"Freedom" is to the neocons what "for the people" was to the Communists

[drumwolf]

A little thought I had: neocons/freepers/BushCo abuse words like "freedom" in EXACTLY the same way that the Cold War-era Iron Curtain regimes abused language like "people's republic" and "proletarian", and in the case of East Germany, "anti-fascism."

I'm sure I'm not telling many of you anything that you didn't already know, but I just had to get it off my chest.

[Jokerman]

1. Same with "Democracy" n/t

[tom_paine]

2. Yes, abuse of language is common to Busheviks, Soviets, Nazis

Just a coinkydink, I'm sure!

[K-W]

3. Stop abusing the word communism.

Specify who you are talking about.

[Egalitarian Zetetic]

4. Why are you slandering Communists? <nt>

[tom_paine]

5. Bceause the Soviets, ChiComs, etc, have a history of linguistic

deception.

And Totalitarian Tyranny, for that matter.

Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the historical reality.

[K-W]

6. Dont overgeneralize unfairly.

Communism is a school of thought.

Identifying a historical global movement that was about far far far more than just the philosophy of communism simply by the philosophy is unfair.

[tom_paine]

8. I disagree. You are right about generalizations, though

Always exceptions to any generalization, maybe so many as to make the generalization moot.

However, whatever else the Communist movement was about (worker rights, unionizations, living wages, though I might argue Communism consistently fails to deliver on even those things), it consistenly produced the Vilest of Tyrannies under it's rubric.

You might think that's an unfair generalization. I would disagree.

Name a country that professed to be Communist (NOT jus Socialist) that WASN'T a Tyranny:

Soviet Union
Commie China
Cuba
Khmer Rouge Cambodia (read up on THOSE assholes and what they did!)
etc. etc.

I say again, I diagree with you about the gross unfairness of this particular generalization.

[K-W]

9. So your claim is that communism causes tyranny.

Thats patently rediculous. All of the movements you described were not motivated by communism, communism was just one factor thrown into the mix. In some cases it was believed by a group that at one point had power, in some cases it was used as a philosophy for control.

One of your examples, Cuba, isnt a very good one at all. While clearly undemocratic, Cuba has been a stable country and certainly not the worst one in the world to live in. If you hold them up to standards of countries with similar histories of political upheaval and international intevention, they are doing pretty well.

The fact is that it was only countries in absolute turmoil, where the old order was crumbling and there was a fight over control that groups who used or believed in communist ideals took power. Now look around the world. Countries in that situation, communist or not, have a very high incidence of tyranical governments.

You also make the highly inaccurate assumption that those countries ran under a communistic model. None of them did. Tyranny is completely incompatible with communism.

You are talking about a small samples of countries in one historical period, all of which had many many many other factors going on, and saying that you are being fair generlizing it all down to a philosophy that none of the countries even practiced and most simply used for propaganda?

I dont know how you can defend it.

[tom_paine]

10. My claim is that Communism is Fertile Ground for Tyranny, yes

And read the Amnesty International Report on Ol' Fidel's Cuba in the 60s and 70s.

Eye opening.

Finally, I don't buy the old "Soviet Tyranny wasn't communism" argument. I find that to be a copout. Those countries sure did run with their interpretation of communism.

You can argue over semantic minutiae, but it won't sway me.

The Soviet Union was Communist. The reason it wasn't a True Communist State is because such a thing is an impossibility, IMHO.

Plus, the "small historical period" is because communism isn't even 200 years old as a philosophy, so how could I give it a broader historical perspective when it doesn't that Span of Time.

Revisionist history, something Communists know a little something about (and Capitalists, too, to be fair).

Your comment that "tyranny is incompatible with Communism" is more pie-in-the-sky talk. You can refute me by naming the Communist (not Socialist like Sweden) nation that isn't/wasn't a Tyranny.

And read the Amnesty International Reports on Cuba before you start preaching the Gospel of Bushy-Whiskers Tyrant Castro.

[K-W]

11. Thats a very twisted interpretation of history

Have you read Marx? Do you have any clue what a true communism would look like?

And your insistance on real life examples is just plain silly. It is impossible to get anything approaching a scientific test of political theories in the world. You cant control other variables and you cannott create a large enough sample size.

The soviet union was not communism. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with communist ideals. Just like we are a Federal Republic with democratic ideals, not a democracy. They werent anywhere near thier ideals. They werent a communism.

I am not defending Cuba. Im saying that compared to other historically unstable countries, its not doing any worse than many of the capitalist countries.

Tyranny is incompatible with communism, and before you make more silly claims about communism, perhaps you should show enough respect to the philosophy to actually learn something about it rather than write it off because our societal remanants of anti-communism. Which had nothing to do with defeating russia and everything to do with stopping movements of unionization and socialization in our country. Anti-communism existed before any communist nation did.

[tom_paine]

14. Thanks for the personal attack. Yes I've read Marx.

Nice edit. You saved the "alert". Try to keep it civil. I know plenty about Communist Philosophy.

You sell me quite short, in fact, but perhaps that is necessary for you to think of me this way.

Unfortunately, that is a typical response from extreme elemeents of the Left and Right both so I am forced to conclude it is a characteristic of extremism itself.

And again, I refute and disdain that The soviet union was not communism. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with communist ideals.

It's a copout and disingenuous and quite frankly, an insult to my intelligence to make such an argument. A sematic boondoggle which is very convenient and allows you to disassociate yourself from ANY Communists you don't like ANYWHERE.

It's a catch-all argument and my experience is that when people resort to such and argument it is out of laziness. Sorry if that offends you (but I'll bet it doesn't offend you as badly as your initial response title did me).

Come to think of it, so is your Tyranny is incompatible with Communism. a disingenuous copout. Just because you say it with authority and finality DOESN'T MAKE IT SO! Maybe at a Communist Meeting or a Freeper Rally, but not to Moderates and Free People, who demand more than an authoritiative pronouncement at which Communists and Facsist alike seem to excel at.

Did you ever wonder why the practices of Communists (yes, yes I know, everyone you don't like WASN'T A REAL CVOMMUNIST ANYWAY, SO THERE!) and Facsists have such similarities?

Extremism in all forms is a virus.

Also, if you haven't noticed there is NO SYSTEM IMMUNE FROM TYRANNY. Not a one. Tyranny is possible in ALL systems. To think otherwise is an immature view, in my belief. Also typical of extremists and extremism. Sorry if that offends you. I am not speaking personally of you, but generally.

You do have a good point about Cuba, relative to capitalist countries in it's "weight-class" but I would need to see some data before I'd fully agree to that assertion.

But your disingenuous semantic red-herrings and other autoritative pronouncement (which are also insulting to the intelligence) indicate there isn't much more to say on this topic other than that we agree to disagree.

I often have this problem when dealing with extremists. It's why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to keep you and he Busheviks on the other side from total unchecked power. They knew what extremists were and were capable of.

It isn't working well, lately, but that what it was designed to do with it's unCommunist systmem of checks and balances!

[K-W]

25. I edited within a few seconds of posting,

and my first draft wasnt worthy of any sanction. Calling your ideas something is not a personal attack. But my tone was off so I quickly corrected them.

You seem to be completely wrong on some very basic aspects of communist philosophy. You sell me short as well. Its funny how people who disagree with each other tend to sell each other short. But you must be right, it must just be that I'm an extremist.

Your insistance that the soviet union was a communism, when it very clearly wasnt is rediculous. By your logic the United States is a democracy. By your logic Iraq is a democracy right now. It would seem the only requirement for being a democracy or a communism is to say you support those ideals. I guess that could be your definition. It isnt a terribly accurate or useful definition.

It isnt a catch-all argument in the slightest, it applies to situations in which a country claims to follow one philosophy while not actually fitting the critieria that philosophy sets forth.

The practices of ALL dictators are similar. Whether those dictators use communist propaganda, capitalist propaganda, religious propaganda, or other propaganda. That is not an idictmnet of capitalism, communism, religion or anything, it is an indictment of dictators.

You are continually confusing capitalism and dictatorship simply because the few countries that have been taken over by regimes that used communist ideas and propaganda were dictatorships.

[tom_paine]

27. I call you an Extremist because of your mindset

because of the simple fact of life that Communism is the Extreme Left (care to dispute that?) as Fascism is the Extreme Right.

because, as I have carefully cataloged, you exhibit many tendencies of the Extremist Mind, including your opposite numbers on the Right.

God, and you're still REPEATING YOUSELF!

Bye.

:hi:

[K-W]

32. I am not a communist. and you are reapeating yourself too

I love how you are resorting to pointing out that I am doing normal things that everyone does in a discussion.

[tom_paine]

34. You are NOT a Communist?

What are you then?

Now you have taken that disingenuous strategy to the Nth degree. You've disowned YOURSELF.

Sad.

[K-W]

39. Now you call me a liar?

Wow, ive rarely encounterd someone who makes such incredibly bad assumptions in an online debate.

I am not a communist. I suppose the closest word to my veiws would be progressive. I believe that certain areas of government should be socialized, but that a well regulated capitalism is the best way to feul an economy, very regulated that is. I believe that a representitive parlimentary system is probably the best form of government we could have at the moment.

I do however appreciate communism. It seems improbable, but it is potentially possible, and I wouldnt begrudge anyone pushing for it. If it did work it would be wonderful. I certainly dont see evidence enough to say that I think it would work myself.

My problem is that you are dismissing it for very bad reasons, reasons that take a perfectly valid political line of thought and throw it out the window becuase of several dictatorships that embraced communism as a propagandistic alternative to capitalism.

[tom_paine]

44. No, I call you blinded by ego.

A purveyor of old, tired cookie-cutter bullshit.

No different from those on the Right who you loathe, just the names and basic economic philosophies are different.

And yes, I still think you are disowning yourself. I don't think you are lying to me but to yourself.

And you have got quite a nerve, considering that more than one person has pointed out that you just keep repeating the same disingenuous standard-lines that were old before you were born.

Suddenly you are talking like a Moderate. Knowing the general Communist penchant for deception and lies throughout the ages (so very much like the Busheviks on the Right), yes, I question such an abrupt shift.

I do indeed question it at the very least as disnigenuous.

YOU brought up the notion outright lies, not me. Guilty conscience?

[K-W]

47. You keep repeating standard lines yourself.

I dont understand why you continue to attack me for discussing like a human being. We all do this every day, why are you bringing it up?

Or are you claiming you invented the argument that Communism has been tried and failed?

I have not shifted anything. I can take great comfort in the fact that I am not in the slightest bit a communist and thus you obviously are off in your analysis.

[JHB]

17. Thank You Tom...

...for stating what should be obvious.

With its emphasis on revolution and complete overthrow of the existing order (rather than reform of it), it also throws out manner of checks and balances on power. Instead of freeing everyone, it allows a small group of the most ruthless to seize control of everything. Consider that the sins of Communism are those of the largest and most complete monopolies in history.

[tom_paine]

29. You're welcome and well said yourself

Sometimes it's good to chat with the Comrades to see if anything has changed or to find the exception to the Extremist Mindset who happens to have an Extremist Philosophy.

They are out there. I just don't know if I have the stomach to wade through the BS and find one.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Of course it does -- because it centralizes power

If you want to talk communism as espoused by Marx, it is still just a theory -- and one that was conceived solely for the times in which Marx lived, as a commentary on the excesses of capitalism more than anything else. And Marxism was devised to apply to an INDUSTRIALIZED society of the 19th century, as a means of more equitably distributing material wealth and alleviating the suffering of a terribly exploited working class.

None of the societies in which "Communism" has taken hold -- USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. -- were industrialized societies. They were largely agrarian. The Communist Party, especially in the case of the USSR and China, used collectivism as a means of forcing rapid industrialization on their societies.

