I'm currently trying to write out many of my ideas in to a kind of essay form. This is really for me to examine what is actually there and whether it makes any sense. Some areas are good, whilst others are pretty much non-existent and rely on rhetoric or snippets of ideas and events from newspapers. It does show that my support for Communism is largely skin deep, at least outside of some deeply apocalyptic fears over climate change. Its to the point where I can imagine getting purged if I had been in the Soviet Union back in the 1930's, or in North Korea today (although I had always suspected that anyway- now I can prove it).
It is genuinely hard to walk away from Communism. I know it is the right thing to do and do not wish to be involved in a political movement that causes such harm to people, but having followed it for over a decade it affects pretty much everywhere in my thinking. Even when I'm looking at some more conservative or libertarian ideas, its usually through a Marxist lens. I have a certain curiosity in Anarcho-Capitalism as it is pretty much the exact opposite of communism and wanting to know how it would work, but its doubtful I'm going to take it seriously. I looked into Ayn Rand's Objectivism last year, but found the absolutism of it hard to stomach even if I think she has a point about (rational) selfishness being a necessary basis for a healthy and fulfilled life.
The "inner" process is unbearable however because it means questioning long-held and intense emotions. I have stopped watching Television since 2013 and almost eliminated my internet usage this year (except for maybe 1-2 hours a day). Quitting TV was probably one of the best decisions I've ever made as now I can actually use my free thought, rather than having my emotions manipulated by other people and calling propaganda "entertainment". It doesn't really matter what the content is, the more time you spend using the media the more it shapes and distorts your perception of reality and your experience. I have to remind myself that when it comes to thinking about politics and history, much of the intensity of the feelings I have, do not have any source in my own personal experience but from "secondary" sources.
When discussions about Communist atrocities come up, its usually the same three people who get mentioned: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It's interesting because there are dozens of communist leaders in the 20th century who are equally guilty of atrocities, but they don't get a mention. Some of the more obscure leaders for example are, Mengistu (Ethiopia), Kerekou (Benin) and Ali Nasir Muhammad (South Yemen). I had to look them up and I don't know much about them, but I think you get the point: The power and intensity of people's reaction is directly proportionate to the degree to which these names are repeated in the context of atrocity and the association between them. Pol Pot may have been one of the most destructive leaders of Cambodia in the 20th century, but at a guess only a tiny handful of people on the English speaking internet would know the name of the subordinates who carried out his orders, let alone be able to pronounce them (Noun Chea was Prime minister of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge and was known as "Brother Number Two" next to Pol Pot as "Brother Number One". He is still alive today and received a life sentence for Crimes against humanity at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in 2014. The documentary "Enemies of the People" gets chillingly close to understanding the perpetrators with interviews of Noun Chea and other people concerned, but its difficult viewing.
The same problems come up with how criticism of Christianity sticks to certain key historical events such as the Witch Burnings, the Crusades, the Reformation, etc without actually understanding anything about them. They get reduced down to the smallest common denominator so people can repeat them and stop themselves thinking about what they are saying.
In my case at least, the intensity of my feelings seems to rely on my ignorance of people and events. It is easier to treat things more absolutely when you know little about them, and the danger is that the passion can blind us to complexity. Trying to undo the damage of that emotional and moral absolutism is deeply unpleasant because it feels like an act of disloyalty, whether to my own communist beliefs, or to liberal institutions that have claimed to guard against repeating atrocities based on protecting human rights. Both however rely on crippling the capacity to think clearly and deeply by repeating the same rhetoric as if it were fact. Communists are a bit better because they are so "dialectical" and can at least cope with more complexity and contradictions, but it is also an extremely effective way of avoiding direct questions, so it has its limits. It is remarkable that there is so little discussing Marxist Ethics in any detail when Communists expected to overturn the morality of all previous societies and create a "new" morality. Then again, you wouldn't really want to have the ability to make moral arguments in the middle of the Red Terror because it would stop you "following orders". Conformity and the reassurance of doing evil together then becomes a monstrous substitute for morality and individual conscience. Its not as if members of the KGB sat around the table discussing the morality of their work when it was never a question of saying the ends were wrong because they were sanctioned by institutions- rather they only had to debate the most effective way to attain them.
Thinking this way has made me however more sympathetic and understanding of advocates of conspiracy theories, pseudo-science and historical revisionists. I believe the earth is round, but if you asked me to prove it based only on my own observations, I couldn't actually do it. I could point to the fact the globe is round, but then couldn't a flat earther point to a 2D map hanging on the wall? I could look up some reasons why online and repeat them, but that's not the same as really understanding what is going on. Miasma Theory doesn't get so much attention (although Anti-Vaccine people reject the "Germ Theory of disease), but I don't know if I could prove disease is caused by germs. I could point out the effectiveness of vaccinations, the importance of good sanitation and why cooking food thoroughly so you don't get food poisoning would help, but is that really "proof"? As we are now so dependent on the media to know what is "true" or "correct", it isn't surprising that Fake News has become a big deal; simply regurgitating what we read in books, see on screens and hear on audio is not the same as personal experience and observation and the gap between them allows all manner of psuedo-beliefs to flourish when the conventional wisdom begins to look more like a series of improbable myths.
