Is there any good reason for anyone on the left to denounce "Communism" anymore?

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
M. Spector M. Spector's picture

And assuming that you can come up with another word for socialism, how long do you think it will take for people to figure out that it's just a change in terminology?

Left wing politics cannot be reduced to a cheap marketing strategy.

WillC

The word some here have proposed to use is "communist."   I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "socialist."  If we are going to be democratic, we do need what you refer to as a marketing strategy.  I don't think it's 'cheap' to advocate good policies, and then call yourself by a name that gives you some chance of implementing those policies.  

The left isn't totally composed of Marxists.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

"Left" is actually a very misleading term. (Democrats in the context of US politics are "left" to use one rather obvious example.) There are those for capitalism, those for socialism, and those for some other alternative social system or mode of production. The Marxists are one group, albeit a very important one, of those for socialism.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

WillC wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "socialist."

WillC at #14 wrote:

If the term socialist has been tainted by the sellouts, surely the left has enough inventiveness to think of another term, one that won't cause 95% of the population to withdraw in derision.

Excuse me for thinking that the latter statement implied that "socialist" was an outdated term.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

He's not completely wrong. The political right has all sorts of "dog whistle" expressions, like dog whistle racism, in which they are able to "call" on like-minded people without using their odious racist terms and ideas directly.

There's no reason why advocates of socialism cannot do something similar, as long as it's understood that SOMEONE has to advocate socialism directly and not through the use of "code words".

ETA: Furthermore, this is a practical issue. When the socialist left in this country has been strong, they have been banned and made illegal. Code words become essential in such a context. In other countries, the churches can become involved (e.g., the role of Bishop Tutu in South Africa when the ANC and other political organizations were banned, etc.) and raise concepts and issues that would otherwise be ... silenced.

WillC

M. Spector wrote:

WillC wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "socialist."

WillC at #14 wrote:

If the term socialist has been tainted by the sellouts, surely the left has enough inventiveness to think of another term, one that won't cause 95% of the population to withdraw in derision.

Excuse me for thinking that the latter statement implied that "socialist" was an outdated term.

Here we seem to disagree about the meaning of the word, "if." I used it because I believe that some of the advocates of  policies for the working class here, have stated that they hate to call themselves "socialists" because of the actions of the Greek, French etc.  parties calling themselves by that name. (those are the sellouts I referred to in my post quoted above.)   As some guy said, "a rose is a rose."   Just because they have misused the name doesn't make them socialists.

On rereading the part you have quoted, though, I realize that my writing was unclear. The term that causes 95% of the population to withdraw in derision is "communist."  "Socialist" maybe only 10%.

I don't know who well this fits into marxist theory, but the battle now seems to be forming between oligopolistic corporations, and their super rich supporters with people fooled by the corporate press, against groups of ordinary people (or working class people if you prefer).  Anti-corporate doesn't sound like a term that has much resonance, so to me democratic socialist is what I will use.

 

Ken Burch

Actuall, there's an idea right in front of us presented by a new movement that's recently emerged in various countries:  the term

 

REAL DEMOCRACY

This would mean democratic decision-making about all common decisions.  The word "democracy" has no real serious baggage attached to it, and could easily be expanded beyound the narrow bourgeois(and false)meaning of a mere parliamentary sideshow.

This would also have the enjoyable effect of forcing the Obama, Harper, et.al., to have to campaign against "the global democratic threat", provoke demands for the firing of "pro-democracy" professors at North American universities, and possibly lead to the creation(in the States) of a House Really Democratic Activities Committee.

WillC

Thanks, Ken. That term does seem to have resonance.   Like every every term there may be those who have different interpretations from anarchist, through proportional voting  to finally sinking to pro corporate right-wing libertarianism.  The only web site a quick google can find, is this one:

http://realdemocracynow.net/ 

It seems to have a good anti-corporate approach.  There seems to be a strong real democracy movement in Spain, where they have a  'socialist' government of dubious value.

WillC

For some reason, when you click on the link posted above, you have to then click on the "home" button.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

REAL DEMOCRACY

This would mean democratic decision-making about all common decisions.  The word "democracy" has no real serious baggage attached to it, and could easily be expanded beyound the narrow bourgeois(and false)meaning of a mere parliamentary sideshow.

While that sounds like a great idea I think the logistics of that is next to impossible; how could approximately 350 million Americans be directly involved in democratic decision-making about all common decisions needed to run the country without creating a massive goat fuck where in the end nothing gets done? It would take 5 years to make one decision and then they still wouldn't agree on the color of an orange.

