Socialism and Nazism

[warspite1805]

Now I have peoples attention, how is it that communists are tolerated and Nazis aren't. It seems communists are tolerated and no one bats an eyelifd if some one is a commie and yet the opposite ids true for Naziscum. At the end of the day both groups are both scum following the politics of the two groups responsible for vast amounts of human suffetring and death in the 20th Century.

[BlairH]

Now I have peoples attention, how is it that communists are tolerated and Nazis aren't. It seems communists are tolerated and no one bats an eyelifd if some one is a commie and yet the opposite ids true for Naziscum. At the end of the day both groups are both scum following the politics of the two groups responsible for vast amounts of human suffetring and death in the 20th Century.

Commies are tolerated? I give them a hard time as much as I possibly can!

Same goes for Nazis.

[Gaz]

Um, communism is no more evil than capitalism. At it's core it's about equality for all. In theory it works, in practice, not so much.

Nazism is founded on the idea that others are inferior, so yes, acting on that is bad, especially violently, but believing it? Not so much, that just makes the person gullible.

Also, communism is NOT the same as socialism.

[StoneGold]

Well, for one thing, you're mixing up ideologies with political parties. Nazis were fascists. They did horrible things in the name of fascism. They existed for a very short amount of time, and their ratio of horrible/not horrible acts is supremely out of whack.

Now, I'm assuming you're not talking about specifically the Communist party of any particular country, you're talking about communists in general, right? There are a lot of different brands of communism. We talking about Soviet style, Chinese, Cuban, or even plain ol' American communism, which tends to be a different beast altogether?


I mean, hell, it's not like there aren't a couple of genocides under the US's democratic republic belt, either.

[Alex]

I didn't know communism is tolerated.
Nazis aren't because they are all about genocide, communists, who are generaly either young and stupid or old and retarded, are just mocked constantly.

[warspite1805]

Um, communism is no more evil than capitalism. At it's core it's about equality for all. In theory it works, in practice, not so much.

Nazism is founded on the idea that others are inferior, so yes, acting on that is bad, especially violently, but believing it? Not so much, that just makes the person gullible.

Also, communism is NOT the same as socialism.
I know just put Socialists in the title bar to get people attention and chose to use solely the word "communist" in my question.

[StoneGold]

I know just put Socialists in the title bar to get people attention and chose to use solely the word "communist" in my question.
That makes no sense. First off, the Nazi thing is going to be the biggest draw. Second... no, that just makes no sense.

[BlairH]

That makes no sense. First off, the Nazi thing is going to be the biggest draw. Second... no, that just makes no sense.

I think it makes a lot of sense actually.
"Communism and Nazism" I feel, wouldn't have the same impact

[warspite1805]

I was going for a combined draw by putting Nazis and dsocialists in the same title.

[warspite1805]

I think it makes a lot of sense actually.
"Communism and Nazism" I feel, wouldn't have the same impact
Thank you Blair.

[spoon_jenkins]

Like has been already said, there's many brands/types of communism and pretty one example of Nazism.

So genocide and racism are innate part of Nazism. In contrast, communists vary. Some don't subscribe to things that you'd consider evils of communist regimes - like genocides, violent revolutions, press censorship, pumping Ivan Drago full of 'roids, etc. Now, on the whole, I think the Communist regimes in the world have been crappy, but they're totally bad track records. For instance, the Soviets sent a black person into space before the U.S. did.

A little pet peeve of mine - you used "socialism" in your title and "communism" in your text. Communism and socialism and liberalism are different things. I think it's inaccurate. when people mix them together for the sake of rhetoric.

[Gaz]

"We are under attack from CommieNazis!... Go pennies, help the children that need you!"

[StoneGold]

Thank you Blair.
Yes, but to Blair, there's no difference between Communism and Nazism, so that's not really an argument won there.

First off, if you really did know and what you are saying is true, that's what we call "Bait and Switch," and is generally frowned upon. Second, it makes no sense, because there is no epithet related to socialists. As opposed to, oh, let's say dirty commies, capitalist pigs, etc. There is no socialist parallel. Which would seem to prove less emotional involvement with them.

