|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program and that’s what they did. And they haven’t changed. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical.
I don't think that's a great distinction. The level of groupthink required for communism to function is what leads to dissertive voices having to be forcefully silenced. You can't break the spell. The forcefully silencing part may not be part of the ideology but if the only way of implementing the ideology leads to it anyway then there's not much of a moral victory to be had by saying 'well that's not what we wanted'
|
On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot.
That’s not quite the point. The point is how bankrupt it is to draw a moral equivalent between communists and nazis. It is reasonable to say that an immense majority of people who have wanted communism wanted what it was supposed to be: a stateless, classless equalitarian society.
People who identify as nazis wanted and want what is in Mein Kampf: the extermination of inferior races and a totalitarian society.
Stalin was not much better than Hitler. Stalinism was not much better than nazism. The victims of both systems deserve to be remembered. But we are talking about the people here. Joe Communist is not the same than Joe Nazi. He might be unrealistic, his lack of realism might be dangerous, but he is not in to commit genocide.
|
On May 23 2018 16:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot. That’s not quite the point. The point is how bankrupt it is to draw a moral equivalent between communists and nazis. It is reasonable to say that an immense majority of people who have wanted communism wanted what it was supposed to be: a stateless, classless equalitarian society. People who identify as nazis wanted and want what is in Mein Kampf: the extermination of inferior races and a totalitarian society. Stalin was not much better than Hitler. Stalinism was not much better than nazism. The victims of both systems deserve to be remembered. But we are talking about the people here. Joe Communist is not the same than Joe Nazi. He might be unrealistic, his lack of realism might be dangerous, but he is not in to commit genocide.
But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place.
The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities.
One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism).
That's how it always goes when a left wing ideology goes wrong. A right winger will take power because ONLY I CAN FIX THIS SOCIETY OF WEAKNESS, a left winger will kill millions because THESE ARE THE BAD ACTORS IN SOCIETY, ONLY BY REMOVING THEM CAN WE ACHIEVE HARMONY.
|
On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:
One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism).
Capitalism, however, is flawless in its pursuit of endless wealth for the few at the cost of everyone else - be it in wealth, control of the government, media domination, damage to the environment leading to the death or displacement of millions, etc.
ideology is a mockery of a string quartet.
|
Norway28730 Posts
On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot.
Intent is always the barometer of evil.. You're basically arguing that there's no difference in morality between a pilot whose plane malfunctions and where despite his very best efforts it ends up crashing killing all passengers, and one who intentionally flies into a mountain. The outcome is no different for the passengers of either plane, but clearly there's a difference in the morality of the two pilots where one attempted to save all the passengers and the other deliberately killed them all.
No present day communist supports 'killing for a good cause'. That's the point. They don't support any of the killing done by leaders of countries professing to be communist. They distance themselves from it. Nazis do not distance themselves from Hitler. (Once again- "to be fair", some claim that Hitler was much less murderous than Hitler really was. )
The most well known example of an organization structured around principles for organization and division of labor that Marx would approve of is Wikipedia.
|
On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:
But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place.
The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities.
One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism).
Except both can exist as ideologies without actually governing nations.
Most democratic nations probably have a communist party at some level of their government, though they likely get few votes. I'm sure some actually have seats in more proportional election systems. And as individuals, or small groups, they're not exactly espousing dangerous ideologies or policies that are intentionally harmful to others.
A Nazi party, or an individual espousing Nazi ideologies, is almost entirely focused on some extreme concept of antisemitism, racial superiority, and/or ethnic cleansing. Those are basically the only distinctive details that separate Nazism, especially in the 21st century.
|
I'd like people to look at the last page and notice the instinctiveness and effectiveness with which some people automatically derail discussion.
Velr posted:
On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory.
saying basically "Nazis are bad". Which probably wouldn't have even resulted in any discussion whatsoever. But then, one post later, within 20 minutes, Danglars replied with:
On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:
Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison.
Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence.
Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you.
instantly deflecting to "but communists!". Even something as unproblematic as "nazis are bad" can not be talked about without right-wing people like Danglars deflecting to something that they perceive as a left-wing group. Because no right-wing group may ever be criticized for long periods of time, not even Nazis.