Log in on the internet to vote? Mail your votes in? Phone it in? How could you safe guard a system like that from fraud?

Jacob Richter

WillC wrote:
The word some here have proposed to use is "communist."   I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "socialist."  If we are going to be democratic, we do need what you refer to as a marketing strategy.  I don't think it's 'cheap' to advocate good policies, and then call yourself by a name that gives you some chance of implementing those policies.  

The left isn't totally composed of Marxists.

You apparently haven't heard of those for participatory economics (parecon) who have recently re-labelled themselves Participatory Socialists.  They've seen through the parliamentary cretinism that is paraded today as "democratic socialism."

Jacob Richter

M. Spector wrote:
And assuming that you can come up with another word for socialism, how long do you think it will take for people to figure out that it's just a change in terminology?

Left wing politics cannot be reduced to a cheap marketing strategy.

Proletocracy and Social Proletocracy aren't mere "cheap marketing strategy" because the revolutionary Marxism is obvious.  For decades, the left has focused too much on agitation at the expense of education and institutional organization (and other forms of organization), and within agitation has chosen the wrong forms (cheap sloganeering instead of "marketing" approaches).

Jacob Richter

There are plenty of reasons to denounce communisms and socialisms of the petit-bourgeois or managerial variety.

There are plenty of reasons to denounce communisms and socialisms of the manual labour (mislabelled "industrial proletariat" or "industrial working class") variety.

There are plenty of reasons to advance communisms and socialisms of the worker-class, workforce, precariat, and proletarian or proletocratic varieties - but they need more appropriate labels and theoretical rediscovery.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Capitalism may be brilliantly effective at the marketing and advertising associated with selling a product and inculcating shallow, consumerist values but it is still the content of socialist and alternative ideas that are the trump card over such shallow and spiritually impoverished values.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, authors of many books including the justly famous Manufacturing Consent, drew attention to the "usefulness" of anti-communism in propaganda beneficial to elites in capitalist countries like Canada and the US.

Quote:
In their propaganda model, Herman and Chomsky present a series of five "filters" to account for why the dominant U.S. media invariably serve as propagandists for the interests of the elite.... The final filter is the ideology of anticommunism, which is integral to Western political culture and provides the ideological oxygen which makes the propaganda model operate so vigorously. Anticommunism has been ingrained into acceptable Journalistic practices in the United States, to the point that even in periods of "detente" it is fully appropriate and expected for journalists to frame issues in terms of "our side" versus the communist "bad guys."

Furthermore, anticommunist ideology is essential to making the double standard of the propaganda model work effectively. As the authors note, "when anticommunist fervor is aroused, the demand for serious evidence in support for claims of 'communist' abuses is suspended by the media , and charlatans can thrive as evidential sources" (p. 25). Conversely, for journalists or editors to challenge the anticommunist doctrine as well as pass through the other four filters, they "must meet far higher standards; in fact standards are often imposed that can barely be met in the natural sciences" (p. 291).

 

The Political Economy of the Mass Media - interview of Edward Herman by Robert McChesney

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

That is still true but another label has been added.  Gaddafi is not attacked for being a socialist but for being a backer of terrorists.  Iran, Syria and Libya have been the subject of that pejorative terminology for at least a decade.  I think the terrorist supporter moniker has largely replaced the communist boogie man in our media when it comes to manufacturing consent for imperialist action against countries. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Yea, I would agree that anti-communism is a less used but still useful ideology for "western elites" and still a key part of Western political propaganda and political culture. Just look at the anti-communist rhetoric, and laws, etc., in the EU with the links I've provided upthread.

Erik Redburn

To "denounce" anything unless coerced to do so is just plain stupid.  The word "denounce" always has a McCarthyite and Stalinist ring to it, with roots all the way back to the post-medieval witch hunts.   It's the moral coward's way of drawing attention away from themselves by pointing fingers at others, innocent or not.  

OTOH, to flatly reject certain terms and their associated ideologies and history of failure and betrayal is not only politically wise but necessary, and IMV perfectly fair.   The word communism, like it or not, has about as much chance of being restored as the old Swastika symbol does, and the fault lies just as much with those who defended the ugly old Soviet and Maoist regimes till the bitter end, as those who used it as a bludgeon to attack anything that challenged the dominance of western "capitalist" ideology.   The difference between communism and democratic socialism is just that, the belief in democracy, however flawed or limited it too may be in practice, and regardless of whether it always works to the left's advantage.  Until democratic socialists insist on clarifying the difference, whenever it comes up, they too will always fall victim to this ideological club, and the vast majority in more economically comfortable and open societies will always reject them as well.   

