Anti-Anti-Communism?

[lpetrich]

The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance | Aeon Essays

The public memory of 20th-century communism is a battleground. Two ideological armies stare at each other across a chasm of mistrust and misunderstanding. Even though the Cold War ended almost 30 years ago, a struggle to define the truth about the communist past has continued to rage across the United States and Europe.

On the Left stand those with some sympathy for socialist ideals and the popular opinion of hundreds of millions of Russian and east European citizens nostalgic for their state socialist pasts. On the Right stand the committed anti-totalitarians, both east and west, insisting that all experiments with Marxism will always and inevitably end with the gulag. Where one side sees shades of grey, the other views the world in black and white.

Particularly in the US, labour supporters and social liberals who desire an expanded role for the state hope to save the democratic socialist baby from the authoritarian bathwater. Fiscal conservatives and nationalists deploy memories of purges and famines to discredit even the most modest arguments in favour of redistributive politics.

The nostalgia is because Communist regimes were good at welfare statism, something that their successors are not as good at. The chicken-in-every-pot promises of universal capitalist prosperity have not been kept very well.

Communists have indeed done very terrible things, even if some anti-Communists have exaggerated the numbers. The figure of 100 million dead comes from "The Black Book of Communism", edited by Stéphane Courtois. Two of its contributors have tried to distance themselves from that 100-million figure, because it seemed to them that SC was obsessed with reaching a nice-looking number.

One can make similar arguments about pro-capitalist regimes:

The US, a country based on a free-market capitalist ideology, has done many horrible things: the enslavement of millions of Africans, the genocidal eradication of the Native Americans, the brutal military actions taken to support pro-Western dictatorships, just to name a few. The British Empire likewise had a great deal of blood on its hands: we might merely mention the internment camps during the second Boer War and the Bengal famine.

Then the question of how much various atrocities follow from Communism and capitalism.

We will grant for the sake of argument that slavery and the rest do not follow from the principles of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. But the historical point in the anti-communism argument is equally dubious. Where, for example, in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels does one find that leaders should deliberately induce mass starvation or purges?

By contrast with both capitalism and communism, many of the most grotesque crimes of Nazism were natural conclusions of their racist ideology. Nazi doctrine elevated German Aryans above all other races, particularly Jews. The Second World War was an outcome of the Nazi ideal of Lebensraum, and the Holocaust a direct application of Nazi racial doctrines. The revised general premise does lead from historical facts about the crimes of Nazism to the uncontested conclusion that Nazism should be rejected.

In effect, "Make Germany Great Again".

Here it is especially important to pay heed to lessons from eastern Europe. In that context, public commemoration of the victims of communism has served both to allay rising criticisms of capitalism and to exonerate local histories of Right-wing nationalism. By law, members of Ukrainian paramilitary groups that fought with the Nazis against the Red Army in the Second World War are now heroes of Ukrainian independence. Might renewed anti-communist feeling also serve right-wing nationalism in the US and western Europe?

For my part, I think that one can support social democracy and welfare statism, and also acknowledge the crimes of Communist regimes. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, for instance, are not orthodox Communists who want to send everybody they dislike to Arctic prison camps.

Furthermore, the crimes of Communists and Fascists and the like were committed with their state security apparatus, the sort of thing that many conservatives seem to think is the essential purpose of government. They howl about welfare statism, but not about military and police and prison expenditures. They talk about law and order and toughness on crime, but what would they think about 100 million supposed subversives and criminals being executed?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance | Aeon Essays

The nostalgia is because Communist regimes were good at welfare statism, something that their successors are not as good at. The chicken-in-every-pot promises of universal capitalist prosperity have not been kept very well.

Communists have indeed done very terrible things, even if some anti-Communists have exaggerated the numbers. The figure of 100 million dead comes from "The Black Book of Communism", edited by Stéphane Courtois. Two of its contributors have tried to distance themselves from that 100-million figure, because it seemed to them that SC was obsessed with reaching a nice-looking number.