And the result so far is one page of discussion on communists. The effectiveness is staggering. Everything is about right vs left, and every discussion must be lead to talk about problems with anything within the left-wing. Any discussion on anything right-wing must be avoided at any cost. Not even a statement like "nazis are bad" can be left without leading the discussion to "but communists are at least as bad"
|
I put that more down to communism being bigger in America than Nazism. Yes, there are actual nazis in the US, but the ideology doesn't have the associations it does for us Europeans, as it never really took root over there. Communism on the other hand has left some pretty deep scars between the cuban missile crisis and reds under the bed.
I'm not sure I'd call this a derailing situation, either. Or if it is, it's one of Danglars' less derail-ey moments.
Besides, I believe what motivated Danglars' post was the comment about punching nazis, more than the discussion of the ideology itself. In which he was pointing out both sides are a) equally punchable and b) its better to move away from violence, period.
I heartily approve of b).
|
I'm pretty sure Danglars is not opposed to violence (war) against communists (nations).
|
I am sure that is true. But I have always found the “but communism” posts in response to any discussion about Nazism a bit off putting. As if each of them cannot be discussed on their own.
|
On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 16:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot. That’s not quite the point. The point is how bankrupt it is to draw a moral equivalent between communists and nazis. It is reasonable to say that an immense majority of people who have wanted communism wanted what it was supposed to be: a stateless, classless equalitarian society. People who identify as nazis wanted and want what is in Mein Kampf: the extermination of inferior races and a totalitarian society. Stalin was not much better than Hitler. Stalinism was not much better than nazism. The victims of both systems deserve to be remembered. But we are talking about the people here. Joe Communist is not the same than Joe Nazi. He might be unrealistic, his lack of realism might be dangerous, but he is not in to commit genocide. But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place. The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities. One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism). That's how it always goes when a left wing ideology goes wrong. A right winger will take power because ONLY I CAN FIX THIS SOCIETY OF WEAKNESS, a left winger will kill millions because THESE ARE THE BAD ACTORS IN SOCIETY, ONLY BY REMOVING THEM CAN WE ACHIEVE HARMONY.
Marx said very specifically in the preface of the third edition of the Capital that if he didn’t paint the landowner or capitalist in pink, it was only as a social rapport and a position in a hierarchy that he refered to them and not as people. He states explicitely that he doesn’t want to « remove » bad actors, just to change the act. Leninism, stalinism and maoism are a cruel and grotesque perversion of what Marx, and communists, wanted (which was probably totally unrealistic, let’s be clear there). Nazism was all about removing people in the first place; it’s even the whole idea.
Danglar, with his inflamatory whataboutism says that if we should punch nazis, we should punch communists too. I’m pointing out that communists are probably not realistic, that their ideas might lead to great harm but that in that case they are simply wrong. You don’t punch people for being wrong. You punch them for being fucking assholes.
Now if by communists you mean specifically someone who supports the means and ends of stalinism or maoism, think we should kill kulaks and restablsh the gulag (instead of someone dreaming of an utopic equalitarian society), i’m with Danglar and all for punching him too. It’s just that it’s not what communist meant originally and not what it means today, and Danglar knows it as well as you and me.
Note that I have very little sympathy for communists. If you can’t learn from a century of failures leading to utter devastation, you ain’t that smart imo. It doesn’t make you a nazi though.
|
I feel like I see a certain slippery slope happening in the minds of some posters...
Danglars equivocates “Commies” with Nazis.
—>
“Why would anyone attempt to deflect Nazi hate?”
—>
“Given what I know about Danglars post history, deflecting Nazi hate is consistent with my view of him as an alt-right nutjob”.
—>
“Danglars is attempting to defend Nazis!”
—>
“Any part of his post that implies otherwise must be disingenuous and treated as such”.
—>
“As a member of the alt-right, he must not be allowed to spew his ideology in any form. I will appeal to forum-goers to imply he should be removed from discussion”.
