propaganda no matter the politic system.
True but at the same time you don´t read particularly much about corrupt communist party bigwigs in socialist media, do you?
You do. A lot. Like a lot a lot. Some of it’s true and some of it’s fake to gain political points.
I agree with that but do you seriously believe that´s any different in socialism?
You admitted yourself that people in communism advocated for capitalism. Where do you think they learnt about that?
Universities in the USSR taught Keynesian economics alongside Marxist theory. They still teach that in China.
Of course, that is trivial.
It’s not trivial, it’s not benign. It’s propaganda. It formulates how people live their lives, because if that’s all they’re exposed to, then people use said story structure to plan out their own lives and to make big decisions. It is a major part of the propaganda state apparatus.
Ain’t nobody controls the media like they do in capitalism. If you can list a piece of media for consumption, it’s probably propaganda. If you can list an organization, it probably has some purpose in the propaganda apparatus.
Recommended reading:
propaganda by Edward Bernays
Inventing reality by Michael Parenti
Manufactured consent by Noam Chomsky
You do. A lot. Like a lot a lot. Some of it’s true and some of it’s fake to gain political points.
Seriously? I honestly had no idea. Can you link me a few examples?
Recommended reading: propaganda by Edward Bernays Inventing reality by Michael Parenti Manufactured consent by Noam Chomsky. Recommended watching: Anything by Maggy Mae Fish
Going back to Lenin, his works are mostly rebuttals against the policies of the second international. Stalin’s essay “burkharin’s group and the right deviation”. Khrushchev’s secret speech.
Being open about corruption is a communist tradition. Xinhua continuously publishes articles on corruption.
Google “English.news.cn corruption party members”
Thanks for letting me know this. Very interesting.
If you’re interested and prefer to start with audio-visual, Parenti has a few lectures on his book(s) (there’s another one about entertainment media: Make-Believe Media iirc). They’re on YouTube. Alternatively a lemmygrad user made a podcast with them if you preferred that.
True but at the same time you don´t read particularly much about corrupt communist party bigwigs in socialist media, do you?
I see your point and have been following along all of these conversations. I just wanted to add that In The Name of the People (2017) is an incredible Chinese (sorta-)cop show wherein we follow anti-corruption detectives who arrest those same bigwigs you mention. It rules, and is an example of this in a contemporary socialist society rather than something from 50 years ago in Soviet media or whatever. I recommend looking into it!
My mind about this detail was already changed by some constructive comments here, as you have probably read. Thank you for the additional hint, sounds like an interesting show. Please dm me, if you know where I could stream it with English subs in acceptable quality.
And he was absolutely right of course. On the other hand, in communism the media is also not particularly free, isn’t it?
if by “free” you mean anyone being able to broadcast whatever they want, no, that has never been the case; media roughly adheres to the interests of the state, and a socialist state represents the workers
By free I mean free to publish stuff the government and establishment don´t want to be published.
Exactly what I meant, the media has not been independent in any political system yet.
A socialist state represents the vast majority of the people; just like a bourgeois state censors workers acting against the interests of the big bourgeoisie, a socialist state censors capitalists and people who (knowingly or not) act in their interests, potentially with some concessions to demands from other countries. As long as classes exist, a state will exist, and that state will naturally have a monopoly on what is (legally) allowed to be published
That is correct, in theory. In practice all the people from socialist states who I met in person and asked about it, did not feel represented at all, on the contrary, they hated socialism, primarily for the very low quality of life and instead they hyped american capitalism because of the abundance of consumer products it generates. It was quite a surprise for me as a young and naive, politically left person but who am I to argue with people who actually have the real life experience of living in a socialist state.
If that statement is based on the assumption that there are still classes in socialist states too, I fully agree with it.
It’s actually based on the opposite. Marx discussed this in depth and Lenin clarified and expanded on it in State and Revolution, which is honestly a must read and is really quite brief and a lot of fun to read.
The state arises from class antagonisms. The state is a means with which one class oppresses the others. The withering away of the state can only be achieved by reducing and ultimately eliminating classes and thus the class antagonisms which gave rise to the state in the first place.
