Help Me Respond To Socialist Professor

I'm a college student and I was trying to convince one of my professors that state-socialism is tyrannical and that anarchism is the only political philosophy that anyone should support, and he sent me the following email.

I thought you guys could probably pick this apart without difficulty:

Professor:

Every actually-existing social system has undesirable features.  These are problems that need to be resolved if the underlying premise is just or pronounced in an indictment of the existing order of things.  Some of the criticisms of actually-existing state socialist societies, such as those typically leveled at the Soviet Union, are accurate and appropriate.  I am the first to criticize a social order where it fails or is wrong.   However, others criticisms are not on target.  The problems of the Soviet Union have not only been exaggerated by capitalists, but by anarchists, as well.

This one-sidedness is politically-debilitating, because the achievements of state socialism are ignored to the detriment of the struggle for social justice and the improvement of the human condition; the left robs itself of successful examples to adapt and emulate, because it throws the baby out with the bathwater.  It unwittingly buys into bourgeois talking points about state socialism.  Left-wing anti-communism has a lot in common with right-wing anti-communism.  

However, the October revolution led to the creation of a society that provided people with heretofore unrealized levels of social support and a quality of life, and did so by substantially eliminating the exploitation of labor power.  Shirley Cereseto found that the socialist countries did better than the capitalist countries in meeting the basic human needs of their members. The socialists accomplished this with the same resource base as comparable capitalist countries. In fact, socialist nations did as well as the rich capitalist nations in meeting basic human needs.

Moreover, while inequality was increasing both within and between capitalist nations, inequality was declining both within and between socialist nations. Whereas the relationship between the “third world” and the capitalist core is one in which the “third world” is underdeveloped – that is, capitalist extract wealth from the periphery of the world capitalist system – the relationship between satellite and core countries in the socialist world were beneficial to the satellites. That is the opposite of the imperialist dynamic that is now consuming the world with the fall of the more just socialist economies.

Many of those who argue from this state-socialism-is-wrong perspective also ignore the larger context in which state socialism existed, namely the realities of capitalist encirclement and invasion that kept state socialism from advancing to higher levels of socialist development.  It therefore fails to understand or articulate the role capitalism played in deforming state socialism.  This problem is worse tham simply leading to misplaced criticism; it risks capitalist apologetics.

Noam Chomsky, a man I admire very much, often strays into this sort of problematic ideological territory in criticizing state socialism.   This is in part because of his lack training in political economy.  His analysis tends to be a bit superficial in this area (which doesn't detract from the excellence of his media analysis and, obviously, his groundbreaking work in linguistics).  In contrast, Michael Parenti demonstrates in his book Blackshirts and Reds that the Soviet Union was a form of siege socialism with admirable qualities that needed to be reformed not overthrown.  He reviews in detail the myriad of false claims made about the Soviet Union.  At the same time, he unflinchingly criticizes the Soviet Union.  His analysis is a good example of a considered look at the history.

It must be remembered that the attempt to build a new world always comes with errors and excesses.  But a social system is only to be outright condemned if the premise is wrong and unjust.  Parenti is fond of saying that the only revolution left-wing anti-communists like are the ones that never succeed.  There's a lot of truth to that observation.  He is also fond of pointing out that the argument that socialism doesn't work ignores the reality that it does.

I agree with Alexander Berkman that, in the final analysis, anarchists and communists have the same goal: the liberation of human beings from exploitative social relations.   At the same time, revolutions happen in the concrete and, while I share Berkman and Goldman’s disappointment in Lenin’s behavior (written about extensively in The Blast upon their return from Russia) , and while I recognize Stalin was a thug, I am in solidarity with the Soviet people in their effort to move history towards a better place for working people and I admire their accomplishments.   They did not live and work in vain and I won't condemn their efforts.  The premise of their society was just, even if their leaders sometimes failed them.  Tragically, in the end, the people were betrayed by counterrevolutionaries, and the conditions of their existence sharply deteriorated as a result.

