Flat earthers are, for the most part, harmless. (There’s a correlation with other, more damaging ideas; but the belief in a flat earth in and of itself is simply dumb, not dangerous). Communists want to bring their disastrous system into practice once more.
Yeah, this.
Then you have to respect people’s political options. This is what democracy is all about.
And you can’t claim you care about certain people, and then compare them with flat-earthers. There are many people in former communist countries who still believe in communism. They have the right to vote for whomever they want without being ridiculed for it. This is what triggers radical social divides and unnecessary political turmoil.
Would Marx be disillusioned by Communist Russia? Appalled? Pleased? Vindicated? Confused?
That these governments felt the need to suppress ALL dissent would seem to strongly imply that they (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) knew their schema was inherently unstable, even if no determined opposition (propaganda aside) existed either within its borders or without.
This you?
You have not yet given any reason to support those who want to reinstate communism or to give us reason to believe you do not equally support these alternate forms of totalitarianism.
Yes, it’s dead. Recent history suggests that despite early ideological enthusiasm, it quickly devolved into a red-washing of age-old imperial aspirations. The USSR was just Russia’s never-ending quest to rule Slavic Europe. The CCP became a reboot of Chinese imperial aspirations. North Korea, a family dynasty. The “organic” movements worldwide were for the most part instrumentalized by Russia or China.
Vietnam seems to be an exception. It threw off Russian and Chinese influence and is still very much communist, though it does have a vibrant market economy. It suggests that communism can be workable when the people are cohesive enough to pull together and reject foreign interference, and when doctrine can be relaxed enough to allow a partial market economy. That only Vietnam seems to have pulled it off suggests that these conditions are fairly uncommon.
Of course Cuba also is a communist country as well. Whether it’s “working” is a matter of debate. Cuba is not thriving economically by any typical understanding of “thriving”. But if the intent of the people is to have a sustainable country free of the problems of capitalism, then it’s working. Most Cubans would probably like more material prosperity than they have, but as they aren’t really protesting in the street to start another revolution, it seems like they mostly feel their form of government is preferable to the American-dominated oligarchy that preceded it.
I am not communist–I have already said that. Please refer exactly to what I said: people’s political options must all be treated with respect as long as they’re legal. Otherwise, radical social divides and unnecessary political turmoil will develop.
No, it isn’t. Democracy is about deciding what to do through societal debate and consensus; it doesn’t mean we have to respect every different idea, just protect people’s rights to express those ideas.
Do you respect Nazism?
Why not? I care about plenty of people who I disagree with, even to the point of thinking that their ideas are stupid.
That could be the reason; or it could be that they’re scared:
(AI has plenty of its own issues but I don’t think these claims about Cuba are even controversial)
So we should treat Neo-Nazis with respect?
Neo-Nazi is illegal, as far as I know. Why are you asking this question? Is this taunting? I specifically mentioned legal political alternatives.
Every legal political alternative in a country must be treated with respect. If people keep demonizing political alternatives, basic social consensus will collapse and political turmoil will ensue. This may lead to war, authoritarianism, etc.
You would be factually incorrect about that, if we are talking about the US.
Because being a communist is nearly as despicable as being a Neo-Nazi, and I’m curious if you are as steadfast about how we should respect them, too.
Nazism is not illegal in the US.
I am not familiar with a lot of things in American politics. Is this a discussion about Communism in America?
I still believe that in principle, we should respect everyone’s political options if we believe in democracy.
Even Nazis?
No, it’s a discussion in general. You’re the one who brought up legality, which is specific to nations. When you say that we should be respectful of “any ideology that is legal”, the question becomes, “legal where?”. In the US, any ideology is legal. Some actions based on ideology may be illegal, but no political opinion is illegal in and of itself.
This is a matter of principle. We’re supposed to respect legality. In the absence of legality, there’s just chaos and neither communism nor Nazism matter.
Every state and nation is organized differently. If we live in democracy, and people have the right to vote or be voted for, any legal political option is a valid one. If we treat people with scorn and hatred, they will react by treating us with scorn and hatred. Social consensus will collapse and political turmoil will ensue: civili wars, authoritarian tendencies, legal abuses where leaders or sponsors of the opposition are imprisoned, and so on.
Every legal political alternative must be treated with respect in democracy. I have to admit that my perspective is shaped by the fact that I live in Europe (and that I find the American model problematic).
And Nazism is legal in the US. Should we respect Nazis?
The question of legality only kicks things back one step. Why should we make Nazism illegal and Communism legal? Legality here is just an appeal to authority. There must be some underlying property of each ideology that makes you think they should be treated differently.
Personally, I think that both ideologies should be legal, but neither should be respected. I believe in freedom of speech not because I respect every possible thing that anyone could ever say, but because I worry about what the government will do with the power to decide which speech is and is not acceptable. That doesn’t mean I have to respect it if someone says that people of a certain race are inferior or that private property is inherently theft.
Oh no, if we don’t respect communists, they might do something crazy, like adopting a scornful ideology such as communism? Good heavens, no!
So what is it about communism that makes it acceptable to you while fascism is not?
I find communism, fascism, Nazism equally unattractive. This is not the point.
The point is that people should be happy or at least lead decent lives, where everyone has a fair opportunity to fulfill themselves. This cannot happen in the absence of social consensus and political stability. Democracy and the rule of law can encourage that. In this context, we should respect everyone’s political options so as to avoid the perils I have already mentioned.
OK, so we SHOULD respect the political opinions of Nazis?
If Nazism and Communism are equivalently distasteful, I don’t see why you would say we should respect one but not the other.
And if the answer is “one is legal and one is not”, that just raises the question of why Nazism should be illegal but Communism should be legal. If they are equally distasteful, why not treat them the same?
I have stated a general principle because I refuse to discuss American politics, including whether or not the US is a genuine democracy.
Any extreme political movement is distasteful, regardless of its orientation (left or right). However, it must not be the label that should decide a movement’s legality, but its political manifesto and agenda. If they go against the Constitution and the law in general, they are equally bad.
I’m very confused as to what legality had to do with respect.
Would you respect someone who decided to leave his 8 month pregnant wife for an 18 year old he met at a rave? Do you think that behavior should be illegal?
Regardless of the legality of Nazism or Communism, I have no respect for either set of beliefs.
I don’t understand why you demand that I respect communism but are fine with me not respecting Nazism.
Is the term “respect” the point of confusion here? Like @Babale, it’s not at all clear to me what you’re advocating.
There’s countless philosophies I find ridiculous. That said, I support a person’s right to such beliefs. Is the latter “respect,” despite the former?
All countries that are now or have ever been run as “communist” countries are totalitarian ruled. That is incompatible with “everyone has a fair opportunity to fulfill themselves”. America has not the slightest possibility of putting communists into any meaningful office, so its politics are irrelevant. My antipathy to communist governments is out of respect for the opinions of those who desperately wanted to remove themselves from such rule and not at all respectful of those who want to put themselves under totalitarian rule.
I can’t understand where we differ on this.
This discussion is about communism as a political and social project. In practice, it seems to have failed. However, there are still fans who vote for leftist alternatives. Although I don’t find this appealing, I find nothing wrong with this. It is a respectable option because it is a legal alternative. I choose to respect other people’s political options because I promote social consensus and political stability.