Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Fine, whatever you say. Now you can stop spoiling threads with irrelevant toxicity.

[Good_Egg]

At the extremes, the original ideology tends to disappear, leaving only authoritarianism in its wake.

Fair point. If an ideology is "extreme", I.e. a long way from what the majority want, then it's going to have to be imposed strongly or fail. But arguably communism - the absence of private property - will always be a long way from what the majority want.

I don't think extremism can be defined as "a long way from what the majority want", although that may also be the case. Extreme describes something on the edges of the collected beliefs and opinions of all. Communism, and most other political systems too, are (in their non-extreme forms) pretty much what the majority want. The majority tends to favour a middle-path approach, in general.

If you don't think that communism is inherently centralised, or inherently extreme, perhaps you could give an indication of what you think moderate decentralised communism looks like ?

[Pattern-chaser]

At the extremes, the original ideology tends to disappear, leaving only authoritarianism in its wake.

Fair point. If an ideology is "extreme", I.e. a long way from what the majority want, then it's going to have to be imposed strongly or fail. But arguably communism - the absence of private property - will always be a long way from what the majority want.

I don't think extremism can be defined as "a long way from what the majority want", although that may also be the case. 'Extreme' describes something on the edges of the collected beliefs and opinions of all. Communism, and most other political systems too, are (in their non-extreme forms) pretty much what the majority want. The majority tends to favour a middle-path approach, in general.

If you don't think that communism is inherently centralised, or inherently extreme, perhaps you could give an indication of what you think moderate decentralised communism looks like ?

Socialism, perhaps as it is practised in some Scandinavian countries?

Centralisation is often identified as the bogeyman-feature of communism, by its detractors. But I don't think it occupies such a central role in communism itself. Centralisation is more a feature of authoritarianism and tyranny, I think. In that case, it describes how the dictators seek to centralise all significant decisions - centred on them.

In fairness, it's true that there are some services that are better implemented centrally, such as healthcare. But that isn't really what the detractors of communism are referring to, when they seek to demonise it.

[Sy Borg]

The irony is that it's the ultimate capitalist cohort that is pushing for the people to live without their own assets.

The political spectrum is circular, not linear. Thus, extreme ideologies of the "left" and "right" are indistinguishable. Both right and left wing extremists demand total control, and treat any idea of compromise as contemptuous weakness. Their extremism is nothing more than authoritarianism. Opposite paths leading to the same result. The left and right sides meet again with pragmatism, which is the logical opposite to radical idealism.

So the key is to avoid extremism, radicalisation. To remain responsive to reason and logic arguments, allowing for some measure of pragmatism temper idealism's tendency towards blinkered thinking.

[Sy Borg]

Scott

Could you please check this member's posts, especially his repeated ad hominem attacks, as regards suitability for the forum?

Since we have clashed, I am not comfortable administering this user's forum misbehaviour as it could be seen as abuse of my position, so I would prefer to operate as a regular member in this instance. Cheers.

[Good_Egg]

If you don't think that communism is inherently centralised, or inherently extreme, perhaps you could give an indication of what you think moderate decentralised communism looks like ?

Socialism, perhaps as it is practised in some Scandinavian countries?

I don't have any problem with a terminology that sees communism and socialism as essentially the same thing, but with the word "communism" used for the extreme form and "socialism" for moderate forms.

But with that terminology, communism is inherently extreme. So pretending that the Soviet experience isn't representative of communism because that was in some way extreme makes no sense. If extreme is bad then communism is bad.

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with a terminology that sees communism and socialism as two inherently different systems (with a few things in common).

But with that terminology, offering Scandinavian socialism as an example of moderate communism makes no sense.

I'm no expert on Scandinavia. But it seems like their socialism involves a big role for central government. Just as socialism does in Britain. Where's the decentralisation ?

[Pattern-chaser]

If you don't think that communism is inherently centralised, or inherently extreme, perhaps you could give an indication of what you think moderate decentralised communism looks like ?

Socialism, perhaps as it is practised in some Scandinavian countries?

I don't have any problem with a terminology that sees communism and socialism as essentially the same thing, but with the word "communism" used for the extreme form and "socialism" for moderate forms.

But with that terminology, communism is inherently extreme. So pretending that the Soviet experience isn't representative of communism because that was in some way extreme makes no sense. If extreme is bad then communism is bad.

So, we agree to label extreme left-wing politics "communist", and the more moderate, "socialist", and then we look and say "Oo, look! Communism is an extreme ideology, just as we said it was!"?

But I definitely agree that extreme ideologies are, in general, "bad".

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with a terminology that sees communism and socialism as two inherently different systems (with a few things in common).