There's a famous piece of graffiti spray painted on a wall in a former socialist country that says, "Bring back communism."  Beneath it is another sentence saying, "We never had communism."  Beneath this is yet another sentence: "Then bring back whatever the hell it was we had."  

I cannot agree that anarchism is the only rational political philosophy to support.  We have to keep an open mind.

 

Thanks for the help in advance.

Why is your prof saying he is a socialist?  Did he announce so openly in class?  What the hell class is it if he did?

He can not equate the term "imperialism" with the term "free market" they are two conflicting terms

Capitalism and bugeois are socialist words coined by Marx so you are already not on neutral grounds with the language being used.

"Inequality was decreasing" that sentance alone is bogus on so many levels.  Is that a good thing? what is inequal, just in montary gains, is that all he cares about.  It's a subjective point, and inequality decreasing in not in and of itself a positive term.  We could all be equally poor, that is not good.  I know I am missing his point but it is still worth pointing out.

A socialist system being condemed "only if it is wrong and unjust" is another nothing phrase.  What is wrong and unjust, what 51% of the people think at the time, what ever is pragmatically useful (whatever that means), whatever some enlighted leader can force people to do?

Likewise what is an exploitive social relation, these terms are all subjectional

Would this man be willing to kill or imprison people who peacfully do not follow his scheme?  For example if he taxed me and I refused to pay it would it be off to the gulugs with me?

Also where does the state get its authority from?

This is all just the tip of the iceberg stuff too

Finally and once again why do you know your prof is a socialist?

Those are all good points. Thanks for the help.

The class is about social control.

Yes, believe it or not, he did openly announce that he would consider himself a "socialist" after a lecture about liberalism and small "d" democrats.

He sent me that email after I asked him if he meant state-socialism or anarcho-socialism. I think it's pretty easy to tell that he meant state-socialism.

You won't convert him anyway.

It is truly disturbing (but of no suprise) he is a Soviet atrocities apologist. Since there is no point in arguing how many millions the Soviets killed, and you don't just give him a good right cross for trivalizing a govt that murderd millions, remember you aren't against commie killing per say you are against state killings.  You recognize no legitamacy of state killings what so ever if it be USA, UK, USSR, or whatever.  There is no way he can defend state aggrassion or even murdering its own people.  Governments have murderd far more people that private murders there is no arguing that.

Also ask him how many people immigrated from the USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc to free countries and vice versa.

Remember you will never convince this guy, all you can do is learn the socialist mindset or have fun with him.

Also just for funzies you can ask him if he believs in seperation of church and state.  If he says "yes" ask him then why not education and state.  It could be a fun long winded answer to a short condescending one either way it should be fun to hear the response.

And if you are going to a public universty and you really want to irk him, ask him how much of his money is blood money (taxes).

And I am just guessing on this, is he a groovey sociology prof?

Dondoolee:

And I am just guessing on this, is he a groovey sociology prof?

haha, he's in a band, if that's what you meant by "groovey".

I know he probably won't change his mind just because some anarchist student sent him an email, but I am curious about how he's going to respond to some of my questions.

Social Control, is that a real class (maybe useful for a psych student) or one of those useless college classes there for filler,  jocks, and liberal art students? So your prof told you he was in a band and he is a socialist, sounds like he loves to discuss his personal life how nice.  Please tell me he has open class discusions (bonus points if he makes you sit in a circle). You should buy one of his CD's as an ironic act of capitalism. Please do post his response, it would be interesting to see it.  Anyway I have had one too many glasses of Jamesons' it is time for bed.

Robin:

I'm a college student and I was trying to convince one of my professors that state-socialism is tyrannical and that anarchism is the only political philosophy that anyone should support, and he sent me the following email.

I thought you guys could probably pick this apart without difficulty:

Well, I will give it my best try, but at this site, I imagine there will be arguments that make mine look like they came from a high school debate.

 

Professor:

Every actually-existing social system has undesirable features.  These are problems that need to be resolved if the underlying premise is just or pronounced in an indictment of the existing order of things.  Some of the criticisms of actually-existing state socialist societies, such as those typically leveled at the Soviet Union, are accurate and appropriate.  I am the first to criticize a social order where it fails or is wrong.   However, others criticisms are not on target.  The problems of the Soviet Union have not only been exaggerated by capitalists, but by anarchists, as well.