From a purely chronological standpoint, it could be said that the industrialization of the USSR was a rousing success. The USSR industrialized much more rapidly than any of the Western nations had done under varying forms of liberal capitalism. However, the human costs of industrialization -- the very things that Marxism strove to alleviate -- were even harsher under the whip of the Soviet Communist Party.

Now, let's discuss the centralization of power involved here. Since the takeover of a government by communist forces essentially has always resulted in turning the status quo on its head, it has never been achieved except through armed force. Nor has it ever been maintained, except through armed force and exercise of violence. Since the state is eventually the entity through which this force is exercised, then it naturally consolidates power as it comes to control increasing portions of the society itself.

Centralized power leads to tyranny, plain and simple. It's what happened to the USSR and China. It's what's happening to the US as we speak, as power has become increasingly centralized over the past several decades not only in Washington, DC -- but especially in an increasingly imperial executive branch. Comforting yourself with illusions of a "benevolent elite" that can be trusted to act on behalf of the people is foolishness. Personally, I am wary of movements that profess to speak "for the people", preferring instead to help those whose primary motivation is empowering them and listening to them.

Communism, as it has always been practiced, falls into the former category.

For an expansion on this discussion of power relations within society, I would recommend the book Social Power and Political Freedom by Gene Sharp.

[tom_paine]

15. Wow, Chris, aid from an unexpected quarter!

Thanks! And well said, sir! :toast:

PM me and let me know how your are doing vis-a-vis IC Status...

[IrateCitizen]

21. Well, Tom -- as a democratic socialist...

(and that's a little d and little s, the distinction is important)

... I have no patience for those who elevate ideology to the point of truth. I do not buy into the theories of lassiez-faire capitalism any more or less than I buy into the ideas of communism, because both of them exist in a purely theoretical sense completely devoid of other important factors, chief among them basic human nature.

Personally, I am in favor of anything that diffuses power throughout a society, because that diffusion provides a natural set of checks and balances that prevent the said power from running roughshod. Anyone who advocates a system that involves the centralization of power -- no matter how benevolent their aims may be -- has completely lost my support from the start.

[tom_paine]

30. I like the way you think, even if I don't 100% agree

I, too am for the diffusion of power.

[K-W]

16. the term always been praciticed emplies weve tried it out alot

that is simply a false statement. Communism has never actually been tried. People with communist ideals have taken over unstable countries. And, like almost anyone who has ever taken over an unstable country, they proceeded to centralize power, NOT because that was part of the communist theory, but because that is the only way to retain power in an unstable country with contentious rule.

So the only countries weve had with communist ideals were the portion of those countries with massive turmoil that happened to be taken over by people who had or used communist ideals.

To say that you can make any generlizations about the overall philosophy of communism based on that is just silly.

Meanwhile communism is not just for Marx's time. The overall concept of a communist society is not constrained by geography or time. Marx's conception of how a communism could occur were constrained by economic factors mostly, but not only to his time and place.

[IrateCitizen]

20. OK, whatever...

Your post is doing nothing more than restating the points you made about 5 posts prior. It wasn't convincing then, and it wasn't convincing now.

If you would care to tell me how centralization of power is NOT necessary in a transformation to communism, I'm all ears. While you're at it, how about you provide me a few solid examples of how centralization of power into the hands of an elite few DIDN'T lead to tyranny?

But save me the tired old talking points -- I've heard them all many times before.

[tom_paine]

24. IC, you beat me to it

My verbosity has cost me "being first" once again.

Well said. I'm outta here.

I'm tired of it, too.

Read my post prior to this one, though it says much the same as you just did, only in a more long-widned and pedantic fashion.

:evilgrin:

[K-W]

28. Save your tired anti-communist bs, I've heard it all before, from neo-cons

You do realize that anti-communism was one of the main streams of thought that created the neo-conservative movement?

All government require a centralization of power, all governments are a centralization of power.

Communism presumes that power is already centralizes and lays out a model for the decentrilation of power into a communal system. Communism does not call for a dictatorship.

