Why is being a communist socially acceptable when nazism is not?

[cubby]

I think you meant dictatorship.
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• China.
• Denmark.
• Finland.
• Netherlands.
• Canada.
• Sweden.
• Norway.
• Ireland

The horror . . .

- - - Updated - - -

Are you trying to annoy me? "an economic", "an ideological", "e" and "i" are vowels.

What are you getting at? Is this a grammar thing?

[Vargur]

The horror . . .

- - - Updated - - -



What are you getting at? Is this a grammar thing?

Why did you even bother replying to me if you typed nothing of value?

[Moralgy]

Being a communist is about an economic belief that has a bad record historically of being run by terrible humans. Nazism is at its core about being a terrible human. One has a bad rap because of those who ran it, the other has a bad rap because of the belief itself. To add to this a bit more, communism wasnt about violence, but those who ran it ended up doing so, while nazism itself is about violence.

That is the difference at its core.

[Crispin]

I wonder if that's true, no matter the ideology there is always a spectrum of belief from light to heavy. At some point in the growth of the ideology the "purists" will take over and try to purge all other beliefs from the spectrum so in the end there is only one idea.

But I wouldn't doubt that fascism had many interpretations by many different practioners over the years.

It's called group polarization, and has nothing to do with the "purists" taking over.

[Forogil]

No, it is not related, because you are saying that Russia was not “sufficiently” industrialized. You link Marxist theory, which I am not disputing. I am disputing the “sufficiently” that you hinge your wrongness of Marx on.

Or in other words you are disputing the traditional Marxist understanding of the traditional Marxist theory. Excellent.

While you literally link Lenin talking about and blaming the very industrial expansion I pointed out and you claimed wasn’t “sufficient”?

No, it didn't "blame" the industrial expansion - it stated that Russia had progressed less and differently than Marx had thought necessary for the revolution that directly would lead to communism.
If the bourgeois phase could be skipped - contrary to Marx - why cannot other phases (like socialism) be skipped?

If you cannot understand a simple paragraph I understand you have problems with the general understanding.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you meant dictatorship.
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• China.
• Denmark.
• Finland.
• Netherlands.
• Canada.
• Sweden.
• Norway.
• Ireland

Only China (together with Venezuela)) could be seen as belonging on that list, although the economic progress in China started after lessening the socialistic ideas post-GoF.
Denmark, Finland, etc have major social democratic parties - not socialists. (And currently Denmark has a right-wing prime-minister, from the confusingly named "Venstre", and Finland a centre-right government.)

The social democratic movement grew from similar soil as the communist and socialists - but have progressed from those roots and generally abandoned the socialistic ideas. Already the communist manifesto spends considerably time separating the social democratic parties of that time from the real communists.

- - - Updated - - -

But I wouldn't doubt that fascism had many interpretations by many different practioners over the years.

True, and even among the original nazist there were differences.

But the "night of the long knives" was partially a purge of those more socialistic members of the nazi party to get everyone to march to the same tune.

[Vargur]

- - - Updated - - -


Only China (together with Venezuela)) could be seen as belonging on that list, although the economic progress in China started after lessening the socialistic ideas post-GoF.
Denmark, Finland, etc have major social democratic parties - not socialists. (And currently Denmark has a right-wing prime-minister, from the confusingly named "Venstre", and Finland a centre-right government.)

The social democratic movement grew from similar soil as the communist and socialists - but have progressed from those roots and generally abandoned the socialistic ideas. Already the communist manifesto spends considerably time separating the social democratic parties of that time from the real communists.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see your point. Are you inferring that democratic communism can't exist?

[Forogil]

I don't see your point. Are you inferring that democratic communism can't exist?

What does that have to do with my answer?

I stated that most of the countries on that list aren't socialistic and don't have major socialistic parties. "Social democrats" is a different ideology from socialists - and from communists.

China might be called "democratic communistic" - but both parts are debatable; the economic progress truly began after introducing reforms that don't look very socialistic or communistic; like large private companies and billionaires. And one-party states are not "democratic" in the normal sense.

[Macaquerie]

What does that have to do with my answer?

I stated that most of the countries on that list aren't socialistic and don't have major socialistic parties. "Social democrats" is a different ideology from socialists - and from communists.

China might be called "democratic communistic" - but both parts are debatable; the economic progress truly began after introducing reforms that don't look very socialistic or communistic; like large private companies and billionaires. And one-party states are not "democratic" in the normal sense.

The Chinese economy is hardly an example of free market principles in action though, it's more of a corporatist system, where's there's really no meaningful distinction between the state and the private sector, and the reins of power are held by a nebulous group of influence peddlers who live in both worlds simultaneously. And their successes depend largely on the application of brute force and just throwing manpower and money at the problem until they've squashed it, there is very little of the efficiency or innovation that are often touted as natural product of unfettered capitalism.

[szechuan]

The Chinese economy is hardly an example of free market principles in action though, it's more of a corporatist system, where's there's really no meaningful distinction between the state and the private sector, and the reins of power are held by a nebulous group of influence peddlers who live in both worlds simultaneously. And their successes depend largely on the application of brute force and just throwing manpower and money at the problem until they've squashed it, there is very little of the efficiency or innovation that are often touted as natural product of unfettered capitalism.

