A debate on communism

I had a debate with a friend on facebook last weekend that I thought was worth posting some reflections on, as a similar topic has come up in my blog comments section recently - at least in the context of openly calling oneself a communist. To me, this particular debate seems to be over what communism actually means, and on separating the history of what has been called communism from what communism actually is or can be. I have heard many of these argument many times, so I wanted to focus on these a little bit.

For obvious reasons, I cannot post all 39 comments, but I hope to get the point of the argument across as best I can.

The original status update was

Why is it that when I talk to a person who associates themselves with the right I get called a communist? And when I talk to a person who associates themselves with left I get called a libertarian? Come on now. I am better morally than either of the two possibilities that have been presented. Communism leads to totalitarianism. Libertarianism is absolutely oppressive. Fuck both of them, I want a new ideal to strive for.

My response;

communism does not necessarily lead to totalitarianism... that is just how it has played out on certain occasions.

So he said;

at risk of sounding like a neoliberal--which is not what I'm promoting at all--communism is absolute tyranny over individual. It requires that your needs be the same as everybody else, it requires a homogeneity of thought that impinges the creative process. There is nothing desirable about the equality that the communist promotes. I would prefer a principle which limits oppression over the individual, rather than increases it.

I have heard this argument many times. That communism cannot account for individual differences, which I think is absurd. How does capitalism account for individual differences? By upholding sexist, racist, heterosexism, ageist and ableist hierarchies?

And how would communism create any kind of homogeneity of thought impinging on the creative process when so many Marxist work is based on the creative capacities of the people or on reaching our full human potential? To me, capitalism (and any form of organizing with differential power relations) requires a homogeneity of thought... as Marx says "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch ruling ideas". If workers didn't uphold the ideas of the ruling class, they would revolt.

I was on my cell phone at this time and had limited ability to respond, but I wrote;

it is a misconception that communism would require homogeneity. Look at the famous quote "from each according to ability to each according to need". Difference is accounted for. Your argument is like saying you don't like cats because they're yellow. It makes no sense! Don't confuse Stalinist Russia with communism.

So ,he was offended by the cat comment... which, in retrospect, was kind of rude, but I thought it made a certain point. In his next response, he argues that communism requires giving absolute power to a small group who are supposed to act in the best interest of the people, and then says

Dismantle the power of the few and you have yourself a properly functioning democracy. Which is way better than communism for sure.

ummm... that's what the communism I imagine would look like... a "properly functioning democracy," not hoping a few people will act in everyone's best interest. So I said

Its not communism if a small group has power. Communism only exists if wealth and power are held by everyone. As soon as the heirarchies between powerful and powerless (or less powerful) begin to develop, you have something else entirely being called communism.

Still not accepting the difference between communism and what has been passed off as communism on specific occasions, he used Russia as The Historical Example of why communism is inherently wrong using Nietzche's will-to-power to back up his point.

These "historical" arguments using one specific example of communism not working to show why communism will never work might be the thing that annoys me most about arguments on whether or not it is feasible. And I responded by saying

You are looking at history selectively. Some communist states did not turn totalitarian- some were overtaken by capitalism through war others fell apart for other reasons (our "civalization" being forced on to them for example), some near-communist societies do exist (zapatistas). I will accept that honest attempts at communism haven't worked out, and that some attempts were not actually attempting communism, but I don't think that (or nietzche) proves definitively that communism is impossible.

I could keep going and show the rest of the arguments here, which continued to bring up Nietzche, but I don't think it is relevant to my post (or in the interest of keeping people reading my blog when the posts are too long).

I think the main point of this post is that several of these arguments play out all the time and I am tired of them because they don't make sense.

1. Stalinist Russia was not a communist state. It's demise does not prove communism to be impossible.

2. Different ideas are not only possible, but encouraged, in a communist state. Communism does not require everyone to do the same thing, think the same thing, have the same needs, or go back to a technology free society where nobody gets anything that we might consider a luxury (another common assumption).

3. Communism does not give power to a few people to make decisions for everyone. Communism would require full democratic participation.

I could really dissect the debate and come up with dozens of misconceptions that tend to play out on a regular basis, but, I am going to stop with these three for now. Feel free to add your own in the comments section if there is a common argument that you find particularly annoying.

I think these misconceptions are part of why so many people who I might consider to be communists do not embrace the term "communism." And, if we don't start using the word more often, how are we going to change these misconceptions?

Edited to add: A friend pointed out that this is somewhat simplistic, and I thought I should acknowledge that they are correct... I could turn this into three (or more) separate posts and make it far more nuanced and whatnot, and I might someday do that, but for now, this piece that does oversimplify some things will have to do!

