Extreme or acceptable?

[Polarbear]

Is communism an extreme or acceptable view point in your opinion? Is it as bad as being a neo-nazi?

 

[Father Heathen]

Is communism an extreme or acceptable view point in your opinion? Is it as bad as being a neo-nazi?

Depends on what kind of communism, since it can be rather varied. If it's oppressive and stifles peoples' rights and freedom, then it is indeed unacceptable.

It's not as bad as neo-nazism given that it lacks hatred and prejudice.

Edit: Damn it, those dirs have been sneaking up on me a lot lately...

 

[Polarbear]

Ha ha! I suppose a few mistakes are fine.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I don't think hardly anyone knows what communism actually means; just as the meaning of capitalism is not known widely.

Yet the words are often used to evoke feelings and prejudices.

 

[Polarbear]

I think that is more the case in the USA then Norway, communism isn't used as a pejorative over here and neither is capitalism, unless you are really far left of course.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Ah, fair enough. In that case it's both extreme and acceptable.

As nobody's managed to put together a system that even remotely works though, I'd actually consider all -isms premature and, in that sense, extreme in that they are extremities - falling wide of the mark.

We need to get clear on what the desired outcome is and focus there, testing methods and outlooks dispassionately. For me, that means everyone has decent living standards, especially in terms of access to clean & nutritious food, freedom from living in unsanitary environments, access to quality education, medical services, etc.

I don't mind if some people are fabulously wealthy beyond the rest so long as the bottom is supported rather than crushed.

Properly run communism could probably do this. So could properly run capitalism.

But how to get things to run properly?

 

[apophenia]

Pre-communist Russia was run by a wealthy elite.

The Soviet Union was run by a wealthy elite.

Putin and his 'democratic' crones are worth around 180 billion dollars. ( ! ) He even has a private palace specially built for him, and heavily guarded. Bush Snr and Gorbachev made a good deal, obviously.

China is run by a wealthy elite.

America is run by a wealthy elite.

This could become monotonous ....

In theory, communism could work quite well. But first we'd have to guillotine the mofos determined to be a wealthy ruling elite. That could get ugly. Still, it arguably helped France.

Did it help France ? Perhaps some modern historians might like to comment on that.

 

[Cassiopia]

Also true communism has never been fully implemented anywhere in the world.

The problem is that when people think of Communism they imagine places like The Soviet Union and China, which have never been communist at all really. Maybe Cuba might have been a good example if it had been allowed to florish but the US sanctions made that impossible. Even so, Cuba is more defined by dictatorship than communism.

I think communism is a great ideal, but we are probably still not ready for it. I do think it is acceptable and not an extreme. It is just something entirely different to what we are used to and will require a different mind-set to make it work.

 

[Sunstone]

Is communism an extreme or acceptable view point in your opinion? Is it as bad as being a neo-nazi?

Any kind of dictatorship is unacceptable.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The problem is that when people think of Communism they imagine places like The Soviet Union and China, which have never been communist at all really. Maybe Cuba might have been a good example if it had been allowed to florish but the US sanctions made that impossible. Even so, Cuba is more defined by dictatorship than communism.

I think communism is a great ideal, but we are probably still not ready for it. I do think it is acceptable and not an extreme. It is just something entirely different to what we are used to and will require a different mind-set to make it work.

This pretty much sums it up.

But in this context, as a Norwegian, I'm baffled by the notion (mostly by some Americans) that the 'state' is an entity that is somehow removed and separate from the people living in that country.
I know that there are a lot of differences between the US and Norway, but surely, in a working democracy, the 'state' is a part of and represents the people?
I mention this because it is a vital part of (ever) being able to implement communism.
In Norway, while of course people whine and complain from time to time (show me a place where they don't and I'll show you North Korea), most people see the 'state' as beneficial and a part of society, and they view the politicians mostly as representatives of the people.

 

[Hexagon]

The ideal of communism is acceptable. In reality, it generally gets ruined by corrupt leaders. However, I'd be interested to see a democratically elected communist government that would hopefully avoid enough corruption to be successful.

My only real problem with communism is the fact that as we develop robotic and AI technologies, the number of jobs will continue to decrease until it really isn't feasible to give a job to everyone... I mean, in the future, it might be potentially possible to give a lot of the service jobs to robots.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Communism is a wonderful idea, but misapplications of Marxist thought have cast a dim view on it. To compare real communism to neo-Nazism is completely ridiculous.