[Charles RB]

Now I have peoples attention, how is it that communists are tolerated and Nazis aren't.

Because Communism isn't based around the inherent inferiority of racial groups (and non-racial groups) and how they must be wiped out.

[warspite1805]

Yep I used "Bait and Switch," newver heard of that phrasew before nor did I knoew it had a phrase, but rest assured if I feel well enougth for work in the morning I shall use it in atleast oone conversation.

[BlairH]

Because Communism isn't based around the inherent inferiority of racial groups and how they must be wiped out.
It's based on the fact that all humans are incompetant sheep who don't know what's best for them, and that must be fed by the same hand though.

[Gaz]

It's based on the fact that all humans are incompetant sheep who don't know what's best for them, and that must be fed by the same hand though.
So, capitalism is about stepping on your neighbour's head to get to the table and eat as much as you can before him?

[Charles RB]

It's based on the fact that all humans are incompetant sheep who don't know what's best for them, and that must be fed by the same hand though.

No it's not. And even if it was, that's still preferable to the premise "everyone who is Jewish, black, Asian, East European, gay, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and homeless must be exterminated for they are dangerous".

[Ed Cunard]

So, capitalism is about stepping on your neighbour's head to get to the table and eat as much as you can before him?

Holy crap! Either I'm a capitalist, or I just really hate my neighbor, because I do that all the time. His coworkers have started calling him "amup" because of the impressions on his bald head.

[StoneGold]

Holy crap! Either I'm a capitalist, or I just really hate my neighbor, because I do that all the time. His coworkers have started calling him "amup" because of the impressions on his bald head.
That was good, I just don't get the amup thing.

[Noah Johnson]

That was good, I just don't get the amup thing.
Assume Ed's wearing Pumas...

[Gaz]

That was good, I just don't get the amup thing.
Puma, but backwards because he imprinted it on his head.

[BlairH]

Puma, but backwards because he imprinted it on his head.

That's clever.
I think capitalism is better than communism as it rewards human virtues, effort and sucsess. Communism -at it's most base level- limits these rewards, and places the creative enterprise of the individual in the hands of the state.

[Ed Cunard]

http://amberbloom.faithweb.com/images/billy-madison.jpg

Capitalism is better! I reward human virtues, effort and success!

Communism is better! I attempt to treat everyone fairly and equally!

Oh yeah fool?

Yeah!

smack smack smack splash.

[BlairH]

http://amberbloom.faithweb.com/images/billy-madison.jpg

Capitalism is better! I reward human virtues, effort and success!

Communism is better! I attempt to treat everyone fairly and equally!

Oh yeah fool?

Yeah!

smack smack smack splash.

I feel like I should be laughing, but I don't get the referance... :D

[Jeff Brady]

Adam Sandler in the movie Billy Madison. He's comparing shampoo & conditioner in those stupid voices he does.

[StoneGold]

That's clever.
I think capitalism is better than communism as it rewards human virtues, effort and sucsess. Communism -at it's most base level- limits these rewards, and places the creative enterprise of the individual in the hands of the state.


Which is comparable to making lampshades out of human skin... how exactly>

[Charles RB]

A Chinese cosmetics company got caught using material from dead convicts in their products, but they're definately driven by capitalism over communism there.

[BlairH]

A Chinese cosmetics company got caught using material from dead convicts in their products, but they're definately driven by capitalism over communism there.

So, when the communists go wrong it's only because of evil capitalists? :D

[Royal]

So, when the communists go wrong it's only because of evil capitalists? :D

Communists worry about cosmetics?

[Mike Smash!]

So, when the communists go wrong it's only because of evil capitalists? :DNaw, they're going more capitalist these days.

Which only goes to show that the economic system is only part of the equation. They've gone from being an oppressive communist regime to an oppressive capitalist one.

I will say that it's unfair to compare communism (or socialism, which is not the same thing) to "Nazism".

