Communists are not a monolithic group. Some long for the revival of the old Soviet Union, others see the old Soviet Union as a contradiction with socialism. And then look at the leaders of the Soviet Union. Khruschev was a moderate who thought Castro was crazy when Castro urged the U.S.S.R. to launch a missile attack against the U.S. In addition, Khruschev didn't want an arms race because he knew his country could not keep up.
And then you have the reformer Gorbachev. He wanted to model a new Russia after Sweeden. He was forced out by international pressure that said Russia could never secure loans under him and his program. So Yeltsin started the Russian "democracy" with western loans on the condition that they institute neoliberalism--vast reduction in regulations on businesses. The economy failed and to keep the neoliberal reforms, Yeltsin dissolved the new democracy order tanks to fire at the Parliament building all with U.S. support.
So not all communists are the same and thus to blame all of them for the sins of some significant leaders is not right.
That's a good point, Curt. I accept what you've said.
Since I don't have a lot of time, I'll just quickly add without going into much detail that not all fascists are the same either. Not all fascists are a monolithic group. Hitler was different than Mussolini who was different from Tojo who was different from Franco who was different from Peron who was different...well, you get the picture. Indeed, a fascist like Franco was able to work comparatively well with liberal democracies. Also, Peron could arguably be said to have had fascist tendencies rather than to have been a decided fascist.
Modern neo-fascism is likewise a diverse movement with varied emphases. Many neo-fascists would highlight ways in which they differ from say Hitler's Nazism.
Not to mention many fascists did a lot of good. For example, Hitler helped significantly reduce then high unemployment rates, generally improved German agriculture and industry, built a large transportation infrastructure (e.g. autobahns), innovated new technologies (e.g. Volkswagen, rocketry), made cultural contributions (e.g. in film, music, fashion), promoted public health (e.g. anti-smoking in a time when tobacco and cancer weren't commonly known to be associated), made medical discoveries which the Allies later built upon (e.g. hypothermia), etc. In addition, it's been said Mussolini made the trains run on time. I'm sure there are many other examples.
Anyway, just like you said, "not all communists are the same and thus to blame all of them for the sins of some significant leaders is not right," so too not all fascists are the same and thus to blame all of them for the sins of some significant leaders is not right either. Instead I prefer to say each person whether communist or fascist or otherwise is to blame for his or her own sins.
Ugh, Curt, yeah, not all communists are the same. True. But you keep naming individual names. That's part of the problem. Can you see that?
Why should people have to worry about the "luck of the draw" whether they have a good Communist or a bad Communist at the helm?
That is the genius of the US Constitution. Government is here to protect our inalienable rights, not to usurp them.
What guarantee can you give that "Oh, no, trust me, this time if you allow a Communist Government, it'll be different, I PROMISE!" How do I know that you're not just another useful idiot or a stooge who doesn't really care about what's best for people?
I shouldn't be compelled to make that choice in the first place. If you claim to be Christian, then please, on basic moral principles, justify what give a secular government the moral authority to usurp the freedoms and property of the citizens who live in a Constitutional republic such as this one?
Why should we follow your plea to submit to some sort of slavery to a system that will not even solve the problems you think it will solve?
Please tell me you are not such a True Believer that you will follow Communism even if it can be demonstrated that it will not solve the problems that you so desperately want solved.
Please tell me you don't desire Communism to take away your freedom so you can stop feeling guilty about not having done enough. If you feel that way, you can join a monastery, but you have no moral authority to impose that on other people. I'd just like to understand where you are coming from. I don't get the fanatical adherance that people on the left has, primarily because it defies reason.
To C. Andiron, It is the same for Capitalism. The real issue is not capitalism vs communism, it is elite-centered gov't vs non elite-centered gov't. And you can have elite-centered gov't in both communism and capitalism. But also realize that there are a variety of other governments besides the ones just mentioned. And also realize that Capitalism has never thrived without relying on exploitation.
What do I desire? I desire a combination of nonviolent anarchism and socialism.
