That sub is mostly pretty boring these days, but ocassionally they come through with a cringe masterpiece like this.

  • JucheBot1988OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Yes, I remember that when I was growing up and getting interested in communism, conservative acquaintances used to very smugly tell me “just wait until you talk to people who actually lived under that system.” Well, guess what? When I actually did, I heard a lot of favorable views of the USSR and the eastern bloc in general.

    The libs have recognized this phenomenon, of course, and they now explain it by “false nostalgia through early traumatization” or some other such shit.

    • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s pretty convenient for liberals that anyone with anything positive to say about communism is an unacceptable source either due to not having experienced it or due to having experienced it.

      Almost like some kind of unfalsifiable orthodoxy.

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        This somehow also applies to my having experienced capitalism my whole life, which you would think would give me some authority on the subject but actually apparently makes me biased and unreliable

        • Parenti BotB
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago
          The quote

          In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. 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.

          – Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

          I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.