The staggering statistics of people who were actively killed, sent to Siberian Gulags, murdered at night by the KGB or otherwise forcibly starved by the Soviet state are flat out unmatched by any other nation except for perhaps Mao's China.  It is quite clear that Communism is a bloated, diseased, scarred, festering, pus covered corpse, yet this professor is trying to weasel you into believing that this horror is merely a few scratches, worthy of some band-aids.

Professor:

This one-sidedness is politically-debilitating, because the achievements of state socialism are ignored to the detriment of the struggle for social justice and the improvement of the human condition;...

Well of course it is one-sided.  Communism sucks in every possible way, just like sticking a hot poker in your eye.

Professor:

the left robs itself of successful examples to adapt and emulate, because it throws the baby out with the bathwater.

A more appropriate analogy would be throwing the Wretched Spawn out with the biologically hazardous raw sewage...

 

Professor:

It unwittingly buys into bourgeois talking points about state socialism.  Left-wing anti-communism has a lot in common with right-wing anti-communism.

Ohhhhh, those evil bourgeoisie, like the ones who effectively write his damn paycheck and allow him to hide in his ivory tower.  Regarding the 'bourgeoisie', the communists become so childish, seemingly stating that someone's argument becomes worthless simply by virtue of having a little cash on hand.

Professor:

However, the October revolution led to the creation of a society that provided people with heretofore unrealized levels of social support and a quality of life, and did so by substantially eliminating the exploitation of labor power. 

I swear to God, this has got to be one of Lenin's useful idiots.  The nation of Russia is still barely recovering from those decades of destruction, bureaucracy and mass murder.  If by 'Social Support' he means that the KGB knocks on your door at midnight and makes you disappear, then Soviet Russia had plenty of that.  Regarding the 'elimination of exploitation of labor power', this does not even pass the Socialists own sniff test.  There was plenty of 'labor power', which any sane person could often describe as far harsher than anything in the west.  And that is if you were lucky.  If they shipped you off to Siberia, it was curtains.

 

Professor:

Shirley Cereseto found that the socialist countries did better than the capitalist countries in meeting the basic human needs of their members.  The socialists accomplished this with the same resource base as comparable capitalist countries. In fact, socialist nations did as well as the rich capitalist nations in meeting basic human needs.

Really?  Even a half-hearted attempt to look at conditions in socialist countries would note that there were many nearly empty stores with gigantic lines pouring out, all trying to get basic things like food and toilet paper.  Shirley must have meant that the political party bosses were taken care of quite well, as they had opulence to rival any european noble.

 

Professor:

Moreover, while inequality was increasing both within and between capitalist nations, inequality was declining both within and between socialist nations.

What the dear professor conveniently forgot to mention is that the people became equally poor in those socialist nations.  In other words, driving everyone to the lowest common denominator in not only wealth, but freedom.  The capitalist/mixed nations did indeed have increasingly inequality, yet the poorest in those nations were wealthier than almost anyone in the socialist nations. (except for the political party bosses of course)

 

Professor:

Whereas the relationship between the “third world” and the capitalist core is one in which the “third world” is underdeveloped – that is, capitalist extract wealth from the periphery of the world capitalist system – the relationship between satellite and core countries in the socialist world were beneficial to the satellites. That is the opposite of the imperialist dynamic that is now consuming the world with the fall of the more just socialist economies.

This guy has to take a better look at the facts.  Has the capitalist nations benefited from allowing its people and businesses to trade with those of developing nations?  Yes, they gain more cost effective goods.  But have those developing nations also benefited?   Also yes.  The people there get jobs, often paying better than other jobs available to them.   They also benefit from the production that they create by having greater access to various goods that are now available to many more people due to the drastically lowered prices which comes from reduced costs of manufacturing them.  It was a win-win situation for all.   The socialist nations, by contrast, exported very little in terms of wealth, production or meaningful job proliferation.  Perhaps they biggest thing that they have exported would be their highly flawed political/economic system.