Nazism, is really just fascism with a strong racist streak. Communism, at the least the way that Marx envisioned it, has never been accomplished, though there have been a few socialist (to some degree or another) states -- some successful and democratic and others cruel and oppressive.

What Marx envisioned was for a revolution of the proletariat in oppressive countries, the working people rising up. China and the former Soviet Union, the most famous examples of an attempt at this, didn't actually have a working class. They were poor agrarian peasant farm communities, so the leaders of their revolutions (Mao and Lenin, respectively) took the "vanguard" approach. That they would rule and educate people how to be working people and then give over their power to the people when they were ready.

I do believe that Lenin's heart was in the right place and I honestly have no idea how things might have been differently had he not died so soon afterwords and a totalitarian butcher like Josef Stalin taken power and given us the sort of one party country where inconvenient people disappeared and your rights were whatever your leader told you they were.

I'm neither a socialist or a capitalist myself, I tend to take a "right tool for the right job" approach rather than an almost religious faith in either socialism or "the free market" both of which I think is fairly unrealistic.

I think any application of a socialist economic system would have to be supplemented with a very transparent and multi-party democratic system of government to hold its leaders accountable. I mean, the Swedes can vote out the Socialist Party whenever they so choose -- and did in one election over their taxes, only to want their federally funded social services back the next time around.

And it was never about laziness, the way some of the Right like to brush it off. Eugene Debs, the five time Socialist Party candidate for President once said:

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition."

His goal wasn't to create a world where no one had to work, nor is it the goal of socialists that I know today. In fact that's what many of them see themselves fighting against now: the few living easy lives off of the work of the many while the many kill each other to survive on the scraps.

I would never qualify "socialism" as the cause of the horrors that the Soviet Union inflicted upon its citizens and nor would most American socialists who are mostly ardently anti-Stalin.

Just as there are idiots that think that capitalism will be any less oppressive to the Chinese people than communism has been with the same regime in power are just as naive as those few groups of Left groups that like to pretend that any socialist government is above reproach, some even apologizing for Stalin.

I haven't however seen any positive aspect of fascism, which essentially encourages us to be little more than cheerleaders for our great leader while having no voice other than to clap and whistle for the party in power. Any dissent is weakness. Any disagreement will hurt our great nation. It's total subjugation to the state in exchange for a pat on the back and efficiency. It's the merger of state and corporate power in a sort of nationalistic mercantalism. They build whatever the state wants and the state protects their monopolies. Any voice for change or criticism is trading in for flag waving and brassy jingoistic athems and really cool uniforms.

Though not a socialist myself, I've seen positive uses of socialism in a mixed economy (universal healthcare, social security, public education), but I've yet to see even a dab of fascism amount to anything good.

[Wesley Dodds]

I think capitalism is better than communism as it rewards human virtues, effort and sucsess. Communism -at it's most base level- limits these rewards, and places the creative enterprise of the individual in the hands of the state.

But surely the work a person does for themselves is more rewarding than the work someone does for the pay of others? Surely it places the creative enterprise of the individual in the hands of the employer?

Then, anarchism is better than capitalism because it rewards the human virtues of effort and success -- which capitalism limits.

[Mike Smith]

Socialism as a base set for communism is actually pretty ideal, it's just that people aren't that nice and it will never work. Then there are leaders who can really make a mess of things within the system of limits which is another weakness. It idealism though this government type is ideal, but in application I don't think practical for extended periods of time.

In my book the NAZI party was created to for a means to an end and was designed to cause seated power, exploit groups, and build upon a main group under an absolute ruler. It's not good unless your desire is to destroy or scapegoat other cultures at the expense of solidifying a sense of unity and serving a common ruler.

[Royal]

That's clever.
I think capitalism is better than communism as it rewards human virtues, effort and sucsess. Communism -at it's most base level- limits these rewards, and places the creative enterprise of the individual in the hands of the state.

Yet it's easier to open another MacDonalds then it is to start your own food venture.

