Ask a Red, Second Edition

[SS-18 ICBM]

I had no idea Hitler was a communist.

 

[holy king]

why has it been a coincidence that the worlds worst dictators were communists?

also, why does this fact coincide with you not stopping to hit your wife?

 

[_random_]

I had no idea Hitler was a communist.

He was a National Socialist. Duh.

 

[civver_764]

why has it been a coincidence that the worlds worst dictators were communists?

Because communism is highly beneficial and appealing to the majority, especially in poorer countries where these dictatorships were implemented. By claiming to represent such a populist ideology it helps them gain legitimacy. In fact, if we look at most third world revolution they don't typically result in awesome democratic states.

Also these were all in the 20th century, where the tactics used by the state to terrorize its population were pretty bad in general.

The fact remains though that there is nothing inherent in socialist ideology that lends itself to a dictatorship, and I have never once heard anyone prove that there was. Socialism is(was) simply an incredibly popular ideology and so gets abused by dictators more often. That's it.

 

[Perfection]

Second, please don't use the term "Red Society."

Why not?

 

[aelf]

The fact remains though that there is nothing inherent in socialist ideology that lends itself to a dictatorship, and I have never once heard anyone prove that there was. Socialism is(was) simply an incredibly popular ideology and so gets abused by dictators more often. That's it.

Not to mention that Marxism was in vogue during the period in which many dictatorships arose. So there's much to be said about the historical specificity of Marxist dictatorships.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The fact remains though that there is nothing inherent in socialist ideology that lends itself to a dictatorship, and I have never once heard anyone prove that there was. Socialism is(was) simply an incredibly popular ideology and so gets abused by dictators more often. That's it.

Actually, Socialists are pretty seriously minority in the West.

But I agree socialism isn't inherently dictatoral. Its inherently a society that I dislike however, so, well, same thing

 

[_random_]

Actually, Socialists are pretty seriously minority in the West.

But I agree socialism isn't inherently dictatoral. Its inherently a society that I dislike however, so, well, same thing

I think he meant popular in the sense of "appealing to the populous" rather than "widespread."

 

[aelf]

Actually, there are plenty of people who have tried to "prove" that totalitarianism is inherent in any form of Marxist ideology, notably followers of Hayek, some of whom are here. Please don't jinx the thread by inviting these people to prove their existence.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually, Socialists are pretty seriously minority in the West.

But socialism, or parts of socialism, are incredibly popular. Somewhat less so in the United States, but I'll remind you that nearly all of Europe was government by communist, socialist, or social-democratic parties for at least part of the last 80 years.

"Popularity" is a lot more than which party someone votes for. Take our dear Karalysia, for example. He votes democrat, but very clearly supports dictatorship of the proletariat. Now if you can leave aside the partisan mudslinging for a moment, you can see that party support has nothing to do with ideological support. And it is also true that many Americans still think that the two-party system is either the best or invincible.

To prove my point still further, take a look at this gallup poll conducted last year: 36% of Americans view socialism positively.

But I agree socialism isn't inherently dictatoral. Its inherently a society that I dislike however, so, well, same thing

Yes we've already established that you mud-sling.

And again, as usual, your answer to your question was already posted in the thread. This time, right before you asked it:

Not to mention that Marxism was in vogue during the period in which many dictatorships arose. So there's much to be said about the historical specificity of Marxist dictatorships.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But socialism, or parts of socialism, are incredibly popular. Somewhat less so in the United States, but I'll remind you that nearly all of Europe was government by communist, socialist, or social-democratic parties for at least part of the last 80 years.

"Popularity" is a lot more than which party someone votes for. Take our dear Karalysia, for example. He votes democrat, but very clearly supports dictatorship of the proletariat. Now if you can leave aside the partisan mudslinging for a moment, you can see that party support has nothing to do with ideological support. And it is also true that many Americans still think that the two-party system is either the best or invincible.

To prove my point still further, take a look at this gallup poll conducted last year: 36% of Americans view socialism positively.

Remember that a lot of Americans aren't defining socialism the way you do. A lot of Americans would claim UHC is Socialism (If your response is "Their wrong" fine, but that's the kind of thing at least some of these people were talking about.)

Yes we've already established that you mud-sling.

It was a sly attempt at humor. I also didn't want to look like I was defending Communism too strongly

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Remember that a lot of Americans aren't defining socialism the way you do. A lot of Americans would claim UHC is Socialism (If your response is "Their wrong" fine, but that's the kind of thing at least some of these people were talking about.)

