You know fascism is not the only alternative to liberalism. Liberalism is a center-right ideology in most of the developed world - even the American politicians fascists use as Boogeymen are mostly Social Democrats not liberals.
The liberal parties generally used to be the left wing back in the day, promoting basic human rights and universal suffrage against the capitalists on the right wing seeking to keep up the pace of exploitation.
When the socialists came along they placed themselves on the left of the liberalists, eventually rendering the old school liberal parties somewhere between the centre and the right. In America the two party system kept this from happening, which is why people complain that there’s no true left in the US.
However, the socialists are also split. Social democrats tend to hold Locke in one hand and Marx in the other, embracing both socialist and liberal values. This is often to the disgust of the ideologically pure Communists, as it’s hard to be a Lockean without accepting a degree of property rights that they find unbearable.
If you give up liberalism you generally slide very fast towards authoritarianism, be it on the left or on the right. It’s possible to imagine a non-liberal non-authoritarian society; it’s just very hard to imagine actually getting there.
Somewhere in the world there is a country with personalistic resource autocracy, where autocrat and his minions are strong pro-corporate, pro-censorship and against pensions, universal healthcare and net neutrality. Far right autocracy not only exists, but even started war.
If you are pro capitalism, you’re on the right, no matter what you call yourself or how much you try and cling to past definitions of words, it’s as simple as that.
Also fuck horseshoe theory and this idea that “extreme left” is authoritarian (when authoritarianism is incompatible with leftist thinking on every level. This means tankies aren’t on the left no matter how hard they protest) - one extreme wants you to be a literal slave to a capitalist dictator, the other wants you to have everything you need and be able to work towards a better society instead of for the benefit of like 10 people.
Try actually learning about liberalism and the harm it causes before you somehow go blaming (actual) socialists (seriously?? The people who have never even been allowed to come close to power???) for the state of politics:
You’re right, liberalism was left-wing a long time, ago. But this liberalism is gone, long time ago. You won’t find it anymore. That has no connection with socialism at all.
If you read Marx, which indead you didn’t, you would say different things. The socialists didn’t try to fight liberalists, they just tried to explain to them why their views are wrong in some parts. This split the whole movement, but not because the socialists were wrong. It split, because the liberalists were naive and believed their own bullshit.
Sorry, my english is very bad, but I also think it is very wrong to split communism and liberalism with the word authoritarianism. Communists want more freedom than liberalists can imagine. Their view is not focused on money and the system. And if they are stricter in their actions, than it’s only because they’ve learned that words are not enough. You have to fight people, who are against the true freedom of all people.
I’ll give you one point - Communists indeed don’t tend to aim for authoritarianism. Even Marxist-Leninists claim it’s just a necessary step along the way - the final society will be complete freedom.
I said as much in my comment - I just also pointed out the historical fact that efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
Brave of you to make assumptions what I’ve read and not.
Even Marxist-Leninists claim is just a necessary step along the way
false
efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
China is a capitalist hellhole, and the Soviet Union never achieved communism, and using it as an example of what communism is is like using North Kore as an example of what a People’s Republic is.
I second how glaringly obvious it is that you’ve not read much of anything to do with communism at all that’s outside of the realm of mainstream propaganda. You can protest all you like, but your views speak for themselves.
I am sure you didn’t read Marx and if you did, you did not enough.
It’s hard to implement socialism, if it never was tried. You have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems, cause everything is suddenly gone and than you have slavery, hunger etc. back. And also, if you try to build socialism, suddenly a lot of people are against you. You have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined. And that’s important to understand. You are suddenly enemy with everyone. Look at the russian civil war - they had to fight against several countries, even the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War It’s just crazy. And if you have to fight against several countries than people tend to ignore this and instead they’re saying “See, it doesn’t work.”.
So, yeah, you’re right, communists tend to authoritarianism, but not because they want to. They tend to it, because they have to. There is no choice.
So, hypothetically if I had read Marx, what would I be saying differently? I’m curious to hear. :)
Regarding the “it has never been given a fair chance” argument, at least it’s better than trying to defend the state of affairs in countries that claimed to be implementing it. One could go as far as to say we almost agree - I said it’s “very hard to imagine actually getting there”, you said you “have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems” and that you “have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined”.
“so I admit to never actually having read what I said I read, but please still invest your time and energy in spoon feeding me this information I clearly aren’t actually interested in”
Because Marx was much more vulgar and he knew and saw the problems. So it’s only logical, that Communists are reading Marx, today.
Also I think it’s important to understand that there are even communists, who don’t read Marx, who hate Lenin etc. There are a lot of beliefs.
To the property… Property is ok for communists. The property of means of production is the problem. This is unacceptable.
At this point I am not sure, if you’re right or wrong or if I understood you wrong, like I said, my english ends at this point, in my native language it would be much easier for me.
Vulgar? I mean, the manifesto is snappy, but Das Kapital is hardly vulgar.
There’s certainly a lot of communists who don’t read Marx.
It’s not so much about being right or wrong - neither of us are right or wrong. It’s a discussion of ideas to learn from each other and try to become less wrong, or at least more reflected. It’s ideas, there’s no hard truth. :)
You know fascism is not the only alternative to liberalism. Liberalism is a center-right ideology in most of the developed world - even the American politicians fascists use as Boogeymen are mostly Social Democrats not liberals.