[Adam Crocker]

China and the former Soviet Union, the most famous examples of an attempt at this, didn't actually have a working class. They were poor agrarian peasant farm communities, so the leaders of their revolutions (Mao and Lenin, respectively) took the "vanguard" approach. That they would rule and educate people how to be working people and then give over their power to the people when they were ready.

Well it's also worth noting that many of the countires where Marxist dictatorships sprang up also had a strong history of autocracy themselves. Stalin for example based his cult of personality on that of the Tsars. However, the fundamental problem wasn't a lack of a working class so much as a civil society with the necessary political experience and democratic values to foster change.

I do believe that Lenin's heart was in the right place and I honestly have no idea how things might have been differently had he not died so soon afterwords and a totalitarian butcher like Josef Stalin taken power and given us the sort of one party country where inconvenient people disappeared and your rights were whatever your leader told you they were.

His heart in the right place? How much have you read on Lenin and the Soviet state from November 1917 (when the Bolsheviks took power by a coup) and into and through the Russian Civil War? While Stalin outstripped Lenin in degree, Lenin pretty much set up the all the apparatus' of the authoritarian soviet system including the political police (which were eventually named the KGB in the fifties), the use of terror and torture to suppress political opponents, and even protected this apparatus of terror from having its powers dimininished by outrage from within the communist party over its tactics. There are even telegrams of him harrying subordinates to be more efficient and shoot more spies.

That and at the end of it in 1921 he set up the policy of ideological unity among the party which created an environment that quashed dissent even within the party and set the stage for the ideological battles of the twenties that Stalin maneauvered through to get into power. I suppose he did believe that what he was doing was for the best, but you know what they say about the road to hell...


Also, communism is NOT the same as socialism.

Well that depends on how you look at it. In the 1918 meeting of the Third International Lenin drew a designation between "Communists" such as himself who favoured the revolution and "Socialists" meaning those socialist parties that had supported their respective nations wars in Europe and remained, fundamentally, gradualists who believed the change would come through gradual reform of the system. They pretty much ended becoming what are now known as social democrats, hence the association of "socialism" with the more moderate, parliamentary strain of left-wing politics.

However, another perspective is that Communism (at least as it is defined these days, though a more accurate term is Leninism) is merely an extreme, authoritarian strain of Socialism. If look back at the history of the development of what we define as the political left in reaction to the pitfalls of industrialization and the development of the market economy socialism applied to any number of contradictory political tendencies from Marxism with its interest in siezing state power to anarchism. I've heard modern commentators use the term for a similar range of political tendencies.

Of course the confusion isn't helped by the fact that even though Lenin used "socialists" to designate those not revolutionary enough for his tastes, Marxist ideology designated "socialism" as the period of transition between capitalism and communism in which the state controls the economy for the purposes of capital accumulation.

[Paul McEnery]

Everyone is wrong.

Yes, even DJ Whatzisface for even engaging in this (but not Ed for ridiculing it).

1) Mike is wrong. There isn't a real difference between socialism and communism. Socialists have made the distinction because Stalin made communism be a bad word. Marx didn't.

2) The point of Nazism -- well, it does what it says on the tin. Same as Stalin: National Socialism. Mad contradiction in terms. One or the other. Unless, of course, you're a cynical bastard who wants to enroll the disenfranchised working class in a simplistic solution that won't help them, but will gain you power.

Extra bonus points for everyone who spots that Rush, Hannity, Murdoch and the rest of them are Nazi scum.

3)\Yep I used "Bait and Switch," newver heard of that phrasew before nor did I knoew it had a phrase, but rest assured if I feel well enougth for work in the morning I shall use it in atleast oone conversation.
Typing slower is your friend.

4)It's based on the fact that all humans are incompetant sheep who don't know what's best for them, and that must be fed by the same hand though.
You're a Protestant Christian. So some shutting up on this point might be indicated.

5) That's clever.
I think capitalism is better than communism as it rewards human virtues, effort and sucsess. Communism -at it's most base level- limits these rewards, and places the creative enterprise of the individual in the hands of the state.
Er, no.