I personally don’t find anything wrong with the discussion of the punchability OR evilness (two separate ideas with two separate opinions) of communists vs nazis, but as members of a discussion forum we should be forthcoming with our biases towards certain people that engage in discussion, as that impacts our ability to converse effectively. If anyone believes that Danglars is an insidious agent of the alt-right attempting to poison discussion, they should go to website feedback thread and argue their point there (with quotes and examples). Otherwise, his words and points should simply be taken at face value. I recommend anyone else who is in the middle to make a choice.
Re: the discussion, I think in this case, like in most cases, sweeping generalizations are removing nuance that is sorely needed. I believe some communists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, their leadership) are more evil than some or even most current nazis (Cletus and Jeb), but most current nazis are more evil than most current communists.
Re: punchability of different groups, I (like Danglars has also said) don’t really condone punching anyone for being in a specific group and would rather judge by actions on a case by case basis (e.g. I won’t punch you for being a Nazi, but I will punch you for physically intimidating/threatening minorities with violence for no reason, etc). The ideology itself should be dealt with through discourse (either with the individual, or with the audience while ignoring the individual if he/she is unable to converse appropriately).
Re: the evilness of those running the death camps/gulags/concentration camps specifically, that I believe has less to do with ideology and more to do with the human psychology of being placed in a situation of absolute authority (google Stanford Prison Experiment / Abu Gharib).
|
I find it funny that your "we should be forthcoming with our biases" admonition is targeted at the folks who have spent the past pages discussing why a particular poster's biases set up a false premise in the first place (Nazis v. Commies, while interesting on its own terms, is in no way par for the course in terms of describing the specifics of either group). As is the case with media critiques that lazily assert that Fox News has clear tit-for-tat equivalents, the consistent "but here's a leftist version too!" sentiments, intentionally or not, almost always direct the conversation away from what was being discussed in the first place. This kind of well-poisoning needn't be done by "an insidious agent of the alt-right" in order for it to be annoying, besides the point, and a very clear symptom of a larger dynamic that is best observed in places like Fox and Friends and Hannity.
There are certainly plenty of posters who do not acknowledge their own biases, but to be clear, the constant need to gesticulate towards the left whenever people wanna get into why Americans would march beneath a swasitka is its own kind of bias given verbal form.
|
I don’t think there is anything wrong with Danglars post about Nazi, only that the “don’t forget about communism” response has a certain ubiquity on the internet. It is so common that people in this thread have start to point out the differences between the two.
|
On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 16:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot. That’s not quite the point. The point is how bankrupt it is to draw a moral equivalent between communists and nazis. It is reasonable to say that an immense majority of people who have wanted communism wanted what it was supposed to be: a stateless, classless equalitarian society. People who identify as nazis wanted and want what is in Mein Kampf: the extermination of inferior races and a totalitarian society. Stalin was not much better than Hitler. Stalinism was not much better than nazism. The victims of both systems deserve to be remembered. But we are talking about the people here. Joe Communist is not the same than Joe Nazi. He might be unrealistic, his lack of realism might be dangerous, but he is not in to commit genocide. But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place. The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities. One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism). That's how it always goes when a left wing ideology goes wrong. A right winger will take power because ONLY I CAN FIX THIS SOCIETY OF WEAKNESS, a left winger will kill millions because THESE ARE THE BAD ACTORS IN SOCIETY, ONLY BY REMOVING THEM CAN WE ACHIEVE HARMONY.
I'm not sure it's inevitable that communism would lead to such wrongs, likely perhaps, but inevitable seems too strong.
|
On May 23 2018 20:38 farvacola wrote:
I find it funny that your "we should be forthcoming with our biases" admonition is targeted at the folks who have spent the past pages discussing why a particular poster's biases set up a false premise in the first place (Nazis v. Commies, while interesting on its own terms, is in no way par for the course in terms of describing the specifics of either group). As is the case with media critiques that lazily assert that Fox News has clear tit-for-tat equivalents, the consistent "but here's a leftist version too!" sentiments, intentionally or not, almost always direct the conversation away from what was being discussed in the first place. This kind of well-poisoning needn't be done by "an insidious agent of the alt-right" in order for it to be annoying, besides the point, and a very clear symptom of a larger dynamic that is best observed in places like Fox and Friends and Hannity.
