A great day for the People's Republic's new leader of NY Communist Party!

[Rachel Rugelach]

No it's not. It's actual history.

I wasn't referring to NYC's history as nonsense. I was referring to your Fox News-stoked hysteria about New Yorkers today as being nonsense. I'm not hiding under my bed in fear of a communist takeover, nor are any other sane people I know.

Try to have a cool day.

Edited: Did I say "your Fox News-stoked hysteria"? I meant your GOP War Room YouTube channel-stoked hysteria.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wasn't referring to NYC's history as nonsense. I was referring to your Fox News-stoked hysteria about New Yorkers today as being nonsense. I'm not hiding under my bed in fear of a communist takeover, nor are any other sane people I know.

Try to have a cool day.

Maybe not today, but over time it can happen. These people are getting elected now and serve elected socialists.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Previous attempts have all just gotten it wrong, eh.

Almost all of them were based on a specific ideological framework that doesn't reflect all of communism, which is the main point here. Whether they "all got it wrong" depends on whom you ask. Personally, I strongly oppose the authoritarianism and indiscriminate violence of Marxism-Leninism, so I would say they got a lot more wrong than they did right.

Some are merely separatists.
But again, this is deflection from the issue that white
supremacists, socialists & other anti-capitalists pursue
agendas with evil results. And unlike you, I find the
anti-capitalists to have done far far more harm.

Socialists and anti-capitalists don't have some uniform agenda to pursue. I'm not sure what's so strange about this variation considering that it exists among all large groups.

The ideologies that seem so different to you still involve
the same tools, ie, an authoritarian regime is necessary
to prevent capitalism & owning private property.

Only if one believes in forcibly imposing communism or in banning ownership of private property, which many communists don't support.

A pacifist communist is like a pacifist white supremacist,
ie, it's an individual value/view that won't translate into
a government.

Unless the policies they would advocate were also pacifist. You'll notice that per the link I provided, the pacifism of some socialists translated into opposition to violent activities that were occurring at the time.

Oh, have I.
I spent 5 years at U of Mich, which is in the People's Republic Of Ann Arbor.
How many white supremacists have you conversed with IRL?

None, mainly because it's quite rare and bizarre for an African or an Arab to be a white supremacist and explicitly believe in the inferiority of their own ethnicity. I have observed subconscious or implicit Eurocentric biases among some, but I wouldn't call them white supremacists.

But I have talked to some white supremacists online and found the belief in racial superiority to be a constant among every single one of them. Otherwise they wouldn't be white supremacists, would they?

You sure do claim diversity in groups you like.
But no matter that, people who advocate elimination
of capitalism & private property are advocating evil.

In your opinion. From my perspective, it entirely depends on how they plan to achieve that goal and how realistic they believe it is.

This is just as white supremacy is evil....but it lacks
the record of death & woe of anti-capitalists.

I find this statement to be potentially minimizing of the destruction that Nazism and white-supremacist genocides and colonialism wrought on the world. The US itself was largely founded on slavery as well as the genocide of Native Americans by "Manifest Destiny" racists and other white supremacists.

This is already to repetitive.
I've nothing to add.

Same. There are only so many times I can respond to the same generalizations without going in circles.

 

[Revoltingest]

Almost all of them were based on a specific ideological framework that doesn't reflect all of communism, which is the main point here. Whether they "all got it wrong" depends on whom you ask. Personally, I strongly oppose the authoritarianism and indiscriminate violence of Marxism-Leninism, so I would say they got a lot more wrong than they did right.

The problem with any country's system that eliminates capitalism
is that it will be authoritarian. Because that's necessary to enforce
the ban on free economic association. This is the reason that all
attempts at such socialism / communism end up that way.

Positing that it will be different next time isn't based upon analysis.
Just unrealistic assumptions about human behavior. They can't be
both statelessness & democracy. Many won't voluntarily give up
capitalism (as USSR black markets showed). People won't all think
alike, no matter how much the government "guides" the culture.

Socialists and anti-capitalists don't have some uniform agenda to pursue. I'm not sure what's so strange about this variation considering that it exists among all large groups.

It's not just about details of various anti-capitalist agendas.
There are emergent properties of any complex system.
Under anti-capitalism (the term I'm adopting to describe
socialism & communism of that variety), there is a 100%
record of such countries being authoritarian, oppressive, &
dismal economies. Under capitalism, there is more diversity,
with horrible results in many, but also democracy, peace, civil
liberty, & prosperity arising in some.
Think not of perfection, but of good results for some.
It's about potential. Even vaunted Canuckistan, Denmark,
Australiastan, etc have done some wicked things. But they're
still better than the best of anti-capitalist countries...Cuba, IMO.

Only if one believes in forcibly imposing communism or in banning ownership of private property, which many communists don't support.

They they really aren't communists by standard definition.
Why adopt a label that means something different from
what they intend?

Unless the policies they would advocate were also pacifist. You'll notice that per the link I provided, the pacifism of some socialists translated into opposition to violent activities that were occurring at the time.

How would a pacifist communist enforce the prohibition
against starting a business, hiring people, & serving clients?
They'll certainly resort to coercion & force. And if stateless,
this would be by vigilantes.

None, mainly because it's quite rare and bizarre for an African or an Arab to be a white supremacist and explicitly believe in the inferiority of their own ethnicity. I have observed subconscious or implicit Eurocentric biases among some, but I wouldn't call them white supremacists.

But I have talked to some white supremacists online and found the belief in racial superiority to be a constant among every single one of them. Otherwise they wouldn't be white supremacists, would they?

So you've really very little experience with them. People
you meet on line are a self selected group...not the same
as those who eschew it. Some just believe in voluntary
separation. Belief that they're superior isn't inherently
a problem....it's one's politics, ie, coercion vs choice.

In your opinion. From my perspective, it entirely depends on how they plan to achieve that goal and how realistic they believe it is.

Belief that one's agenda is realistic doesn't excuse advocating
something with heinous results. Analogy: Anti-vaxers can be
good people, but with deadly effects on others. Anti-capitalists
fall into that category, ie, good intentions in pursuit of evil results.

I find this statement to be potentially minimizing of the destruction that Nazism and white-supremacist genocides and colonialism wrought on the world. The US itself was largely founded on slavery as well as the genocide of Native Americans by "Manifest Destiny" racists and other white supremacists.

Nazis didn't oppress or kill as many people as did anti-capitalist
USSR, N Korea, China, & Khmer Rouge. You wouldn't be minimizing
all that suffering, famine, & mass murder, would you?

I've oft criticized Manifest Destiny. Note that Canuckistan had it too.
But your criticism deflects from my claim that capitalism offers only
the potential for peace, liberty, & prosperity...no guarantees.
Don't ignore this by arguing against the straw man, ie, that many
examples of capitalism have harbored atrocities.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The problem with any country's system that eliminates capitalism
is that it will be authoritarian. Because that's necessary to enforce
the ban on free economic association. This is the reason that all
attempts at such socialism / communism end up that way.

I think you might be either missing some of my responses or overlooking their content, because I've directly responded to this at least twice so far.

Not all communists want to "eliminate capitalism" in the sense of banning private ownership or economic association. Some also believe that communism would spontaneously emerge under a specific set of democratic conditions. Those are just two examples that contradict the overgeneralizations you've made here. I believe their vision is still unrealistic, but it's a far cry from the authoritarianism you keep talking about as if it were the sole communist ideology in existence.

Positing that it will be different next time isn't based upon analysis.
Just unrealistic assumptions about human behavior. They can't be
both statelessness & democracy. Many won't voluntarily give up
capitalism (as USSR black markets showed). People won't all think
alike, no matter how much the government "guides" the culture.

An ideology's being unrealistic doesn't mean it endorses authoritarianism or mass murder. It could merely be ineffective and unevidenced.

It's not just about details of various anti-capitalist agendas.
There are emergent properties of any complex system.
Under anti-capitalism (the term I'm adopting to describe
socialism & communism of that variety), there is a 100%
record of such countries being authoritarian, oppressive, &
dismal economies. Under capitalism, there is more diversity,
with horrible results in many, but also democracy, peace, civil
liberty, & prosperity arising in some.
Think not of perfection, but of good results for some.
It's about potential. Even vaunted Canuckistan, Denmark,
Australiastan, etc have done some wicked things. But they're
still better than the best of anti-capitalist countries...Cuba, IMO.

See above. This is a rewording of the same point we've discussed throughout this thread and others.

They they really aren't communists by standard definition.
Why adopt a label that means something different from
what they intend?

There's no "standard definition" outside of extremely narrow contexts; there are only more and less popular definitions and communist schools of thought. The most popular one in most people's minds is understandably Marxism-Leninism, but that doesn't mean it has to be the standard by which all other communists are judged.

Different people have their reasons for adopting the labels that they do. I suppose you would have to ask them about that; asking would be much better than making assumptions and forming conclusions based on preconceived notions.

How would a pacifist communist enforce the prohibition
against starting a business, hiring people, & serving clients?

Some believe there would be no need to enforce it because people would spontaneously adopt it (which I find too unrealistic), and some don't believe in prohibiting businesses to begin with. Again, it varies.

They'll certainly resort to coercion & force. And if stateless,
this would be by vigilantes.

That's yet another assumption. You don't know this about all communists, and you don't know how the anarchist ones would address crime. You could find out by talking to more of them instead of assuming the worst.

So you've really very little experience with them.

Thankfully. I'm not exactly sad about not talking to more Nazis or supporters of racial segregation.

People
you meet on line are a self selected group...not the same
as those who eschew it. Some just believe in voluntary
separation. Belief that they're superior isn't inherently
a problem....it's one's politics, ie, coercion vs choice.

I would keep anyone who believed in racial segregation at the distance of a thousand-foot pole. They wouldn't have to convince me of their ideology; I would voluntarily remove myself from their presence.