But with that terminology, offering Scandinavian socialism as an example of moderate communism makes no sense.

I'm no expert on Scandinavia. But it seems like their socialism involves a big role for central government. Just as socialism does in Britain. Where's the decentralisation ?

A left-wing ideology requires a bigger role for government, simply because it has more to do than a 'laissez-faire' right-wing government does.

But I don't quite get your final comment about the UK. We did have more-or-less socialist government in the 70s, for a few short years, but in my life, this was the only time. (I was born in 1955.) Before and since, we have had right-wing governments of various sorts. Tony Blair's party was labelled "Labour", and was notionally left-wing, but they got into power by cosying-up to business, small and large, in favour of the working man/woman. Our present government is entirely made up of lying, corrupt, and self-serving libertarians; not a left-winger in sight.

[Ecurb]

Communism is a utopian (and therefore extreme) system. That's the problem with it. Early Christians welcomed being devoured by lions; Islamic terrorists perform suicide bombings; Communists justify torture and war for the sake of the ideal State.

Perhaps pragmatic governance trumps idealistic governance. The latter (whether communist or libertarian) leads to the justification of practically anything, just as the ideals of Christianity or Islam sometimes do.

p.s. I've always thought that if I were a Muslim being recruited for terror I would tell my Imam, "Of course I want to go to heaven and partake of all those virgins, but I'm willing to sacrifice. Although it is not my preference, I'll use a bomb with a timer, so that I can repeat my terrorist actions. It's not great for me, but it will further the cause."

[Pattern-chaser]

Communism is a utopian (and therefore extreme) system. That's the problem with it. Early Christians welcomed being devoured by lions; Islamic terrorists perform suicide bombings; Communists justify torture and war for the sake of the ideal State.

I don't think it would be useful to respond to this ideological propaganda.

[Gregory A]

The irony is that it's the ultimate capitalist cohort that is pushing for the people to live without their own assets.

The political spectrum is circular, not linear. Thus, extreme ideologies of the "left" and "right" are indistinguishable. Both right and left wing extremists demand total control, and treat any idea of compromise as contemptuous weakness. Their extremism is nothing more than authoritarianism. Opposite paths leading to the same result. The left and right sides meet again with pragmatism, which is the logical opposite to radical idealism.

So the key is to avoid extremism, radicalisation. To remain responsive to reason and logic arguments, allowing for some measure of pragmatism temper idealism's tendency towards blinkered thinking.

Starting off as ideologies, pimping plights, pushing contrived ideals, ending in Animal Farm outcomes. The natural order of regular conservative values abandoned. Communism was a still-birth from the start, hardly a worker among its elites, workers instead accepting their place in what were stalled or unestablished economies at the time. There is nothing circular what ever. Breaks in the natural order allowing opportunity for ever-present megalomaniac types to seize or gravitate up (an identical action in motion today, but it's not communism inclusive of males as it was/is).

[Gregory A]

Communism is a utopian (and therefore extreme) system. That's the problem with it. Early Christians welcomed being devoured by lions; Islamic terrorists perform suicide bombings; Communists justify torture and war for the sake of the ideal State.

Perhaps pragmatic governance trumps idealistic governance. The latter (whether communist or libertarian) leads to the justification of practically anything, just as the ideals of Christianity or Islam sometimes do.

p.s. I've always thought that if I were a Muslim being recruited for terror I would tell my Imam, "Of course I want to go to heaven and partake of all those virgins, but I'm willing to sacrifice. Although it is not my preference, I'll use a bomb with a timer, so that I can repeat my terrorist actions. It's not great for me, but it will further the cause."

Capitalism in the form of free enterprise has always been around. It is not something we elect on election day. Capitalism can't be voted in whereas communism can. Capitalism is not an ideology. We can buy a cake or we can bake one, it is a choice not imposed. It is to be able to bake your cake and sell it too. It is a violation of your right and the right of the customer if this is not allowed. Communism is political and is imposed on the people.

[Sy Borg]

The irony is that it's the ultimate capitalist cohort that is pushing for the people to live without their own assets.

The political spectrum is circular, not linear. Thus, extreme ideologies of the "left" and "right" are indistinguishable. Both right and left wing extremists demand total control, and treat any idea of compromise as contemptuous weakness. Their extremism is nothing more than authoritarianism. Opposite paths leading to the same result. The left and right sides meet again with pragmatism, which is the logical opposite to radical idealism.

So the key is to avoid extremism, radicalisation. To remain responsive to reason and logic arguments, allowing for some measure of pragmatism temper idealism's tendency towards blinkered thinking.

