Something they DEFINITELY don't want you to see: Proud Boys & Latinos For Trump

[Ghostmaker]

Well, to be fair, there is one situation where communism works very well indeed.

Convents and monasteries. Those gatherings of men and women dedicated to God are usually run along communist lines, with the unifying aspect being their religious vows.  I can't testify as to how Buddhist monasteries are run, so I won't speak for them.

But y'know, if communism was so awesome, they should've needed border controls to keep people OUT. Not in.

[Pat]

Communism on a national scale is stupid as fuck.  Communism only works on a small scale but even then you need some sort of reinforcement mechanism via religion or elders or something.

That's like saying capitalism works fine, but you need some kind of reinforcement mechanism like a justice system that enforces property laws. Which is true, but fairly meaningless, because it's one of the basic principles.

More generally, communism, at least in the popular usage of the word, works in small tight-knit communities with a strong web of social ties, usually familial. It's a fairly natural form of organization, and often works side by side with trade and even authoritarianism (family structures are rarely democratic, after all). There have been non-authoritarian attempts to extend the model to larger groups (Kropotkin is probably the premiere thinker in this area), but they tend to fall apart. This is seen in the various anarcho-communist communes and squatters in various European states, where they leech off the grid and give out free meals to anyone who asks, but then they have to switch back to payments because people take more than they give, and never become independent of the infrastructure of the state that surrounds them. Larger more successful examples include the Israeli kibbutzes, and there have even been nation-sized examples in Catalan and the Ukraine in the early part of the 20th century, though they both collapsed.

This should be distinguished from Marxism, which justifies totalitarian control with the promise of a future paradise where everyone will be free. No explanation is given for how the future paradise will be achieved, and Marx specifically rejected the idea that people should even try to describe it, on the grounds that it requires a change in the nature of humanity that can't be understood except by those future humans. But the lack of any attempt to describe how the paradise will be achieved becomes a selling point, because with no details it's harder to find flaws (which is how the utopian communists who pre-dated Marx were discredited). The totalitarian control is usually instituted by violence, but even the ones that gain popular support and are democratically elected soon seize control and do what any small group of people granted unfettered power do: They strengthen their positions and institutionalize their oligarchy, using any means necessary. They end up like any other authoritarian state, except with an almost religious fervor that they use to justify their acts in the service of a brilliant (but unreachable) future.

[oggsmash]

  Free speech is fine and well.  I would say though, when a person is an avowed marxist or communist, that means a good deal more than just having an opinion.  Such a person is going to act and use money and everything they can within their risk tolerance to destroy the existing government/system.  It is one of the requirements to install marxism/communism.  It is a system marked in ALL cases by raging totalitarianism when implemented on a state level.  People who espouse these sorts of beliefs are stated, flat out enemies of the United States as it has functioned to this point.  I guess "hope and change" means wreck the existing system with commie bullshit.

    As for military officers feeling awfully chummy about marxism, well I guess the dates certainly match up to a time when the Commander in Chief, who stated openly in his own book that all his friends and mentors in college were marxists, socialists, and communists.  I can tell you in the 90's there was a COMPLETELY different tone towards those philosophies.  To have a nation there has to be some sort of underlying ethos or beliefs that are unifying.   Communist or marxist leanings are exactly contrary to what the United States has been since founding.  I do not exactly understand why people feel the need to be friendly with stated enemies. 

[jhkim]

  Free speech is fine and well.  I would say though, when a person is an avowed marxist or communist, that means a good deal more than just having an opinion.  Such a person is going to act and use money and everything they can within their risk tolerance to destroy the existing government/system.  It is one of the requirements to install marxism/communism.  It is a system marked in ALL cases by raging totalitarianism when implemented on a state level.  People who espouse these sorts of beliefs are stated, flat out enemies of the United States as it has functioned to this point.  I guess "hope and change" means wreck the existing system with commie bullshit.

By the same token, though, I would say that the Sovereign Citizen movement are enemies of U.S. as it has functioned to this point. They are fundamentally opposed to federal and even state governments. There are many other movements that are opposed to the current state of the country, and desire radical change.

The question is -- should these enemies of the state be "bathed in napalm" as SHARK suggests? Or should they be imprisoned for speaking out in favor of radical change?


One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

[Trond]

By the same token, though, I would say that the Sovereign Citizen movement are enemies of U.S. as it has functioned to this point. They are fundamentally opposed to federal and even state governments. There are many other movements that are opposed to the current state of the country, and desire radical change.

The question is -- should these enemies of the state be "bathed in napalm" as SHARK suggests? Or should they be imprisoned for speaking out in favor of radical change?


One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

I agree. One problem now though, is how powerful the left have gotten in virtually all media (mainstream and social media), and that they are unquestionably biased in banning certain people of the "wrong" political stance. E.g. Proud Boys have become very hard to find as far a what THEIR point of view is, compared to Antifa, for instance. You might find a lot of trolling of Antifa websites, but Proud Boys have been outright banned virtually everywhere, despite them doing less damage than Antifa.

[Ghostmaker]

  Free speech is fine and well.  I would say though, when a person is an avowed marxist or communist, that means a good deal more than just having an opinion.  Such a person is going to act and use money and everything they can within their risk tolerance to destroy the existing government/system.  It is one of the requirements to install marxism/communism.  It is a system marked in ALL cases by raging totalitarianism when implemented on a state level.  People who espouse these sorts of beliefs are stated, flat out enemies of the United States as it has functioned to this point.  I guess "hope and change" means wreck the existing system with commie bullshit.

By the same token, though, I would say that the Sovereign Citizen movement are enemies of U.S. as it has functioned to this point. They are fundamentally opposed to federal and even state governments. There are many other movements that are opposed to the current state of the country, and desire radical change.

The question is -- should these enemies of the state be "bathed in napalm" as SHARK suggests? Or should they be imprisoned for speaking out in favor of radical change?


One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

When sovcits can actually pull off their deranged escapades instead of getting (figuratively) laughed at in court, I'll care about them.

[Shasarak]

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

I think using the USA as an example, using words, evidence and secret police seems to be the most successful way to oppose communists.

At least until they get into the government.

[Daztur]

  Free speech is fine and well.  I would say though, when a person is an avowed marxist or communist, that means a good deal more than just having an opinion.  Such a person is going to act and use money and everything they can within their risk tolerance to destroy the existing government/system.  It is one of the requirements to install marxism/communism.  It is a system marked in ALL cases by raging totalitarianism when implemented on a state level.  People who espouse these sorts of beliefs are stated, flat out enemies of the United States as it has functioned to this point.  I guess "hope and change" means wreck the existing system with commie bullshit.

By the same token, though, I would say that the Sovereign Citizen movement are enemies of U.S. as it has functioned to this point. They are fundamentally opposed to federal and even state governments. There are many other movements that are opposed to the current state of the country, and desire radical change.

The question is -- should these enemies of the state be "bathed in napalm" as SHARK suggests? Or should they be imprisoned for speaking out in favor of radical change?


One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

The problem with the "kill-the-communists" approach here in Korea is that after literal DECADES of this everyone started to roll their eyes at it. A while back the North sunk a South Korean boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) and a whole slew of South Koreans I talked to didn't believe the North was behind it, including a lot of very much not-radical businessmen that I talked to who were utterly and completely unwoke (engineers, a marketing executive, etc. etc.) . They'd lived through so much anti-communist propaganda under the dictatorship that at this point they take anything talking about the North's provocations with a huge amount of salt.

I think that a lot of the right's unhinged screeching about communists everywhere will have the same effect. Blaming every single thing on communists just makes people roll their eyes and not believe it, even when real actual card carrying communists are killing people. Actual communists are really bad for a whole slew of reasons but the tendency on the right to lump everyone to the right of Pinochet together into once vast communist horde does nothing but help actual communists.

[oggsmash]

  Free speech is fine and well.  I would say though, when a person is an avowed marxist or communist, that means a good deal more than just having an opinion.  Such a person is going to act and use money and everything they can within their risk tolerance to destroy the existing government/system.  It is one of the requirements to install marxism/communism.  It is a system marked in ALL cases by raging totalitarianism when implemented on a state level.  People who espouse these sorts of beliefs are stated, flat out enemies of the United States as it has functioned to this point.  I guess "hope and change" means wreck the existing system with commie bullshit.

By the same token, though, I would say that the Sovereign Citizen movement are enemies of U.S. as it has functioned to this point. They are fundamentally opposed to federal and even state governments. There are many other movements that are opposed to the current state of the country, and desire radical change.

The question is -- should these enemies of the state be "bathed in napalm" as SHARK suggests? Or should they be imprisoned for speaking out in favor of radical change?


One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

    No.  It is weak. 

[yancy]

Actual communists are really bad for a whole slew of reasons but the tendency on the right to lump everyone to the right of Pinochet together into once vast communist horde does nothing but help actual communists.

"Everyone to the right of Pinochet?"

I don't understand how going to the right of Pinochet makes you a communist, is this some kind of 'circular model of politics' deal?

Or is this the old military basic training deal, where the one guy ends up with two left boots somehow, and the drill sergeant makes fun of him with a "Left...left.....left.........left" cadence?

[Trond]

The problem with the "kill-the-communists" approach here in Korea is that after literal DECADES of this everyone started to roll their eyes at it. A while back the North sunk a South Korean boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) and a whole slew of South Koreans I talked to didn't believe the North was behind it, including a lot of very much not-radical businessmen that I talked to who were utterly and completely unwoke (engineers, a marketing executive, etc. etc.) . They'd lived through so much anti-communist propaganda under the dictatorship that at this point they take anything talking about the North's provocations with a huge amount of salt.