Facebook anti-bullying message

I've seen this facebook status come up a few times now;

A 15 year old girl holds her 1 year old son; people call her a slut. But no one knows she was raped at 13. People call a girl fat; no one knows she has a serious disease that causes her to be overweight. People call an old man ugly; no one knows he had a serious injury to his face while serving our country in Vietnam. Re-post this if your against bullying and stereotyping!!!! I bet none of you will post this!!!

So, this meme is meant to be supportive and have the best of intentions, but it seems off to me. It is as if it is saying that it is not ok to be a slut or to be fat or ugly, but not to make fun of people for it unless you know for sure that it isn't their fault.

When I first saw this post, I responded by saying that I was a teen mom from a consensual act... does that mean it is acceptable to call me a slut?

I get that the point of this status is that the stereotypes that you first jump to in order to explain why people look or act a certain way may not actually capture their lived experience, and I think that is an important point... for example, if one happens to come across someone who is overweight, the first assumptions are usually that the person eats too much unhealthy food and does not exercise. If this status can make a few people think about other possibilities before passing judgement, then that is great. But what it doesn't do is challenge the way we think about what is desirable and what is not.

What if there were no judgements allocated to being deemed promiscuous, unattractive or overweight by a specific set of standards? Instead of trying to justify why some people might exist in a way that we deem undesirable, what if we could come up with a post that would express an anti-bullying statement that was about actual acceptance?

Facebook comment....

New favorite ignorant facebook comment on my wall...

What does your profession contribute to society? That's rhetorical, the answer is nothing.

So, what is my profession exactly? TEACHING, which obviously contributes nothing. Neither does sociology, which is the discipline I wish to teach.

No, sociology just "tell[s] people what they can and cannot accept"

To which I responded;

I cannot accept homophobia, heterosexism, racism, sexism, or anti-poverty discrimination. I cannot tolerate policies that will hurt women, indiginous people, or other marginalized groups. I cannot accept policies that take from families to give tax breaks to giant corporations. And I cannot accept 39% of the vote allowing one person full control over parliament. Most people voted AGAINST Harper... not for him. That should not be a majority... this is not a democracy, which is another thing that I cannot accept.

facebook memes... for breast cancer?

I like it on the livingroom floor

I like it on the kitchen counter

I like it on the table

What am I talking about? Well, breast cancer awareness of course! Posting the location of your purse on facebook raises awareness about breast cancer. And of course, sexuality must be implied to get attention... for the cause, right?

At least the bra colour meme from last year was somehow linked to breasts... this one is a ridiculous.

My purse status was "I like to open it and actually give money (and time) to support a specific cause rather than re-posting inane memes that use sexual innuendo to get attention while pretending that purses are somehow linked to breast cancer... BTW, cancer is not sexy, even when it has to do with parts of the female anatomy"

I could tell you that the cell phone case that I usually carry instead of a purse is on the coffee table. Or the schoolbag I carry when I need more room is on the floor. Or the purses that I rarely use are in a cabinet. But how does that help raise awareness for breast cancer?

And why is it that breast cancer is the "sexy" way to support women's issues? It isn't bad enough that any product in existence, colored pink like toys designed for little girls, is meant to support breast cancer, but now we have to show off how sexy breasts are at the same time. Advertisements tell men that they should care about breast cancer because they like breasts... not because women are dying and not supporting the leading cause of death in women (cardiovascular disease- hearts are not sexy)... simply because men like breasts.

What, other than breast cancer do these ads have in common?

Using a cartoon sex symbol as a spokesperson...


I know I like to box in uncomfortable lingerie...


Nudity is common in these ads


And T-shirts like this one don't even pretend to be about a woman... just boobs.


In my opinion, they are as much about sexualizing and objectifying women as they are about trying to get money for researching breast cancer.

Don't do this research to save women's (and some men's) lives because you value women as people, or because they have a right to expect researchers in related fields to look for a cure. Support this research because you like breasts, and breasts happen to be attached to women.

Facebook status

Just an observation...

When I comment on facebook about needing a new cell phone, preferably one that has email functions, I get several responses about what to (or not to) purchase. As a sidenote, I am annoyed by my dependency on my phone... I only got it in the first place because it was required by daycare, but now I feel naked without it.

However, when I write a post that has more meaningful social commentary, such as supporting the local OPSEU strike, I'm lucky if one person "likes" it... and this occurs even though my friends list is full of social activists and leftist grad students and professors (granted, they aren't the ones commenting on my cell phone choices).