What a nascent socialist state must do therefore, is establish the working class as the dominant class, and work to eliminate class antagonisms through, among other things, the elimination of private property and the class it creates. Preventing reactionaries from having a platform is one of the tools a state can and must use to help achieve this goal, just as the violent silencing of the working class in capitalist regimes is a tool used to maintain the hegemony of the capitalist class.
That all sounds good and I believed it myself until I talked to workers who actually lived in socialism/communism. I asked people from Poland and Vietnam about it and they all agreed on hating their lives in a non capitalist country and hyped american capitalism. I was shocked and surprised but that is what they told me. Of course asking a few people is not representative at all but it for sure changed my view to hear it from people who actually experienced it.
I talked to a native Chinese woman who said that China is not a communist country.
… while her family worked for a state owned corporation, retired at 55, has amazing medical insurance, and is receiving a pension three times their salary.
She also claimed that there’s a lot of competition for jobs in state owned companies because they pay a lot more, have more stable employment, and better benefits than privately owned companies.
… while saying that China is successful because they transitioned to a free market economy with minimal gov intervention.
Like… yes, it’s important to get others opinions. But… also understand that the people you ask… may not have the full picture.
Of course they might not, that is only natural
Most people who actually lived in Eastern Europe during the socialist years still say life was better back then, even considering the capitalist road “market reforms” of the 80s.
Current socialist nations show overwhelming popular support for the way their countries are run, even as per polls by western institutions.
I have also heard about the horrors of socialism from plenty of eastern Europeans. Most weren’t born until the nineties, the decade of capitalist looting of their countries after the socialist states were illegally overthrown. Others were just children when the wall fell.
Of course some hype US capitalism, the US has spent and continues to spend unbelievable sums propagandizing people on the idea that consumerist capitalism is the holy grail. Unlimited quantities of consumer goods was for example the only thing US vassal West Germany could show to the revolutionary East and say “hey look life is better here,” so that’s what they did. Then the west annexed the east and the easterners found out pretty quick it was all just lies.
I don’t know if you’re aware, but there are plenty of people living in capitalist countries who hate their jobs. And what’s more, there are plenty of people who can’t even get any jobs and are forced to live in horrific conditions.
I don´t doubt that at all, I live in a capitalist country myself and have hated all my jobs with very few exceptions. However, it came as a surprise to me that when I congratulated a Vietnamese dude on Vietnamese independence day, to hear from him that he would have preferred the US to win the war because he thought then his life would have been better. That kind of experience is what I was trying to express.
Who were these people? Did they grow up and work during the socialist period in the country/countries in question? Were their parents workers or capitalists? It’s easy to find someone from any socialist or previously socialist country who will denounce its government, either for legitimate reasons, out of ignorance, or for personal gain. We have people on this instance who live/lived in a socialist country, with a very different perspective
When contemporary Marxists use the term “socialism”, we’re not referring to communism, which is classless and therefore stateless by definition. Communism has never been implemented, and cannot be implemented as long as imperialism remains a threat. Classes remain in every socialist country (Cuba, China, the DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos), and they will exist for the foreseeable future. The fundamental difference between a socialist state and a capitalist state is which class they represent
Workers, in construction and gastronomy.
Yes, they did.
Workers
I don´t doubt that, individual perspectives differ. Especially regarding the example of Cuba and it´s history it´s totally believable, considering how people had to live there under US American colonization until the revolution. However a lot of Cubans also decide to leave Cuba because of the living conditions socialism created and I am not talking about the Bacardi family but the poor people who swim to Florida on an old inner tube.
Thank you for the elaboration! This definition makes sense to me and I agree with it.
Socialism in Cuba did not worsen living conditions by any metric. The reason for harsh living conditions during the special period was the dissolution of its biggest trading partner (the USSR) and the disgusting blockade enforced by the US, which continues to this day. Socialism is the reason why Cubans has far better access to education, healthcare, housing, etc. compared to people in most capitalist countries; imperialism is the reason why Cuba has been unable to thrive, and the fact that it’s survived and is doing relatively well despite the ongoing genocide is a testament to the superiority of socialism
You are right, the trade blockades are the main reason for the economic situation in Cuba. I knew that already and I wonder why I did not remember it in this context. Thank you for reminding me.
