"Alt Right" activist asks for Lenin Statue to be removed

[Chrysia]

Communism has never yielded a positive result.
It's economical plans are fundamentally incompatible with reality, its execution requires the centralization of power, and the subornement of individuals into the collective, with no room for dissent.
It's still objectively evil.

Yes, you are right, its only the Socialism that's bad in National Socialism.
That's not a cheap 'Nazis are left wing' jab - That's pointing out that Fascism is drawn from Socialism, and the disregard for the individual, and individual rights, is a thing they share.

Yes.
Again, Slavery was on the ropes in the UK before the revolution, The US constitution codified slavery into its constitution - While the UK abolition movement scored it' first victory in 1772


So again, UK common law held it to be illegal in 1772 - and only four years later the colonies, in a fit of rage at being asked to pay money for their own defense, rebelled.
And wrote in Slavery as a part of their constitution.

Communism's economic plans require a production level currently well beyond our means, sure, but it does not necessitate the individual to be suborned. It actually expects and encourages each individual to do their best work. It's completely unfeasible as long as our production capacity isn't far above our needs, but that's not evil, it's just a reason not to fully embrace Communist ideology.

Fascism isn't drawn from Socialism, at all. The Nazis didn't even practice anything that could realistically be called Socialism, it was closer to a form of cartel Capitalism.

Slavery isn't in the US Constitution. There was a huge argument about this. Many Founders wanted slavery explicitly codified into the Constitution, and others pushed back, rather strongly. The compromise was to refer to "bonded servants," which included slaves. You're grossly misrepresenting the impetus of the Revolutionary War.

[Grapemask]

So again, UK common law held it to be illegal in 1772 - and only four years later the colonies, in a fit of rage at being asked to pay money for their own defense, rebelled.
And wrote in Slavery as a part of their constitution.

None of this changes that it's still completely irrelevant to Washington statues, current context, or Confederate monuments. It's bizarre twisting to make an equally bizarre argument.

[Chrysia]

What definition of Communism is value neutral?

What are you actually saying here?

Communism: a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Seems pretty neutral to me.

His claim was that Communism was worse than Nazism because the implementation of Communism resulted in mass murder, as if Nazism didn't. It unambiguously did.

[Deleted]

None of this changes that it's still completely irrelevant to Washington statues, current context, or Confederate monuments. It's bizarre twisting to make an equally bizarre argument.

How can it be completely irrelevant? Both Washington and "Confederate" was a rebell, traitor and slave owner.....

[Chrysia]

How can it be completely irrelevant? Both Washington and "Confederate" was a rebell, traitor and slave owner.....

Washington fought against taxation without representation.

The Confederacy was founded explicitly to preserve black slavery. It was codified into their Constitution.

Washington was far from perfect, sure, but Lee fought to create a country where black slavery, and specifically black slavery, was codified into the Constitution and enforced in every member state. No state in the Confederacy could outlaw slavery.

Stop trying to equate them.

[Deleted]

Washington fought against taxation without representation.

The Confederacy was founded explicitly to preserve black slavery. It was codified into their Constitution.

There was Tax issue to, North wanted import duties to protect its industry, south who did have less industri did not want import duties, becuse they did more import so it was not explicitly....

Stop trying to equate them.

Why not? Washington did create a state there slavery was legally and he was a slave owner. He was not for universal suffrage either so he fought against taxation without representation for the chosen one....

If you want to destroy a statue becuse its a inappropriate role model you have to be consistent or you are a hypocrite.

[Felya]

You do know he fought for america too?
In fact he was offered a Union Command...

Yeah, he instead chose to fight the union. Wtf?

- - - Updated - - -

Why not? Washington did create a state there slavery was legally and he was a slave owner. He was not for universal suffrage either so he fought against taxation without representation for the chosen one....

If you want to destroy a statue becuse its a inappropriate role model you have to be consistent or you are a hypocrite.

Washington never fought against America. You are preserving those who attacked America, not role models. This isn't hypocracy, it's downright delusional.

[Chrysia]

There was Tax issue to, North wanted import duties to protect its industry, south who did have less industri did not want import duties, becuse they did more import so it was not explicitly....



Why not? Washington did create a state there slavery was legally and he was a slave owner. He was not for universal suffrage either so he fought against taxation without representation for the chosen one....

If you want to destroy a statue becuse its a inappropriate role model you have to be consistent or you are a hypocrite.

The tariffs on southern goods had existed for decades until the Republican party, which was explicitly abolitionist, seized power.

Washington didn't expressly fight to create a State intended to perpetuate, indefinitely, black slavery. No, Washington was not a perfect human being, but my objection to these statues isn't that they are poor role models, it's that they are celebrating men who fought for a State created explicitly to perpetuate the slavery of blacks.