[tom_paine]

33. Logical fallacies: Argument by Authority, Guilt by Association

WHAT am I still doing on this thread wasting my time?!?

[IrateCitizen]

37. OK, now you've really stepped in it...

You do realize that anti-communism was one of the main streams of thought that created the neo-conservative movement?

Of course I do -- just as I realize that many of the originators of neoconservatism were actually old liberal hawks from the Democratic Party. I also recognize that the reason that the neoconservatives arose was because they were anti-communist extremists. In short, both movements existed on opposite fringes. Most people outside of these camps have come to reject them BOTH, because they are BOTH extremist, in nature.

Communism presumes that power is already centralizes and lays out a model for the decentrilation of power into a communal system. Communism does not call for a dictatorship.

I guess then that Marx's idea of an initial step toward communist utopia as being a "dictatorship of the proletariat" was something that was found only in the particular printings of the particular works of Marx that I read, and that it was absent from the ones that all others read.

:dunce:

You have told me nothing to convince me that communism does not centralize power in order to maintain its position in society, and likewise have shown no plans for how to avoid the slippery slope from consolidated power to tyranny. Communism's stated goal is to completely smash all existing institutions and install its own. You don't get much more centralized than that.

[K-W]

41. You are asking for unreasonable things

You are holding up communism to much higher standards than are reasonable.

Communism is an idealistic philosophy of society. Like a pure capitalism, or a benevolant dictatorship.

Communism, as a philosophy does not logically lead to tyranny, nor hav we seen anywhere near enough evidence in life that communism must cause it. You have far overstepped logic and evidence and made indefnsible statements about what communism will always do.

[IrateCitizen]

43. Put up or shut up

Name one real-world instance in which the triumph of a communist system did not lead to tyranny. Just one.

Until you are able to do that, then all evidence defends my statements on what communism will always do. If anyone is making indefensible statements here, it is you.

[tom_paine]

46. He won't though. Expect more repition of some very OLD lines

We are wasting our time, and I admit tehse Comrades do have the ability to keep "pulling you back in" even to futile conversations.

Perhaps their one talent.

creating "peace and justice on Earth" sure isn't, neither is cerating "economic equality".

Actually, the only talent I can see the Comrades have IS the construction of Tyranny.

[K-W]

49. That is absurd.

Your question would only be valid if history were an infinate or very large set. If history could take into account many many contingencies, then, and only then, could we use history as a falsification for one particular social theory.

History is a very small set. We have only a handful of examples of supposed communist aiming societies. Not only do we have a small amount, but in all cases there were an uncountable number of other factors that contributed to the fate of the society. You are using an utterly incomplete set of data and drawing conclusions that are completely unsupported.

[IrateCitizen]

52. Buh-bye.

I asked you for just one example to support your argument. You were unable to provide one.

I've made my point, and I have no desire to discuss this with you further, as the attempt to do so is proving quite useless.

[JHB]

54. Now that's where you're wrong

"completely unsupported"

My view (and of Tom & I-R on this, I think) is based on the evidence of the history of all governments that have claimed adherence to Communist principles. This may mean our views are incompletely supported, but they are not "completely unsupported."

However, I contest your standard for the incomparibility of events. At the level you're talking about here, not only can nothing be absolutely proven or disproven, but it even denies reasonable estimations based on past experience.

[JHB]

22. Have you considered there may be a REASON why it has never...

..."never been tried (for real)"?

As in, maybe there's a disconnect between lofty Theoretical Communism and the dirty business facts of making things work in the real world? (that certainly sounds like something in common with the neocons).

It's failed EVERY TIME. You can handwave about how it's never "really" been tried, but don't you think at least SOME of those people in all those other times were making an honest attempt? But it still failed EVERY TIME.

[K-W]

31. No, because history doesnt provide controlled situations

there has not been anywhere in the same stratosphere enough examples of attempted communism to generalize the results into all communism doesnt work.

The most compelling arguments against communism (I am not a communist folks) are theoretical.