I think that a lot of the right's unhinged screeching about communists everywhere will have the same effect. Blaming every single thing on communists just makes people roll their eyes and not believe it, even when real actual card carrying communists are killing people. Actual communists are really bad for a whole slew of reasons but the tendency on the right to lump everyone to the right of Pinochet together into once vast communist horde does nothing but help actual communists.

Well, if the communists had had their way in Korea, then all of it would have been like North Korea today. And that's one of the most insane countries on the planet, a lot of the reports from there falling into "you literally could not make this shit up" territory. So, I'm wondering how on earth the anti-communist propaganda managed to go too far.

[Ghostmaker]

The problem with the "kill-the-communists" approach here in Korea is that after literal DECADES of this everyone started to roll their eyes at it. A while back the North sunk a South Korean boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) and a whole slew of South Koreans I talked to didn't believe the North was behind it, including a lot of very much not-radical businessmen that I talked to who were utterly and completely unwoke (engineers, a marketing executive, etc. etc.) . They'd lived through so much anti-communist propaganda under the dictatorship that at this point they take anything talking about the North's provocations with a huge amount of salt.

I think that a lot of the right's unhinged screeching about communists everywhere will have the same effect. Blaming every single thing on communists just makes people roll their eyes and not believe it, even when real actual card carrying communists are killing people. Actual communists are really bad for a whole slew of reasons but the tendency on the right to lump everyone to the right of Pinochet together into once vast communist horde does nothing but help actual communists.

Well, if the communists had had their way in Korea, then all of it would have been like North Korea today. And that's one of the most insane countries on the planet, a lot of the reports from there falling into "you literally could not make this shit up" territory. So, I'm wondering how on earth the anti-communist propaganda managed to go too far.

Probably because for all the danger posed, the Norks are really incompetent. The South Koreans tend to scoop their spies up really easily.

When you get down to brass tacks, the only reason the Norks are even taken seriously is because Seoul is close enough that Nork artillery could level it*.

* assuming their artillery doesn't explode on them.

[Trond]

Probably because for all the danger posed, the Norks are really incompetent. ....

Oh, yes, another one of those side effects of communism. Remember when Mao wanted to outdo all other countries in steel production, they produced massive amounts of extremely low-quality steel (I think they melted down pots and pans to meet the state demands), and some people got killed in the process (of course).

[Ghostmaker]

Probably because for all the danger posed, the Norks are really incompetent. ....

Oh, yes, another one of those side effects of communism. Remember when Mao wanted to outdo all other countries in steel production, they produced massive amounts of extremely low-quality steel (I think they melted down pots and pans to meet the state demands), and some people got killed in the process (of course).

That's a feature of communism, yes.

And remember, if you had the nerve to point out 'hey, this isn't gonna work', well, you were a 'wrecker' and needed to be shipped off to the camps for proper reeducation.

[Ratman_tf]

  Free speech is fine and well.  I would say though, when a person is an avowed marxist or communist, that means a good deal more than just having an opinion.  Such a person is going to act and use money and everything they can within their risk tolerance to destroy the existing government/system.  It is one of the requirements to install marxism/communism.  It is a system marked in ALL cases by raging totalitarianism when implemented on a state level.  People who espouse these sorts of beliefs are stated, flat out enemies of the United States as it has functioned to this point.  I guess "hope and change" means wreck the existing system with commie bullshit.

By the same token, though, I would say that the Sovereign Citizen movement are enemies of U.S. as it has functioned to this point. They are fundamentally opposed to federal and even state governments. There are many other movements that are opposed to the current state of the country, and desire radical change.

The question is -- should these enemies of the state be "bathed in napalm" as SHARK suggests? Or should they be imprisoned for speaking out in favor of radical change?


One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

The problem with the "kill-the-communists" approach here in Korea is that after literal DECADES of this everyone started to roll their eyes at it. A while back the North sunk a South Korean boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) and a whole slew of South Koreans I talked to didn't believe the North was behind it, including a lot of very much not-radical businessmen that I talked to who were utterly and completely unwoke (engineers, a marketing executive, etc. etc.) . They'd lived through so much anti-communist propaganda under the dictatorship that at this point they take anything talking about the North's provocations with a huge amount of salt.

I think that a lot of the right's unhinged screeching about communists everywhere will have the same effect. Blaming every single thing on communists just makes people roll their eyes and not believe it, even when real actual card carrying communists are killing people. Actual communists are really bad for a whole slew of reasons but the tendency on the right to lump everyone to the right of Pinochet together into once vast communist horde does nothing but help actual communists.

It certainly doesn't help that the Left have whitewashed communism. A handful of neo-Nazis show up somewhere, and they get mobbed by counter-demonstrators. A bunch of college kids show up in Hammer and Sickle tee shirts, shouting that AmeriKKKa needs to be smashed? Well, that's their opinion, man.