Erik Redburn

ikosmos wrote:

The Greek CP leader expressed the view on behalf of her party that the Soviet version of socialism was undermined by the replacement of factory or workplace based electoral units by the typical geographical units we see in capitalist countries. (your quote: " Marx once wrote that the state should be subservient to the factory councils ... ") We see that the Cubans did not make this mistake; they still have workplace based electoral institutions. This conclusion, as you point out, comes from quoting one of the few predictions about socialism that Marx made. The problem and the solution don't need any help from a theoretician who thought that the urge to destroy was a creative one.

I can't agree, furthermore, when you trot out the usual twaddle about some inherent evil in people ("Human beings don't behave well when placed in positions of power over other people ... ") . If you oppose fundamental social change then just say so directly and without ascribing your own conservatism to some inherent quality of people in general. I don't see how such claims are any different from the conservative ones that claim that people are incapable of the kind of change  required of them in any fundamental social change. Yet revolutions happen and people, and the world, change forever.

We see in life, on the contrary, how valuable great public administrators can be. We see it on a smaller scale every time someone in charge of a big event does a good job. Perhaps they just haven't read enough anarchist theoreticians to know that what they're doing is doomed to failure?

 

Interesting that you insist on confusing the supposedly "great public administratoers" of Soviet and Maoist regimes, with the ability of the average worker to rise above their circumstances.

Erik Redburn

M. Spector wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

Communism was blamed for revolutionary regimes who chose to subvert its principles in order to maintain the same totalitarian regimes they claimed to overthrow.

Stalin's regime bore some superficial resemblance to Tsarist capitalism, but it was an entirely different animal.

Quote:
...Marx's communism was just a theory of what might occur after capitalism reached its maximum expansion and exploded like a balloon filled with too much air.

Marx's communism was not just a theory of what might occur after capitalism reached its maximum expansion. There was never any suggestion in Marx that socialists had to wait for capitalism to reach any kind of maximum before a revolution could occur; if there had been, it would have been obviously disproven by the revolution that occurred in the capitalist backwater of Russia.

Nor was communism a blueprint for a future post-capitalist society. Marx and Engels wrote about capitalism - its historical origins, its economic basis, its class dynamics, its irreconcilable internal contradictions, its culture and ideology, and its ecological destructiveness, but they did not seek to prescribe in any but the most general outlines what post-capitalist society would be like. It was not a matter of Stalin's failing to follow a script written by Marx, as there was none. Each revolution must write its own script.

 

Which only begs the question why most communists still insist on asserting their particular models of "socialist" government as the only viable alternative to "capitalist" ones...

Erik Redburn

Sven wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

And China isn't in any sense communist or socialist anymore, so I don't understand why you brought them into this debate.  They're simply a free-market police state now.

Indeed.  China has morphed from a Communist police state to a free-market police state.  Although it's continued police-state status is abhorrent, China's dramatic shift towards a more free-market-based economy has resulted in a massive economic boom for that country, which has raised tens of millions of people out of the abject poverty they were wallowing in prior to that economic shift.

 

Um, China has progressed economically only because western corporations have moved most of our industrial sector over to China.  And for every new Chinese millionaire created dozens of others have gone from humble and limited means to dire poverty and hopelessness.  In the end their supposed economic "miracle" won't last either, unless they start democratizing themselves and paying their own factory workers enough to buy their own products.   Or the West starts shutting the door again to their artifically cheap and often shoddy exports and rebuilding our own industrial sector again.   I'm amazed that a self described libertarian like yourself is willing to close your eyes to the totalitarian nature of their government, just because a few more dollar$ are being printed off-shore.   It's the worst of both worlds, something we too are devolving towards.   There's really no good reason to assume that so-called capitalism will lead inevitably to democracy and freedom anymore than so-called socialism would.   I say so-called because neither reality fits the strict pedantic definitions very well.

Jacob Richter

Erik Redburn wrote:
The difference between communism and democratic socialism is just that, the belief in democracy, however flawed or limited it too may be in practice, and regardless of whether it always works to the left's advantage.  Until democratic socialists insist on clarifying the difference, whenever it comes up, they too will always fall victim to this ideological club, and the vast majority in more economically comfortable and open societies will always reject them as well.

