If you really think about it, many leaders from socialist countries have used cults of personality to make themselves above everyone else. Isn’t this basically how capitalists use their own image as a way to convey power.
Depends on the personality
I think we should critically question the premise that so-called “cults of personality” as they are portrayed by anti-communist propaganda even existed in the first place. What for example is the difference between a population deeply admiring and respecting someone who has achieved genuinely heroic things, vs a so-called “personality cult”? Is it a personality cult if it was organic and not deliberately cultivated? Is it even a bad thing for people to have revolutionary role models and symbols? Do celebrities and CEOs and politicians in the West not have “cults of personality” too? Should a socialist state outright forbid people from publicly celebrating the achievements of their heroes for the sake of not allowing a “cult of personality” to form? Does that not infringe on freedom of expression? Is having role models not an intrinsic part of the “human nature” that liberals always like to talk about? Should we as communists not instead, if the phenomenon is unavoidable, at least try to offer positive role models to people, rather than, as is the case in capitalist societies, letting that role be taken up by the greediest most egotistical and most selfish people?
Average socialist leader: pulls country out of feudalism, greatly increases life expectancy, makes higher education accessible, rallies people to the defense of the nation and beats back genocidal invasions
The people: we greatly appreciate your efforts comrade, you are a hero and a role model to future generations
People on the internet (usually westerners, sometimes descendants of genocidal invaders): 😱 😡 is this a cult???
It’s so unserious. I think it’s a case of people who spent their entire lives under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie being unable to conceptualize having leaders that genuinely fight for the interests of the working class and therefore secure the loyalty of the people through their deeds. And coincidentally, being very concerned about people in AES countries liking their leaders too much and explaining it away as nefarious cults is something that benefits the imperialist plunderers of the planet.
I think it’s a case of people who spent their entire lives under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie being unable to conceptualize having leaders that genuinely fight for the interests of the working class and therefore secure the loyalty of the people through their deeds. And coincidentally, being very concerned about people in AES countries liking their leaders too much and explaining it away as nefarious cults is something that benefits the imperialist plunderers of the planet.
That’s exactly what it is.
This just shows, time and again, how Westerners truly do not have a toolset that enables them to think about and understand the world beyond just simply taking any event, stripping away all of its many relationships and connections to other historical processes, and categorizing it away with the most superficial abandon. I wish it was a common mentality in the West to speak only after investigation had been thoroughly done.
many leaders from socialist countries have used cults of personality to make themselves above everyone else
No, they haven’t.
Now that I have a bit more time, I want to add to this point: It’s anti-communist nonsense to be saying “many leaders from socialist countries have used cults of personality to make themselves above everyone else”. If you do even a cursory look into research on cults of personality, example here:
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/4421-the-authoritarian-personality
You’ll find them talking about nazis and fascism, not communism. Their use of the term “authoritarian” is rather stupid, but that aside, they’re essentially trying to understand how the mind of a fascist works.
AES states do not operate on any kind of similar unquestioning loyalty to a singular leader. What they sometimes operate on is a culture of reverence or respect toward those who have made great contributions to helping others, which is NOT the same as saying these people are supernatural, untouchable beings of divinity, but more like using them as symbols / role models of what to strive for. They also tend to operate on the principle that if someone is a good leader, it makes sense to keep having them as a leader for as long as possible. This is sensible, not evidence of a dictatorship/cult as the west so often tries to frame it. It is the western capitalist weirdos who are like “we change out leaders on a frequent basis, this means we’re more free or something lol, pay no attention to the approval ratings in the shitter.”
The western model of have shit ass leaders who keep getting changed out like a toilet paper roll is the historical anomaly. Having leaders who stick around who are liked is normal and makes sense, not signs of a cult. Cults of personality in some definition of it can exist, but simply having figures who are put on a pedestal is not proof of it. If it was, then you’d probably be able to argue that most societies in history and most organizations in history are run on a cult of personality, which causes the phrase to lose all contextual meaning and importance.
The western model of have shit ass leaders who keep getting changed out like a toilet paper roll is the historical anomaly. Having leaders who stick around who are liked is normal and makes sense, not signs of a cult.
Reminds me of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms in office because he was so well liked by the US population for his practice of actually existing social democracy and because he was winning so much in elections and in power for so long that the constitution was later amended in 1951 to put in term limits with him listed as a direct reason for it.
I mean, how much is it a cult of personality versus an appreciation for a leader?
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, and Hồ Chí Minh – which are the first people I think when I read “cult of personality” – basically pulled their nations from the ground up and led the people through some great war, usually against overwhelming odds.
People were going to appreciate that. And it’s easier to honor a single person than the entire Party and Military.
I don’t know about the others, but Stalin for one didn’t like how people honored him. Dude just wanted to watch cowboy movies.
I’m not from a socialist country, but I know that any “cults of personality” were likely just anticommunist propaganda. I’m from an ex-yu state, so I know the opinions people who lived during Yugoslavia had. Tito was well-respected, his accomplishments known, but there was never a cult around him. Portraits of him were put in classrooms, but it wasn’t like people were forced to pledge allegiance to him, or anything of that manner. I’d say even some movies about (keyword some, mainly Serbian ones) get the relationship between Tito and the people right. To say that there isn’t propaganda of cults of personality around communist leaders here is untrue, but for me, the material evidence speaks for itself.
imagine being one of the chinese women who were kidnapped and raped by the japanese military. do you not appreciate the leader who not only liberates you from that hell but also is dead set to destroy cultural elements of misogyny, gives you an education, a secure job? would an eastern european child who saw his entire village burned to the ground by fascist forces not love the leader who destroyed the fascist powers, set orders to kill every single one of them mercilessly and then on top that gave you a whole new life? a lot of leaders had what appeared to be a “cult of personality” because they rescued billions of people from rape, homelessness, starvation, torture, slavery, genocide and death…
The American founding fathers have a cult of personality. They are still worshipped to this day by people.
i’m not sure american civil religion is properly a cult of personality
Did not know that “American civil religion” was a thing, very interesting.
yeah all that reverence for the founding people and documents, symbols of state etc. Trump’s cult is a branch of it, and for decades it’s usually been republicans who are the most overt clowns over it, but liberal idealism about how the country is “supposed to be” is in there too.
Out of sheer curiosity (and acknowledging that cfgaussian’s reply is very good) do you have any examples of “cults of personality” from socialist countries?
ⓘ Remember to enable JPEG-XL support in your browser, even on your phone!