5A) Capitalism doesn't exist. There is no ideology. Nada. Nothing. It doesn't reward jack shit, because, well, there is no capitalism.

But while we're at it:

5B) In its ideal Marxian state, Communism rewards each according to his needs, and demands from each according to his abilities.

From my experience in corporate offices -- by God, that's at least no less than an improvement.

6) Socialism as a base set for communism is actually pretty ideal, it's just that people aren't that nice and it will never work.
Oh look, someone else who thinks that socialism is an ideology, and not a prescription for economic organization.

7) His heart in the right place? How much have you read on Lenin and the Soviet state from November 1917 (when the Bolsheviks took power by a coup) and into and through the Russian Civil War? While Stalin outstripped Lenin in degree, Lenin pretty much set up the all the apparatus' of the authoritarian soviet system including the political police (which were eventually named the KGB in the fifties), the use of terror and torture to suppress political opponents, and even protected this apparatus of terror from having its powers dimininished by outrage from within the communist party over its tactics. There are even telegrams of him harrying subordinates to be more efficient and shoot more spies.

That and at the end of it in 1921 he set up the policy of ideological unity among the party which created an environment that quashed dissent even within the party and set the stage for the ideological battles of the twenties that Stalin maneauvered through to get into power. I suppose he did believe that what he was doing was for the best, but you know what they say about the road to hell...
accumulation.
Er...

Not that I'm going to leap to comrade Lenin's defence; for a start, he was ready to get a lot of people killed to get the job done, and I'm not down with that.

But, real money, from 1918-21, he was at war with England, France, and the US, plus the local insurgency.

This doesn't lead to liberal policies.

T

[Tages]

Um, communism is no more evil than capitalism.
No, voluntary communism is no more evil than capitalism. State communism is evil incarnate.

[Tages]

His heart in the right place? How much have you read on Lenin and the Soviet state from November 1917 (when the Bolsheviks took power by a coup) and into and through the Russian Civil War? While Stalin outstripped Lenin in degree, Lenin pretty much set up the all the apparatus' of the authoritarian soviet system including the political police (which were eventually named the KGB in the fifties), the use of terror and torture to suppress political opponents, and even protected this apparatus of terror from having its powers dimininished by outrage from within the communist party over its tactics. There are even telegrams of him harrying subordinates to be more efficient and shoot more spies.
He was also responsible for starting the gulag system. Stalin took what was already there and perfected it.

[Wesley Dodds]

He was also responsible for starting the gulag system. Stalin took what was already there and perfected it.

Yep. There's a bit in Solzhenitsyn's First Circle where the hero, sent to the gulag by Stalin, exclaims "Lenin would never have done this!" And some of the prisoners tell him, "Who do you think sent us here?!"

[Wesley Dodds]

State communism is evil incarnate.

But, tages, you think state anything is evil incarnate. You'd think state puppies were evil incarnate.

[BlairH]

Yet it's easier to open another MacDonalds then it is to start your own food venture.
But not potentially as financially rearding. The riskier projects command greater renumeration.

[Tages]

But, tages, you think state anything is evil incarnate. You'd think state puppies were evil incarnate.
So they've gotten to you too, eh?

[cactusmaac]

Now I have peoples attention, how is it that communists are tolerated and Nazis aren't. It seems communists are tolerated and no one bats an eyelifd if some one is a commie and yet the opposite ids true for Naziscum. At the end of the day both groups are both scum following the politics of the two groups responsible for vast amounts of human suffetring and death in the 20th Century.

he West never directly went to war with the USSR, unlike Germany.

[Paul McEnery]

he West never directly went to war with the USSR, unlike Germany.
Not exactly true.

The US, UK, and France all sent troops to back the White rebellion in 1918-21.

[StoneGold]

And like I said earlier, everyone's got a little bit of genocide in their closet they try to hide...


http://www.kathybassett.com/images/photo_album/trail_of_tears.jpg

[Mike Smith]

Everyone is wrong.


Edited due to circumstances.

[cactusmaac]

Not exactly true.

The US, UK, and France all sent troops to back the White rebellion in 1918-21.