 

[Laika]

Communism's attitude towards political violence generally sets it apart as 'extreme'. As a system of government it has often proved to be a response to very extreme social circumstances with some degree of societal breakdown, such as war (Russia, China, Cambodia), was the result of invasion or occupation, (Eastern Europe, North Korea), De-colonisation (Vietnam) or Dictatorship (Cuba).

There are a handful of exceptions where Communist parties became governments via election. San Marino became the world's first democracy to democratically elect a Communist Party as part of a coalition government from 1945 to 1957. More notable is the Popular Unity Coalition led by Salvador Allende in Chile which included Communists that was overthrown by General Pinochet and the CIA in 1973.

Marxism often has millennial and messianic qualities as an ideology, with the proletariat (or peasantry if your a Maoists) historic mission to liberate mankind and build a socialist/communist paradise and it has a strange blend of cynicism and idealism, making both revolutionary and dictatorial violence acceptable and when wrapped in a theory of Marxist as a scientific understanding of history, necessary and expedient. However it is important to note that Marxism was also extremely important in the development of reformist 'social democratic' ideologies who favored a peaceful evolution away from capitalism and has had large influence through the Frankfurt school of critical theory, so there is considerable scope for interpretation of the theory and its results and crucially, whether communism is inevitably violent. Nor are all forms of communism 'Marxist', but it is true that the Marxist variants have had the most historical impact (particularly Marxism-Leninism and Maoism).

It is comparable to Nazism and Fascism in terms of it's methods of dictatorial rule, but has very different system of ideology and motivations. There is considerable debate on this point as to which is more important, reflecting deeper issues over the conflict between means and ends.

 

[Baladas]

As a Libertarian Socialist/Anarcho-Communist, I view it as extreme and acceptable. Extreme can be a very good thing. Sometimes extreme action is needed to bring true liberty.
So long as it is not faux-Communism run by violent elites.

 

[Valjean]

Extreme co-operation vs extreme tribalism? Extreme egalitarianism vs extreme authoritarianism?

 

[Laika]

As a Libertarian Socialist/Anarcho-Communist, I view it as extreme and acceptable. Extreme can be a very good thing. Sometimes extreme action is needed to bring true liberty. So long as it is not faux-Communism run by violent elites.

agreed. I feel the same way.

Extreme co-operation vs extreme tribalism? Extreme egalitarianism vs extreme authoritarianism?

Yeah. Marxism is based on 'dialectics' which understands the world in terms of the resolution of contradictions.(The precise term is 'Dialectical Materialism' if you want to look it up). It's a very difficult philosophy to grasp and the meaning of words changes from being finite definitions to something more in terms of gradations. Whilst simultaneously placing a very heavy emphasis on logical consistency, the very definition of words breaks down. I would made a comparison, from my limited understanding, with Zen Buddhism. There is a sense that knowing is unknowing and belief in unbelieving; the absolute distinction between truth and falsehood is broken down as in Marxism one contains the other. Marxism entails the "socialization of thought", as in a collectivist ideology everyone is required to believe the same thing, share the same goals and allegiances and work together whilst retaining a sense of self and individuality. the sense of meaning is therefore collectivized and the individual can only interpret a small part of a shared meaning.

Orwell satirized it in 1984 as "doublethink" when the party requires people to think in contradictions; "war is peace", "freedom is slavery", "ignorance is strength". it is a very fair assessment of the potential for abusing the ideology and how easily it can be used to manipulate people. It's like being stuck in a maze- everywhere you turn, there is a new series of choices whilst the choice itself could well be completely an illusion. it's also a natural "high" because the definition of reality can be changed by thinking it so you get the sense of limitless power which is why I find it so hard to walk away from.

 

[Stevicus]

It is comparable to Nazism and Fascism in terms of it's methods of dictatorial rule, but has very different system of ideology and motivations. There is considerable debate on this point as to which is more important, reflecting deeper issues over the conflict between means and ends.

One thing that I've observed is that, at its most basic level, Nazism/Fascism, Communism/Socialism, and US-style Liberal Democracy all have one thing in common: They all claim to reflect the will of the People. Nazism emphasized the German "Volk" as being their central focus, and the Fuhrer was seen as the physical embodiment carrying out the will of the people ("I am Germany"). Communist regimes also focus on "The People" as their top priority, as in "People's Deputy" or "Enemy of the People." And in our own U.S. Constitution, we have as the three most prominent words at the top: "We The People."

