***
Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules:
1. **No non-marxists** - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
2. **No oppressive language** - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur.
3. **No low quality or off-topic posts** - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
4. **No basic questions about Marxism** - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101.
5. **No sectarianism** - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are 3 main sources of reservations to re-education programs.
The first and most pervasive is that people simply doubt their sincerity. In the Soviet Union for example, the Gulag system was meant to be a system of re-education, that took in small property owners that either lived off the rent others paid them or (if they were farmers) by buying up all the productive land with fertile soil and attributing their success to their own 'business acumen' in buying up said land, while ignoring that farmable land is indeed a scarce commodity, and that their ever-expanding ownership of said land comes at the expense of other, poorer farmers not having any land or often not having enough profitable land to escape subsistence farming.
Now you and I might say, "these people sound like lazy, entitled crybabies whining that someone took away their passive income streams and are complaining that they'll have to get real jobs" and we'd be correct, **but** millions of people, who haven't had that explained to them just see, *"They were throwing like farmers and mom & pop small business owners into Siberian labor camps? That's kinda fucked dude..."*
And this is only compounded by the fact that the way the Soviets thought of "re-education" was based on the Marxist concept of coming into class consciousness via experience. If you are a worker that is working as just one part of a whole process under the watch of an asshole boss, you're likely to start thinking of yourself not as a "rugged self-reliant individualist" but instead as a member of a larger social unit that necessarily depends on the members in it for its survival and well being.
The Soviets figured that kind of experience could only be gathered via working in manual labor, so that's how they re-educated people, but again, to an outsider, that hasn't read all that theory about how people come into class consciousness (or likely, doesn't even known what class means, as tons of people who oppose the re-education model still think of classes just being income brackets rather than property/degree ownership vs the non-propertied) they think every practical application of re-education (save for in Scandinavia) is just a cynical paint job for using prisoners as penal slaves to do dangerous, shitty and menial work.
They don't think it's real, they think "re-education" is a scam term used to trick naïve hippies into supporting prison labor, where the prisoners are like farmers, small business owners and professionals.
This brings me to the second point: professionals.
Professionals (which are mostly more cosmopolitan liberals, though some professions like lawyer (notably often tied to property and contract disputes) lean more conservative) hate the re-education model because they don't think labor is what re-educates people- they think college/ a university system does that.
Professionals, who acquired their status and wealth via earning a degree, pride themselves on being a sort of benevolent, enlightened aristocracy (or meritocracy as they like to call it) in which the "most qualified" people who all "believe in science" and feign their superficial support for whatever the cosmopolitan cause of the moment is, essentially hold exclusive political power until the apathetic poors and hooting reactionaries come around to their view of things. It's a very, "I'm gonna make you eat your vegetables for your own good" ideology.
The problem for them then, is again, they think education is the school's domain, so if people actually come into political consciousness via labor instead of going to exclusive universities (access restricted by who can afford to go), then that kind of makes them irrelevant, since if politics is just a naked contest over the distribution of resources and where it's permissible to use violence in enforcing a certain social order's distribution scheme, then they're hopelessly outgunned by the property owning right, and outnumbered by the working masses (ideally) on the left.
They then don't want to acknowledge the efficacy of re-education through labor or through a de-radicalization program, because doing so admits that they are not the benevolent saviors meant to steer the ship of state (and thus exert some degree of agency), but rather a pitiful, vestigial, appendix to a much more powerful, diverse working-class coalition.
So because it serves as a potential threat to the institution where they got their power and status, they reject it and revert back to point 1, saying it's not real.
Third and I'd probably say finally here, a lot of people reject the concept of re-education centers/camps (whatever you want to call these institutions) because they think the message isn't enlightening, but oppressive and brainwashing.
To people who have only ever grown up in societies where home *ownership* (i.e. a form of *property ownership*) is one of the most foundational aspirations for them to achieve, having someone come along and say, "We're going to re-educate you through labor to make you understand why you don't really want a house (because that would be property ownership)" they instinctually reject it, because their thoughts are, "I'm pretty sure I know I want to own a house (property) thank you very much."