In practice, when they transition to a capitalist system, their conditions ended up being worse off, and wanted to transition back.
They wanted the security provided by communism and the luxuries from capitalism. But they soon found out that the ability to make a living is much more important than purchasing luxury goods
As Parenti said, capitalism achieved in 5 years what communism couldn’t achieve in 50; make communism look good.
Yes, for example I have read that this is a known phenomenon in older generations among the population of the former GDR. Sadly the younger generations in eastern Germany instead often show the opposite reaction to their shitty life in capitalism and turn into neonazis.
I´m sure that for a lot of people it is like that. However, I will also never forget the polish people I talked to who hated communism and hyped capitalism, while their living conditions in capitalism were obviously fucking horrible. I lived with them and there were moments when I could not believe I was still in an EU country. On the other hand we should also consider that the state of Poland as it is today is a result of both political systems.
Good one! lol
I would argue that it is significantly more free in socialist countries, because you have the opportunity to learn about capitalism and communism. You get stories about the struggles of the working class in mainstream media, and develop class consciousness.
Whereas in capitalist countries, you only get to hear one side, and media is only created to support the ideologies of the regime.
You ever wonder why Hollywood movies are so formulaic and repetitive? It’s because they all follow the monomyth story structure, to subliminally promote capitalist ideals and individualism.
It’s not until that you understand the purpose of propaganda, the organization of propaganda, and the propaganda model, that you can appreciate how prevalent it is and how difficult it is to escape it.
True but at the same time you don´t read particularly much about corrupt communist party bigwigs in socialist media, do you?
I agree with that but do you seriously believe that´s any different in socialism?
Of course, that is trivial.
Agreed, all states do propaganda no matter the politic system.
You do. A lot. Like a lot a lot. Some of it’s true and some of it’s fake to gain political points.
You admitted yourself that people in communism advocated for capitalism. Where do you think they learnt about that?
Universities in the USSR taught Keynesian economics alongside Marxist theory. They still teach that in China.
It’s not trivial, it’s not benign. It’s propaganda. It formulates how people live their lives, because if that’s all they’re exposed to, then people use said story structure to plan out their own lives and to make big decisions. It is a major part of the propaganda state apparatus.
Ain’t nobody controls the media like they do in capitalism. If you can list a piece of media for consumption, it’s probably propaganda. If you can list an organization, it probably has some purpose in the propaganda apparatus.
Recommended reading: propaganda by Edward Bernays Inventing reality by Michael Parenti Manufactured consent by Noam Chomsky
Recommended watching: Anything by Maggy Mae Fish
Seriously? I honestly had no idea. Can you link me a few examples?
Thank you for the interesting recommendations!
Being open about corruption is a communist tradition. Xinhua continuously publishes articles on corruption.
Google “English.news.cn corruption party members”
Going back to Lenin, his works are mostly rebuttals against the policies of the second international. Stalin’s essay “burkharin’s group and the right deviation”. Khrushchev’s secret speech.
And that’s just some of the famous ones.
Thanks for letting me know this. Very interesting.
Not only criticism but self criticism is important
I agree with you. We should never stop to work on improving ourselves.
If you’re interested and prefer to start with audio-visual, Parenti has a few lectures on his book(s) (there’s another one about entertainment media: Make-Believe Media iirc). They’re on YouTube. Alternatively a lemmygrad user made a podcast with them if you preferred that.
That’s because they don’t exist.
Yeah, right 🤣
Can you name any?
Google “English.news.cn corruption party members”
deleted by creator
I see your point and have been following along all of these conversations. I just wanted to add that In The Name of the People (2017) is an incredible Chinese (sorta-)cop show wherein we follow anti-corruption detectives who arrest those same bigwigs you mention. It rules, and is an example of this in a contemporary socialist society rather than something from 50 years ago in Soviet media or whatever. I recommend looking into it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A74YChOkSpY
Is it this one?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Good bot!
My mind about this detail was already changed by some constructive comments here, as you have probably read. Thank you for the additional hint, sounds like an interesting show. Please dm me, if you know where I could stream it with English subs in acceptable quality.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: