![]()
Ah, so you are working with a personal definition of Socialism deriving from originalist Marxist thought. That's fine, but that's not the definition that most people I know of use, so if we're going to be able to communicate, let's at least be honest about what we're discussing. You don't get to claim unique privilege over the word.
Can you name an existing Socialist state by your definition? Are we in pure theory or do we get to insert reality into this conversation?
edited 15th Sep '17 7:38:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Communism overall has a relatively better rep than Nazism because its fans have a much easier time 'splaining away the atrocities that occurred under Communist regimes. Usually using a No True Scotsman argument.
It probably "helps" that most Communist regimes mostly stuck to screwing over their own people instead of other countries. This makes it easier for the likes of those morons Ambar mentioned to idolize Mao and Stalin.
Disgusted, but not surprised...
This definition is not only not personal, it comes from a body of work that encompasses more than just Marxist thought. Shit, I'm not a Marxist, so why the heck are you suggesting I'm directly influenced by it?
And I won't address your accusations of dishonesty and privilege. You're not dealing with what I've written, and your constant proclamations of reality are not a good sign to me.
Why, because you'd rather discuss pure theory divorced from reality? Knock yourself out, like I said. But I'm not going to play the game that way. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but I am accusing you of claiming special privilege for your argument.
edited 15th Sep '17 7:52:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I think you'll find that most of what I've talked about in this thread also involves History. Unless you're suggesting that the history of political thought and action within the 19th and 20th centuries is not reality, which would be a daft statement to make (I'm confident you won't make that mistake).
Your accusation is not legitimate to me. Throughout this thread, I've mentioned, in passing, various stripes of socialist and communist thought (including those of a non-Marxist type), and some of the historical paths pro-socialist action has gone through (and wide-ranging events such as the French Revolution, which influenced various types of left-wing thinking). I'm talking History here, which I don't own it, because I observe History (and offer my perspective on it - I don't claim it as being the final word, especially since there are people (both here and IRL) better informed on it than you or I).
EDIT: For clarity.
edited 15th Sep '17 8:04:03 AM by Quag15
"Also, you seem to be viewing it from a pragmatic point of view (in both regimes people die, no difference), when I see it as a moral issue: in a Nazi regime, if they win, society is full of hatred and anyone born different is dead or in exile, in a communist regime, everyone is equal. "
when thing turn pragmatic is when it turn moral because one the dictatorship is in ful swing is when violation to human right start showing up.
"I find it interesting that in a thread that asked why we are more tolerant of Communism than of fascism people are defending socialism. Socialism is not Communism. Socialist policy can be implemented via democratic means. Communism, by its nature as an ideology, calls for violent revolution—and in practice sees the installation of Stalinist (or Maoist) dictatorship at the end. "
socialist ideas, influence and policy put in a democracy, but socialist in hard core end like my coutry: a ecomic skinhole that drag everything into is path, and yet to see why comunist should be tolerare in public space in a way facism isn, it seen more comon response is that facism just look more awfull.
I wonder in the future people use my country venezuela to said socialism in pratice cannot be cut for socialist in theory.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Socialism's hardcore defenders will simply pin the blame on Chavez and Maduro for mishandling socialism. They will insist that it could totally work if someone more competent and less corrupt handled it. Or they will try to claim Venezuela wasn't "real" socialism. Or they will claim like Maduro does that Venezuela's problems are all America's fault.
If that sounds a bit like Communism's die-hard fans, well...yeah.
edited 15th Sep '17 10:16:54 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI think Venezuala's use as such a warning is quite limited because of the oil and imports things. You can point to the economic system if you want but a country reliant on imports for nearly everything and oil exports has a massive single point of failure.
edited 15th Sep '17 10:18:18 AM by RainehDaze
![]()
I said this because people int he thread said that nazism is a ideology that have not place in the market of ideas and it should be push and not allow spaces it, I im asking why there is somewhat pasive aceptence of comunism and socialism who have is fair share of brutality, I feel is ore because nazism is a personal thing for US when comunisnt come to a point of being a worthy oponent in cold war.
a lot of problem come with centralization and masive use of the state, that venezuela is petro-dictatorship is another thing
As for why Communists are tolerated to the point that college clubs with dumbass posters of Mao and Stalin are a thing while Neo-Nazi college clubs with posters of Hitler are not nearly as tolerated...well, it boils down to WWII.
Communists did horrible shit too, but at least they mostly kept it in their own borders. The Nazis shat over everyone. And they weren't nearly as good at hiding their genocide.
If the Cold War had gone hot, Communists would be hated just as much as Nazis.
Disgusted, but not surprisedForgot to address this.
Anyway, one slight difference is that the brutality is more of a bug than a feature of communism and socialism. One that keeps cropping up. In Nazism, brutality is the core feature.
Disgusted, but not surprisedMaybe is just me but I always feel the nazis are that achivement the US did and coudnt shut up about it, like that guy who make a good move once and it goes about how it was awsome and shit.
problem with that is it make feel brutality is kinda just....there "oh the holomodor? well it was a mistake guy, everyone comit genocide everyone and while...." "oh yeah the japanise comit horrible atrocities and they workship the perpetrators.....that mao did what? but that portrait is so nice...."
Is just.....UGH.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Generally, the argument against socialism should be an economic one because it's an economic system.
It's a lot harder to use Venezuela as a typical case when it's tied so strongly to the dollar value of oil, since at that point you're more arguing how much capitalism could have done to avoid this outcome.
![]()
but is also political, socialism, specially here in latin america is atractive because past injustice before, part of chavez usual theme is that he was bringing back Oil to us, the people(feel free to read that in DKR Bane voice) Venezuela is a petro dictatorship similar to russia, just that once Chavez die everyone was a guillbable moron and crash the system(which is why evil overlord need someone competent instead of mooks).
for me chavez should be the end of nacional socialism(not, not that kind) as whole.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Somehow, I don't think that a Stalin or Mao dictatorship wouls have been any less brutal if they were capitalist dictators.
Then again, there's a reason I favor reform/evolution to revolution and consider any route that thinks dictatorship is a necessary step to be unacceptable.
Also, needless to say, I have no love for the likes of Stalin and Mao.
![]()
If you want more examples, you can take a look at Argentina and Brazil after the governments of Dilma Rousseff and Cristina Kichne -who were not dissimilar from Hugo Chavez in ideology-. Both countries are still reeling from economical crisis and they are having a slow recovery.
![]()
![]()
Neither do I, specially Mao because his ideas were the inspiration for a monster called Abimael Guzman to carry out decades of terrorism inside my country, killing people from the countryside and the city alike.
Honestly, Fighteer, I didn't really have Stalinism in mind when I wrote that. I was thinking of post-1918 Russia under Lenin, as well as the Cold War régimes of the mid-20th century. But even leaving Stalinism aside, I think it's entirely fair to conflate Communism with Leninism, Maoism, Castroism, the eras of Brezhnev, Husák, and Ulbricht, etc. By their fruits shall ye know them.
Excepting Leninism, which predates it, all the states you just listed are Stalinist. Despite what Mao's fans would say, he had far more in common with Stalin than not, and any political differences between the two stem more from the cultural contexts of Russia vs China than anything else. In the end Stalinism became the prototype for Communist states, and Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, et al, set up their own dictatorships accordingly.

Still, I haven't seen a sudden shift for it to be acceptable to endorse Stalinism any more than it's ever been rather than the entire conceptual movement. It's more acceptable than Nazism purely because of not being the enemy or having genocide as a key policy.
So if it that has become more accepted, I think it can be put down to Mc Carthyism getting ever more distant and an end of the Red Scare and Cold War.