There are certainly plenty of posters who do not acknowledge their own biases, but to be clear, the constant need to gesticulate towards the left whenever people wanna get into why Americans would march beneath a swasitka is its own kind of bias given verbal form.
FWIW, I’m not exempting Danglars from my points or saying he is innocent of wrongdoing. I’m also not calling anyone out specifically for being clouded by bias, nor do I plan on proving that it exists. It was a feeling I had that it may exist though, and I wanted to put out my thoughts on what should be done if that were the case.
The type of bias you are attributing to Danglars seems to be based in ideology, which should be approached with honest discourse (either with him or the audience) to demonstrate why it’s wrong (and this is what is happening right now). I’m referring to personal biases that impact a person’s ability to argue with someone in good faith. Either someone is worth engaging in discussion (and you argue with them in good faith) or they’re not (and you ignore them in thread while making your case in website feedback). The middle ground is where the pages of meaningless back-and-forths come in, and they are anathema to meaningful discussion.
|
On May 23 2018 21:12 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 23 2018 16:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot. That’s not quite the point. The point is how bankrupt it is to draw a moral equivalent between communists and nazis. It is reasonable to say that an immense majority of people who have wanted communism wanted what it was supposed to be: a stateless, classless equalitarian society. People who identify as nazis wanted and want what is in Mein Kampf: the extermination of inferior races and a totalitarian society. Stalin was not much better than Hitler. Stalinism was not much better than nazism. The victims of both systems deserve to be remembered. But we are talking about the people here. Joe Communist is not the same than Joe Nazi. He might be unrealistic, his lack of realism might be dangerous, but he is not in to commit genocide. But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place. The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities. One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism). That's how it always goes when a left wing ideology goes wrong. A right winger will take power because ONLY I CAN FIX THIS SOCIETY OF WEAKNESS, a left winger will kill millions because THESE ARE THE BAD ACTORS IN SOCIETY, ONLY BY REMOVING THEM CAN WE ACHIEVE HARMONY. I'm not sure it's inevitable that communism would lead to such wrongs, likely perhaps, but inevitable seems too strong.
I believe that it is inevitable, with the caveat: "Without very significant change in the fundamental thinking of human beings" which I don't consider an impossibility in the future (indeed I think as a species we will eventually start thinking about things differently, but how long that takes is a different matter).
The problem is inherent in how Communism - even if it is successful - operates: it creates a super structure that's rife to be corrupted and is inherently corruptable. The only way for it to be safeguarded is the way it was initially done (mass murder; let's not forget that the reason the killings began, after all), or for the people within the system to be so trustworthy that safeguards aren't necessary.
Otherwise, a charismatic leader WILL rise, and WILL corrupt the system, because humans are fundamentally hierarchical, always lining up behind the guy with the best lines/plans/fists as the situation dictates. Unless that guy is himself incorruptible, the system will fall apart under his control, as in fact it did.
But again, that's assuming no fundamental change in how humans think about things.
It's also why communism can work in small, self-sufficient communities; everybody knows each other personally, and pretty well. A bad actor will be known by everyone and kept in check.
Conversely, the strength of capitalism is that it's based on people being arseholes, and so it includes checks and balances against those arseholes into its structure to avoid them taking it apart.
Not that unfettered Capitalism is any good, of course. Just a more stable structural system.
