Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Racial harmony in a Marxist utopia: how the Soviet Union capitalised on US discrimina

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Racial harmony in a Marxist utopia: how the Soviet Union capitalised on US discrimina

    Hi

    Hope this is of some interest:-

    Workers from all countries and oppressed colonies raise the banner of Lenin!; All hail the world October revolution! extol the slogans. But what makes these 1930s Soviet propaganda posters different is the inclusion of African people, marching arm-in-arm with other races towards a Marxist utopia. At the time, few Russians would have seen a black person in the flesh, including the artists who created these images.
    http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...on-in-pictures

    Regards

    Andy H
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

    "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

  • #2
    I would like to hear from the Grandchildren of these Black people that stayed in Russia.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      An American calls into Radio Yerevan and asks "Can a Soviet worker on a good salary afford to buy a car?"

      After a long pause, the host replies "And you are lynching negroes!"

      Comment


      • #4
        I think this is more in the breach than the onservance.

        most ethnic minorities in the slavic world view Socialism as just another manifestation of Muskovite Imperialism.

        And if we look at those that Stalin opppressed, we find ethnic minorities, whole groups of them, seen as "enemies of the people" simply based on their ethnicism.

        If you want a truly multi-cultural society that has more honest acceptance of minor groups as part of their society for real, FRANCE wins hands down.

        YES, I am aware of the Dreyfus Case, and how Jewish officers in the French Army were carefully "weeded" out. But in many ways, French society have many minorities as a part of their everyday life, a "norm". Including gays and lesbians, and icluding Moslems.

        Thats makes the recent attacks on Paris by Moslem groups particularly baffling for French people. France has done more than most major powers to guarantee the freedom of expression of moslem people. It hurt them a great deal to have those same Moslems simply lump France into the "EVil Western Powers" catagory so flippantly.
        My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

        Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
        GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
        Lincoln-Douglas Debates

        Comment


        • #5
          If you want a truly multi-cultural society that has more honest acceptance of minor groups as part of their society for real, FRANCE wins hands down.
          Drusus Nero, since you qualified that as 'more' honest, I'll accept that. I have known some truly racist French, but agree that the great majority are not. At the same time, many groups who have emigrated to Europe and America have a certain percentage of their number who do not intend to live in a multi-cultural society, but in an Islamic one. And they are the ones with the problem.
          dit: Lirelou

          Phong trần mi một lưỡi gươm, Những loi gi o ti cơm s g!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
            I think this is more in the breach than the onservance.

            most ethnic minorities in the slavic world view Socialism as just another manifestation of Muskovite Imperialism.

            And if we look at those that Stalin opppressed, we find ethnic minorities, whole groups of them, seen as "enemies of the people" simply based on their ethnicism.
            Etnic minorities in the Slavic world? I suppose you mean minor Slavic nations?

            If you want a truly multi-cultural society that has more honest acceptance of minor groups as part of their society for real, FRANCE wins hands down.

            YES, I am aware of the Dreyfus Case, and how Jewish officers in the French Army were carefully "weeded" out. But in many ways, French society have many minorities as a part of their everyday life, a "norm". Including gays and lesbians, and icluding Moslems.

            Thats makes the recent attacks on Paris by Moslem groups particularly baffling for French people. France has done more than most major powers to guarantee the freedom of expression of moslem people. It hurt them a great deal to have those same Moslems simply lump France into the "EVil Western Powers" catagory so flippantly.
            Except for the part that a lot of those French people who don't declare their racist or nationalist views are just afraid to do it in fear of social condemnation, however in private they might sing a quite different tune. Much of the modern Western society, like the Soviet society, is based on hypocritical formal approval of the dominant ideology (in the West it's liberalism, multi-culti, etc.) while in private people might loathe it to the bone. The only real difference that while in the Soviet Union one could either get arrested or, since late 1970s, get scolded at workers' meetings for holding opinions different from the "party line", in the West one would find himself a social pariah, pressured by the society with its mass-media generated opinions. It's a much subtler for of control and a much more effective one. Still, doublethink does exist in the West and I've witnessed it quite a lot.
            www.histours.ru

            Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              I would like to hear from the Grandchildren of these Black people that stayed in Russia.