Priorities, I guess. Sometimes it seems as though people (at least on facebook) are more invested in small purchases that have nothing to do with them than they are in important current events.

discriminatory language as part of everyday conversations

I had a facebook argument that I would like to reflect on, and because I have a blog and (hopefully) readers, I think this is a good place to do so. I get really annoyed when people use discriminatory language in passing. I understand that most do not mean to offend anyone, and they tend to think it is just a normal word used in everyday conversation, but I like to point it out (maybe not as tactfully sometimes as I should), and generally speaking, people are quite receptive to thinking about the language. Today, a friend's facebook post used the word 'gay' in a way that I'm sure most of us have heard it used dozens of times before.

If anyone has a more appropriate way to address this issue next time it comes up, please let me know, as I realize when I try to use humor, it can put people on the defensive, especially online... or maybe they would not have been receptive either way.

The thread ended up being very long with a lot of different unrelated posts, so I am going to post only the ones needed for this to make sense.

So, this is the status update in question;

J- has just realized it's Sunday. Meaning everything closed at six, including the hair-chopper. Oh well, finished building the quad-core PC. Only three cuts on this build, not bad. :)

And further block quotes here are the comments:

A-yeah. gay. building pcs is so 4 years ago

So, at this point I was a bit shocked... like, I completely forgot that people actually still used the word gay as something that means bad. So I write;

Me- and homophobic language is so 40 years ago.

A- I was referring to everything closing on sundays. J knows i'm not homophobic.

Me- using the word gay to refer to something bad is using homophobic language... i didn't say that you were homophobic... I think it is important to point out heterosexism when it occurs in order to stop it from being a part of everyday conversation.

A- i wasn't referring to something bad? i know what homophobic language is. thanks for the refresher. that's just how i talk to j, sorry if you or anyone else is offended by what i said. i do agree with you though, it should be weeded out of everyday conversation. it's strange though- i only use that word, especially in this context with people i am very close to.

J2(my humorous yet somewhat offensive brother trying to further enforce my point)- im not racist, i only use the n word with close white friends so its ok.

So, if you are still following, here is my thought process at this point. She said she isn't referring to something bad- it's just about stores being closed on Sundays (gays are closed sundays?). She agrees that the language is inappropriate, but she only uses it in private conversations with close friends (and on their facebook walls, apparently, where us gay folk can read it). That being said, I was content with this response from her in this context... at least she thought about it, and I am not likely to make an impact on someone through facebook by taking it any further. However, a few minutes later, she put another comment on the thread.

A- words are simply descriptors. if you're going to be offended by a word then you've got a whole other set of problems, just saying. what are we going to start doing soon, being offended because of the use of the word ..."straight"? seriously, think about it. it makes no sense. gay means homosexual. just a meaning. you can probably even find the word in a dictionary with that meaning. [...] it's like me getting mad because someone saying i'm straight. i'm not gonna be like..."nooooo, i prefer the term heterosexual."

So, gay simply means homosexual, nothing more. Than, according to her first statement, it is homosexual that stores are closed on sunday in the city in which we reside. No need to be offended, right?!? And I'm not sure how the discussion got here, I did not say don't call gay people gay, call them homosexual... I prefer the term gay personally... actually, I identify as queer, which would likely shock her, but pointing that out didn't help either... instead, I said

Me-when you use the word gay to refer to something bad, you are calling gay people (myself included) bad people... You referring to the fact that stores are closed sunday is gay or J building pcs is gay makes no sense if you are saying that gay simply means homosexual... in that context, it had negative connotations... read your first comment replacing the word gay with homosexual.. that is obviously not what you were referring to. Can we please just agree not to use that word on J's facebook status updates and be done with it?

A- no. freedom of speech and all that, you're going to learn to grow a thicker skin. the world will never completely -stop- using that word. the more you can deal with it, the better.

Ok. I will grow thicker skin so that people like her can make fun of people and circumstances using my sexual orientation as a descriptor. Sorry to have bothered you with the thought of being considerate of other people's circumstances.

J- I think she's referring to the fact that I'm acting in a FASHION (tadah!) that represents a non-masculin behaviour.

Umm, no, she is referring to the annoyance that stores are closed on Sunday... and even still, is it any better if non-masculine behavior makes you gay? And since when was building PCs "feminine" behavior?

And because I know when it is a lost cause, possibly a bit later than I should, I gave up here. I don't even know what to say about this conversation. Sometimes when I point out things like this, such as in class or even on previous facebook status updates, people seem to be quite receptive. I have had people apologize saying that they never realized that they were using language that might be discriminatory in any way. Other times, people are ready to fight for their right to use discriminatory language, often in the name of free speech, because it would be hard to express yourself without such language. The fact that stores close early on Sundays is not inconvenient, annoying, inopportune, bothersome, senseless, irritating (although possibly not so for the employees who would have to work these hours)- I could go on, but I think I've made my point. These words don't aptly describe the situation, but the word 'gay' does.