|
On May 23 2018 21:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 21:12 zlefin wrote:On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 23 2018 16:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot. That’s not quite the point. The point is how bankrupt it is to draw a moral equivalent between communists and nazis. It is reasonable to say that an immense majority of people who have wanted communism wanted what it was supposed to be: a stateless, classless equalitarian society. People who identify as nazis wanted and want what is in Mein Kampf: the extermination of inferior races and a totalitarian society. Stalin was not much better than Hitler. Stalinism was not much better than nazism. The victims of both systems deserve to be remembered. But we are talking about the people here. Joe Communist is not the same than Joe Nazi. He might be unrealistic, his lack of realism might be dangerous, but he is not in to commit genocide. But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place. The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities. One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism). That's how it always goes when a left wing ideology goes wrong. A right winger will take power because ONLY I CAN FIX THIS SOCIETY OF WEAKNESS, a left winger will kill millions because THESE ARE THE BAD ACTORS IN SOCIETY, ONLY BY REMOVING THEM CAN WE ACHIEVE HARMONY. I'm not sure it's inevitable that communism would lead to such wrongs, likely perhaps, but inevitable seems too strong. I believe that it is inevitable, with the caveat: "Without very significant change in the fundamental thinking of human beings" which I don't consider an impossibility in the future (indeed I think as a species we will eventually start thinking about things differently, but how long that takes is a different matter). The problem is inherent in how Communism - even if it is successful - operates: it creates a super structure that's rife to be corrupted and is inherently corruptable. The only way for it to be safeguarded is the way it was initially done (mass murder; let's not forget that the reason the killings began, after all), or for the people within the system to be so trustworthy that safeguards aren't necessary. Otherwise, a charismatic leader WILL rise, and WILL corrupt the system, because humans are fundamentally hierarchical, always lining up behind the guy with the best lines/plans/fists as the situation dictates. Unless that guy is himself incorruptible, the system will fall apart under his control, as in fact it did. But again, that's assuming no fundamental change in how humans think about things. It's also why communism can work in small, self-sufficient communities; everybody knows each other personally, and pretty well. A bad actor will be known by everyone and kept in check. Conversely, the strength of capitalism is that it's based on people being arseholes, and so it includes checks and balances against those arseholes into its structure to avoid them taking it apart. Not that unfettered Capitalism is any good, of course. Just a more stable structural system.
i'm not seeing how that would be an inevitable outcome of communism, rather than an inevitable outcome of human societies in general that happens periodically. all systems are corruptable after all.
you could include a solid system of checks and balances in communism too, it just wasn't done sufficiently, and the places that tried communism tended to not have a strong civil society or rule of law anyways.
|
On May 23 2018 21:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 21:27 iamthedave wrote:On May 23 2018 21:12 zlefin wrote:On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 23 2018 16:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On May 23 2018 15:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2018 10:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2018 10:02 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 09:40 Velr wrote:
I just today visited auswitsch and birkenau... ... If you want a stomache crawl, do it. I right now, 10 hours later can't sleep.
Punching Nazis is A ok. If you disagree (as i did)... Visit. Especially Birkenau. 30 minutes of walking whiteout stopping from one end to the other...
Punching Nazis should be mandatory. Commies killed and starved more. They didn't have the more instantly abhorrent selection of Jews. But nevertheless, the kulaks and the various victims of the gulags and of Mao's great leap forward scream just as loud. The body count from the extermination camp genocide is a rounding error by comparison. Simply being human should instinctively make you want to punch a Nazi, or a Commie. I think society is nonetheless wiser for thinking twice about condoning the use of violence. Not that it matters, but I've toured the Washington DC holocaust museum and spoken with survivors there. Some of the exhibits, such as the pile of shoes that includes children's shoes, simply floor you. Modern day communists do not support Stalin, Gulags, Mao's leap forward, Pol Pot, or well, any of the abhorrent policies practiced by regimes claiming to be communist. They consider these regimes as communist as we consider North Korea 'Democratic'. Modern day nazis support Hitler. Some will argue that the holocaust was exaggerated. But they celebrate Hitler and the idea of segregating people according to ethnicity. I still don't condone punching nazis though, I don't really think that's a productive way of dealing with people who harbor idiotic and dangerous ideas. But the equivalence between people who describe themselves as communist and the people who describe themselves as nazis is entirely false, because only one of these groups today distances themselves from the atrocious actions of regimes self-describing as communist or national-socialist. If you find a guy who describes himself as a Stalinist or Maoist, the equivalence has