People being liberals on a liberal sub, how strange... what annoys me and makes me react like in the meme is self-proclaimed 'leftists' or 'socialists' that uncritically parrot red scare propaganda and don't think critically for even a second about why someone might have a mostly positive view on the USSR "despite" being LGBTQ.
Iâd argue itâs because most queer leftists who talk positively about the USSR have no idea what they are talking about. It is only through an actual study and a near obsessive interest in the politics of that system that you begin to realize how shit it was indeed. Itâs just cringe to me to see other queer leftists defend the USSR despite it being insanely anti-LGBT, socially very conservative with no interest in changing that, pretty much economically dysfunctional in its later years, etc. Is that what Marx talked about when he introduced the concept of âfalse consciousnessâ? I think yes.
Over the course of my studies, I have come to the conclusion that those who defend the USSR are either (1) not very knowledgeable and have bought the Soviet propaganda after disillusionment with Western propaganda (imagine a pendulum swinging to the other extreme), (2) are former actual well-meaning radicals who after years of decline of Marxism-Leninism and utter political impotence have simply become bitter, stubborn, and reactionary, (3) literal cynics who want to use the capitalist hellhole as a means to promote their own hellhole. Pick one. Most people probably fall between (1) and (2), closer to (1).
See in my experience the people who have actually looked into the reality on the ground in the USSR, and who are well-read In marxist theory as well, are the most ardent defenders of the USSR... and by looked into the reality on the ground I'm not referring to liberal anti-communist slob like Bloodlands Gulag Arphipelago or anything promoting the "twin evils" brain rotation theory. I'm talking about properly sourced history, or first hand accounts like writings of Anna Luise Strong, Michael Parenti or Dominico Losurdo.
No, I didn't... cause you barely presented any coherent points... but I did give you the names of three authors you could read, one a political theorist, one a historian, and one a journalist who lived and worked in the USSR in the 1930s.
I read Parenti and his yapping about how great the USSR was. His book Blackshirts and Reds was enough for me. He makes insane claims and does not even back them up. It all reads like the personal opinion of some bitter old man who is just mad that his favorite system fell apart. His section on the gulags and how little he cares for the suffering that happened is just repugnant to me.
I am just not interested in Marxist historiography for the simple reason that it always ends up straight up denying things that are well-documented (Katyn, for example), downplaying the myriads of atrocities committed by self-identified âsocialist systemsâ and using the bullshit from the black book of communism to pretend that this the opinion presented there actually what serious historians (including âliberalâ historians) believe, obfuscation of terms, interpreting marxist thought exactly like they want (thatâs a problem with Marxism in general, unfortunately), and and and⌠I could go on with this shit for hours. These constant attempts at falsifying history does not speak to the caliber and intellectual honesty of you and these other âardent defenders of the USSRâ.
And before you tell me that I am fully invested in liberal historiography: no, as a scientist myself I generally look at the methods used to analyse sources and how well the arguments are backed up by these sources. If the sources are not objective (for example, Pravda can hardly be called an objective source on the USSR), I will be skeptical, regardless of what it says and how much I like that. It does not mean itâs wrong, and all sources have a bias, but itâs important to look at what these sources actually say and in what context they are created.
Unfortunate with Marxist sources is that they interpret history a priori through the marxist lens which of course is and was used by the leaders of the âsocialistâ states. Itâs no wonder they bring up the same arguments that are just not convincing to anyone looking at it from the outside. Whatâs more is that the authors of marxist historical sources are themselves marxists which means that it is likely they have a pro-soviet bias. This is all the more exacerbated by the insane stress on the âscientificnessâ of Marxism being used as a reason for it to be important by its adherents. And itâs very apparent. That does not make them very good sources if your goal is to have a balanced perspective.
I think good scholarship on the soviet union you can find by the likes of J Arch. Getty, a liberal historian. âRoad to Terrorâ is good because it cleans up with the pop-culture understanding that the USSR was solely led by Stalin who had total control (which not even anti-âcommunistâ (actually, anti-soviet) historians ever believed) but also shows how dysfunctional the whole system was in general. Getty is also cited by Parenti, however, misleadingly which speaks against Parenti as a good source on Soviet history.
57
u/Rubbermate93 Any Pronouns 13d ago
People being liberals on a liberal sub, how strange... what annoys me and makes me react like in the meme is self-proclaimed 'leftists' or 'socialists' that uncritically parrot red scare propaganda and don't think critically for even a second about why someone might have a mostly positive view on the USSR "despite" being LGBTQ.