[Deleted]

Yeah, he instead chose to fight the union. Wtf?

He chose his state over the federal government.

[Chrysia]

He chose his state over the federal government.

And by virtue of that fought to create a State that explicitly wanted to preserve the slavery of blacks perpetually.

[Deleted]

Washington fought against taxation without representation.

yes, That's why the third amendment says 'Free and universal suffrage for everyone'
Oh wait It doesn't.
meaning most people suffered taxation without representation.

[Breccia]

yes, That's why the third amendment says 'Free and universal suffrage for everyone'
.

Trump's rabid fanbase, everyone, fighting how horrible their Twitler is by arguing that George Washington was sexist and racist.

[Edge-]

yes, That's why the third amendment says 'Free and universal suffrage for everyone'
Oh wait It doesn't.
meaning most people suffered taxation without representation.

Are we doing that thing where we pretend we're going to judge historical figures by the morality of our times without making any acceptances/accommodations for historical beliefs at the time of the respective individuals? Where if the individual isn't a paragon of virtue, but was still pretty damn progressive for their time, you're going to say that modern progressives can't/shouldn't celebrate that individual because of the things that we now view as bad that they supported at the time?

I mean, I get it, it creates a false binary where progressives either have to hate everyone historically because they all did some bad shit, allowing for the criticism of "WELL LIBERALS ARE JUST DUMB IDEALISTS!", or you get to try to claim some kind of moral/historical equivalency between very different people where there is no actual equivalence in an attempt to dishonestly compare them and shield those being criticized. Both situations where "your" side wins that argument.

But people are capable of holding nuanced beliefs, factoring in historical realities, and celebrating those that engaged in behaviors that we find morally reprehensible now (like slavery) but made hugely progressive strides forward in other areas and helped lay the foundation for this country to progress so rapidly. Because people can praise the good they did, while still acknowledging, accepting, but not supporting their behaviors and beliefs that we no longer support.

It's a pretty lazy argument to be trying to make.

[Chrysia]

yes, That's why the third amendment says 'Free and universal suffrage for everyone'
Oh wait It doesn't.
meaning most people suffered taxation without representation.

You're conflating having zero voice whatsoever representing you in government to a failure to apply suffrage sufficiently to our modern standards.

[Deleted]

Communism's economic plans require a production level currently well beyond our means, sure, but it does not necessitate the individual to be suborned.

It bans private property.

It actually expects and encourages each individual to do their best work.

For the collective - because again, it banns private ownership of the means of production.

Fascism isn't drawn from Socialism, at all. The Nazis didn't even practice anything that could realistically be called Socialism, it was closer to a form of cartel Capitalism.

Do you know who Benito Mussolini was?
Hint, his father was an affirmed socialist, he was an affirmed socialist, he was the editor for what is still the socialist mouthpiece - Never-mind that it gestated fascism.
Fascism, is his 'improvement' on socialism.

Slavery isn't in the US Constitution. There was a huge argument about this. Many Founders wanted slavery explicitly codified into the Constitution, and others pushed back, rather strongly. The compromise was to refer to "bonded servants," which included slaves. You're grossly misrepresenting the impetus of the Revolutionary War.

No it was a tax dodge.

Section 9
1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

[Felya]

He chose his state over the federal government.

He chose his state instead of America...

[Deleted]

Are we doing that thing where we pretend we're going to judge historical figures by the morality of our times without making any acceptances/accommodations for historical beliefs at the time of the respective individuals?

Only selectively it seems.

- - - Updated - - -

You're conflating having zero voice whatsoever representing you in government to a failure to apply suffrage sufficiently to our modern standards.

Do i need to explain 'most' to you?

- - - Updated - - -

He chose his state instead of America...

You get that it was a point of contention at this point?
Whether or not the US is like the EU or like a state.

[Elegiac]

It bans private property.

No, it doesn't. Try again.

[Felya]

Only selectively it seems.

No shit it's selective. That's why the saying is 'to the victor go the spoils'. What country still celebrates the losing side of a civil war?

[Chrysia]

It bans private property.

For the collective - because again, it banns private ownership of the means of production.

Do you know who Benito Mussolini was?
Hint, his father was an affirmed socialist, he was an affirmed socialist, he was the editor for what is still the socialist mouthpiece - Never-mind that it gestated fascism.
Fascism, is his 'improvement' on socialism.

No it was a tax dodge.

Mussolini rejected egalitarianism, a key component of Socialism. Yes, he was raised socialist, but Fascism isn't "rooted in socialism."