If there’s already been discussion on this at length that someone knows of, feel free to link me.
I’ve been thinking this over because it’s one of those recurring talking points that comes up. I may have even talked about it here before in passing, but I don’t remember for sure.
But I wanted to talk about the core of how BS it is and the main way I see it get used. Which is that of someone saying “my [relative] lived in [socialist state] and fled it”, or they will leave out the first part and just say “people lived in [socialist state] and fled it.” And then the implication or outright stated, “Why aren’t you taking this as proof that communism bad? Clearly communism bad!”
The primary way I’ve seen people counter this is pointing out that those who were fleeing were sometimes, well… members of the former exploiting class. Which is true.
But I’m not sure the talking point is even worth entertaining to that degree. Because like:
-
As far as I’ve seen, nobody provides actual hard numbers on people “fleeing communism” relative to other situations where people flee a conflict or just leave a country to go to another one in general. In fact, it’s often an anecdotal claim about a single person: “My relative.”
-
Is there even such a thing as a major conflict/upheaval in a country at scale where it was possible for people to flee and nobody fled? Like big change can be scary and it’s always going to be somewhat disruptive of status quo, even if it’s an overall benefit going forward. Not to mention major changing of hands of power usually involves some violence.
So this leads me to: what is supposed to be different about communism that makes people “fleeing it” special? I’ve yet to see any explanation on that and so it makes me think that may be a point to push back on with people. That rather than even talking about the nature of why, first ask how it is supposed to be a special kind of “fleeing”.
And also, when it’s purely anecdotal, asking why they are supposed to be taken seriously over the opinions of the millions (or more) of people who make up X socialist state. In that regard, it sounds a lot like the “one of my closest friends is [racial minority] trope” in that they are sort of implying the people are monolithic and one or a few can speak for all of them.
Thoughts?
I just think it’s funny how when westerners move to another country they’re never “fleeing” their country, they’re just “expats”. But when people from the global south do it they are never called that…
Well, together we can change the narrative! From now on grandma is “fleeing” America for some country. Even if it’s just a vacation! Who cares? When someone trys to correct you call them a snowflake! Co-opt all their language
This is the counter point I like to throw back, “what about the people who fled capitalism to communist countries?”
I fled the evil Dutch regime that prevented me from housing myself. I am a victim of capitalism! It doesn’t work!
When people flee a poor capitalist country, they are economic migrants, not refugees from capitalism. When people flee a poor communist country, they’re fleeing communism.
when global south people migrate to imperial core countries, they’re chasing the american dream! (totally not fleeing capitalism).
Just about all people who migrate from socialist countries to capitalist one do so for economic reasons not ideological ones, this is self evident in that its very rare for one to migrate to a capitalist global south country.
All (successful) revolution so far have happened in global south/backwards/periphery countries so in many cases while socialism raised living standard of all working people, its still better to live in the imperial core for some people, so reality is that in cases like Cuba and Venezuela they arent fleeing communism they are fleeing the legacy of colonialism or they are fleeing the sanctions imposed on socialist countries (which is an attempt to re establish a colonial relation so kinda the same). Or in the case of the no longer existing socialist countries in eastern Europe its a little different people were fleeing lesser development rather than colonialism. And in both cases they were participating in brain drain which is also a pretty big driver.
I’ve seen the same with some eastern euro people who immigrated to the US. They have stories of bread lines and things being really tough economically, but these were all stories from the 90s, after the USSR was dissolved. They blame it on socialism, but they were too young at the time to have experienced life as an adult before and after the dissolution.
I often lose my temper and tell those people that their grandmas and grampas were reactionary shitheads who deserved losing their slaves.
In all seriousness ask them “why yo old man/woman” flee the country? Did the wealth they stolen got rightfully taken?
I wish I could flee capitalism.
ur gonna have to go the only places untainted by capital…SPACE.
Communism bad because my n[REDACTED] slaves got freedom.
parenti quote
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.
Tbh not everyone who left was a reactionary shithead. Many who did were (and also actual criminals), however, a decent number of East Germans, for example, who chose to immigrate to the West due to thinking they’d be living in a lavish lifestyle tried to go back to the East due to being disillusioned by Capitalism.
I’m on my phone rn so providing a source for this is a bit hard (sorry), but if you look this up on lemmygrad I’m sure you’ll easily find them. I will also update this comment later to provide them.
Think about it. You’re a German citizen, grew up with anti communist indoctrination everywhere, then all of a sudden the Soviets come to your country (thank god they did) and “shortly” (4 years later) after socialism is established [Yes, I know Stalin wanted a neutral, non-aligned Germany]. The whole Jewish-bolshevik conspiracy bs probably played a role.
There’s also the factor that ALL the countries in the Eastern Bloc had been ravaged by WW2, unlike most capitalist countries, didn’t receive the Marshall Plan and had to pay reparations to the Soviet Union (West Germany refused) and didn’t benefit or profit from Imperialism, placing it in a very, very unfair position against the Western Bloc. In the case of the GDR, not only had its territory always been historically poorer than its Western counterpart, but also didn’t have access to the Ruhr valley.
Also, people might accuse you of whataboutism if you say this (who cares lol), but there were also many people who fled — under the same definition — capitalism for the Eastern Bloc, namely western communists, minorities and 3rd world peoples.
Lastly, there was inefficiency, corruption, infiltration and many other issues in the Eastern Bloc, which unfortunately weren’t addressed correctly, but that’s another story that deserves its own book (blackshirts and reds and socialism betrayed explain these pretty well imo)