And I think supremacist beliefs are inherently a problem. They usually affect votes, rhetoric in one's social circle, and attitudes toward others. The same goes for support of homophobia, sexism, Stalinism, ultra-nationalism, and other demonizing and hateful ideologies.

Belief that one's agenda is realistic doesn't excuse advocating
something with heinous results. Analogy: Anti-vaxers can be
good people, but with deadly effects on others. Anti-capitalists
fall into that category, ie, good intentions in pursuit of evil results.

This seems to be hinged on the assumption that opposition to capitalism must be "evil." It's colored by personal preferences, not a universal standard.

To me, what matters most is the degree to which someone opposes capitalism (e.g., elimination of all private ownership or just restricting some of it), how they propose enforcing that, and whether they believe it should be forcibly imposed on an entire country.

Nazis didn't oppress or kill as many people as did anti-capitalist
USSR, N Korea, China, & Khmer Rouge. You wouldn't be minimizing
all that suffering, famine, & mass murder, would you?

This is quite questionable because there has been a lot of debate around the exact death count of the regimes you mentioned. Some have even claimed figures of up to 60 million deaths for Stalin alone, which most scholars now consider overblown and simplistic.

Either way, I definitely wouldn't even remotely suggest that Nazis were "better than" anyone. Both Stalin and Hitler represent cautionary tales of how not to govern and who not to allow into power. Such comparisons are usually either pointless or ideologically and emotionally charged without having much substance.

I've oft criticized Manifest Destiny. Note that Canuckistan had it too.
But your criticism deflects from my claim that capitalism offers only
the potential for peace, liberty, & prosperity...no guarantees.
Don't ignore this by arguing against the straw man, ie, that many
examples of capitalism have harbored atrocities.

I believe private ownership has an essential role in any country. I just don't think it should be as loosely regulated as it is now, as in the case of multibillionaires (and yes, I know regulations exist; I still don't think they're enough in a lot of cases).

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you might be either missing some of my responses or overlooking their content, because I've directly responded to this at least twice so far.

Not all communists want to "eliminate capitalism" in the sense of banning private ownership or economic association. Some also believe that communism would spontaneously emerge under a specific set of democratic conditions. Those are just two examples that contradict the overgeneralizations you've made here. I believe their vision is still unrealistic, but it's a far cry from the authoritarianism you keep talking about as if it were the sole communist ideology in existence.



An ideology's being unrealistic doesn't mean it endorses authoritarianism or mass murder. It could merely be ineffective and unevidenced.



See above. This is a rewording of the same point we've discussed throughout this thread and others.



There's no "standard definition" outside of extremely narrow contexts; there are only more and less popular definitions and communist schools of thought. The most popular one in most people's minds is understandably Marxism-Leninism, but that doesn't mean it has to be the standard by which all other communists are judged.

Different people have their reasons for adopting the labels that they do. I suppose you would have to ask them about that; asking would be much better than making assumptions and forming conclusions based on preconceived notions.



Some believe there would be no need to enforce it because people would spontaneously adopt it (which I find too unrealistic), and some don't believe in prohibiting businesses to begin with. Again, it varies.



That's yet another assumption. You don't know this about all communists, and you don't know how the anarchist ones would address crime. You could find out by talking to more of them instead of assuming the worst.



Thankfully. I'm not exactly sad about not talking to more Nazis or supporters of racial segregation.



I would keep anyone who believed in racial segregation at the distance of a thousand-foot pole. They wouldn't have to convince me of their ideology; I would voluntarily remove myself from their presence.

And I think supremacist beliefs are inherently a problem. They usually affect votes, rhetoric in one's social circle, and attitudes toward others. The same goes for support of homophobia, sexism, Stalinism, ultra-nationalism, and other demonizing and hateful ideologies.



This seems to be hinged on the assumption that opposition to capitalism must be "evil." It's colored by personal preferences, not a universal standard.

To me, what matters most is the degree to which someone opposes capitalism (e.g., elimination of all private ownership or just restricting some of it), how they propose enforcing that, and whether they believe it should be forcibly imposed on an entire country.



This is quite questionable because there has been a lot of debate around the exact death count of the regimes you mentioned. Some have even claimed figures of up to 60 million deaths for Stalin alone, which most scholars now consider overblown and simplistic.

Either way, I definitely wouldn't even remotely suggest that Nazis were "better than" anyone. Both Stalin and Hitler represent cautionary tales of how not to govern and who not to allow into power. Such comparisons are usually either pointless or ideologically and emotionally charged without having much substance.



I believe private ownership has an essential role in any country. I just don't think it should be as loosely regulated as it is now, as in the case of multibillionaires (and yes, I know regulations exist; I still don't think they're enough in a lot of cases).

Your overly broad definitions of words, eg, "communism"
including capitalism provides us with no common language.
If "communists" are now also capitalists, the term is meaningless.
Thus I can't address your posts because they're too slippery.
Sorta like trying to nail Jello to a wall.
So I'll just make a statement....
Without capitalism, a country will find itself authoritarian & destitute.
History has demonstrated this without exception.
With capitalism, there's potential for democracy, liberty & prosperity
It's not a guarantee, just the possibility.