I know there are people who use the "it wasn't real communism!" line (primarily radlibs, trots, and certain annoying kinds of anarchists) but i gotta say, it's the most limpdick fucking argument a self-identified communist could make. I'll be the last person to advocate for uncritical support for "Actually Existing Socialism," but the obvious correct line is "yes USSR etc. was communist, yes it was flawed, no that does not mean that 'communism always fails.' communism's failure to live up to a utopian ideal is miles better than capitalism's abject success at creating an cruel, alienated, and fundamentally evil social order."
Lately I've been doing this as a bit: "listen, I'm not an idealist, I believe in practical policies supported by data and the fact is that even at its worst the Soviet GULAG system had fewer prisoners serving shorter sentences than any of its contemporaries which is an incremental improvement that any rational person should be supportive of." Apply it to basically anything any communist government did or does, instant gold.
I mean, I've said it wasn't communism in that it wasn't a classless, stateless, moneyless society, but I agree that's what they were trying to get to and they were using what they thought were the best methods to get there.
I think this semantic quibble needs to be abandoned as well, or at least explained in clearer terms, because when you say it like that, the uneducated anticommunist-by-default just hears a validation of the works-on-paper canard. it's useful context to know that communism's 20th century practitioners didn't believe their work was fully complete, but that can't be seen as undermining what they did achieve.
I know there are people who use the "it wasn't real communism!" line (primarily radlibs, trots, and certain annoying kinds of anarchists) but i gotta say, it's the most limpdick fucking argument a self-identified communist could make. I'll be the last person to advocate for uncritical support for "Actually Existing Socialism," but the obvious correct line is "yes USSR etc. was communist, yes it was flawed, no that does not mean that 'communism always fails.' communism's failure to live up to a utopian ideal is miles better than capitalism's abject success at creating an cruel, alienated, and fundamentally evil social order."
Lately I've been doing this as a bit: "listen, I'm not an idealist, I believe in practical policies supported by data and the fact is that even at its worst the Soviet GULAG system had fewer prisoners serving shorter sentences than any of its contemporaries which is an incremental improvement that any rational person should be supportive of." Apply it to basically anything any communist government did or does, instant gold.
I mean, I've said it wasn't communism in that it wasn't a classless, stateless, moneyless society, but I agree that's what they were trying to get to and they were using what they thought were the best methods to get there.
I think this semantic quibble needs to be abandoned as well, or at least explained in clearer terms, because when you say it like that, the uneducated anticommunist-by-default just hears a validation of the works-on-paper canard. it's useful context to know that communism's 20th century practitioners didn't believe their work was fully complete, but that can't be seen as undermining what they did achieve.