Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Mouthwash]

Nvm, question not going to end well.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Thoughts, criticisms, rebuttals?

In theory and practice, both communism and fascism were antithetical to the
spirit of International Humanitarian Law. IHL is a genetically liberal creature
insofar as its primary point of reference is the individual. The notion of the
innocent civilian is based on the idea that an unarmed individual should not be
targeted as long as he does not engage in hostilities. The person as such is
immune from attack regardless of his affiliation to a group or collective entity in
particular nationality, race, social origin or clan. The only thing that counts is
whether the individual has committed any act making him liable to being
personally punished or targeted. In theory, the civilian is an unarmed, uninvolved
and politically indifferent person. Democracy, nationalism and industrialization
have integrated whole societies into seemingly uniform war waging collectives.
As a consequence, the innocent individual was increasingly held liable for the
actions of his group or government. This is the point where fascism and
communism coalesce. Both ideologies have collective groups as their reference
point, either in the form of ‘class’ or ‘race’. The individual with its personal
responsibility has neither place nor protection in such a system of thought. As
long as fascists or communists are concerned with their respective in-groups,
there remains at least a modicum of restraint towards civilians and combatants
alike. By contrast, out-group members are primarily categorized as a ‘(class-
)enemy’ or ‘sub-human’. Belonging to the ‘guilty’ race or class confers
collective liability, regardless of an individual’s guilt or innocence. For an
orthodox fascist, there is no such thing as an innocent Jew; for a strict
communist, there cannot be a good bourgeois. Individual identity becomes
completely absorbed by a collective identity to which a person is affiliated and,
therefore, liable to be punished in lieu, and as a part of, this collective. Hence,
whereas illiberal ideologies have an inert risk of disregarding individual rights
and a tendency towards collective liabilities, liberal thought genetically contains
barriers against summary punishments because of its bias towards individual
rights.

-Robert Schütte, Civilians in War: Victimization and Protection throughout History, "Civilian Protection in Armed Conflicts", Globale Gesellschaft und internationale Beziehungen 2015

 

[aelf]

Is that a historical critique or an ideological one? There's nothing in Marxist ideology that specifically precludes the protection of individuals.

 

[ParkCungHee]

As a consequence, the innocent individual was increasingly held liable for the actions of his group or government...The individual with its personal responsibility has neither place nor protection in such a system of thought. Individual identity becomes completely absorbed by a collective identity to which a person is affiliated and, therefore, liable to be punished in lieu, and as a part of, this collective.

All of this is exactly in line with historical liberal thinking.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Is that a historical critique or an ideological one? There's nothing in Marxist ideology that specifically precludes the protection of individuals.

Probably both but leaning towards the former. I'm particularly curious about the fate of individuals in the bourgeois in the path towards communism,

All of this is exactly in line with historical liberal thinking.

I would have thought liberalism emphasized individualism above all else.

 

[Traitorfish]

The identification of Nazi anti-Semitism is with Communist anti-bourgeois sentiment is grotesquely hilarious, considering that Communist atrocities were overwhelmingly carried out against workers and peasants. Is that really what Schütte thinks made the Stalinist and Maoist regimes so abhorrent, the fact that they were mean to bourgeois? Does he really imagine that Lenin was more barbarous for killing a hundred kulaks in Penza than three thousand rebels at Krondstadt?

The impression I get is that Schütte isn't concerned so much with human suffering as the theoretical basis of human suffering: if millions die for the sake of bad theory, that is evil, but if they die as a result of expediency or indifference, well, that is merely government.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would have thought liberalism emphasized individualism above all else.

You'd think that, but there is a fatal flaw in liberalism that allows this. By focusing on the individual that individuals actions are divorced from their social context. The German worker in assembly line chooses to aid the Nazis and the German Reich solely out of their own free will. Any individual may freely chose to cooperate with our side, and anyone else has freely marked himself as an aid to the enemy.

Liberal thought as actually expressed by such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson have no problem with collective punishment:

“If ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi… in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy them all.”

Now, you can say such thoughts are illiberal, but then you're using theory to evaluate theory. A No True Scotsman.

Liberalism as actually expressed by accepted by Liberals has had no trouble managing collective punishment, historically.

 

[Tahuti]

There's nothing in Marxist ideology that specifically precludes the protection of individuals.

It's because it is evil, red and filthy. Every single letter of a communist book represents sedition, against everything the free West stands for!

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Every single letter of a communist book represents sedition, against everything the free West stands for!

Exactly...

But Cuba, China and Viet Nam -- all Marxist/Leninist -- have incredible individual safeguards. The population itself fights for and maintains them.