One can make similar arguments about pro-capitalist regimes:


Then the question of how much various atrocities follow from Communism and capitalism.

We will grant for the sake of argument that slavery and the rest do not follow from the principles of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. But the historical point in the anti-communism argument is equally dubious. Where, for example, in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels does one find that leaders should deliberately induce mass starvation or purges?

By contrast with both capitalism and communism, many of the most grotesque crimes of Nazism were natural conclusions of their racist ideology. Nazi doctrine elevated German Aryans above all other races, particularly Jews. The Second World War was an outcome of the Nazi ideal of Lebensraum, and the Holocaust a direct application of Nazi racial doctrines. The revised general premise does lead from historical facts about the crimes of Nazism to the uncontested conclusion that Nazism should be rejected.

In effect, "Make Germany Great Again".

Here it is especially important to pay heed to lessons from eastern Europe. In that context, public commemoration of the victims of communism has served both to allay rising criticisms of capitalism and to exonerate local histories of Right-wing nationalism. By law, members of Ukrainian paramilitary groups that fought with the Nazis against the Red Army in the Second World War are now heroes of Ukrainian independence. Might renewed anti-communist feeling also serve right-wing nationalism in the US and western Europe?

For my part, I think that one can support social democracy and welfare statism, and also acknowledge the crimes of Communist regimes. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, for instance, are not orthodox Communists who want to send everybody they dislike to Arctic prison camps.

Furthermore, the crimes of Communists and Fascists and the like were committed with their state security apparatus, the sort of thing that many conservatives seem to think is the essential purpose of government. They howl about welfare statism, but not about military and police and prison expenditures. They talk about law and order and toughness on crime, but what would they think about 100 million supposed subversives and criminals being executed?

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

 

[Treedbear]

...
Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

I think any type of government safety net should be defined as socialism. You'll get power concentrated into a tiny few individuals in both purely socialist and purely capitalist systems. But socialism and capitalism work very when they work together. They should be viewed more as tools than as ideologies that need to be at odds with each other. It's a false dichotomy. Either will result in a loss in the value of the individual when they are out of balance, and will in the end need to be overthrown.

 

[Harry Bosch]

...
Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

I think any type of government safety net should be defined as socialism. You'll get power concentrated into a tiny few individuals in both purely socialist and purely capitalist systems. But socialism and capitalism work very when they work together. They should be viewed more as tools than as ideologies that need to be at odds with each other. It's a false dichotomy. Either will result in a loss in the value of the individual when they are out of balance, and will in the end need to be overthrown.

The primary difference between Socialism and Capitalism is who owns the means of production. In a socialistic system, the means of production (commerce and industry) are controlled either by the local collective or the government. In a capitalist system, they are owned by the private sector. I would define safety net as welfare, SSN, government regulation, headstart, housing assistance, and etc. There is no reason why a capitalist system can't have a robust safety net (ie: Canada and Europe).

 

[Treedbear]

...
Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

I think any type of government safety net should be defined as socialism. You'll get power concentrated into a tiny few individuals in both purely socialist and purely capitalist systems. But socialism and capitalism work very when they work together. They should be viewed more as tools than as ideologies that need to be at odds with each other. It's a false dichotomy. Either will result in a loss in the value of the individual when they are out of balance, and will in the end need to be overthrown.

The primary difference between Socialism and Capitalism is who owns the means of production. In a socialistic system, the means of production (commerce and industry) are controlled either by the local collective or the government. In a capitalist system, they are owned by the private sector. I would define safety net as welfare, SSN, government regulation, headstart, housing assistance, and etc. There is no reason why a capitalist system can't have a robust safety net (ie: Canada and Europe).

I guess that is the correct definition of Socialism. Well it seems the right wingers have won. And in doing so I think they've once again shot themselves in the foot. People like me will be voting for Bernie and calling for more Socialism. Before you know it we'll be saying a fence is really a wall.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The primary difference between Socialism and Capitalism is who owns the means of production. In a socialistic system, the means of production (commerce and industry) are controlled either by the local collective or the government. In a capitalist system, they are owned by the private sector. I would define safety net as welfare, SSN, government regulation, headstart, housing assistance, and etc. There is no reason why a capitalist system can't have a robust safety net (ie: Canada and Europe).