So, all of these systems advocate the basic principle of "Power to the People." All of these systems are nominally "democratic" and "constitutional." It's just that in Nazi Germany, Hitler's dictatorial powers were supposedly only a "temporary" measure during a manufactured "crisis." Once the Army gave their loyalty and took an oath to Hitler personally, then that was that. As with Mussolini's supporters, the conservative aristocrats may have seen Fascism as the lesser of two evils and considered that right-wing extremism could be justified as a necessary response to the left-wing extremism they were facing from the Soviet Union and their perceived left-wing allies in other countries. No doubt there were many who believed (rightly or wrongly) that their country was in mortal danger and that they were surrounded by enemies.

The Soviets were also viewed as extreme, although they also felt vulnerable and surrounded by enemies - as Russia has been invaded countless times throughout history. Moreover, the trauma they suffered during WW1 and the Russian Civil War was still fresh in the public's memories during the 20s and 30s. Stalin was able to gain power using more of a "divide and conquer" technique. He was appointed to General Secretary only because Trotsky and Zinoviev turned it down. Neither one of them thought very highly of Stalin. They thought that he wasn't very bright - just a useful bank robber and gangster to serve the party's interests. Trotsky called him "the great mediocrity of the Party." But they underestimated Stalin. Whatever checks and balances were in place to prevent one person from gaining absolute power failed largely because those who could have stopped him wasted their opportunities to do so. Stalin also gained a great deal of support from those who also believed they were fighting an "extreme" enemy, and therefore, extremism is the only way to fight them.

As to the OP, my point was to say that if a population is traumatized enough and scared enough, they could likely be persuaded to more readily support a dictatorship over a more democratic-republican system we generally favor in the West. But we never faced the same level of threat to our national survival as other nations have faced. We haven't seen a war on American soil since the Civil War - although that by itself could be seen as another type of "necessary extremism." Our government has also generally avoided giving absolute power to a single individual, although even that can be seen as a bit iffy. But overall, we've taken the route of implementing various liberal and progressive reforms on a somewhat slow and incremental basis. This has had the effect of finding a middle ground between opposing factions and kept things relatively peaceful, as long as reasonable voices prevail and there is an overall willingness to negotiate and compromise for mutual benefit. This was not the case in pre-revolutionary Russia or China, as both sides were so firmly entrenched and has such a long-term enmity towards each other that no "non-extreme" solution would have been possible.

Now, I fear that's where we might be headed in America, since there has been long-term ideological entrenchment which seems to be getting worse. This is what could lead to greater extremism, since there appears to be fewer bases for any compromise. During WW2 and the Cold War, different factions might have been able to compromise for the sake of national unity or the greater good, but a lot of those motives seem to have fallen by the wayside in more recent years. US patriotism and nationalism seem to be less and less relevant in a global economy with more widespread and advanced means of communication and cultural exchange. And yet, there are still many who argue that US militarism and interventionism are "necessary evils" because "we're surrounded by enemies" (more or less). That's generally the same refrain which is repeated over and over.

During the 60s, things seemed like they would go in an extreme direction, although the left got distracted by sex, drugs, and rock & roll. Once the right fed them their sacrificial lamb (Nixon), the left then mostly sold out to consumerism, while maintaining a veneer of social liberalism and hippie nostalgia that still made them "cool" in their own self-serving, narcissistic way. But those days are over, and the gravy train has been sputtering as of late. I think that we are getting to a point where extremism from either the left or the right is conceivable, possibly even foreseeable if factional entrenchment continues over the long-term.

 

[rocala]

The ideal of communism is acceptable. In reality, it generally gets ruined by corrupt leaders. However, I'd be interested to see a democratically elected communist government that would hopefully avoid enough corruption to be successful.

My only real problem with communism is the fact that as we develop robotic and AI technologies, the number of jobs will continue to decrease until it really isn't feasible to give a job to everyone... I mean, in the future, it might be potentially possible to give a lot of the service jobs to robots.

Whilst the threat of corruption is an ever present threat I think for both revolutionary and elected left governments the greater threat is outside intervention either military or economic, overt or covert.

As for the problems of modern technological developments I believe Socialism is far better equipped to deal with this than capitalism. To share out the work and its benefits is an aspect of the former not the latter.