Professor:

Many of those who argue from this state-socialism-is-wrong perspective also ignore the larger context in which state socialism existed, namely the realities of capitalist encirclement and invasion that kept state socialism from advancing to higher levels of socialist development.

Yes, it is true that state socialism has infested many Capitalist nations, and that those same nations continued to have growing economies.  But typically, the sectors that had the least state control are those which grew and innovated the fastest.  Conversely, the sectors which were the  most bureaucratic grew the slowest, especially if government helped big business to eliminate small business.  The capitalist economies did not have meaningful growth because of increasing government, but  rather in spite of.  To assert otherwise makes no more sense than to say that Lou Gehrig was a great baseball player because he had Lou Gehrig's disease.

Professor:

It therefore fails to understand or articulate the role capitalism played in deforming state socialism.  This problem is worse tham simply leading to misplaced criticism; it risks capitalist apologetics.

Capitalism played a role in deforming state socialism in the sense that it provided people in socialist nations a sense of hope for something better.  A place to escape to.  For the most part, state socialism destroyed itself, collapsing under the wieght of its own bureaucracy, cruelty and the resulting lack of support from the people.

Professor:

Noam Chomsky, a man I admire very much, often strays into this sort of problematic ideological territory in criticizing state socialism.   This is in part because of his lack training in political economy.  His analysis tends to be a bit superficial in this area (which doesn't detract from the excellence of his media analysis and, obviously, his groundbreaking work in linguistics).

One doesn't need a book on NAZIs to known that they are vicious and evil and to be repudiated quite thoroughly.  State socialism is almost as clear a cut and dry case, their monstrous track record being quite obvious to anyone who spend more than a marginal amount of time reading their history.

 

Professor:

In contrast, Michael Parenti demonstrates in his book Blackshirts and Reds that the Soviet Union was a form of siege socialism with admirable qualities that needed to be reformed not overthrown.  He reviews in detail the myriad of false claims made about the Soviet Union.  At the same time, he unflinchingly criticizes the Soviet Union.  His analysis is a good example of a considered look at the history.

This is like saying  that the Spanish Inquisition could be reformed, or the holocaust as well.  I am sure that there are neo-nazis who are critical of Hitler as well.

Professor:

It must be remembered that the attempt to build a new world always comes with errors and excesses.

Such an ideology is inherently flawed from the beginning.  People do what they want and resent it when others try to stand in the way, especially when it is someone else who feels that he is doing good for other people by  pushing them around.  This 'New World Order' crap always ends up being a harsh and cruel campaign as a result.

 

Professor:

But a social system is only to be outright condemned if the premise is wrong and unjust.  Parenti is fond of saying that the only revolution left-wing anti-communists like are the ones that never succeed.  There's a lot of truth to that observation.  He is also fond of pointing out that the argument that socialism doesn't work ignores the reality that it does.

Works from whose perspective?  Borrowing Lenin's own terminology, you have to take a look and see who benefits from socialism.  Namely the supporters and lobbyists for the state, the various bureaucrats who work for the state, those who exchange political power and campaigns, plus all of their freinds.

Professor:

I agree with Alexander Berkman that, in the final analysis, anarchists and communists have the same goal: the liberation of human beings from exploitative social relations.   At the same time, revolutions happen in the concrete and, while I share Berkman and Goldman’s disappointment in Lenin’s behavior (written about extensively in The Blast upon their return from Russia) , and while I recognize Stalin was a thug, I am in solidarity with the Soviet people in their effort to move history towards a better place for working people and I admire their accomplishments.   They did not live and work in vain and I won't condemn their efforts.  The premise of their society was just, even if their leaders sometimes failed them.  Tragically, in the end, the people were betrayed by counterrevolutionaries, and the conditions of their existence sharply deteriorated as a result.

No system that has such a high degree on its leaders should really be considered legitimate.

Professor:

There's a famous piece of graffiti spray painted on a wall in a former socialist country that says, "Bring back communism."  Beneath it is another sentence saying, "We never had communism."  Beneath this is yet another sentence: "Then bring back whatever the hell it was we had."   .