Communists are not a monolithic group. Some long for the revival of the old Soviet Union, others see the old Soviet Union as a contradiction with socialism. And then look at the leaders of the Soviet Union. Khruschev was a moderate who thought Castro was crazy when Castro urged the U.S.S.R. to launch a missile attack against the U.S. In addition, Khruschev didn't want an arms race because he knew his country could not keep up.
ReplyDeleteAnd then you have the reformer Gorbachev. He wanted to model a new Russia after Sweeden. He was forced out by international pressure that said Russia could never secure loans under him and his program. So Yeltsin started the Russian "democracy" with western loans on the condition that they institute neoliberalism--vast reduction in regulations on businesses. The economy failed and to keep the neoliberal reforms, Yeltsin dissolved the new democracy order tanks to fire at the Parliament building all with U.S. support.
So not all communists are the same and thus to blame all of them for the sins of some significant leaders is not right.
That's a good point, Curt. I accept what you've said.
DeleteSince I don't have a lot of time, I'll just quickly add without going into much detail that not all fascists are the same either. Not all fascists are a monolithic group. Hitler was different than Mussolini who was different from Tojo who was different from Franco who was different from Peron who was different...well, you get the picture. Indeed, a fascist like Franco was able to work comparatively well with liberal democracies. Also, Peron could arguably be said to have had fascist tendencies rather than to have been a decided fascist.
Modern neo-fascism is likewise a diverse movement with varied emphases. Many neo-fascists would highlight ways in which they differ from say Hitler's Nazism.
Not to mention many fascists did a lot of good. For example, Hitler helped significantly reduce then high unemployment rates, generally improved German agriculture and industry, built a large transportation infrastructure (e.g. autobahns), innovated new technologies (e.g. Volkswagen, rocketry), made cultural contributions (e.g. in film, music, fashion), promoted public health (e.g. anti-smoking in a time when tobacco and cancer weren't commonly known to be associated), made medical discoveries which the Allies later built upon (e.g. hypothermia), etc. In addition, it's been said Mussolini made the trains run on time. I'm sure there are many other examples.
Anyway, just like you said, "not all communists are the same and thus to blame all of them for the sins of some significant leaders is not right," so too not all fascists are the same and thus to blame all of them for the sins of some significant leaders is not right either. Instead I prefer to say each person whether communist or fascist or otherwise is to blame for his or her own sins.
Ugh, Curt, yeah, not all communists are the same. True. But you keep naming individual names. That's part of the problem. Can you see that?
DeleteWhy should people have to worry about the "luck of the draw" whether they have a good Communist or a bad Communist at the helm?
That is the genius of the US Constitution. Government is here to protect our inalienable rights, not to usurp them.
What guarantee can you give that "Oh, no, trust me, this time if you allow a Communist Government, it'll be different, I PROMISE!" How do I know that you're not just another useful idiot or a stooge who doesn't really care about what's best for people?
I shouldn't be compelled to make that choice in the first place. If you claim to be Christian, then please, on basic moral principles, justify what give a secular government the moral authority to usurp the freedoms and property of the citizens who live in a Constitutional republic such as this one?
Why should we follow your plea to submit to some sort of slavery to a system that will not even solve the problems you think it will solve?
Please tell me you are not such a True Believer that you will follow Communism even if it can be demonstrated that it will not solve the problems that you so desperately want solved.
Please tell me you don't desire Communism to take away your freedom so you can stop feeling guilty about not having done enough. If you feel that way, you can join a monastery, but you have no moral authority to impose that on other people. I'd just like to understand where you are coming from. I don't get the fanatical adherance that people on the left has, primarily because it defies reason.
"adherence" duh.
DeleteWell said, Curt and Patrick.
ReplyDeleteTo C. Andiron,
ReplyDeleteIt is the same for Capitalism. The real issue is not capitalism vs communism, it is elite-centered gov't vs non elite-centered gov't. And you can have elite-centered gov't in both communism and capitalism. But also realize that there are a variety of other governments besides the ones just mentioned. And also realize that Capitalism has never thrived without relying on exploitation.
What do I desire? I desire a combination of nonviolent anarchism and socialism.