Call it what you will, the Chinese have loosely adopted the Han Dynasty Philosophy of Meritocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-rank_system


Political Meritocracy is a Political Theory. This can explains China's reasoning for the Authoritarian behavior. Despite all it's Censorship Xi Jinping did in fact root out a lot of corruption it previously had. Just something to think about, not saying one system is better then the other.

There are 2 things Xi Jinping is known for in China
1. Combating corruption
2. Improving administrative efficiency.

https://www.economist.com/news/china...-barons-beware
Xi’s popularity also owes much to his tough stand to fight against corruption in CPC as well as in Chinese society. As of 2016, more than 120 high ranking officials, military elites and political leaders were executed to fight against corruption in addition to indictment of more than 100,000 people under stringent anti corruption laws. This initiative gained immense popularity among the Chinese masses as it was perceived as policy to punish rober barons and bring about just and equitable distribution of resources.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danie...b_1815245.html
Political meritocracy is the idea that a political system
is designed with the aim of selecting political leaders with above
average ability to make morally informed political judgments. That is,
political meritocracy has two key components: (1) the political leaders
have above average ability and virtue; and (2) the selection
mechanism is designed to choose such leaders.

Political meritocracy has been largely eclipsed from political theorizing in the modern world,
but there are three important reasons for reviving and reinterpreting
this political ideal, particularly in a Chinese context. First,
political meritocracy has been, and continues to be, central to Chinese
political culture. Second, democracy is a flawed political system and
meritocracy can help to remedy some of its flaws. Third, the Chinese
Communist Party itself has become a more meritocratic organization over
the last three decades or so. I will discuss each of these factors in turn.

Some more evidence of Xi JinPing's accomplishments. If it's propaganda or not i'll leave it up to you.




for good measure

[Macaquerie]

Call it what you will, the Chinese have loosely adopted the Han Dynasty Philosophy of Meritocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-rank_system

Political Meritocracy is a Political Theory. This can explains China's reasoning for the Authoritarian behavior. Despite all it's Censorship Xi Jinping did in fact root out a lot of corruption it previously had. Just something to think about, not saying one system is better then the other.

The problem with implementing any kind of meritocracy is determining how exactly to define merit. The traditional examination system seems like a good idea, but in practice it tends to reward people who are skilled at test taking over those with actual administrative ability. And you can see echoes of that in the present day with the way the Chinese educational system tries to sort everyone into predefined tracks based on test scores giving absolutely no room for creative expression.

[Adolecent]

It sickens me to my stomach that being a communist is somehow socially acceptable in the west, when nobody has lived under socialist rule and knows the horrors of it. It's far from the utopia these mongs think it is.

First of all: Don't compare communism with socialism. They are 2 different ideologies. 2nd: Nazism litteraly preaches the destruction of others, communism doesn't. The problem with the communist ideologie is that it doesn't harbor saveguards against the many human inperfections. Thats the difference and should answer your question.

[Mormolyce]

The problem with implementing any kind of meritocracy is determining how exactly to define merit.

How big a bribe you give to your local government official of course.

[satimy]

Because there are way more communists then there have ever been nazis. The commies also have major political power and presence in major corporations.

[Deleted]

Doesn't communist manifest call a violent revolt where the bourgeoisie are brought down be the proletariat? Call me crazy, but both Nazism and Communism seem awful and shouldn't be acceptable.

And the American and French Revolutions called a violent revolt where the absolutists/royalists were brought down by the bourgeoisie. Should the entire Western Civilization built upon the principles of the American and French Revolutions be rejected then?

[cubby]

Why did you even bother replying to me if you typed nothing of value?

I was agreeing with you. I should have included the "/s". Sorry about that. Joking about "the horror" of living in those socialist countries - just awful.

I didn't understand the "e" and "i" thing. Did you explain that in a separate post?

[JohnBrown1917]

I think you meant dictatorship.
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• China.
• Denmark.
• Finland.
• Netherlands.
• Canada.
• Sweden.
• Norway.
• Ireland

- - - Updated - - -


Are you trying to annoy me? "an economic", "an ideological", "e" and "i" are vowels.

lol the Netherlands is not socialist at all, we have a liberal government for decades.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there are way more communists then there have ever been nazis. The commies also have major political power and presence in major corporations.

jesus holy hell on a stick, where do you people get this shit from? I mean, really, who the fuck comes up with this?

[Kuntantee]

Because I don't know where communism is socially acceptable?

This is a USA-only thing. Rest of the world is okay with communism, although many do not prefer it.

[Deletedaccount1]

This is a USA-only thing. Rest of the world is okay with communism, although many do not prefer it.

Very few people in America have cared if you are a communist since probably the 60s and certainly not since the end of the Cold War.

[Deleted]

Because the ideologist basic idea of communism is pure and doesn't require you to kill people. Even if in practice it's never worked out that way.
While the ideologist basic idea of nazism requires you to kill about 90% or the world's population.