I guess that is the correct definition of Socialism. Well it seems the right wingers have won. And in doing so I think they've once again shot themselves in the foot. People like me will be voting for Bernie and calling for more Socialism. Before you know it we'll be saying a fence is really a wall.

Yes, they are winning the war of the words. They define safety net as socialism. Because they know that most people fear socialism (for good reason). You define programs that can benefit people as "socialism", your side loses, right wingers win, people who rely on a good safety net lose.

They've redefined taxes on estates as death taxes. Scares the shit out of people, estate taxes have been reduced.
They define tough feminists as nasty women, they win.
They define rationing of health care as death panels.

I could go on and on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The primary difference between Socialism and Capitalism is who owns the means of production. In a socialistic system, the means of production (commerce and industry) are controlled either by the local collective or the government. In a capitalist system, they are owned by the private sector. I would define safety net as welfare, SSN, government regulation, headstart, housing assistance, and etc. There is no reason why a capitalist system can't have a robust safety net (ie: Canada and Europe).

The thing is the leftists want to offload the safety net onto the business world in the illusion that that makes the costs go away. In reality, this actually increases the costs because they aren't properly accounted for and because it's a less efficient means of determining who needs the help.

I am not opposed to a social safety net but I'm very opposed to the leftist way of doing it. When you have off-the-books accounting the costs are higher than if you actually pay attention to them.

We don't do a good job of it, either, with a gazilllion different welfare programs.

There should be one welfare program that provides various types of help. One approval process, one place to check for fraud, not a bunch of hands that don't know what each other is doing.

 

[Underseer]

The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance | Aeon Essays

The nostalgia is because Communist regimes were good at welfare statism, something that their successors are not as good at. The chicken-in-every-pot promises of universal capitalist prosperity have not been kept very well.

Communists have indeed done very terrible things, even if some anti-Communists have exaggerated the numbers. The figure of 100 million dead comes from "The Black Book of Communism", edited by Stéphane Courtois. Two of its contributors have tried to distance themselves from that 100-million figure, because it seemed to them that SC was obsessed with reaching a nice-looking number.

One can make similar arguments about pro-capitalist regimes:


Then the question of how much various atrocities follow from Communism and capitalism.

In effect, "Make Germany Great Again".


For my part, I think that one can support social democracy and welfare statism, and also acknowledge the crimes of Communist regimes. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, for instance, are not orthodox Communists who want to send everybody they dislike to Arctic prison camps.

Furthermore, the crimes of Communists and Fascists and the like were committed with their state security apparatus, the sort of thing that many conservatives seem to think is the essential purpose of government. They howl about welfare statism, but not about military and police and prison expenditures. They talk about law and order and toughness on crime, but what would they think about 100 million supposed subversives and criminals being executed?

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

Tell me, who is the brutal tiny minority in the Scandinavian countries?

Socialism just means that the means of production is opened by the workers. Who is the brutal minority in employee-owned companies?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance | Aeon Essays

The nostalgia is because Communist regimes were good at welfare statism, something that their successors are not as good at. The chicken-in-every-pot promises of universal capitalist prosperity have not been kept very well.

Communists have indeed done very terrible things, even if some anti-Communists have exaggerated the numbers. The figure of 100 million dead comes from "The Black Book of Communism", edited by Stéphane Courtois. Two of its contributors have tried to distance themselves from that 100-million figure, because it seemed to them that SC was obsessed with reaching a nice-looking number.

One can make similar arguments about pro-capitalist regimes:


Then the question of how much various atrocities follow from Communism and capitalism.

In effect, "Make Germany Great Again".


For my part, I think that one can support social democracy and welfare statism, and also acknowledge the crimes of Communist regimes. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, for instance, are not orthodox Communists who want to send everybody they dislike to Arctic prison camps.