I'd forgotten that.

However that didn't stick long in the Western public's memory.

[BlairH]

But, tages, you think state anything is evil incarnate. You'd think state puppies were evil incarnate.

State most things are at best, dubious. At worst, evil.
A Government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you!

[Royal]

But not potentially as financially rearding. The riskier projects command greater renumeration.

Name me one food venture in the last ten years that has got somewhat as big as McDonald's nationally?

You're more then likely go bankrupt before your first year due to high commercial property values (thanks to the food/retail lobby), trying to keep food up to quality (meat & potato farms turning into conglomerates & owning exclusive deals to fast food), Copyright fees (again, raised by the food/retail lobby as well as entertainment) & even quality of life issues (reduction of price to bring in profit also brings down quality of food &/or service & work ethic). Where as owning a franchise cancels all that out & has you more or less a janitor for big buisness.

The fast food complex rigged the game to the point where no one can join in.

[StoneGold]

Name me one food venture in the last ten years that has got somewhat as big as McDonald's nationally?

You're more then likely go bankrupt before your first year due to high commercial property values (thanks to the food/retail lobby), trying to keep food up to quality (meat & potato farms turning into conglomerates & owning exclusive deals to fast food), Copyright fees (again, raised by the food/retail lobby as well as entertainment) & even quality of life issues (reduction of price to bring in profit also brings down quality of food &/or service & work ethic). Where as owning a franchise cancels all that out & has you more or less a janitor for big buisness.

The fast food complex rigged the game to the point where no one can join in.
Which is the flaw in Blair's little pocket theory of capitalism, in that if you start out with cash, you can be as incompetant as you want to be. Unless someone thinks she deserves rewards...

http://us.tv1.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/fox/teen_choice_awards_red_carpet_photos/paris_hilton/teenchoiced.jpg

[BlairH]

Which is the flaw in Blair's little pocket theory of capitalism, in that if you start out with cash, you can be as incompetant as you want to be. Unless someone thinks she deserves rewards...

http://us.tv1.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/fox/teen_choice_awards_red_carpet_photos/paris_hilton/teenchoiced.jpg
The people keep throwing her money. If anything, it's her fans that need to be punished. Anybody that can gain such a following despite being such a ridiculous sow deserves to be rewarded imo. (damning with faint praise)

[RickThunderclees]

Dunno if this was mentioned yet, but it is a known fact that Socialism and Communism are very different from one another. Didn't know if you meant socialism when you said communism, or vice versa.

[Adam Crocker]

Dunno if this was mentioned yet, but it is a known fact that Socialism and Communism are very different from one another. Didn't know if you meant socialism when you said communism, or vice versa.

It was a few times. And then myself and later Paul McEnery argued against the point. Not only is the historical reality more complex, but the it really boils down to how people use the words.

[RickThunderclees]

It was a few times. And then myself and later Paul McEnery argued against the point. Not only is the historical reality more complex, but the it really boils down to how people use the words.
Or how they interpret things. Regardless of what people say, words CAN be interpreted wrong fairly easily. Sometimes it's pretty simple logic.

No offense to any particular CBR person, or the creator of this thread. But as soon as I saw the thread's title, I couldn't help but think of paranoid, gun-totin', the-terrorists-are-gonna-invade-us militia-men.

It's just funny how people think that the government is going to get "too big" and run our lives. It's our responsibility as a society to say "fug it" and take over if we have to. I think most people that are right wing can identify with Lockean theory.

[StoneGold]

The people keep throwing her money. If anything, it's her fans that need to be punished. Anybody that can gain such a following despite being such a ridiculous sow deserves to be rewarded imo. (damning with faint praise)
Just one example of an unworthy douchebag failing upwards because the family's got cash. I could display some others... although I guess I technically already am.

[warspite1805]

Which is the flaw in Blair's little pocket theory of capitalism, in that if you start out with cash, you can be as incompetant as you want to be. Unless someone thinks she deserves rewards...

http://us.tv1.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/fox/teen_choice_awards_red_carpet_photos/paris_hilton/teenchoiced.jpg
No talents like her, Jordan and Victoria Beckham are what is wrong with the world today. They need to be purged from the Earth by fire and the sword.