"Democratic socialists" need to clarify the "democratic" part before they start re-attacking those further left.  As far as I'm concerned, today's "democratic socialism" is better called parliamentary socialism.  Parliamentary socialism is a rotten corpse.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

ikosmos wrote:

Yea, I would agree that anti-communism is a less used but still useful ideology for "western elites" and still a key part of Western political propaganda and political culture. Just look at the anti-communist rhetoric, and laws, etc., in the EU with the links I've provided upthread.

Yes the anti-communist rhetoric is still embedded in the MSM.  I think that you can tell who the elite fear by the intensity of the vilification. The anti-anarchist propaganda in Canada has been intense for years now.  Montreal's new police state squad aimed at sidelining them will not be opposed by most Canadians because the consent to persecute them has already been created.  Many of the G8/20 organizers were harassed long before the event itself for merely planning demonstrations.  Almost all the coverage referred to anarchist groups not communist no matter what the political ideology of the people actually involved.  

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

What that says to me is that communists and anarchists may have more in common than they themselves believe. Interesting.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Erik Redburn wrote:
Interesting that you insist on confusing the supposedly "great public administratoers" of Soviet and Maoist regimes, with the ability of the average worker to rise above their circumstances.

I don't see how you're reading that. People who do a good job organizing large and complicated events successfully should be complimented. That's it. It's a worthy and admirable skill. How is that idolatry of anything??

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Erik Redburn wrote:

Which only begs the question why most communists still insist on asserting their particular models of "socialist" government as the only viable alternative to "capitalist" ones...

It doesn't "beg" that question at all.

In the first place, very few communist sects have elaborated models or blueprints of what a future post-capitalist society would/must be like. The lessons of China, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere are not entirely lost on them, even if they do not all agree on what those lessons are. I therefore challenge your assertion that "most communists" claim to have have "models" that they claim are the "only viable" alternative.

Secondly, any that do make such claims do not invoke the writings of Marx and Engels to support them in anything other than broad outlines - because they can't.

In the third place, the fact that Marx didn't lay out a blueprint explains rather than begs (or more correctly, "raises") the question you pose. Because every socialist and communist is free to devise their own scenarios for post-capitalist society without fear of contradiction (except on the broadest principles) by Marx and Engels, the few that are foolhardy enough to try to devise such scenarios are able to convince themselves and possibly others that their scenario is the correct one.

In fact there are no one-size-fits-all scenarios. A post-capitalist society in Canada would look very different from a post-capitalist society in Nigeria - at least during the initial transitional stages that would last for generations. We don't need blueprints, models, or scenarios for the future society; what we need are democracy, an informed and empowered citizenry, a responsive and accountable leadership, and a widespread appreciation for the lessons of history. And we have to make sure that capitalism is not allowed even a toehold that would permit it to return.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Anti-communism is alive and well in Norway. Casualties: how about OVER 91 killed in a deliberate and planned slaughter by a right wing Christian fundamentalist?

 

Slaughter at labour retreat in Norway.

 

It's noteworthy that the CBC here in Canada has very carefully AVOIDED mentioning what sort of "getaway" the island was, and the right wing "credentials" of the suspect, and so on. It's just another "senseless" act of violence according to the great "objective" source of news here in Canada.

ETA: the CBC has now changed the story and added some factual elements as I've noted above. I guess their Conservative masters allowed it.

 

WillC

ikosmos wrote:

Anti-communism is alive and well in Norway. Casualties: how about OVER 91 killed in a deliberate and planned slaughter by a right wing Christian fundamentalist? ...

I don't know much about the orientation of the Labour Party, but surely he was killing people who called themselves democratic socialists, the people who have been criticized throughout this thread.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

WillC wrote:

I don't know much about the orientation of the Labour Party, but surely he was killing people who called themselves democratic socialists, the people who have been criticized throughout this thread.

The fact that he is from the far right and killing democratic sociailsists makes DiNovos remarks even more odious.  

WillC

Northern Shoveler wrote:

The fact that he is from the far right and killing democratic sociailsists makes DiNovos remarks even more odious.  

I always think that brevity is the soul of wit, when I make my posts, but that is a bit too witty to understand.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

She could have been the target because she is NDP and she went right to Moslem bashing.  Is that clearer?  I find knee jerk Islamphobia to be odious.