Furthermore, the crimes of Communists and Fascists and the like were committed with their state security apparatus, the sort of thing that many conservatives seem to think is the essential purpose of government. They howl about welfare statism, but not about military and police and prison expenditures. They talk about law and order and toughness on crime, but what would they think about 100 million supposed subversives and criminals being executed?

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

Tell me, who is the brutal tiny minority in the Scandinavian countries?

Socialism just means that the means of production is opened by the workers. Who is the brutal minority in employee-owned companies?

It's really a shame that the Scandinavian countries have this socialistic reputation. Believe me, they are among the most capitalistic companies practicing brutal competition in the world (I mean this in a good way). Just do a quick google search if you don't believe me. Secondly, yes there are employee owned companies in the Europe and in the US. But these employee companies mostly arose from the employees gathering together and buying the shares of the company from the founder. They are still owned by the shareholders. It's just that the shareholders are the employees. And in most of them, the primarily decision makers are the majority share holders. There are some exceptions. Most systems in the world contain a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The difference that I'm trying to make is that Europe and the US mostly have the same system. It's just that Europe has a larger safety net. But to claim that safety net is socialism is to bow down the right wing who want to kill the safety net.

- - - Updated - - -

The primary difference between Socialism and Capitalism is who owns the means of production. In a socialistic system, the means of production (commerce and industry) are controlled either by the local collective or the government. In a capitalist system, they are owned by the private sector. I would define safety net as welfare, SSN, government regulation, headstart, housing assistance, and etc. There is no reason why a capitalist system can't have a robust safety net (ie: Canada and Europe).

The thing is the leftists want to offload the safety net onto the business world in the illusion that that makes the costs go away. In reality, this actually increases the costs because they aren't properly accounted for and because it's a less efficient means of determining who needs the help.

I am not opposed to a social safety net but I'm very opposed to the leftist way of doing it. When you have off-the-books accounting the costs are higher than if you actually pay attention to them.

We don't do a good job of it, either, with a gazilllion different welfare programs.

There should be one welfare program that provides various types of help. One approval process, one place to check for fraud, not a bunch of hands that don't know what each other is doing.

I don't disagree. I think that Europe's safety net is a little high, the US a little low. I'd like to see more assistance for school, training, and health care. Although I'm not sure how far to go because I don't want taxes risen dramatically.

 

[Juma]

The primary difference between Socialism and Capitalism is who owns the means of production. In a socialistic system, the means of production (commerce and industry) are controlled either by the local collective or the government. In a capitalist system, they are owned by the private sector. I would define safety net as welfare, SSN, government regulation, headstart, housing assistance, and etc. There is no reason why a capitalist system can't have a robust safety net (ie: Canada and Europe).

The thing is the leftists want to offload the safety net onto the business world in the illusion that that makes the costs go away. In reality, this actually increases the costs because they aren't properly accounted for and because it's a less efficient means of determining who needs the help.

I am not opposed to a social safety net but I'm very opposed to the leftist way of doing it. When you have off-the-books accounting the costs are higher than if you actually pay attention to them.

We don't do a good job of it, either, with a gazilllion different welfare programs.

There should be one welfare program that provides various types of help. One approval process, one place to check for fraud, not a bunch of hands that don't know what each other is doing.

Nobody thinks the ”costs go away”. But we think that the businesses should pay for the resources they use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The primary difference between Socialism and Capitalism is who owns the means of production. In a socialistic system, the means of production (commerce and industry) are controlled either by the local collective or the government. In a capitalist system, they are owned by the private sector. I would define safety net as welfare, SSN, government regulation, headstart, housing assistance, and etc. There is no reason why a capitalist system can't have a robust safety net (ie: Canada and Europe).

The thing is the leftists want to offload the safety net onto the business world in the illusion that that makes the costs go away. In reality, this actually increases the costs because they aren't properly accounted for and because it's a less efficient means of determining who needs the help.