[IrateCitizen]

40. And the only compelling arguments FOR communism...

... are theoretical. Would that not be an accurate statement?

[K-W]

45. Not at all

no, the argument for Communism is that it is a theory that could work in this world. That is in fact the only argument anyone can use for any social theory.

Thats the problem with politics, you dont know until you try. And even if you try in one case, it doesnt mean it wont work in another. There is really no social program that hasnt failed dramatically somewhere.

A communist believes that our society could eventually reach the point where communism would work, and thus that we should work to achieve that.

Just as many believe universal healthcare could work in our society, and thus we should work to achieve it.

Now obviously the scale is different, no communist would argue that, but the idea is the same, they think it would work, if it worked it would be great for society, so they advocate trying it.

[JHB]

48. On the Magical Mystery Tour...

there has not been anywhere in the same stratosphere enough examples of attempted communism to generalize the results into all communism doesnt work.

Well, you're welcome to try, as long as you volunteer for the roles of disfavored minority and handy scapegoat or potential center of opposition to Those In Charge. That way, if your attempt is another "Oops, didn't get it quite right and deviated from real Communist principles"-case, you can continue this argument on your way to the unmarked mass grave that the Powers That Be are dilligently filling.

[K-W]

50. I am not advocating communism.

Simply pointing out that you cannot conclude from the evidence that communism doesnt work.

[tom_paine]

23. See what happens when you argue with extremists, IC?

IrateCitizen made a well-thought out, well-bolstered point.

You demolished it with one disdainful rhetorical sweep of the Extremists' hand. ("Argument From Authority", "Begging the Question" are two of the many logical fallacies you have employed here today)

Plus, you can't stop trying to disown every Communist you don't like or who makes you look bad. PLUS, you are using the same tired semantic BS that you've been repeating from the start.

Classic examples of why Extremists, both left and Right, should be kept from power at all costs.

Tired of the same old dance wasting my time constructing arguments while you repeat the same tired semantic red-herrings.

<sigh> Comrades and Freepers share so much of the same type of mindset, it is astonishing. At least as astonishing as the consistency to which these characteristics can be found in Extremists.

Enough. This is boring me. We can talk again, but only if you learn some new semantic cookie-cutter stuff to use or somehow shed your Extremist bent and begin to construct your arguments based on something other than disingenuosu statements you clearly heard from somebody else (the "True Communism has never been tried" has been around since before you were born, and it hasn't improved with age).

I can't waste my time verbally sparring with someone who can;t bring anything new to the table, just repeat the same shit over and over and over...

But it's nice to check up on the Extremist Mind once in a while, looking for that ever elusive exception to the rule.

Bye, now!

:hi:

[K-W]

35. The fact that I am not a communist continues to give me some humor here

Your off-baseccomparing of neo-conservatism and communism is however losing any humor and just becoming tragic.

[tom_paine]

38. Only tragic because your ego blinds you to what you are

Keep disowning yourself.

Now THAT'S tragic. I didn't make Left and Right Extremes the same mindset. Don't blame the messenger if reality bites.

Now I see the insults begin. Typical.

[K-W]

42. lol

Yes, Im sure through just a short debate on a forum you know more about me than I do. Yes I am the one being wacky here.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Good analogy

They scream "freedom" as their rationale for doing any number of atrocities while denying it to those who disagree with them.

[IrateCitizen]

13. Neoconservatives are right wing Trotskyists

There's nothing "conservative" about neoconservatism. Rather than seeking incremental change over a period of time, attributed to the idea that it is much harder to create systems than to destroy them (a centerpiece of conservative thought), the neocons seek to effect rapid, transformative change through the use of force.

I can think of no other group to which this kind of thinking applies more than the Trotskyists. The only real difference is whether the utopian future they envision is a left-wing or right-wing one. The means are identical.

[tom_paine]

18. Busheviks also understand and have applied Trotsky's Perpetual Revolution

You are on a roll, dude!

IC... :yourock:

[K-W]

19. I can think of many many times

in history that a group has tried to change the overall structure of a society or government. In fact I can think of more than I can count.