Facebook and the regulation of women's bodies

I have seen a trend in facebook groups lately that is meant to show that curvy women are beautiful too, but what they actually do is shame skinny women. Instead of trying to spread the message that all body types are beautiful, they have titles like

"Real women have curves... not the body of a 12 year old boy" and "Curvy girls are better than skinny girls"

Both groups contain photos of "plus sized" models that I believe prove that curvy women can fit in to dominant standards of beauty (complete with airbrushing to make the curves look as Marilyn Monroe-esque as possible).

The profile picture for the second group is of Kim Kardashian in a bikini. With a waist measurement of 26 inches and weighing 117lbs (according to skinny vs curvy), she hardly fits into the plus sized model category, but yes, she does have curves. This presents an image that even fewer girls can hope to fit than before, as the rarity of her curves is a large part of what has made her famous.

Also, the bikini shots change nothing about the way women's bodies are objectified within the mass media. The message presented within these groups is no different than the one that I grew up with... women are supposed to have curves, but with a thin waist... unless you are a runway model. Growing up with a very small chest, I got this message loud and clear beginning in sixth grade.

Both groups are rife with hate-filled content about skinny women. How we all whine about being fat all the time, how we never eat, how we cannot fill out clothes. The thin women that I know eat normal healthy diets (and sometimes even tons of junk food), and believe me when I say that women don't like shopping in the children's section to find clothes that fit properly. It seems to me that they are taking stereotypes about a real disease (anorexia) and assuming that every skinny person must have it, which is no better than saying that all larger women eat tons of junk food- it just isn't true. What about the role that genetics or a person's metabolism plays in all of this?

I would just love to see similar groups, but where one type of body isn't placed as better than the rest, one that values the diversity in women's shapes and sizes, and where women's bodies were not being regulated or on display for (male) viewers to criticize. Maybe that seems too idealistic or too romantic for the real world, but would it be a bad thing to actually accept women's bodies without needing to starve or operate on them first?

Although men are increasingly objectified in the mass media, I have yet to find a facebook group with so many hateful comments describing just how men are supposed to look.

I wonder how many of the 1,407,000 and 132,000 people who have joined or "liked" these groups has ever read any of that content...

Facebook status and notions of motherhood

yet another facebook status that I have seen from moms at least 3 times this week...

♥ Before you were conceived, I wanted you. Before you were born, I loved you. Before you were an hour old, I would have died for you. This is the miracle of life. Put this on your status, if you have children you love more than life itself.♥

Maybe it is just me, but mine would probably say something more like

"Before you were conceived, I never wanted to have children. Before you were born, I was terrified of you. Before you were an hour old, I was worried about how I was going to pay for food and diapers. Slowly, thereafter, I began to love you"

Sounds horrible, once I read it back keeping in mind the expectations that are imposed on mothers, but the reality is that the first statement is often not true. Many babies are not planned, and therefore not "wanted" at the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't cherished afterwards.

A lot of parents do not feel an instant connection to their children, and statements like the one from facebook above make many mothers feel like there is something wrong with them. To those of you who are not yet parents, you may not feel that bond when the child is first born, and that is ok too, it comes over time. Don't let it make you feel like you are not a good parent.

Facebook status posts... again

I have written about facebook status updates a few times on here. I am finding that, more and more often, they serve to uphold traditional gender roles. Last week I posted about how mothers are supposed to "sacrifice everything" for their families... This week, I saw a married woman on my facebook friends list post this onto her status.

If you have a wonderful husband, fiancé, or boyfriend that works hard to take care of you and would do anything just for you and your family, then repost this as your status to give the honest, well behaved men out there the recognition that they deserve. Because great men are few and far between, and I have one of them! ♥

The first thing I asked myself is what exactly is meant by "take care of." In this context, I don't believe they are referring to cooking dinner or housekeeping- I believe that they are referring to his ability to financially provide for his family.

A man would do anything for his family, but a woman must sacrifice everything for her family... doesn't seem like a big difference at first, but I see a lot of meaning in these differences, even just in the sense that men are actively doing whereas women are passively sacrificing.

I also find it insulting to men, stating that there are not many great men out there, and even mentioning that good men should be "well-behaved." Sounds like words that we would usually use with children.

I am so over these copy/pasted facebook status updates... I have seen a few good ones, such as one a year ago urging women not to use the f-word (fat- not the other f-word), but, for the most part, I find them offensive and I am often surprised to see who has posted them.