I am not opposed to a social safety net but I'm very opposed to the leftist way of doing it. When you have off-the-books accounting the costs are higher than if you actually pay attention to them.

We don't do a good job of it, either, with a gazilllion different welfare programs.

There should be one welfare program that provides various types of help. One approval process, one place to check for fraud, not a bunch of hands that don't know what each other is doing.

Nobody thinks the ”costs go away”. But we think that the businesses should pay for the resources they use.

But they aren't using the resources. The people are going to use the resources whether they are working or not.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

The problem is the far right shrieks "Socialism!" about many things like health care for all, living wages for employees, and more. The rancid spirit of Ayn Rand is loose in the land. But it looks like these fools are selling socialism to the millennials, who are accepting socialism as recent polls demonstrate.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html

Ask a millennial if they would rather live under a socialist or capitalist country, and they’re likely to give an answer much different than their parents or grandparents would.

That’s according to a new YouGov study commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist organization, which found that 44 percent of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country, with another 7 percent saying the same about communism.

Meanwhile, just 42 percent of millennials said they would choose to live in a capitalistic country like the United States, according to the survey of 2,000 people.


----

Looks like the far right's benighted vision of how our world should be isn't going over so well as many youthful millennials tire of seeing wages stagnate while the filthy rich get even richer.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html#storylink=cpy
​

 

[Harry Bosch]

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

The problem is the far right shrieks "Socialism!" about many things like health care for all, living wages for employees, and more. The rancid spirit of Ayn Rand is loose in the land. But it looks like these fools are selling socialism to the millennials, who are accepting socialism as recent polls demonstrate.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html

Ask a millennial if they would rather live under a socialist or capitalist country, and they’re likely to give an answer much different than their parents or grandparents would.

That’s according to a new YouGov study commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist organization, which found that 44 percent of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country, with another 7 percent saying the same about communism.

Meanwhile, just 42 percent of millennials said they would choose to live in a capitalistic country like the United States, according to the survey of 2,000 people.


----

Looks like the far right's benighted vision of how our world should be isn't going over so well as many youthful millennials tire of seeing wages stagnate while the filthy rich get even richer.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html#storylink=cpy
​

But socialism isn't creating government programs to help people! Socialism is taking the means of production (essentially companies) and giving it to the collective. Most Americans will always be against this. So every time a program is started to help the environment, increase the safety net, help feed poor seniors, or whatever - it is being labeled socialism, and it's being peeled back. The republicans want to divide the democrats. They very successfully did this in 2016. The left can't and won't win with only 44% of the millennials voting for them.

 

[Treedbear]

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism. Anyway, evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals. This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control. Wipe out the unbelievers. And then they will give up power to the collective. The problem is that thugs don't give up power very easily!

The problem is the far right shrieks "Socialism!" about many things like health care for all, living wages for employees, and more. The rancid spirit of Ayn Rand is loose in the land. But it looks like these fools are selling socialism to the millennials, who are accepting socialism as recent polls demonstrate.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html

Ask a millennial if they would rather live under a socialist or capitalist country, and they’re likely to give an answer much different than their parents or grandparents would.
That’s according to a new YouGov study commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist organization, which found that 44 percent of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country, with another 7 percent saying the same about communism.
Meanwhile, just 42 percent of millennials said they would choose to live in a capitalistic country like the United States, according to the survey of 2,000 people.

----

Looks like the far right's benighted vision of how our world should be isn't going over so well as many youthful millennials tire of seeing wages stagnate while the filthy rich get even richer.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html#storylink=cpy
​

But socialism isn't creating government programs to help people! Socialism is taking the means of production (essentially companies) and giving it to the collective. Most Americans will always be against this. So every time a program is started to help the environment, increase the safety net, help feed poor seniors, or whatever - it is being labeled socialism, and it's being peeled back. The republicans want to divide the democrats. They very successfully did this in 2016. The left can't and won't win with only 44% of the millennials voting for them.

I'll amend my view. What most people currently seem to mean by socialism is, rather, social democracy:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve: a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.