There is also a saying that goes along the lines of "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one"

Professor:

I cannot agree that anarchism is the only rational political philosophy to support.  We have to keep an open mind.

Clever rhetorical game, nearly disguising the true nature of socialism.

 

Even when socialism fails, blame capitalism! Obviously those capitalist vultures are what prevented the USSR from advancing (in spite of all the aid countries like the US provided it with...)

They did not live and work in vain and I won't condemn their efforts.

Yet they did.

I've just been reading Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's "Leftism Revised"...  With that on my mind, statements such as your professor's make my blood boil.

So a professor sent you an honest email to address your questions and try to explain his rationazation, and you decided to post it on a forum of group-think anarchists so you could respond, instead of thinking of your own answers based on your own logic and reason.

Here is my advise:

Drop out of college, and just submit all your questions here, and then a consensus anarchist response team can tell you what to believe.

OR:

Maybe you could try and learn something. Using your own brain and your own rationality, take what information you think is useful and adapt it to your own philosophy, and reject and rebuttal those aspects that you don't.

Ixtellor

P.S. I was actually impressed the prof took time to respond to your concerns in a very long email that he apparently put a lot of thought into, and his concern for your understanding and answering your questions was HIGH on his agenda. . So while he apparently has high esteem and regard for your education you apparently do not, and I see it as a sign of immaturity.

Ixtellor:

So a professor sent you an honest email to address your questions and try to explain his rationazation, and you decided to post it on a forum of group-think anarchists so you could respond, instead of thinking of your own answers based on your own logic and reason.

Here is my advise:

Drop out of college, and just submit all your questions here, and then a consensus anarchist response team can tell you what to believe.

OR:

Maybe you could try and learn something. Using your own brain and your own rationality, take what information you think is useful and adapt it to your own philosophy, and reject and rebuttal those aspects that you don't.

Ixtellor

P.S. I was actually impressed the prof took time to respond to your concerns in a very long email that he apparently put a lot of thought into, and his concern for your understanding and answering your questions was HIGH on his agenda. . So while he apparently has high esteem and regard for your education you apparently do not, and I see it as a sign of immaturity.

Some fair points, but consider the following:

Maybe he was just asking people to help him understand the professor's email?

Maybe the professor's email is slightly offensive, in rationalising the murders of maybe a hundred million people?

Maybe you afford too much unquestioned respect to university professors?

Thedesolateone:

Maybe he was just asking people to help him understand the professor's email?

Maybe the professor's email is slightly offensive, in rationalising the murders of maybe a hundred million people?

Maybe you afford too much unquestioned respect to university professors?

Fair points as well.

However, I assume the OP is in college to learn.

Copying and pasting your homework on a forum and asking them to give you the answer does not facilitate that process.

Even if the university professor is a scumbag unworthy of respect, the fact remains he sent what was clearly a thought out response and an effort to communicate more affectively with this one student. He could have insta deleted the email or responded "I the professor and your a moron, so STFU". He didn't do that, he took the high road and demonstrated a lot of concern for this students opinions and education.

Ixtellor:

So a professor sent you an honest email to address your questions and try to explain his rationazation, and you decided to post it on a forum of group-think anarchists so you could respond, instead of thinking of your own answers based on your own logic and reason.

There is no need to make unnecessary demeaning remarks.  Why don't you try and keep it civil Ixtellor?

Ixtellor:

However, I assume the OP is in college to learn.

Copying and pasting your homework on a forum and asking them to give you the answer does not facilitate that process.

As if one cannot learn from others.

Ixtellor:

So a professor sent you an honest email to address your questions and try to explain his rationazation, and you decided to post it on a forum of group-think anarchists so you could respond, instead of thinking of your own answers based on your own logic and reason.

Here is my advise:

Drop out of college, and just submit all your questions here, and then a consensus anarchist response team can tell you what to believe.

OR:

Maybe you could try and learn something. Using your own brain and your own rationality, take what information you think is useful and adapt it to your own philosophy, and reject and rebuttal those aspects that you don't.