Anyway, I'm rambling but I hope you got something useful out of it.
It is genuinely hard to walk away from Communism. I know it is the right thing to do and do not wish to be involved in a political movement that causes such harm to people, but having followed it for over a decade it affects pretty much everywhere in my thinking. Even when I'm looking at some more conservative or libertarian ideas, its usually through a Marxist lens. I have a certain curiosity in Anarcho-Capitalism as it is pretty much the exact opposite of communism and wanting to know how it would work, but its doubtful I'm going to take it seriously. I looked into Ayn Rand's Objectivism last year, but found the absolutism of it hard to stomach even if I think she has a point about (rational) selfishness being a necessary basis for a healthy and fulfilled life.
The "inner" process is unbearable however because it means questioning long-held and intense emotions. I have stopped watching Television since 2013 and almost eliminated my internet usage this year (except for maybe 1-2 hours a day). Quitting TV was probably one of the best decisions I've ever made as now I can actually use my free thought, rather than having my emotions manipulated by other people and calling propaganda "entertainment". It doesn't really matter what the content is, the more time you spend using the media the more it shapes and distorts your perception of reality and your experience. I have to remind myself that when it comes to thinking about politics and history, much of the intensity of the feelings I have, do not have any source in my own personal experience but from "secondary" sources.
When discussions about Communist atrocities come up, its usually the same three people who get mentioned: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It's interesting because there are dozens of communist leaders in the 20th century who are equally guilty of atrocities, but they don't get a mention. Some of the more obscure leaders for example are, Mengistu (Ethiopia), Kerekou (Benin) and Ali Nasir Muhammad (South Yemen). I had to look them up and I don't know much about them, but I think you get the point: The power and intensity of people's reaction is directly proportionate to the degree to which these names are repeated in the context of atrocity and the association between them. Pol Pot may have been one of the most destructive leaders of Cambodia in the 20th century, but at a guess only a tiny handful of people on the English speaking internet would know the name of the subordinates who carried out his orders, let alone be able to pronounce them (Noun Chea was Prime minister of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge and was known as "Brother Number Two" next to Pol Pot as "Brother Number One". He is still alive today and received a life sentence for Crimes against humanity at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in 2014. The documentary "Enemies of the People" gets chillingly close to understanding the perpetrators with interviews of Noun Chea and other people concerned, but its difficult viewing.
The same problems come up with how criticism of Christianity sticks to certain key historical events such as the Witch Burnings, the Crusades, the Reformation, etc without actually understanding anything about them. They get reduced down to the smallest common denominator so people can repeat them and stop themselves thinking about what they are saying.
In my case at least, the intensity of my feelings seems to rely on my ignorance of people and events. It is easier to treat things more absolutely when you know little about them, and the danger is that the passion can blind us to complexity. Trying to undo the damage of that emotional and moral absolutism is deeply unpleasant because it feels like an act of disloyalty, whether to my own communist beliefs, or to liberal institutions that have claimed to guard against repeating atrocities based on protecting human rights. Both however rely on crippling the capacity to think clearly and deeply by repeating the same rhetoric as if it were fact. Communists are a bit better because they are so "dialectical" and can at least cope with more complexity and contradictions, but it is also an extremely effective way of avoiding direct questions, so it has its limits. It is remarkable that there is so little discussing Marxist Ethics in any detail when Communists expected to overturn the morality of all previous societies and create a "new" morality. Then again, you wouldn't really want to have the ability to make moral arguments in the middle of the Red Terror because it would stop you "following orders". Conformity and the reassurance of doing evil together then becomes a monstrous substitute for morality and individual conscience. Its not as if members of the KGB sat around the table discussing the morality of their work when it was never a question of saying the ends were wrong because they were sanctioned by institutions- rather they only had to debate the most effective way to attain them.
Thinking this way has made me however more sympathetic and understanding of advocates of conspiracy theories, pseudo-science and historical revisionists. I believe the earth is round, but if you asked me to prove it based only on my own observations, I couldn't actually do it. I could point to the fact the globe is round, but then couldn't a flat earther point to a 2D map hanging on the wall? I could look up some reasons why online and repeat them, but that's not the same as really understanding what is going on. Miasma Theory doesn't get so much attention (although Anti-Vaccine people reject the "Germ Theory of disease), but I don't know if I could prove disease is caused by germs. I could point out the effectiveness of vaccinations, the importance of good sanitation and why cooking food thoroughly so you don't get food poisoning would help, but is that really "proof"? As we are now so dependent on the media to know what is "true" or "correct", it isn't surprising that Fake News has become a big deal; simply regurgitating what we read in books, see on screens and hear on audio is not the same as personal experience and observation and the gap between them allows all manner of psuedo-beliefs to flourish when the conventional wisdom begins to look more like a series of improbable myths.
Anyway, I'm rambling but I hope you got something useful out of it.