I'm pretty sure this is what Bernie Sanders is promoting when he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, and not:

... a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production ... Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity ...

although I have to admit it's frustrating that he isn't more clear on this. Most people don't want state ownership of the means of production. They want state redistribution of the concentrated wealth that is unavoidable under pure Capitalism.

In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a decent standard of living and that their incomes should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad."

 

[Elixir]

...evil almost always takes over whenever power is concentrated into a tiny a few individuals.

True 'nuff.

This is why true socialism and communism must be avoided - both systems require a brutal tiny minority to yield absolute control.

I don't think our current crop of conservo-libertarians are too concerned about a brutal tiny minority wielding power. They elected an autocratic sociopath, and seem quite happy with his efforts to dismantle any checks on his power, to tear down the independence of the Justice Department, turn law enforcement into his personal brownshirts, attack courts when they rule against him...

Wipe out the unbelievers.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Suppress their votes, jail or deport as many as possible and put fear into the hearts of the rest, so they're afraid to show up at the polls. And enlist the help of a brutal adversary to perpetuate their power...
But thank fucking god he's not a goddam SOCIALIST!

 

[Bomb#20]

The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance | Aeon Essays
...
Then the question of how much various atrocities follow from Communism and capitalism.

We will grant for the sake of argument that slavery and the rest do not follow from the principles of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. But the historical point in the anti-communism argument is equally dubious. Where, for example, in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels does one find that leaders should deliberately induce mass starvation or purges?

Seriously?

How did this division of the nations come about, what was its basis? The division is in accordance with all the previous history of the nationalities in question. It is the beginning of the decision on the life or death of all these nations, large and small. All the earlier history of Austria up to the present day is proof of this and 1848 confirmed it. Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.
...
The Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

Stalin murdered seven million Ukrainians and Engels would have applauded. Engels classified nationalities as revolutionary or reactionary; in his mind Ukrainians were reactionary. (Though in all fairness, he really had it in more for the Czechs and the Croatians than for the Ukrainians.)

By contrast with both capitalism and communism, many of the most grotesque crimes of Nazism were natural conclusions of their racist ideology. Nazi doctrine elevated German Aryans above all other races, particularly Jews.

And communist doctrine elevated the goal of achieving communism above all other considerations, particularly human rights.

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation...

Anybody who reads Marx and is then surprised at what his true believers did is an idiot.

Moreover, Marx's and Engels' moral failings aside, the grotesque crimes of communism were natural conclusions of communist ideology. Private property is the original separation of powers. When you do away with it -- when you unite all the myriad powers over all the myriad means of production in the hands of one Party -- you give that Party absolute power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If most communists didn't want those crimes before they took power, so what? We should forgive them?!? The crimes were foreseeable. Yes, communists really are bad guys, because arrogant self-deceivers do not qualify as having good intentions.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But socialism isn't creating government programs to help people! Socialism is taking the means of production (essentially companies) and giving it to the collective. Most Americans will always be against this. So every time a program is started to help the environment, increase the safety net, help feed poor seniors, or whatever - it is being labeled socialism, and it's being peeled back. The republicans want to divide the democrats. They very successfully did this in 2016. The left can't and won't win with only 44% of the millennials voting for them.

I'll amend my view. What most people currently seem to mean by socialism is, rather, social democracy:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve: a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.

I'm pretty sure this is what Bernie Sanders is promoting when he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, and not:

... a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production ... Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity ...

although I have to admit it's frustrating that he isn't more clear on this. Most people don't want state ownership of the means of production. They want state redistribution of the concentrated wealth that is unavoidable under pure Capitalism.

In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a decent standard of living and that their incomes should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad."

Dude, I totally agree with you. However, many Americans believe that the world is 10,000 years old and that climate change is a conspiracy. How do you expect them to understand the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? Again, conservatives are winning elections with fewer numbers because they have language on their side. They know how to win hearts with rhetoric.

 

[Bomb#20]

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism.

