Having grown up and become a young adult in a socialist state (East Germany), usually described as part of the Communist Bloc (when only the USSR officially declared its transition from socialism to communism a handful of years before the fall of the Berlin Wall), allow me respectfully to disagree with this description of ‘communism’ from the article :”The other America, the one that buys fear, grievance, and over-priced gold shoes, has been told the big tent is filled with ‘communists’. No one explained to them what communism is and why calling Democrats communists is not only another lie to throw on the already putrid mountain of lies, but truly disrespectful to those who endured the pain of totalitarian rule by communist leaders. Under communism, people could not get basic food or health care because communists stole everything. Their world was violent and scary, filled with secret police, neighbors turning on neighbors, routine roundups of regime opponents. It was never the promised people’s paradise but rather, a system that gave leaders a pass to commit genocide without consequence.”
We did have basic foods, and enough for everyone, at subsidised retail prices which were the same in every shop of the land. Healthcare wad free, too, as was education, including university, with housing, culture, public transport again being subsidised and accessible to everyone despite the low income. Secret police and an informal spy network existed but it was an open secret and one simply took care of what one said to whom. My own paternal grandfather was coerced into becoming an IM at the Stasi but his chosen handle made it clear to the initiated that he wouldn’t provide any actionable information.
What was described in the article sounds to me a lot more like national socialism, which was already an attempt to subvert the idea if socialism with a totalitarian agenda. I am a little tired of people who weren’t even there trying to tell us how things were while conflating all sorts of things.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I was combining stories in brief from firsthand reports from friends who grew up in multiple communist countries. I’m grateful you shared your experience.
Thank you for your response. Of course, my personal experience is also just ‘anecdotal’, just like all personal recollections are. By and large, socialism as I experienced it (with a reluctant but conscientious party member dad and a system-critical mum) was one of focus on the collective at the expense of the individual, with all the advantages (in terms of fair(er) distribution of material and access to immaterial assets) and disadvantages (homogenisation and a dislike for dissenters, even if their dissent was not about the objective but just the way to achieve it) that brings.
It would promote talent were it served (see Katharina Witt) and rein it in where it could be perceived as starting to question the basics.
And obviously, over time and with the same lot in power by fiat, corruption inevitably crept in. Democratic centralism, the official term for it, was in the end democratic in name only.
Thank you for your writing which overall I enjoy reading very much.
America had a moment in 1968, when hope could have been re-ignited … but RFK was assassinated and HHH was not the man. Ken Mo inspires us to celebrate that today, we now have the right woman for the moment!
Having grown up and become a young adult in a socialist state (East Germany), usually described as part of the Communist Bloc (when only the USSR officially declared its transition from socialism to communism a handful of years before the fall of the Berlin Wall), allow me respectfully to disagree with this description of ‘communism’ from the article :”The other America, the one that buys fear, grievance, and over-priced gold shoes, has been told the big tent is filled with ‘communists’. No one explained to them what communism is and why calling Democrats communists is not only another lie to throw on the already putrid mountain of lies, but truly disrespectful to those who endured the pain of totalitarian rule by communist leaders. Under communism, people could not get basic food or health care because communists stole everything. Their world was violent and scary, filled with secret police, neighbors turning on neighbors, routine roundups of regime opponents. It was never the promised people’s paradise but rather, a system that gave leaders a pass to commit genocide without consequence.”
We did have basic foods, and enough for everyone, at subsidised retail prices which were the same in every shop of the land. Healthcare wad free, too, as was education, including university, with housing, culture, public transport again being subsidised and accessible to everyone despite the low income. Secret police and an informal spy network existed but it was an open secret and one simply took care of what one said to whom. My own paternal grandfather was coerced into becoming an IM at the Stasi but his chosen handle made it clear to the initiated that he wouldn’t provide any actionable information.
What was described in the article sounds to me a lot more like national socialism, which was already an attempt to subvert the idea if socialism with a totalitarian agenda. I am a little tired of people who weren’t even there trying to tell us how things were while conflating all sorts of things.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I was combining stories in brief from firsthand reports from friends who grew up in multiple communist countries. I’m grateful you shared your experience.
Thank you for your response. Of course, my personal experience is also just ‘anecdotal’, just like all personal recollections are. By and large, socialism as I experienced it (with a reluctant but conscientious party member dad and a system-critical mum) was one of focus on the collective at the expense of the individual, with all the advantages (in terms of fair(er) distribution of material and access to immaterial assets) and disadvantages (homogenisation and a dislike for dissenters, even if their dissent was not about the objective but just the way to achieve it) that brings.
It would promote talent were it served (see Katharina Witt) and rein it in where it could be perceived as starting to question the basics.
And obviously, over time and with the same lot in power by fiat, corruption inevitably crept in. Democratic centralism, the official term for it, was in the end democratic in name only.
Thank you for your writing which overall I enjoy reading very much.
America had a moment in 1968, when hope could have been re-ignited … but RFK was assassinated and HHH was not the man. Ken Mo inspires us to celebrate that today, we now have the right woman for the moment!
https://youtu.be/FciQeRGYFlw?si=ti5BUvAO1WZmERnx
Thank you “spellchecker”☹️ … that’s KEB MO with “Put A Woman In Charge” (excepting the rare, vacuous monsters like MTG, Bohbert)