If someone even tries to discuss communism with you in good faith, then it means you already have a better starting point than 90% of communists. I discussed the Soviet Union with an American and it was just painful, typical Stalin killed millions of people etc. Also thought that every historian (American btw!) that said something good about USSR was a russian propagandist.
But getting back to the topic, I think the most important part of discussing AES is not knowing the history of the said country per say (although it is very important), but understanding how to talk about the contradictions it faced. When you tell an average person that Stalin didn’t kill 8 million people in the terror, but 700 k it doesn’t really make it look all that better does it? However, when you put in the context of the conflict between regional leaders and Stalin and say that the USSR really had a very real existential threat, then it directly challenges the cartoonish version of Stalin and the USSR.
I think the issue is that you make it seem like you want to overcompensate for real tragedies that happened under AES. What I always want to explain when talking about AES is the role of state power in class societies. Most of libs will dismiss socialist states for killing people, but we know that state power is universally used by all states in the history of the world. The Soviet Union didn’t succeed in spite of using a highly repressive aparatus, it usually succeeded becaause of it.
I don’t know if that was a response you wanted, but that’s my perspective. Just remember that you don’t have to force yourself to persuade everyone.
If someone even tries to discuss communism with you in good faith, then it means you already have a better starting point than 90% of communists. I discussed the Soviet Union with an American and it was just painful, typical Stalin killed millions of people etc. Also thought that every historian (American btw!) that said something good about USSR was a russian propagandist.
But getting back to the topic, I think the most important part of discussing AES is not knowing the history of the said country per say (although it is very important), but understanding how to talk about the contradictions it faced. When you tell an average person that Stalin didn’t kill 8 million people in the terror, but 700 k it doesn’t really make it look all that better does it? However, when you put in the context of the conflict between regional leaders and Stalin and say that the USSR really had a very real existential threat, then it directly challenges the cartoonish version of Stalin and the USSR.
I think the issue is that you make it seem like you want to overcompensate for real tragedies that happened under AES. What I always want to explain when talking about AES is the role of state power in class societies. Most of libs will dismiss socialist states for killing people, but we know that state power is universally used by all states in the history of the world. The Soviet Union didn’t succeed in spite of using a highly repressive aparatus, it usually succeeded becaause of it.
I don’t know if that was a response you wanted, but that’s my perspective. Just remember that you don’t have to force yourself to persuade everyone.