WillC

Thanks

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

WillC wrote:
I don't know much about the orientation of the Labour Party, but surely he was killing people who called themselves democratic socialists, the people who have been criticized throughout this thread.

The socialist youth had to cancel their event on the island that was coming up because of the slaughter of the labour youth. If you think that you can split hairs on the left while fascists are killing and blowing up dozens of people then you're ignoring the lessons of the past when it comes to fascists. They will happily kill "democratic" socialists, "other" socialists, communists, anarchists, and anyone else on the left ... and boast about it afterwards as "necessary".  (quote: gruesome but necessary was the exact quote from the "alleged" murderer that is being brodcast indisciminately and uncritically)

WillC

You said in post #77. 

Quote:
Anti-communism is alive and well in Norway. Casualties: how about OVER 91 killed in a deliberate and planned slaughter by a right wing Christian fundamentalist?

which I considered inaccurate.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Yes, it was 92. My apologies.

WillC

However many it was,  they didn't call themselves communists.  I don't know why you have pretend they did.  In spite of the anger you show in your posts, I'm not going to waste my anger playing gotcha games with someone who supports the same general goals as I do, i.e. less power for the corporations and a more equitable distribution of wealth.   My anger is directed at the right wing.  

WillC

However many it was,  they didn't call themselves communists.  I don't know why you have to pretend they did.  In spite of the anger you show in your posts, I'm not going to waste my anger playing gotcha games with someone who supports the same general goals as I do, i.e. less power for the corporations and a more equitable distribution of wealth.   My anger is directed at the right wing.  

Erik Redburn

ikosmos wrote:

WillC wrote:
I don't know much about the orientation of the Labour Party, but surely he was killing people who called themselves democratic socialists, the people who have been criticized throughout this thread.

The socialist youth had to cancel their event on the island that was coming up because of the slaughter of the labour youth. If you think that you can split hairs on the left while fascists are killing and blowing up dozens of people then you're ignoring the lessons of the past when it comes to fascists. They will happily kill "democratic" socialists, "other" socialists, communists, anarchists, and anyone else on the left ... and boast about it afterwards as "necessary".  (quote: gruesome but necessary was the exact quote from the "alleged" murderer that is being brodcast indisciminately and uncritically)

 

Please.  Do not.  Imply that my/our questioning communism has *anything* to do with this rampage. 

Have you ever defended your democratic socialist/social democratic "brothers" during the past thirty years of downsizing?  Have you ever defended the NDP when the right was attackig them/us, Beltov/Ikosmos/whoever you are?

Erik Redburn

Jacob Richter wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:
The difference between communism and democratic socialism is just that, the belief in democracy, however flawed or limited it too may be in practice, and regardless of whether it always works to the left's advantage.  Until democratic socialists insist on clarifying the difference, whenever it comes up, they too will always fall victim to this ideological club, and the vast majority in more economically comfortable and open societies will always reject them as well.

"Democratic socialists" need to clarify the "democratic" part before they start re-attacking those further left.  As far as I'm concerned, today's "democratic socialism" is better called parliamentary socialism.  Parliamentary socialism is a rotten corpse.

 

The repeated declarations that "parliamentray democracy is dead" here is exactly why I challenged some of these posts.  I don't consider communists to be to the left of most social democrats though. Not unless we include neo-liberals like Tony Blair.

Erik Redburn

M. Spector wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Which only begs the question why most communists still insist on asserting their particular models of "socialist" government as the only viable alternative to "capitalist" ones...

It doesn't "beg" that question at all.

In the first place, very few communist sects have elaborated models or blueprints of what a future post-capitalist society would/must be like. The lessons of China, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere are not entirely lost on them, even if they do not all agree on what those lessons are. I therefore challenge your assertion that "most communists" claim to have have "models" that they claim are the "only viable" alternative.

 

 

Challnge away.  We all know that communist parties as they exist today and those who call themelves communists (at least among themselves) have their own ideas on how society should be run after "capitalism" supposedly eats itself.   It may not be well thought out but it exists as separate and competing model(s) to other socialist, social democratic, anarchist, post-modernist, progressive etc ideas, organizations and cross-currents, and follows its own rules.  Fair enough, we can all see a common enemy now and none can yet claim all the answers, but let's at least bring it out with all the rest for equal consideration by everyone involved.

But I can see I've jostled a small hornets nest here so I will get back to this in more detail as this thread develops further.