Nazism comes to the mind quickly, that fits our model much much better than the soviety movement.

[IrateCitizen]

26. No, Trotskyism fits much better than Nazism

Nazism was a movement based on a theory of racial superiority, plain and simple. It did not seek to transform the world according to an egalitarian ideology -- it sought to set up the German ruling class as the masters of all of Europe, with the Eastern Slavs providing slave labor after sacrificing their lands as "lebensraum" for the German people.

Trotskyism, a strain of communist ideology, sought to transform the world to communism through the use of violent force and revolution.

If the current gang were closer to Nazis, they would be occupying a supposedly "inferior" race much more brutally than they currently are.

[tom_paine]

36. We need to stop wasting our time

Logic and true debate is wasted on Extremists, my friend.

To quote opihimoimoi, "Come, we go find sanity and reason on other threads."

[K-W]

51. Ah, once again you are putting far far too much weight on the theory

and not nearly enough weight on the pracice.

And since when does neo-conservatism seek to set up an egalitarian society?

The fact is that Neoconservatives are not communists at all, nor are they Nazi's. They have a very different overall driving philosophy than either of them. So it is foolish to call them nazi's or trotskeyists from that standpoint.

You have compared thier methods to trotsky, but when I point out how thier methods are like nazi's you argue that they cant be like nazis because the fundemental belifes were different. You are arguing two seperate things here.

What our administration is doing now mimics alot of different hiistorical movements and theories. I see some interesting parrallels to Trotsky's theories, there are plenty that have been well documented examples of how they mimic nazi actions and ideas.

Why you insist on stressing the relation to anything even remotely communism I dont understand at all.

[geek tragedy]

53. Neocons are very similar to Stalinists and especially Trotskyists

They both believe in the power of the state to achieve their vision of social good. I tend to put them together at one end of the spectrum, with anarchists, libertarians, and paleocons being at the other.

[Papercut8]

55. First off, I'd like to say I agree with drumwolf

that erstwhile "communists", like the their counterparts in so-called "democratic" countries, use those lies to cover over their true natures. But to just write off communism seems wrong, despite the fact that it's pretty much "common knowledge" that "communism is dead".

Looking at the ideology of communism, it's pretty obvious why any oppressive, dictatorial ruling class would hate it, saying as it does that exploitative appropriation is fundamentally at the root of what's wrong in the world today.

Keeping that in mind, whether or not it's actually practical, you know this same ruling class is going to do whatever it can to make sure people don't look to it as a viable option.

Where do we get our ideas from? From media and education. Who owns the media and who has control over government institutions, including education?

As whether or not it's ever worked again how much of what's "common knowledge" has been manipulated by the people who fundamentally dominate power relations in the country and the world? It's interesting that literature on social conditions in communist countries has changed through the decades. If present day communists are right, then the Soviet Union and China both underwent counter-revolutionary coups, and yet social commentary on the period preceding these alleged coups becomes less and less favorable the the further we get from those times. Off the top of my head, that Snow guy (shoot, can't remember his full name - is it Edgar Snow?) wrote a positively glowing account of life in Red China... and then he was McCarthyized, of course.

I'd like to end with an idea - if it's really so impractical, why does the government persecute it so much? Especially fascist governments?

"First they went after the Communists,
and I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist.
Then they went after the homosexuals and infirm,
and I did not stand up, because I was neither.
Then they went after the Jews,
and I did not stand up, because I was not a Jew.
Then they went after the Catholics,
and I did not stand up, because I was Protestant.
Finally, they went after me,
and there was no one left to stand up for me."
-Pastor Martin Neimoller, on Nazi Germany

[drumwolf]

56. Hi Papercut, welcome to DU!

:hi: :toast:

And I didn't intend to dismiss the entire ideology of socialism: after all, it's suited Sweden pretty well. I was specifically referring to certain regimes that abuse the language of socialism -- the Soviet Union and the old eastern European regimes -- in exactly the same way that our neocons abuse the language of democracy and freedom.