Where are you getting that? In the first place, what makes you perceive right wingers to have won the argument? The government safety net grows and grows. We have a Republican president, House, Senate, and SCOTUS, and they were unable to even "repeal and replace" the ACA, let alone repeal and not replace it. Judging by concrete results they appear to have lost the argument.

And in the second place, what makes you perceive primarily right wingers to be the ones who defined any type of government safety net as socialism? Left wingers do that constantly. The leftists who wrote the OP article wrote "labour supporters and social liberals who desire an expanded role for the state hope to save the democratic socialist baby from the authoritarian bathwater", calling a safety net a socialist baby. Sanders and Corbyn proudly call themselves socialists; right wingers didn't make them do that. And left wingers have a clearer motive for fudging the definition than right wingers have. They know how popular a safety net is. The ones who actually want collective ownership of the means of production stand to get their wish if by using the same name for both they can get the public to equate the two. Right wingers who call Social Security and Medicare "socialism" are shooting themselves in the foot. It doesn't make Social Security and Medicare less popular; it makes socialism more popular.

 

[Bomb#20]

Socialism just means that the means of production is opened by the workers. Who is the brutal minority in employee-owned companies?

Socialism means the means of production are compulsorily owned by "the workers" (in practice, usually by self-appointed "representatives" of the workers). It means the familiar models of ownership by thousands of shareholders or by the founder and his family are illegal. Some particular company being owned by its own employees, in the context of respect for private property rights, because they agreed among themselves to start a company that would work that way, isn't socialism. It's plain vanilla capitalism, and those workers are a bunch of capitalists, same as the partners in a law firm. Capitalist countries always have employee-owned companies. Capitalism doesn't mean stuff is owned by the rich; it means stuff is owned by whoever creates it or gets it in a voluntary trade with the previous owner. Which brings us to the answer to your question.

The brutal minority in a system of compulsorily employee-owned companies is the guys compelling employee-ownership. Socialism may well start out without a brutal minority, because a majority like the idea of their rich boss's company being taken away from him and handed over to them. But, as noted, that changes them from workers into capitalists. And when the socialist rulers of the new society figure this out -- when they realize the workers at the prosperous companies are selfishly enriching themselves while workers at marginal companies are worse off than before the confiscations -- the rulers begin a new round of confiscations, and appoint representatives of "the workers" to go to the prosperous companies and give orders to the workers. That doesn't go over too well with the majority who were told they were going to be rid of bosses and find they have them again. So the ruling minority resort to brutality to get their way.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Right wingers have won the argument by defining any type of government safety net as socialism.

Where are you getting that? In the first place, what makes you perceive right wingers to have won the argument? The government safety net grows and grows. We have a Republican president, House, Senate, and SCOTUS, and they were unable to even "repeal and replace" the ACA, let alone repeal and not replace it. Judging by concrete results they appear to have lost the argument.

And in the second place, what makes you perceive primarily right wingers to be the ones who defined any type of government safety net as socialism? Left wingers do that constantly. The leftists who wrote the OP article wrote "labour supporters and social liberals who desire an expanded role for the state hope to save the democratic socialist baby from the authoritarian bathwater", calling a safety net a socialist baby. Sanders and Corbyn proudly call themselves socialists; right wingers didn't make them do that. And left wingers have a clearer motive for fudging the definition than right wingers have. They know how popular a safety net is. The ones who actually want collective ownership of the means of production stand to get their wish if by using the same name for both they can get the public to equate the two. Right wingers who call Social Security and Medicare "socialism" are shooting themselves in the foot. It doesn't make Social Security and Medicare less popular; it makes socialism more popular.

How can anyone claim that the right hasn't won? They control every branch of government without having a majority. In a democracy, that's an incredible feat. Sure the people are moving left in some areas: gay rights, health care, and etc. But we are moving right in others: the environment, trade, business, and etc.

To be honest, I don't know why Bernie conflates socialism with increasing safety net. But clearly the right starting calling anything government related (welfare, food stamps, environmental protection, and etc.) as socialism.