Wolfmanne2 wrote:The Communist Party of the Russian Federation manages to survive by winning the votes of those who have forgotten enough of the bad parts to be nostalgic about what was quite frankly an awful state of affairs.
For the majority of people, it was a far better state of affairs than the one which exists today. The planned economy ensured that you had a job, with no possibility of unemployment, and you had a guaranteed pension to look forward to, and good health care (by the standards of the time, of course - we're talking about life in the 60s, 70s and 80s), and you had a small apartment provided by the state, and all basic necessities were taken care of.
It was a stable and relatively stress-free life. There was no need to struggle to survive. There was no fear of unemployment, or homelessness, or abject poverty. For those who are poor today (and for many with middle incomes as well), this is a very attractive state of affairs.
Wolfmanne2 wrote:You yourself have admitted this much; I hate to say it, but once all the grannies and grandpas die, what is left for communism in Eastern Europe?
Then it will be like in Western Europe. The demographics will shift so that communism gets far more support from rebellious youth than from the elderly. But that is still at least a decade into the future.
And in any case, with the way European politics is going right now, I fully expect that in another 20 years many people (especially in Eastern Europe) will find it necessary to organize resistance movements against far-right regimes. If communism will become popular again in Eastern Europe, it will be for the same reason it became popular in 1943-45.
Wolfmanne2 wrote:I am a firm believer that the ordinary working people who lived under communist parties are those who hold the most valid opinions and having read various anecdotes, I have concluded that communism is not an ideal system.
I completely agree that the ordinary working people who lived under communist parties are those who hold the most valid opinions. But... they are the demographic most likely to support communism today in Eastern Europe! After all, those workers who were young decades ago are today's pro-communist "grannies and grandpas".
Wolfmanne2 wrote:That in itself is probably the main reason why communism can not be achieved; the original circle of revolutionaries eventually evaporated and the communist parties ended up becoming stacked with careerists, bureaucrats and those who had joined for their own non-political personal gain (for instance, favourable treatment when applying to university or for a job).
That's very true, and it's one of the main reason why the system collapsed, and it's probably the single most important argument for NOT repeating the mistake of creating a one-party state in future socialist societies (i.e. in societies trying to achieve communism).
The one-party state seemed like a good idea only because it was taken for granted that the party would always continue seeking to reach communism. But, as it turns out, the result of a dictatorial political system - no matter how idealistic - is that the government becomes corrupt, and gets stacked with careerists who don't give a damn about the original ideals. A dictatorship trying to reach communism isn't bad in and of itself, but the problem is that if you have a dictatorship, it will eventually stop trying to reach communism.
It is an open question how best to organize a socialist state in such a way that it does not succumb to corruption. Of course, a certain degree of corruption is inevitable, and tolerable, but we cannot allow it to grow so much that it destroys socialism itself, as it did in the USSR.
Wolfmanne2 wrote:Take Poland; it was a communist state, yet it fell to the Catholic-inspired Solidarity in league with Polish nationalists that advocated a philosophy which should have died out years ago. Resentment towards communism for their failings may have been present, but how could it be spawned in a form that is so directly opposed to communist ideology?
It didn't present itself as being so opposed to communist ideology in the beginning. Solidarity was talking about reforming socialism and making it more democratic in the early 1980s. It was only right before taking power that it became openly pro-capitalist.
Wolfmanne2 wrote:The Balts have been largely opposed to communism because their experience of it was being treated as second class citizens to Russians and having their own societies overturned in favour of a Russian-imposed one.
That's true, unfortunately, and a certain degree of resentment is absolutely warranted because of this. But the Balts have an intense hatred of all things Soviet and communist which goes far beyond the hatred that other countries have for their former occupiers, and also far beyond the hatred that any other nationalities of the USSR itself have for the Soviet system.
For example, the Balts were treated better than the Central Asian nationalities. But in most of Central Asia, nostalgia for the Soviet system runs high, and no one seems to complain about the fact that they were forced to speak Russian. In fact, Russian remains a co-official language in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
And looking at other European countries, Ireland suffered centuries of occupation by the British, and a famine in the 19th century that basically amounted to genocide. As a result, there is quite a lot of anti-British sentiment in Ireland - but they don't try to purge the English language or strip British people of Irish citizenship unless they learn to speak Gaelic, or wish that Hitler won WW2.
By any standards you choose, compared to almost any other people in a similar situation, the reaction of the Balts is extreme. I can only conclude that they must be exceptionally nationalistic.