              Pruitt
              In Russia, early African American migrants found the good life

              Growing up in the Soviet Union, Emilia Tynes-Mensah did the same things other children did. She read the classics of literary master Alexander Pushkin, listened to the symphonies of Peter Tchaikovsky and heard the propaganda that life here was better than anywhere else.

              But in her home, there was American jazz, Thanksgiving celebrations and stories of the struggles facing blacks in the United States. An improvised version of soul food sometimes replaced borscht.

              That's because her father, George Tynes, was an African American agronomist from Virginia who moved to Russia in the 1930s.

              Tynes was among hundreds of blacks who traveled to the Soviet Union in the two decades after the 1917 Russian Revolution. Some were hard-core Communists. Others were curious adventurers.
              www.histours.ru

              Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                Except for the part that a lot of those French people who don't declare their racist or nationalist views are just afraid to do it in fear of social condemnation, however in private they might sing a quite different tune. Much of the modern Western society, like the Soviet society, is based on hypocritical formal approval of the dominant ideology (in the West it's liberalism, multi-culti, etc.) while in private people might loathe it to the bone. The only real difference that while in the Soviet Union one could either get arrested or, since late 1970s, get scolded at workers' meetings for holding opinions different from the "party line", in the West one would find himself a social pariah, pressured by the society with its mass-media generated opinions. It's a much subtler for of control and a much more effective one.
                If somebody is suppressing their racist views it's because they've been unable to win arguments in the past and can't articulate anything they want to say in a way that doesn't highlight them as being a racist. People don't believe they are a racist or a bigot, they believe they're being perfectly reasonable. But how is people being socially marginalized in some way for expressing highly unpopular opinions different to what goes on in literally any society ever? How popular do you think you'd be in your clearly superior society if you went into your local town square and started shouting at passerbys that all non-Muslims should be burned to death? If you started sharing that with everyone you met in public. Do you think you might start to experience some "social condemnation"? Nobody in France is being cast out on the street for their opinions or sent to gulag for insulting the president. They're getting removed from your facebook feed because they said that "niggers deserve to die" and you're not interested in putting up with that nonsense. That's kind of a big difference. That's not "the only difference", that's literally the whole point. If you are not comfortable alienating your entire family by sharing your opinion that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that's your prerogative. The society legally tolerates dissent and dissent occurs on a massive scale, both between and within ideological groups. Public discussions are driven increasingly by grass root groups thanks to the emergence of new media rapidly displacing traditional ones like newspapers and televisions.

                The only way this makes any sense as a form of "control" is if you believe the media, including all the blogs, all the social media and everything is secretly controlled in a large scale unified way in the entire world toward a specific end. Never mind that every country has at a minimum two or more large political ideologies and that within Europe they don't agree country-to-country. The American conservatives, which have their own mainstream media are certainly not seeing the world in the same way that American liberals are, and both in a highly different way than various smaller groups who do not commit to one of the larger ideological families (which are themselves large scale compromises of many smaller related ideologies). The press has always had an impact on public discourse. Society has always been segmented into groups along ideological grounds. What we have is significantly more tolerant and open to large groups, racial and religious differences than at any point in the past and it is in no meaningful way similar to political repression under the USSR.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                  If somebody is suppressing their racist views it's because they've been unable to win arguments in the past and can't articulate anything they want to say in a way that doesn't highlight them as being a racist.
                  Okay, imagine an abolitionist coming to preach at some social gathering in the American South just before the Civil War. Would his arguments be unreasonable or would he be booed out of the meeting because these people just like their ways and stick to their dogma? You seem to have a quite naive view of how entrenched public opinion/bias works.

                  People don't believe they are a racist or a bigot, they believe they're being perfectly reasonable. But how is people being socially marginalized in some way for expressing highly unpopular opinions different to what goes on in literally any society ever? How popular do you think you'd be in your clearly superior society if you went into your local town square and started shouting at passerbys that all non-Muslims should be burned to death? If you started sharing that with everyone you met in public. Do you think you might start to experience some "social condemnation"?
                  First of all, you are exaggerating quite a bit and I wasn't speaking of Hitler worshippers or radical Islamists and second, just saying you oppose illegal immigration would put you in the danger zone quite quickly. Look at Germany's PEGIDA - they're not demanding to burn anyone but to stop receiving immigrants in droves and to kick out the ones who only came to leech off German people's taxes by receiving all sorts of freebies. The media went into propaganda overdrive, calling them Nazis and all other sort of things. Take note - and please don't jump the gun with the usual strawman - I'm not saying someone personally directs and controls the propaganda. But here we can see the power of the entrenched and partly media-generated "multiculturalism" ideology which the absolute majority of the media supports and actively propagates even when the edifice of this ideology and practice is quickly crumbling down right in front of our eyes. When authoritarian regimes marginalise the opposition through their domination of the media, making them and their ideas look ridiculous, it is recognised as something wrong. When the "free media" which belongs to a very limited number of corporations alienates and marginalises people with alternative opinions, should this be seen as something right?

                  Nobody in France is being cast out on the street for their opinions or sent to gulag for insulting the president. They're getting removed from your facebook feed because they said that "niggers deserve to die" and you're not interested in putting up with that nonsense. That's kind of a big difference. That's not "the only difference", that's literally the whole point. If you are not comfortable alienating your entire family by sharing your opinion that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that's your prerogative.


                  In my very first post I already explained it works differently but aims at and achieves similar ends. Now thank you very much for telling me nobody is cast in Gulag in France. I think I explained my position clearly enough, but here we go...

                  The society legally tolerates dissent and dissent occurs on a massive scale, both between and within ideological groups. Public discussions are driven increasingly by grass root groups thanks to the emergence of new media rapidly displacing traditional ones like newspapers and televisions. The only way this makes any sense as a form of "control" is if you believe the media, including all the blogs, all the social media and everything is secretly controlled in a large scale unified way in the entire world toward a specific end.
                  Haha, of course, everyone goes to read some little-known blog vs some major media outlet. Don't be ridiculous. Once you secure an overwhelming percentage of media outreach, you can tell any bullshit you want without fear of these tiny outlets. And

                  Never mind that every country has at a minimum two or more large political ideologies and that within Europe they don't agree country-to-country.
                  Yeah, which are as massively different as Pepsi differs from Coke.

                  The American conservatives, which have their own mainstream media are certainly not seeing the world in the same way that American liberals are, and both in a highly different way than various smaller groups who do not commit to one of the larger ideological families (which are themselves large scale compromises of many smaller related ideologies). The press has always had an impact on public discourse. Society has always been segmented into groups along ideological grounds. What we have is significantly more tolerant and open to large groups, racial and religious differences than at any point in the past and it is in no meaningful way similar to political repression under the USSR.
                  Argh, I didn't say this was similar to political repression in the USSR! I said that this achieves the same end by more "harmless" and efficient means. It's like the difference between a .45 gun and a taser. You either don't hear me or you don't want to.
                  www.histours.ru

                  Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Use this for the basics:

                    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                    I would like to hear from the Grandchildren of these Black people that stayed in Russia.

                    Pruitt

                    Early Soviet period[edit]
                    After the revolution several Black African and mixed-race families came to the Soviet Union under the auspices of the Comintern. They were chiefly specialists in the spheres of industrial production and agriculture. The technical equipment, modest means, and professional experience brought by them were an appreciable contribution to economic development of a new state. Among them were Oliver John Golden and his wife Bertha (he brought with him a group of 16 Afro-American experts in the cultivation of cotton), well-known African-American poet Langston Hughes with a group of 22 filmmakers, Paul Robeson with his family and many others. Some of them stayed in Russia and their descendants still live there.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Russian

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Blacks in Russia



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                        If somebody is suppressing their racist views it's because they've been unable to win arguments in the past and can't articulate anything they want to say in a way that doesn't highlight them as being a racist. People don't believe they are a racist or a bigot, they believe they're being perfectly reasonable. But how is people being socially marginalized in some way for expressing highly unpopular opinions different to what goes on in literally any society ever? How popular do you think you'd be in your clearly superior society if you went into your local town square and started shouting at passerbys that all non-Muslims should be burned to death?
                        As far as I know, spreading something like that in public falls under the law of hate speech, which in turn will and should be prosecuted by the law.