[StoneGold]

No talents like her, Jordan and Victoria Beckham are what is wrong with the world today. They need to be purged from the Earth by fire and the sword.
That would seem to be a rather anti-capitalist statement. She's just a girl making a buck. So why you gotta be hatin'?

[Adam Crocker]

Or how they interpret things. Regardless of what people say, words CAN be interpreted wrong fairly easily. Sometimes it's pretty simple logic.

It has less to do with interpretation so much as meanings that get attached to these words at various points in history and the fact that these meanings have gained currency among common culture. Back in my long post on the third page, I covered this as a response to Gaz. I dealt somewhat with how socialism has been applied to numerous, contradictory political trends, past and present. I also touched on how the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' came to be viewed as entirely separate in the twentieth century. Still there are few things that are worth continuing...

The term 'Communism' is actually a good example of this. (Though I didn't go into it in my last post.) These days it's mostly been used to describe the command economies of Marxist dictatorships like those that existed in the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, Mao's China, etc. Yet when various socialist political movements were forming in the 19th century the term applied to a hypothetical mutualist society in which wealth was collectively shared according to people's needs and the means of production collectively owned and managed by its workers. It was quite different from the centralized, state run economies that arose in the places I mentioned. This applies to Marx's conception of communism as well, though he was vague as to what it would be like and even how it would get there.

In fact, one could say that what's called "Communism" these days is more accurately "Leninism," which is the authoritarian strain of Marxism that Lenin set up and was riffed by Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc. And really, that's just another form of Jacobinism.

The term's current association with state-run economies seems to come out of its association with the ruling parties in such regimes, which were all called Communist Parties after the party that Lenin led to power in Russia. As far as I am aware not even the regimes themselves called their systems "communism" for the most part. Instead they called it "socialism" since according to Marxist orthodoxy that was the transition stage between capitalist society and communist society. (And they need a handy ideological excuse for why their countries are authoritarian shitholes that go against the very ideas of working class liberation they claimed to be espousing.)

[cactusmaac]

Name me one food venture in the last ten years that has got somewhat as big as McDonald's nationally?


Huh?

Pizza Hut. Subway. Burger King. Taco Bell. Starbucks.

[Adam Crocker]

Not that I'm going to leap to comrade Lenin's defence; for a start, he was ready to get a lot of people killed to get the job done, and I'm not down with that.

But, real money, from 1918-21, he was at war with England, France, and the US, plus the local insurgency.

This doesn't lead to liberal policies.

I've been aware of that, well since third year university at least. The situation in Russia was such that they weren't going to have anything, but a dictatorship. Still when someone brings up the ole' "Lenin had his heart in the right place, maybe it would have gone better..." I think it's worth handily reminding people of what his tenure was actually like.

(And I still can't figure out the engaging remark, so I'm just going to let it lie.)

[StoneGold]

Huh?

Pizza Hut. Subway. Burger King. Taco Bell. Starbucks.
While McDonald's market share has actually shrunk considerably. That said, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell are the same thing. Burger King is actually a bad example, as it is shrinking too. But then you've got massively expanding stuff like Quiznos, Krispy Kreme (which seems to be working through it's corporate problems), Chipotle (although I guess McDonalds owns them), etc.

[Tages]

I've been aware of that, well since third year university at least. The situation in Russia was such that they weren't going to have anything, but a dictatorship. Still when someone brings up the ole' "Lenin had his heart in the right place, maybe it would have gone better..." I think it's worth handily reminding people of what his tenure was actually like.
Well, imagine that there's an election and the only two options available for head-of-state are Hitler and Pinochet. One looks so much better by comparison that it's easy to forget his own dirty deeds.

[Jeff Brady]

4) You're a Protestant Christian. So some shutting up on this point might be indicated.

Probably the funniest thing on this thread.

Didn't anyone learn from Clue? Communism is just a red herring.