In fact, even US attorneys think Cuba's justice system is the most fair and equitable in the hemisphere. And China mainly executes wealthy executives who engage in murder and corruption.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The identification of Nazi anti-Semitism is with Communist anti-bourgeois sentiment is grotesquely hilarious, considering that Communist atrocities were overwhelmingly carried out against workers and peasants. Is that really what Schütte thinks made the Stalinist and Maoist regimes so abhorrent, the fact that they were mean to bourgeois? Does he really imagine that Lenin was more barbarous for killing a hundred kulaks in Penza than three thousand rebels at Krondstadt?

The impression I get is that Schütte isn't concerned so much with human suffering as the theoretical basis of human suffering: if millions die for the sake of bad theory, that is evil, but if they die as a result of expediency or indifference, well, that is merely government.

Agreed, he seems to ignore the latter just to draw a parallel between two ideologies he considers illiberal. Definitely a weakness of the analysis.

You'd think that, but there is a fatal flaw in liberalism that allows this. By focusing on the individual that individuals actions are divorced from their social context. The German worker in assembly line chooses to aid the Nazis and the German Reich solely out of their own free will. Any individual may freely chose to cooperate with our side, and anyone else has freely marked himself as an aid to the enemy.

Liberal thought as actually expressed by such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson have no problem with collective punishment:



Now, you can say such thoughts are illiberal, but then you're using theory to evaluate theory. A No True Scotsman.

Liberalism as actually expressed by accepted by Liberals has had no trouble managing collective punishment, historically.

I understand your logic and it makes sense (never thought of it like that), but I'm not sure that's how the liberals thought during the short 20th century.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'll try to dig up some citations, and also for thoughts on this in the 21st century, if you'd like.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Just one or two would be nice, thanks.

 

[caketastydelish]

Probably a stupid question but I have to ask:

1) I know 'five year plan' referring to communists is a Civ V reference but is it actually a real thing or just a thread title joke?

2) If it is (real), could you go in detail explaining it?

 

[Ajidica]

Probably a stupid question but I have to ask:

1) I know 'five year plan' referring to communists is a Civ V reference but is it actually a real thing or just a thread title joke?

2) If it is (real), could you go in detail explaining it?

Wikipedia is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosplan

 

[Gary Childress]

There is obviously a lot of tension in the US right now over race. But there doesn't seem to be as much tension right now over things like the incredible disparity in wealth and power between the majority at the bottom and the small minority at the very top. Do you think that the very wealthy and very powerful are perhaps breathing a sigh of relief right now that maybe all the real conflict for most of us is centered around issues of race and not around concerns about unfair social advantages that come with extreme wealth and power?

 

[aelf]

Are you sure? The Occupy Wall Street phenomena was very recent, and it still seems to be simmering underneath. Just because the 24-hour news cycle has moved on to other issues doesn't mean wealth disparity is no longer an issue people care about.

 

[Gary Childress]

Are you sure? The Occupy Wall Street phenomena was very recent, and it still seems to be simmering underneath. Just because the 24-hour news cycle has moved on to other issues doesn't mean wealth disparity is no longer an issue people care about.

Well that's my point. The majority of us get our news from the "24-hour news cycle" which seems to be more pre-occupied right now with Fergusson and ISIS than it is with anything else.

"Occupy Wall Street" happened in 2011. Has there been anything recently from them? If so I haven't heard anything about it? I would assume that answer is "no" because right now with the current political climate the authorities would probably be stoning them to death on the side walk and everyone would be cheering them on.

It seems to me that a sane world should be pausing a moment and saying, "hey wait, we are headed toward a cliff right now. How do we stop ourselves?" And everyone should be getting together to come up with constructive solutions. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Anger and hatred are being stoked by all the reports of atrocities and who is to blame for them. Maybe we should all put all that aside for the moment and try to figure out how to prevent another horrible disaster like the one that started 100 years ago?

 

[aelf]

This article may answer some of your questions about Occupy and such movements in general.

Of course, if you ask me, the issues with law enforcement and income/wealth disparity comes from the same source, so I'm not at all surprised. But I don't think you want to hear about it.

 

[Lohrenswald]

What's your opinion on Cuba and USA normalising relations?
Is it a betrayal of communism?
Guess I could ask about the gradual liberalisation of Cuba as well.

 

[Azale]

What's your opinion on Cuba and USA normalising relations?
Is it a betrayal of communism?
Guess I could ask about the gradual liberalisation of Cuba as well.

It's great.

No.

"Liberalization" would be awful. Despite the economic blockade and some economic incompetence, Cuba has superior outcomes to many liberalized Latin American countries in important metrics.

Democratization (in the fashion Cubans choose) needs to happen yesterday though. Socialist regimes without thorough mechanisms for representation are farces, they're at best competent development states.