                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post

                        If you started sharing that with everyone you met in public. Do you think you might start to experience some "social condemnation"?
                        It very much depends on "how safe you feel", hoping you express yourself in a like minded crowd.

                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                        Nobody in France is being cast out on the street for their opinions or sent to gulag for insulting the president.
                        NSA like filters will capture catchphrases(scanning phone and social media), that could get you on a list, which has not been used extensively just yet to mark you as a suspect of sorts.

                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                        They're getting removed from your facebook feed because they said that "niggers deserve to die" and you're not interested in putting up with that nonsense. That's kind of a big difference. That's not "the only difference", that's literally the whole point. If you are not comfortable alienating your entire family by sharing your opinion that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that's your prerogative. The society legally tolerates dissent and dissent occurs on a massive scale, both between and within ideological groups. Public discussions are driven increasingly by grass root groups thanks to the emergence of new media rapidly displacing traditional ones like newspapers and televisions.
                        Prosecution(secretly or officially might come in place, when democracy gradually spirals down to fail. Nothing lasts forever.

                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                        The only way this makes any sense as a form of "control" is if you believe the media, including all the blogs, all the social media and everything is secretly controlled in a large scale unified way in the entire world toward a specific end. Never mind that every country has at a minimum two or more large political ideologies and that within Europe they don't agree country-to-country.
                        I believe that real political shifts are emerging as of now, since the refugee crisis raises the right wing as a factor in politics back to life, in oppostion to the subtle neo liberal rule of the western democracies. This could be the beginning of a revolution.

                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                        The American conservatives, which have their own mainstream media are certainly not seeing the world in the same way that American liberals are, and both in a highly different way than various smaller groups who do not commit to one of the larger ideological families (which are themselves large scale compromises of many smaller related ideologies).
                        The American conservatives now find their manifestation in Donald Trump,
                        because they are tired of the established neo liberal ruling class.

                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                        The press has always had an impact on public discourse.
                        The mainstream media is loosing credibility in ever larger scales.

                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                        Society has always been segmented into groups along ideological grounds. What we have is significantly more tolerant and open to large groups, racial and religious differences than at any point in the past and it is in no meaningful way similar to political repression under the USSR.
                        The Ruling parties of the west, be it the republicans and the democrats in the US, the SPD(scocial democrats) and the CDU (christian democrats) in Germany, the conservative, liberal, and labor parties in the former dominion states (UK, Canada, Australia ...), have become too indistinguishable, to such extent, that the voters seeking alternatives in protest organisations. All efforts to remedy this motion, by including "Green" parties and the center left in administration, but in effect turned them into "the established" once they enjoyed office. To the great disappointment of the voters.
                        Thus in effect they created a climate, that was not to remote from the soviet system.
                        By the way, do to my travels into the "east" during the seventies, I noticed amounts of discontend by the people that very much reminds me of today's situation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's just like the Japanese extolling the virtues of the Japanese East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere to their conquests.

                          It was about as appealing to the lowly as the "workers paradise" was.
                          "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                          "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                          "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                          Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by At ease View Post
                            It's just like the Japanese extolling the virtues of the Japanese East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere to their conquests.

                            It was about as appealing to the lowly as the "workers paradise" was.
                            When Soviet sent the man in space, in USA they were still discussing if black are human being like other and in Australia they were taking native children from their parents. Says it all about society evolution.
                            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In that case it's pretty impressive that the US managed to evolve so quickly that they far surpassed the Soviets only 8 years later. That has to be some kind of record.
                              "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X