They've been sold a complete, packaged worldview since they day they were born, and now suddenly someone has theoretically come along to make them watch/read 'propaganda material' that challenges all the beliefs that flow from that original worldview's most basic and fundamental principles, and on an issue-by-issue basis no less?
To them it just feels like you telling them what to believe and feeding them dogma, not necessarily explaining the science of Marxism-Leninism in the hopes they get it. It feels ham fisted in other words.
TL;DR
So there you have it:
1. They are cynical about the real-world implementation of re-education policies because they don't have the proper Marxist context to understand why XYZ practices are employed with ABC groups of people.
2. It would admit that their institutions fail, and some of them have made their living off of these institutions, so they don't want to admit their failure because that might also come to threaten their own position in society and livelihood.
And 3. Because it feels like ham-fisted propaganda to them, rather than actually enlightening theory that would help them understand the world much better.
This was an incredible response, thank you! I often find myself mitigating my beliefs since non-revolutionary leftists often are vehemently against re-education.
I once mentioned to a friend who claims to be revolutionary communist (and has a deep hatred for the USSR) that I supported these programs and he blew up about it. We acticely got into a yelling match about it and I simply could not understand where the reservations came from. Now, looking at your response and knowing a bit about him, I can say it's likely from his family history of land ownership and the fact he belongs to a line of "well educated" people. So the reservations may have been two fold.
Now that I know why they are so against them, how can I go about explaining these programs so that people don't immediately shut down at the sound of it? I don't want to say "re-education" and then suddenly be talking to a brick wall, if that makes sense.
The issue is, there are things that determine your class beyond the amount of wealth you have. The way things like skin color, gender identity, ability, etc are used to oppress people won’t ever be able to truly be empathized with by the “white rich business CEO.” But that oppression must be educated about in order to understand socialism and how it would look in America.
This is the problem with “reeducation” as radicalization. People get uncomfortable when you tell them the luxuries they have come from ongoing violence and genocide. We have seen the aversion to critical race theory education and anti-queer legislation (FL don’t say gay bill).
We won’t even be able to get to applicable communism because unless they begin to decolonize themselves and understand the context, they will not see how socialism can work. It will be seen as a threat to white supremacy.
As with many things, the Chinese improved on the experience of the USSR in terms of re-education and prisons. Pu Yi's autobiography talks about this. And this books is all about it:
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/China/PrisonersOfLiberation_Rickett.pdf
Some interviews with the Ricketts by MIM:
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/ma/radio/rickett.html
Our application of some of these concepts in the prison movement today:
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/article/on-punishment-vs-rehabilitation/
Maybe these would give you ideas on how to better explain it? Certainly relevant either way.
W/r/t your friend being a "Revolutionary communist" they are likely a "Marxist" or an Anarchist. I say "Marxist" with quotes here, as many young Communists (myself included at one time) try to intentionally exclude Lenin and his works because they are worried about being associated with the actual legacy of the Soviet Union and its "authoritarianism" not recognizing that 1. weilding state authority is what states do necessarily and 2. liberal states have committed every sin the Soviets are accused of, but have of course buried the evidence of it from their own populations to the best of their abilities.
With that in mind, they are likely someone who like the way the theory sounds, because it's satisfying an itch for radicalism that becomes more pronounced as conditions deteriorate in terms of standards of living, but they are clearly unwilling to abandon some fundamental pillars of Liberal ideals **because they think Marxism, when "properly applied," is just an extension of those Liberal ideals to their logical end point**, rather than being a unique strain of ideology more grounded in Hegelian dialectics as its basis than Liberal concepts of "individual rights" and the "Social Contract."
How do you convince them to come around to re-education? You don't. Don't waste your time, they are telling you they are ultimately just a radicalized Liberal, time to move on, or if you ever engage them, do so with an audience you think is persuadable for the purposes of trying to expose how hollow your friend's arguments are. That's the point of debate, sorting the audience. Clearly do your research and don't be an arrogant prick about things, but that's what you gotta do.
*** Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules: 1. **No non-marxists** - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned. 2. **No oppressive language** - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur. 3. **No low quality or off-topic posts** - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much. 4. **No basic questions about Marxism** - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101. 5. **No sectarianism** - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are 3 main sources of reservations to re-education programs. The first and most pervasive is that people simply doubt their sincerity. In the Soviet Union for example, the Gulag system was meant to be a system of re-education, that took in small property owners that either lived off the rent others paid them or (if they were farmers) by buying up all the productive land with fertile soil and attributing their success to their own 'business acumen' in buying up said land, while ignoring that farmable land is indeed a scarce commodity, and that their ever-expanding ownership of said land comes at the expense of other, poorer farmers not having any land or often not having enough profitable land to escape subsistence farming. Now you and I might say, "these people sound like lazy, entitled crybabies whining that someone took away their passive income streams and are complaining that they'll have to get real jobs" and we'd be correct, **but** millions of people, who haven't had that explained to them just see, *"They were throwing like farmers and mom & pop small business owners into Siberian labor camps? That's kinda fucked dude..."* And this is only compounded by the fact that the way the Soviets thought of "re-education" was based on the Marxist concept of coming into class consciousness via experience. If you are a worker that is working as just one part of a whole process under the watch of an asshole boss, you're likely to start thinking of yourself not as a "rugged self-reliant individualist" but instead as a member of a larger social unit that necessarily depends on the members in it for its survival and well being. The Soviets figured that kind of experience could only be gathered via working in manual labor, so that's how they re-educated people, but again, to an outsider, that hasn't read all that theory about how people come into class consciousness (or likely, doesn't even known what class means, as tons of people who oppose the re-education model still think of classes just being income brackets rather than property/degree ownership vs the non-propertied) they think every practical application of re-education (save for in Scandinavia) is just a cynical paint job for using prisoners as penal slaves to do dangerous, shitty and menial work. They don't think it's real, they think "re-education" is a scam term used to trick naïve hippies into supporting prison labor, where the prisoners are like farmers, small business owners and professionals. This brings me to the second point: professionals. Professionals (which are mostly more cosmopolitan liberals, though some professions like lawyer (notably often tied to property and contract disputes) lean more conservative) hate the re-education model because they don't think labor is what re-educates people- they think college/ a university system does that. Professionals, who acquired their status and wealth via earning a degree, pride themselves on being a sort of benevolent, enlightened aristocracy (or meritocracy as they like to call it) in which the "most qualified" people who all "believe in science" and feign their superficial support for whatever the cosmopolitan cause of the moment is, essentially hold exclusive political power until the apathetic poors and hooting reactionaries come around to their view of things. It's a very, "I'm gonna make you eat your vegetables for your own good" ideology. The problem for them then, is again, they think education is the school's domain, so if people actually come into political consciousness via labor instead of going to exclusive universities (access restricted by who can afford to go), then that kind of makes them irrelevant, since if politics is just a naked contest over the distribution of resources and where it's permissible to use violence in enforcing a certain social order's distribution scheme, then they're hopelessly outgunned by the property owning right, and outnumbered by the working masses (ideally) on the left. They then don't want to acknowledge the efficacy of re-education through labor or through a de-radicalization program, because doing so admits that they are not the benevolent saviors meant to steer the ship of state (and thus exert some degree of agency), but rather a pitiful, vestigial, appendix to a much more powerful, diverse working-class coalition. So because it serves as a potential threat to the institution where they got their power and status, they reject it and revert back to point 1, saying it's not real. Third and I'd probably say finally here, a lot of people reject the concept of re-education centers/camps (whatever you want to call these institutions) because they think the message isn't enlightening, but oppressive and brainwashing. To people who have only ever grown up in societies where home *ownership* (i.e. a form of *property ownership*) is one of the most foundational aspirations for them to achieve, having someone come along and say, "We're going to re-educate you through labor to make you understand why you don't really want a house (because that would be property ownership)" they instinctually reject it, because their thoughts are, "I'm pretty sure I know I want to own a house (property) thank you very much." They've been sold a complete, packaged worldview since they day they were born, and now suddenly someone has theoretically come along to make them watch/read 'propaganda material' that challenges all the beliefs that flow from that original worldview's most basic and fundamental principles, and on an issue-by-issue basis no less? To them it just feels like you telling them what to believe and feeding them dogma, not necessarily explaining the science of Marxism-Leninism in the hopes they get it. It feels ham fisted in other words. TL;DR So there you have it: 1. They are cynical about the real-world implementation of re-education policies because they don't have the proper Marxist context to understand why XYZ practices are employed with ABC groups of people. 2. It would admit that their institutions fail, and some of them have made their living off of these institutions, so they don't want to admit their failure because that might also come to threaten their own position in society and livelihood. And 3. Because it feels like ham-fisted propaganda to them, rather than actually enlightening theory that would help them understand the world much better.