I would say "they're wrong." Though if you will also note, I have described previously how supporting one aspect of an ideology does not a full supporter of it make. Universal Health Care is quite a socialist idea, if not uniquely of socialist origin ( I seem to remember Jefferson having a few words to say about it). Anyway the poll only tested people's reaction to the word, so you are right, it depends on their understanding of the word. Still, it is a step forward from the McCarthyesque reaction to anything possibly associated with socialism in an even trivial way. After all, if Zoe Saldana asked you out, and told you to meet her at her place at 101 Socialism Avenue at 8:30 with a bottle of Stolichnaya and Grigori Chukhrai's Ballad of a Soldier, would you refuse?

 

[GhostWriter16]

After all, if Zoe Saldana asked you out, and told you to meet her at her place at 101 Socialism Avenue at 8:30 with a bottle of Stolichnaya and Grigori Chukhrai's Ballad of a Soldier, would you refus

Yes, she's too old

 

[bernie14]

....The fact remains though that there is nothing inherent in socialist ideology that lends itself to a dictatorship, and I have never once heard anyone prove that there was. Socialism is(was) simply an incredibly popular ideology and so gets abused by dictators more often. That's it.

nothing except human nature

...... After all, if Zoe Saldana asked you out, and told you to meet her at her place at 101 Socialism Avenue at 8:30 with a bottle of Stolichnaya and Grigori Chukhrai's Ballad of a Soldier, would you refuse?

......proving the above point

 

[innonimatu]

The problem with "change" in this era now is that the left always seem to be hijacked by new political formations that actually only benefit different new emerging classes arising out of new areas of production and how it is distributed. So it make it hard for practical Marxists to keep up with the change, and theorize new concepts in order to radicalize it.

More the reason to stick with the traditional goals and methods of Marxism (those supposedly discredited by the dissolution of the USSR), instead of getting lost in the "new left" fads. But yes, this has always been a problem.

I found this on some popular social networking site, whatever could it have been called? Anyway, I'm interested what some of the lefties here have to say. It seems to be drivel to me.
Thoughts, opinions on this piece and the authors of it?

I can see much I disagree with. How can people make any progress at changing things if they don't understand them in the first place? That essay presented a totally wrong analysis of events since the 1960s. Shallow analysis of how debt, financial markets and international trade work, factual mistakes about history, silly interpretation of the USA-Western Europe relations ("America helped them preserve them..." ), and finally the also silly idea that poor, non-sovereign countries could possibly forge their own path. Some few, with good diplomacy, have some limited freedom of choice. But revolutions? "Replace the government with a national commune"? Might as well send out invitations for invasion!
Drivel indeed.

 

[civver_764]

nothing except human nature

Do expand on this please. I'm sure you're quite the expert on human nature.

Moderator Action: No need to be snarky.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think his point is (Which makes sense, even if possibly incorrect) that while Communists don't INTEND to create a dictatorship, by human nature, the only way to make anything like it is through a dictatorship.

Of course, one could argue this is totally false, but I think that's what he's trying to say.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Regarding human nature, inno made an absolutely wonderful post once (well a lot more often than once, so please forgive the turn of phrase ): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6744531&postcount=66

. .. .. .. . human nature! Neither you nor anyone can claim to know human nature. What is human nature? What is the purpose of life, the purpose of each one of us as a self-conscious being? What are our motivations, how will we behave?
Those are existential questions to which an infinity of philosophies, religions and ideologies (and now science such as psychology) sough to give an answer. Marxism was one such ideology, Lenin's version of it another, etc. Your own fuzzy version of capitalism/liberalism/whatever is just another. You're falling for what you charge Lenin of: being an "idealist" who believes in absolutes and wants to impose his own set of absolutes. When you claim "it goes against human nature" you're saying that you know the definitive "truth" about human nature. And your claim is false to start with: can you show me where in any form of "communism" are there assumptions about human nature?
The assumptions are about human institutions. Marxism was remarkable (for its time) in that it stated that what divided people was not lineage, race or nationality, but the role assumed by each individual. It was understood that individuals could assume different roles, and that these roles changed throughout history: that human nature didn't exist, each individual's nature was a product of it's environment!

Try to contradict this while appearing to stand for freedom, if you can.

Yes, she's too old

If that's how you limit yourself, then you're really missing out on the best in life, and that can be said to be quite independent of ideology.

I think his point is (Which makes sense, even if possibly incorrect) that while Communists don't INTEND to create a dictatorship, by human nature, the only way to make anything like it is through a dictatorship.

Of course, one could argue this is totally false, but I think that's what he's trying to say.

Please remember that this is our question and answer thread, not the traditional OT free for all.

 

[Veles]

Well done, comrade.

Nice thread you got there. It's too much of a tl;dr now, but the general spirit of it is commendable.

Разер импрессив. Шоу дем каппис )

 

[bernie14]

--i-: