TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Why The Tolerance of Communism?

Go To

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#626: Apr 5th 2018 at 6:11:23 AM

Yeah, "Calculating Capitalism's Death Toll" doesn't leave much to the imagination.

edited 5th Apr '18 6:11:40 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#627: Apr 5th 2018 at 6:33:27 AM

Quickly looking over his channel, I only see him advocating for Socialism, not Communism.

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#628: Apr 5th 2018 at 6:53:25 AM

Socialism is so broadly defined, it means basically nothing in by itself.

edited 5th Apr '18 6:53:58 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
raziel365 Anka Aquila from South of the Far West (Veteran) Relationship Status: I've been dreaming of True Love's Kiss
Anka Aquila
#629: Apr 5th 2018 at 7:09:51 AM

I'll try to watch those videos later but with those titles I think I can expect some noticeable bias in them.

Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#630: Apr 5th 2018 at 7:34:23 AM

[up][up]That's probably one of the broad reasons why communism/socialism gets a relative pass in so many circles. It's an umbrella of barely related (in the eyes of many, who are mostly wrong) ideologies/systems that range from murderous totalitarianism to completely mundane and democratic left of center to left-wing parties.

Meanwhile, fascism (as well as the most severe forms of reactionary thought, as well as more mundane right-wing autocratic regimes) are generally seen (again, this is perception only) as separate from the various forms of mainstream conservatism/market ideologies.

edited 5th Apr '18 7:35:58 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#631: Apr 5th 2018 at 7:44:15 AM

The general overall objection to Socialism (defined as advocating the community ownership or control over the means of production) is that it has a problem providing sufficient incentives to that section of the population who are primarily motivated by personal ambition, competitiveness, and self-interest. This objection is more accurate for some branches of Socialism than others, but overall is a pretty common perception.

Capitalism, in turn, has a problem providing sufficient incentives to that portion of the population that feels offended by the consequences of societal wide individual ambition, economic competition, and the pursuit of self interest (ie, poverty, racism, and other societal ills).

Whether there is an economic system that satisfies everyone is unknown. We did have an economic system that seemed to be moving toward maximizing the outputs of a majority of people (the mixed economy operating according to neo-Keynesian principles), but the top 1% have apparently decided that wasnt good enough for them, so currently there is a reactionary economic movement going on, partly in the open, and partly behind the scenes.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#632: Apr 5th 2018 at 7:56:43 AM

[up]And is pretty good complaim, my mother is a university teacher and complain in how the wage was standarized to the point just a regular teacher gain equal to somoone with 20 years of experience and every other thing that incensitive a better job.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
AlityrosThePhilosopher from Over There Since: Jan, 2018
#633: Apr 5th 2018 at 9:27:07 AM

There’s this matter of comparing like with like (ish).

Capitalism isn’t a political ideology or regime, it’s an economic system that got cobbled together as it went along, and can be variously implemented and associated with many differing and opposing political ideologies and regimes.

Communism as implemented is joined at the hip with a top-down centrally planned command economy. Yes, I know about the claims of how it should and like totally could be implemented, yet in the absence of any tangible trace of that I prefer to keep with the known facts.

Now, as for the political ideologies and regimes worshipping at the altar of capitalism, they aren’t capitalism either, but are fair game for comparison all the same.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#634: Apr 5th 2018 at 9:27:33 AM

Frankly I am extremely leery of anyone who talks about the death tolls of concepts as broad as communism or capitalism, it's inevitably people cherry picking examples and dismissing the atrocities connected to their pet issue.

[up]If by communism you mean the authoritarian socialist ideology Marxist-Leninism then you're correct, but considering that things like Islamic Communism and Anarcho-Communism exist I think "communism=planned economy" is hopelessly reductionist and borderline fallacious.

Communism encompasses a wide variety of ideologies that go beyond Stalin.

edited 5th Apr '18 9:29:40 AM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#635: Apr 5th 2018 at 9:43:16 AM

The thread was originally asking why Communism was tolerated despite the actions of Stalin, Mao, et al. The OP, who started the entire conversation, made it fairly apparent they were talking about Communism as implemented by the dictatorships, which is why the conversation has orbited those dictatorships to one extent or another.

In any case, I would note that "Communism" and "Socialism" are ill-defined enough terms that we more or less have to accept the self-descriptions of anyone who uses them. Which does see "Communism" more or less consistently and preferentially linked to government's like Stalin's and Mao's. "Socialism" fares better in this context; while I would never dispute that Chavez and Maduro qualify as Socialist, one could make the case they are not inherently representative of Socialist government; that same argument can't really be made for Communism.

Democracy, I'll add, is different in this regard—broad as it can be, there's still some pretty obvious features a state has to have to be called a democracy. That's why we all laugh off the efforts of Communist regimes like Kim Il-Sung's to claim to be democratic, and also why we can write off Apartheid South Africa or modern Russia's efforts to position themselves as democracies—a single party state, which is what both were/are, cannot be democratic.

PS—Regarding the videos linked last page, I'm not going to give views to a channel like that, and I suspect several others are in the same boat. If you can summarize the argument, that's great, and then we can engage with it.

edited 5th Apr '18 10:01:03 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#636: Apr 5th 2018 at 9:56:53 AM

Whether there is an economic system that satisfies everyone is unknown. We did have an economic system that seemed to be moving toward maximizing the outputs of a majority of people (the mixed economy operating according to neo-Keynesian principles), but the top 1% have apparently decided that wasnt good enough for them, so currently there is a reactionary economic movement going on, partly in the open, and partly behind the scenes.

Interestingly enough a somewhat obscure Marxian Economist by the name of Mikal Kalecki predicted something like this happening in the late 30s. The idea being that even if the business leaders made more money under a Keynesian system the erosion of their political power would cause them to seek to undo it.

That’s not really an argument aganist a Keynesian managed mixed economyas it is an indication that one still needs to be wary of the Bourgeoisie even in a sort of “best of both worlds” kind of system.

Robrecht Your friendly neighbourhood Regent from The Netherlands Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
#637: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:01:07 AM
Thumped: for switching the discussion from the topic to a person. Doesn't take many of this kind of thump to bring a suspension. Stay on the topic, not the people in the discussion.
Angry gets shit done.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#638: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:04:28 AM

One line does not an accurate representation of the OP make. Here's the full quote; Nikkolas and I have often been at loggerheads and I would never pretend to speak for him, but let's not misrepresent what he said by only quoting part of it.

Short history: I used to be a Leninist when I was in high school and a little afterward. If you don't know, it is extremely easy to find Marxist material. It's everywhere. Marxists.org is a fantastic site and there are a ton more just like it as well as Marxist news sites like Jacobin or World Socialist Web Site.

I will never forget seeing Alan Woods on the History Channel. I was already well-acquainted with his work by that time. You can find him and many other Marxist thinkers speaking at university. I suppose there's also Zizek, too? I'm really not sure if he counts as the stuff I've heard from him hasn't related to Marxism.

Now, I don't believe the right wing conspiracy crap about how colleges are liberal indoctrination camps. Nevertheless, it seems self-evident to me that Marxism has an enduring legacy of acceptance and I'm jut not sure why. The US and many other countries ostensibly were at war with Communism for decades. (Now I'm very familiar with the argument of how Soviet Communism was nothing of the sort. But finer points of ideology don't matter here, at least I don't think so.) Meanwhile, we fought Fascism for a few years (and FDR took economic advice from Fascist Italy while US eugenics laws gave inspiration to the Nazis) but it has been utterly discredited and treated like a cancer. You won't see an openly Fascist speaker at colleges from what I know, even in the crazy times we live in.

So, I'm just wondering what produced this climate? Why have Marx's ideas been rehabilitated after the Cold War?

The OP asks why, in spite of the actions of the likes of Stalin, and the Americans' 40 years of conflict with Communist governments, Marxists are still invited to speak at universities and thel ike while fascists are not. Which means any answer to the question was always going to have to deal with Stalin in some way.

edited 5th Apr '18 1:43:21 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#639: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:08:58 AM

New topic/reply, new post.

Islamic Communism

Curious about what you meant by Islamic Communism, fourthspartan. I've most often seen the term associated with Siad Barre, which isn't exactly a positive link.

KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#640: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:15:17 AM

[up] I think that he is just mentioning it as a example of how Communism is a term that goes beyond just economical plans and that can mix with practically anything.

edited 5th Apr '18 10:15:41 AM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#641: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:20:51 AM

It seems like the OP is talking about Marxism in academia, which has a long legacy outside of Stalin et al. I think you could probably argue that academic Marxism is almost entirely separate from the actual practice of communism though.

I've heard of Islamic communism before, I think it grew out of more liberal interpretations of Zakat and the fact that some early Islamic states had guaranteed incomes and encouraged redistribution of wealth.

They should have sent a poet.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#642: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:26:19 AM

It seems like the OP is talking about Marxism in academia, which has a long legacy outside of Stalin et al. I think you could probably argue that academic Marxism is almost entirely separate from the actual practice of communism though.

Exactly. OP reads to me as asking why academic Marxism is still accepted despite what Communist regimes like Stalin's have done on the ground. Now, my reply to that would be that, with a few exceptions (like the Milosevic apologist I've had to put up with this year) your average academic Marxist isn't a Communist and people in academica understand that, even if the man-on-the-street might not.

The OP also admits to being a former Leninist, so they themselves are associating Marxism with violent revolution; with that in mind, I'd be curious to know if any of the academics they mention are also Leninist, or are more typically Marxist.

I've heard of Islamic communism before, I think it grew out of more liberal interpretations of Zakat and the fact that some early Islamic states had guaranteed incomes and encouraged redistribution of wealth.

I'm familiar with the ideology, I just don't know of any efforts to implement it beyond Barre and some (likely overgenerous) interpretations of Qaddafi.

AlityrosThePhilosopher from Over There Since: Jan, 2018
#643: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:29:24 AM

Fourthspartan 56 (#634):
If by communism you mean the authoritarian socialist ideology Marxist-Leninism then you're correct, but considering that things like Islamic Communism and Anarcho-Communism exist I think "communism=planned economy" is hopelessly reductionist and borderline fallacious.

If you have any knowledge of a record of a sovereign country under Islamic Communism or Anarcho-Communism, I’d be most interested to hear about it.

Communes or cooperatives having been under such administrations won’t cut it, not even federated cantons, provinces, or states within a sovereign country, when it comes to comparing like with like (ish).

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#644: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:37:02 AM

[up][up] Yeah, Marxism in academia I would definitely say is distinct from communism in practice. Fascism also doesn't really have a counterpart, since Marxist theory is established and coherent and can actually be used for various analysis, while fascist theory is just all over the place and generally vile.

From my understanding of it Islamic socialism was much more prominent around 1900-1950 in places like Iran and the Islamic parts of Russia. There's also been a renewal in the Islamic areas of Kurdistan recently. I don't think there's ever been an Islamic Communist state, but it's definitely noteworthy.

edited 5th Apr '18 10:37:32 AM by archonspeaks

They should have sent a poet.
TheWildWestPyro from Seattle, WA Since: Sep, 2012 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
#645: Apr 5th 2018 at 10:48:41 AM

[up]

It says something that the Comintern met regularly and could agree on things, while the first Fascist International meeting fell apart very quickly and was never held again due to arguments over who were true fascists.

edited 5th Apr '18 10:49:03 AM by TheWildWestPyro

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#646: Apr 5th 2018 at 11:16:33 AM

Yeah, Marxism in academia I would definitely say is distinct from communism in practice. Fascism also doesn't really have a counterpart, since Marxist theory is established and coherent and can actually be used for various analysis, while fascist theory is just all over the place and generally vile.

You get the occasional Marxist academic who can't figure out that they aren't protesting the Vietnam War anymore and that Slobodan Milosevic is not Ho Chi Minh, but they're thankfully rare. Though as was the case for me this year, they're deeply, deeply irritating when they do turn up.

If you have any knowledge of a record of a sovereign country under Islamic Communism or Anarcho-Communism, I’d be most interested to hear about it.

From my understanding of it Islamic socialism was much more prominent around 1900-1950 in places like Iran and the Islamic parts of Russia. There's also been a renewal in the Islamic areas of Kurdistan recently. I don't think there's ever been an Islamic Communist state, but it's definitely noteworthy.

As I noted before, I think Qaddafi claimed at one time or another to be pushing Islamic Socialism, but he also claimed to be an Arab Nationalist, and about fifteen other things at various points in his reign, so I don't think those claims can be taken seriously. He's just a definitive strongman dictator in many ways, willing to shift ideologically as benefited himself. Wikipedia does include him in its section on Islamic Socialism, but I'm fully prepared to say that's more the result of trying to find some sort of consistency in his positions, than an accurate description of his ideological leanings.

That said, Siad Barre's Somali Democratic Republic did claim to be Islamic Communist, and consistently so. Barre talked extensively about how he was reconciling Marxism-Leninism (read as: Stalinism) with Islamic tenets of charity, racial equality, and the like. He promoted Islam as the state religion, while also pushing Communism and "Greater Somalia" style nationalism as the only acceptable political views, represented by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. It uh, didn't go well to say the least; after years of repressive government, nepotism, and a failed war with Ethiopia, Somalia collapsed into anarchy for most of the late 90s and early 2000s.

So with that in mind, Islamic Communism has been tried once. And it wound up being nothing more than the usual Communist dictatorship with an Islamist paint job. Now, I'm willing to grant there's some more moderate versions of Islamic Socialism that aren't discredited, just as I don't think Communism discredits Socialism as a whole, but I'm not thinking we should try Islamic Communism again.

That said, I would be curious to know what fourthspartan had in mind when making that comment. Since I sincerely doubt they were holding up Barre as something to emulate.

It says something that the Comintern met regularly and could agree on things, while the first Fascist International meeting fell apart very quickly and was never held again due to arguments over who were true fascists.

This is more or less inevitable if you think about it—fascism is intimately tied up with racism and nationalism, and each fascist representative will accordingly think that his people are the true master race and his nation the one that can best express fascism.

Communism isn't free of racism or nationalism (Stalin and Pol Pot both targeted ethnic minorities for destruction) but it's not as inherent to the ideology.

edited 5th Apr '18 11:40:48 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

AlityrosThePhilosopher from Over There Since: Jan, 2018
#647: Apr 5th 2018 at 12:30:57 PM

[up]

Ambar Sonof Deshar:
That said, Siad Barre's Somali Democratic Republic did claim to be Islamic Communist, and consistently so. Barre talked extensively about how he was reconciling Marxism-Leninism (read as: Stalinism) with Islamic tenets of charity, racial equality, and the like. He promoted Islam as the state religion, while also pushing Communism and "Greater Somalia" style nationalism as the only acceptable political views, represented by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party
Co-opting Communism (perceived as popular with the cool kids) as well as Islam (appeal to the oldies but goodies) was widespread in those parts from before the ’50s up to the ’90s, your description of it as “nothing more than the usual Communist dictatorship with an Islamist paint job” seems apt, and by looking at Somalia circa 1990, let’s just say it won’t be making the record of Communism (of any flavour) look any better.

edited 5th Apr '18 12:31:09 PM by AlityrosThePhilosopher

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#648: Apr 5th 2018 at 12:53:36 PM

I have some issue witht that video about venezuela, he used some data to prove is not that socialist and leave th context out it, like the agresive expropation of buisness, sometimes by naked display of bullying, or the fact there is too many restriction impose by the goverment, it feel a atempt to go not true scottman, sometime comunism and hard socialist does all the time.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#649: Apr 5th 2018 at 1:48:58 PM

I have some issue witht that video about venezuela, he used some data to prove is not that socialist and leave th context out it, like the agresive expropation of buisness, sometimes by naked display of bullying, or the fact there is too many restriction impose by the goverment, it feel a atempt to go not true scottman, sometime comunism and hard socialist does all the time.

I figured that would be the case. Like I said before, when a regime identifies as "Socialist" we have to take them at their word, given the broad nature of the term.

That's not to suggest that Chavez or Maduro are representative of all Socialism everywhere, or even all Socialism from the continent—say what you will about Salvador Allende, but he didn't run a one-party state or try to become dictator—but we can't easily say "they're not Socialists". One could possibly claim that they wrecked the country because they're authoritarians or because they're bad at their jobs, and that that has nothing to do with their being Socialists, but it doesn't change their politics.

I'm a Social Democrat. I wish Socialism didn't have to associate with the likes of Chavez. But trying to exclude him from being called Socialist doesn't actually accomplish anything.

Co-opting Communism (perceived as popular with the cool kids) as well as Islam (appeal to the oldies but goodies) was widespread in those parts from before the ’50s up to the ’90s, your description of it as “nothing more than the usual Communist dictatorship with an Islamist paint job” seems apt, and by looking at Somalia circa 1990, let’s just say it won’t be making the record of Communism (of any flavour) look any better.

The history of Somali and Ethiopian Communism is just fascinatingly bizarre, with the way the Soviets switched back and forth between supporting the two reading like some sort of bad black comedy. That the war ended with Soviet advisors and Cuban mercenaries on the ground, defending Mengistu's Communist dictatorship from Barre's Communist dictatorship, which the Soviets had previously backed, would be farcical if real people hadn't been killed.

For all the talk of how nationalism is alien to the Communist outlook, Communist governments have been quite poor at suppressing it. Ethiopia vs Somalia, China vs Vietnam, Vietnam vs Cambodia, they're all nationalist wars fought for nationalist reasons, "fraternal socialism" be damned. Not that I'm complaining about Vietnam vs Cambodia mind; someone needed to stop Pol Pot and whatever else their invasion and occupation did to Cambodia, Vietnam stopped Pol Pot.

edited 5th Apr '18 2:04:20 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#650: Apr 5th 2018 at 2:27:48 PM

[up] Is curious, I am probably a Social Democrat as well (I mean, they create our sweet White utopia know as the nordic countries), yet I myself dont have any issues with calling Chavez and Maduro "socialists" (heck, I call Lenin, Stalin and Mao socialists too, and of course that I add the Shining path to the definition).

Watch me destroying my country

Total posts: 774
Top