It’s fascinating to me how the same people who like to do purity tests for China or Vietnam claiming they’re not actually communist are also the ones who’ll defend places like US or Canada saying yeah it’s not perfect, but it’s the ideal of the system that matters.
It’s such an incredible example of cognitive dissonance. These people able to recognize that their own system doesn’t live up to the ideal they have in their heads, but still treat it as a valid interpretation of the idea, but when it comes to a system they dislike then the same logic doesn’t apply all of a sudden.
Oh! I think this might be a good explanation for a lot of the western left. Revolutionary movements are hard, and arguably they are the hardest in the imperial core. So it can often feel hopeless, but if those other socialist countries “failed” then it isn’t so bad, because hey, everyone sucks at revolution, not just “us.” And if there is some magical “universal” solution that will always succeed, even better, we can just do the one special thing that always works.
I’ve been thinking about “hope” and the western left a lot lately. A lot of the western left, like most people in the west, are constantly downtrodden and have their self-esteem torn apart by the system. And unlike libs who don’t even notice this breaking down and just purchase the next distraction to ignore it, the western left are aware of how the system tears people apart, but feels utterly hopeless and trapped within it. So a “perfect” solution gives them what they sorely need: Hope.
Unfortunately, revolutions are not won on hope, but on pragmatic action. But I think there are a lot of reasons why the western left tends to fall for idealism a lot. (And that’s ignoring the elephant in the room that actual materialist communists are targeted by the state, while idealists make excellent controlled opposition.)