Ixtellor

P.S. I was actually impressed the prof took time to respond to your concerns in a very long email that he apparently put a lot of thought into, and his concern for your understanding and answering your questions was HIGH on his agenda. . So while he apparently has high esteem and regard for your education you apparently do not, and I see it as a sign of immaturity.

 

1) It's not homework, it's an extracurricular exchange of e-mails

2) He announced in class he was a socialist, i find that rather unprofessional and in a way belligerent.

3) this is a student against a prof. I think you could give a self proclaimed student a little break, rather than insulting their intelligence.

4) This is a student trying to get information and ideas on a topic. I find no reason to be rude to the person. You could look at it as the person is just trying to do some research and went to a site where there was a consensus of opinion to oppose her professor.

5) Finally if you find post that offensive, and the question that below your intelligence, wouldn't it be better to ignore the post, rather than trying to put down the person who started the post.

Ixtellor:

Copying and pasting your homework on a forum and asking them to give you the answer does not facilitate that process.

Dumbass.  It's pretty obvious that it is a personal letter from the professor to the student, which has nothing to do with homework.

 

So a professor sent you an honest email to address your questions and try to explain his rationazation, and you decided to post it on a forum of group-think anarchists so you could respond, instead of thinking of your own answers based on your own logic and reason.

Not everyone is Descartes. Moreover, there's no such thing as a "groupthink anarchist", anymore than there is a "groupthink scientist". He simply is drawing on the knowledge of others on here. That is fine.

Either way this thread is dangerously close to going off topic, and I am partially to blame.  Perhaps more posts should be directed to the students question

This might be of some help.  (In case it's unclear why, G.A. Cohen, whose ideas I engage extensively in the post, is one of the most important modern proponents of socialistic ideas.)

Dondoolee:

1) It's not homework, it's an extracurricular exchange of e-mails

That is obvious. I made an analogy about homework. The fact remains it was a private exchange of emails in which the professor did something 99% of them don't: and that is the attempt to explain/address this students concerns/questions in a one on one exchange of ideas.

Dondoolee:

2) He announced in class he was a socialist, i find that rather unprofessional and in a way belligerent.

1) I agree it is unprofessional, because it is an admission that the can't hide his biases. A good teacher IMHO should be able to hide their bias, and let the students develope their own opinions. (Unless its a hard science, in which the math and not your opinion is what matters)

2) I respect the prof, for being able to recognize his own shortcoming, and rather than let his propaganda seep into his lectures, he announced with full disclosure that he was biased. In this aspect, I think it is fairly noble by giving forwarning that his presentations are biased.

Dondoolee:

4) This is a student trying to get information and ideas on a topic. I find no reason to be rude to the person. You could look at it as the person is just trying to do some research and went to a site where there was a consensus of opinion to oppose her professor.

Suggesting that posting a private exchange from a "stand up" professor who is extending time and effort to the student, only to be rewarded with a public skewering on a very biased forum IS NOT RUDE, imho.

Furthermore, the student or OP did lose an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, and instead deferred to his "masters". The exact thing most of you hate about the teaching of economics in American schools.

Reminding him, that he should try to facilitate his own learning, IS NOT RUDE.

Dondoolee:

5) Finally if you find post that offensive, and the question that below your intelligence, wouldn't it be better to ignore the post, rather than trying to put down the person who started the post.

I didn't find it offensive. I thought it was disrespectful, which is subjective, and I thought it was a horrible way to go about fostering your own education, which is also subjective.

I saw it is tantamount to young conservatives parroting Rush and Hannity all day, instead of coming up with their own answers.

Ixtellor

P.S. I see many objected to the phrase "group think", so I retract it. But I think it is safe to predict what was going to happen when he posted that email. Universal condemnation and identical critiques of the professors answers. He wasn't going to get any varied opinions. For example, I would never copy and paste a post on here and your philosophy in a keynsian or monatarist forum. It serves no purpose other than to give red meat to a bunch of partisans, who rather than try to be objective, will just pile on the indignation and rote responses.