The liberal parties generally used to be the left wing back in the day, promoting basic human rights and universal suffrage against the capitalists on the right wing seeking to keep up the pace of exploitation.
When the socialists came along they placed themselves on the left of the liberalists, eventually rendering the old school liberal parties somewhere between the centre and the right. In America the two party system kept this from happening, which is why people complain that there’s no true left in the US.
However, the socialists are also split. Social democrats tend to hold Locke in one hand and Marx in the other, embracing both socialist and liberal values. This is often to the disgust of the ideologically pure Communists, as it’s hard to be a Lockean without accepting a degree of property rights that they find unbearable.
If you give up liberalism you generally slide very fast towards authoritarianism, be it on the left or on the right. It’s possible to imagine a non-liberal non-authoritarian society; it’s just very hard to imagine actually getting there.
Somewhere in the world there is a country with personalistic resource autocracy, where autocrat and his minions are strong pro-corporate, pro-censorship and against pensions, universal healthcare and net neutrality. Far right autocracy not only exists, but even started war.
If you are pro capitalism, you’re on the right, no matter what you call yourself or how much you try and cling to past definitions of words, it’s as simple as that.
Also fuck horseshoe theory and this idea that “extreme left” is authoritarian (when authoritarianism is incompatible with leftist thinking on every level. This means tankies aren’t on the left no matter how hard they protest) - one extreme wants you to be a literal slave to a capitalist dictator, the other wants you to have everything you need and be able to work towards a better society instead of for the benefit of like 10 people.
Try actually learning about liberalism and the harm it causes before you somehow go blaming (actual) socialists (seriously?? The people who have never even been allowed to come close to power???) for the state of politics:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/
https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/
I never said I’m pro capitalism. :)
You’re right, liberalism was left-wing a long time, ago. But this liberalism is gone, long time ago. You won’t find it anymore. That has no connection with socialism at all.
If you read Marx, which indead you didn’t, you would say different things. The socialists didn’t try to fight liberalists, they just tried to explain to them why their views are wrong in some parts. This split the whole movement, but not because the socialists were wrong. It split, because the liberalists were naive and believed their own bullshit.
Sorry, my english is very bad, but I also think it is very wrong to split communism and liberalism with the word authoritarianism. Communists want more freedom than liberalists can imagine. Their view is not focused on money and the system. And if they are stricter in their actions, than it’s only because they’ve learned that words are not enough. You have to fight people, who are against the true freedom of all people.
I’ll give you one point - Communists indeed don’t tend to aim for authoritarianism. Even Marxist-Leninists claim it’s just a necessary step along the way - the final society will be complete freedom.
I said as much in my comment - I just also pointed out the historical fact that efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
Brave of you to make assumptions what I’ve read and not.
false
China is a capitalist hellhole, and the Soviet Union never achieved communism, and using it as an example of what communism is is like using North Kore as an example of what a People’s Republic is.
I second how glaringly obvious it is that you’ve not read much of anything to do with communism at all that’s outside of the realm of mainstream propaganda. You can protest all you like, but your views speak for themselves.
There’s South Korea and Taiwan.
China is pretty much “capitalism with beast grin”
I am sure you didn’t read Marx and if you did, you did not enough.
It’s hard to implement socialism, if it never was tried. You have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems, cause everything is suddenly gone and than you have slavery, hunger etc. back. And also, if you try to build socialism, suddenly a lot of people are against you. You have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined. And that’s important to understand. You are suddenly enemy with everyone. Look at the russian civil war - they had to fight against several countries, even the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War It’s just crazy. And if you have to fight against several countries than people tend to ignore this and instead they’re saying “See, it doesn’t work.”.
So, yeah, you’re right, communists tend to authoritarianism, but not because they want to. They tend to it, because they have to. There is no choice.
So, hypothetically if I had read Marx, what would I be saying differently? I’m curious to hear. :)
Regarding the “it has never been given a fair chance” argument, at least it’s better than trying to defend the state of affairs in countries that claimed to be implementing it. One could go as far as to say we almost agree - I said it’s “very hard to imagine actually getting there”, you said you “have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems” and that you “have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined”.
“so I admit to never actually having read what I said I read, but please still invest your time and energy in spoon feeding me this information I clearly aren’t actually interested in”
Oh, I read my share, but I don’t claim to have perfect working knowledge of all three binds of Das Kapital. It’s pretty dense theory.
Because Marx was much more vulgar and he knew and saw the problems. So it’s only logical, that Communists are reading Marx, today.
Also I think it’s important to understand that there are even communists, who don’t read Marx, who hate Lenin etc. There are a lot of beliefs.
To the property… Property is ok for communists. The property of means of production is the problem. This is unacceptable.
At this point I am not sure, if you’re right or wrong or if I understood you wrong, like I said, my english ends at this point, in my native language it would be much easier for me.
Vulgar? I mean, the manifesto is snappy, but Das Kapital is hardly vulgar.
There’s certainly a lot of communists who don’t read Marx.
It’s not so much about being right or wrong - neither of us are right or wrong. It’s a discussion of ideas to learn from each other and try to become less wrong, or at least more reflected. It’s ideas, there’s no hard truth. :)
yes, vulgar haha - you should read his private conversations.