Erik Redburn

Northern Shoveler wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

Yea, I would agree that anti-communism is a less used but still useful ideology for "western elites" and still a key part of Western political propaganda and political culture. Just look at the anti-communist rhetoric, and laws, etc., in the EU with the links I've provided upthread.

Yes the anti-communist rhetoric is still embedded in the MSM.  I think that you can tell who the elite fear by the intensity of the vilification. The anti-anarchist propaganda in Canada has been intense for years now.  Montreal's new police state squad aimed at sidelining them will not be opposed by most Canadians because the consent to persecute them has already been created.  Many of the G8/20 organizers were harassed long before the event itself for merely planning demonstrations.  Almost all the coverage referred to anarchist groups not communist no matter what the political ideology of the people actually involved.  

 

And to you I owe a small apology.  I made a generic observation/remark on another thread but included you where I shouldn't have.  It was an honest misreading on my part but a sloppy mistake nonetheless.

 

ETA:  The lumping together of anyoe who starts a riot as "anarchists" is a classic police-state ploy.  When it came out most were actually suburban kids with no agenda but trashing the party the government suddenly softened its hardline.  Interesting that.

Jacob Richter

Erik Redburn wrote:
Jacob Richter wrote:
Erik Redburn wrote:
The difference between communism and democratic socialism is just that, the belief in democracy, however flawed or limited it too may be in practice, and regardless of whether it always works to the left's advantage.  Until democratic socialists insist on clarifying the difference, whenever it comes up, they too will always fall victim to this ideological club, and the vast majority in more economically comfortable and open societies will always reject them as well.

"Democratic socialists" need to clarify the "democratic" part before they start re-attacking those further left.  As far as I'm concerned, today's "democratic socialism" is better called parliamentary socialism.  Parliamentary socialism is a rotten corpse.

The repeated declarations that "parliamentray democracy is dead" here is exactly why I challenged some of these posts.  I don't consider communists to be to the left of most social democrats though. Not unless we include neo-liberals like Tony Blair.

"Most social democrats" are still against worker-based collective appropriation and possession of society's means of production, the transformation of capitalist private ownership into societal property, the more petit-bourgeois "re-appropriation of the commons," etc. - and also the replacement of production for profit by production for societal use.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Social democrats want larger crumbs dropping off the table.  Syndicalists want to build the table and invite the neighbourhood to eat together.

Ken Burch

I like that definition of syndicalism.  What we need is something that has the best of syndacalism, combined with just enough of a state to hold off reactionaries trying to overthrow things from without.  That balance can be found. 

thanks

It's obviously wrong to celebrate Nazis however its also wrong to celebrate Lenin, or any Communist Party which names itself after him, and fails to critique his atrocities, or others of the Soviet regime.  See the human rights thread .http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-culture/human-rights#comment-1270605 .

Ken Burch

I don't know that anybody actually is "celebrating" Lenin.  And the left has been critiquing Leninism(a term actually coined by Stalin, since Lenin himself never wanted to be an "ism", and never presented his tactics as the only valid form of Marxism)from the get-go.

So I agree with you, but it's been done already.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

thanks wrote:

It's obviously wrong to celebrate Nazis however its also wrong to celebrate Lenin, or any Communist Party which names itself after him, and fails to critique his atrocities, or others of the Soviet regime.  See the human rights thread .http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-culture/human-rights#comment-1270605 .

No Monarchist league either.  And the Conservative party especially in the UK were responsible for centuries of death and destruction that in India alone far exceeded the death counts of the Fascists or Soviets.  Should babble stop those people from posting?  How about the Liberal party which also ruled in the UK.  Our Canadian parties with those names have in the past (many would say it hasn't stopped) been genocidal towards our FN's and ethnically cleansed the west coast of people of Japanese descent and of course theres the persecution of the Doukbours. 

Shall we just not talk about politics on babble?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Good point. However, Monarchists, Fascists, Conservatives and Liberals are not banned in Europe. Communists are, and increasingly so: in the Czech Republic, in Hungary, etc., and in general EU proposals that attempt to criminalize dissenting political views on the left.

Erik Redburn

Who's trying to 'criminalize dissent' here? 

Erik Redburn

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Social democrats want larger crumbs dropping off the table.  Syndicalists want to build the table and invite the neighbourhood to eat together.

 

Please stop generalizing about "social democrats".   Who was it that turned on the anarchists during the Spanish civil war, helping to hand the country over to Franco, the communists or social democrats?

Pages

Topic locked