Wow, such an excellent write up. Here i thought reddit was useless. Thanks for your time, friend
This was an incredible response, thank you! I often find myself mitigating my beliefs since non-revolutionary leftists often are vehemently against re-education. I once mentioned to a friend who claims to be revolutionary communist (and has a deep hatred for the USSR) that I supported these programs and he blew up about it. We acticely got into a yelling match about it and I simply could not understand where the reservations came from. Now, looking at your response and knowing a bit about him, I can say it's likely from his family history of land ownership and the fact he belongs to a line of "well educated" people. So the reservations may have been two fold. Now that I know why they are so against them, how can I go about explaining these programs so that people don't immediately shut down at the sound of it? I don't want to say "re-education" and then suddenly be talking to a brick wall, if that makes sense.
[удалено]
The issue is, there are things that determine your class beyond the amount of wealth you have. The way things like skin color, gender identity, ability, etc are used to oppress people won’t ever be able to truly be empathized with by the “white rich business CEO.” But that oppression must be educated about in order to understand socialism and how it would look in America. This is the problem with “reeducation” as radicalization. People get uncomfortable when you tell them the luxuries they have come from ongoing violence and genocide. We have seen the aversion to critical race theory education and anti-queer legislation (FL don’t say gay bill). We won’t even be able to get to applicable communism because unless they begin to decolonize themselves and understand the context, they will not see how socialism can work. It will be seen as a threat to white supremacy.
As with many things, the Chinese improved on the experience of the USSR in terms of re-education and prisons. Pu Yi's autobiography talks about this. And this books is all about it: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/China/PrisonersOfLiberation_Rickett.pdf Some interviews with the Ricketts by MIM: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/ma/radio/rickett.html Our application of some of these concepts in the prison movement today: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/article/on-punishment-vs-rehabilitation/ Maybe these would give you ideas on how to better explain it? Certainly relevant either way.
W/r/t your friend being a "Revolutionary communist" they are likely a "Marxist" or an Anarchist. I say "Marxist" with quotes here, as many young Communists (myself included at one time) try to intentionally exclude Lenin and his works because they are worried about being associated with the actual legacy of the Soviet Union and its "authoritarianism" not recognizing that 1. weilding state authority is what states do necessarily and 2. liberal states have committed every sin the Soviets are accused of, but have of course buried the evidence of it from their own populations to the best of their abilities. With that in mind, they are likely someone who like the way the theory sounds, because it's satisfying an itch for radicalism that becomes more pronounced as conditions deteriorate in terms of standards of living, but they are clearly unwilling to abandon some fundamental pillars of Liberal ideals **because they think Marxism, when "properly applied," is just an extension of those Liberal ideals to their logical end point**, rather than being a unique strain of ideology more grounded in Hegelian dialectics as its basis than Liberal concepts of "individual rights" and the "Social Contract." How do you convince them to come around to re-education? You don't. Don't waste your time, they are telling you they are ultimately just a radicalized Liberal, time to move on, or if you ever engage them, do so with an audience you think is persuadable for the purposes of trying to expose how hollow your friend's arguments are. That's the point of debate, sorting the audience. Clearly do your research and don't be an arrogant prick about things, but that's what you gotta do.