merit to it, but I know many self-described communists - none are even remotely positively inclined towards any of these regimes. The thing that Danglar pretends to ignore there is that nazism was a success while communism was a failure. Nazis wanted extermination, Auschwitz, totalitarianism and war all along. That’s what they were here to do, that was the program. And they still do. Communism is a completely different story, one of an ideology that failed. Gulags, Stalin, soviet oppression, Pol Pot and the endless list of horrors are not the program of Das Kapital. They are a consequence of utterly failing to put it in practice, because of the internal contradictions it contains. The fact that communists wanted the abolition of the state, while the communist experience have resulted in the greatest state power abuses of the XXth century speaks volume. So yep, the moral equivalence between communism as such and nazism is as dumb as ever and saying that being a nazi or believing in the communist ideals is equivalent is, well, I would say to avoid ad hominem, typical. I think intention doesn't matter to the tens of millions killed under Communism. Why is intention the barometer of evilness? Is someone who intended to kill and murder 10 people worse, than someone indiscriminately killing a thousand for a "good cause"? In the end, if you could ask those killed, I'd imagine they'd say the distinction is moot. That’s not quite the point. The point is how bankrupt it is to draw a moral equivalent between communists and nazis. It is reasonable to say that an immense majority of people who have wanted communism wanted what it was supposed to be: a stateless, classless equalitarian society. People who identify as nazis wanted and want what is in Mein Kampf: the extermination of inferior races and a totalitarian society. Stalin was not much better than Hitler. Stalinism was not much better than nazism. The victims of both systems deserve to be remembered. But we are talking about the people here. Joe Communist is not the same than Joe Nazi. He might be unrealistic, his lack of realism might be dangerous, but he is not in to commit genocide. But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place. The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities. One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism). That's how it always goes when a left wing ideology goes wrong. A right winger will take power because ONLY I CAN FIX THIS SOCIETY OF WEAKNESS, a left winger will kill millions because THESE ARE THE BAD ACTORS IN SOCIETY, ONLY BY REMOVING THEM CAN WE ACHIEVE HARMONY. I'm not sure it's inevitable that communism would lead to such wrongs, likely perhaps, but inevitable seems too strong. I believe that it is inevitable, with the caveat: "Without very significant change in the fundamental thinking of human beings" which I don't consider an impossibility in the future (indeed I think as a species we will eventually start thinking about things differently, but how long that takes is a different matter). The problem is inherent in how Communism - even if it is successful - operates: it creates a super structure that's rife to be corrupted and is inherently corruptable. The only way for it to be safeguarded is the way it was initially done (mass murder; let's not forget that the reason the killings began, after all), or for the people within the system to be so trustworthy that safeguards aren't necessary. Otherwise, a charismatic leader WILL rise, and WILL corrupt the system, because humans are fundamentally hierarchical, always lining up behind the guy with the best lines/plans/fists as the situation dictates. Unless that guy is himself incorruptible, the system will fall apart under his control, as in fact it did. But again, that's assuming no fundamental change in how humans think about things. It's also why communism can work in small, self-sufficient communities; everybody knows each other personally, and pretty well. A bad actor will be known by everyone and kept in check. Conversely, the strength of capitalism is that it's based on people being arseholes, and so it includes checks and balances against those arseholes into its structure to avoid them taking it apart. Not that unfettered Capitalism is any good, of course. Just a more stable structural system. i'm not seeing how that would be an inevitable outcome of communism, rather than an inevitable outcome of human societies in general that happens periodically. all systems are corruptable after all. you could include a solid system of checks and balances in communism too, it just wasn't done sufficiently, and the places that tried communism tended to not have a strong civil society or rule of law anyways.
In all honesty, we don’t know. All attempt of transition to communism have failed miserably and none of the « communist » experiences of the XXth century have led to anything looking remotely like what Marx envisioned so we have a sample of 0 to start with. The leninist state, what people associate with communism, was certainly doomed to fail. It’s a horrible idea to start with, and no amount of check and balances could fix it. It’s really no wonder that, from Russia to North Korea, it only lead to a series of horrors.
I read a bit of marxist philosophy in my time and I have to say that, to me, it seems simply unrealistic, and I believe that if the only thing that got concrete out of it is that leninist monstrous child, it’s that the doctrine suffers from very severe internal contradictions and misjudges human nature.
|
But communism is not the only concrete result of Marxist doctrine; its influence can be seen in government policies the world throughout, even here in capitalist fantasy land. And this doesn't even touch on the cultural, critical, and academic realms that incorporate large amounts of Marxist thinking into their mileu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