Starting off as ideologies, pimping plights, pushing contrived ideals, ending in Animal Farm outcomes. The natural order of regular conservative values abandoned. Communism was a still-birth from the start, hardly a worker among its elites, workers instead accepting their place in what were stalled or unestablished economies at the time. There is nothing circular what ever. Breaks in the natural order allowing opportunity for ever-present megalomaniac types to seize or gravitate up (an identical action in motion today, but it's not communism inclusive of males as it was/is).

Similarities and Differences Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Radicals

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... E91A19D881

The far left and the far right also resemble each other in the way they pursue their political goals. Both are disposed to censor their opponents, to deal harshly with enemies, to sacrifice the well-being even of the innocent in order to serve a ‘higher purpose’, and to use cruel tactics if necessary to ‘persuade’ society of the wisdom of their objectives. Both tend to support (or oppose) civil liberties in a highly partisan and self-serving fashion, supporting freedom for themselves and for the groups and causes they favour while seeking to withhold it from enemies and advocates of causes they dislike.

In sum, when the views of the far left and far right are evaluated against the standard left–right ideological dimension, they can appropriately be classifled at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But when the two camps are evaluated on questions of political and psychological style, the treatment of political opponents, and the tactics that they are willing to employ to achieve their ends, the display many parallels that can rightly be labelled authoritarian.

[Gregory A]

The irony is that it's the ultimate capitalist cohort that is pushing for the people to live without their own assets.

The political spectrum is circular, not linear. Thus, extreme ideologies of the "left" and "right" are indistinguishable. Both right and left wing extremists demand total control, and treat any idea of compromise as contemptuous weakness. Their extremism is nothing more than authoritarianism. Opposite paths leading to the same result. The left and right sides meet again with pragmatism, which is the logical opposite to radical idealism.

So the key is to avoid extremism, radicalisation. To remain responsive to reason and logic arguments, allowing for some measure of pragmatism temper idealism's tendency towards blinkered thinking.

Starting off as ideologies, pimping plights, pushing contrived ideals, ending in Animal Farm outcomes. The natural order of regular conservative values abandoned. Communism was a still-birth from the start, hardly a worker among its elites, workers instead accepting their place in what were stalled or unestablished economies at the time. There is nothing circular what ever. Breaks in the natural order allowing opportunity for ever-present megalomaniac types to seize or gravitate up (an identical action in motion today, but it's not communism inclusive of males as it was/is).

Similarities and Differences Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Radicals

Cambridge. org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/similarities-and-differences-between-leftwing-and-rightwing-radicals/C46411F0228745583D2EB8E91A19D881

The far left and the far right also resemble each other in the way they pursue their political goals. Both are disposed to censor their opponents, to deal harshly with enemies, to sacrifice the well-being even of the innocent in order to serve a ‘higher purpose’, and to use cruel tactics if necessary to ‘persuade’ society of the wisdom of their objectives. Both tend to support (or oppose) civil liberties in a highly partisan and self-serving fashion, supporting freedom for themselves and for the groups and causes they favour while seeking to withhold it from enemies and advocates of causes they dislike.

In sum, when the views of the far left and far right are evaluated against the standard left–right ideological dimension, they can appropriately be classifled at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But when the two camps are evaluated on questions of political and psychological style, the treatment of political opponents, and the tactics that they are willing to employ to achieve their ends, the display many parallels that can rightly be labelled authoritarian.

Sure, and I have no problem whatever with what is being said there. The point is that they are talking politics from a purely political perspective whereas I'm not. I'm saying that the Left is the sociopolitical representation of our (society's) softside, itself a representation of the 'X' chromosome, the 'Y' of course representing our hard side. Using that criteria it becomes impossible for the far Left and the far-Right to resemble each other. They are both on the extreme right in effect. Communism was stillborn it never really came into effect even if went through the motions for a time. The nearest thing to communism in practice were probably communal lifestyles? they worked I'm sure, but when someone came up with the idea of capital, figuring as they would that it is easier to fit a bag of coins in one's pocket than fit a cow in there, bringing their barter systems to an end. There is nothing wrong with a political perspective, but the biology behind things needs to be factored in to get the bigger picture.

[Sy Borg]

Authoritarians are ultimately all the same. The difference between Hitler on the right and Stalin on the left, for example, is moot.

Not sure too many would see far left China, Russia and NK as extreme expressions of the universal feminine, with far right Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan representing the universal masculine. They are all just authoritarian states.

[Gregory A]

Authoritarians are ultimately all the same. The difference between Hitler on the right and Stalin on the left, for example, is moot.

Not sure too many would see far left China, Russia and NK as extreme expressions of the universal feminine, with far right Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan representing the universal masculine. They are all just authoritarian states.

Yes, that is right again. But if the Left in the social sense at least, is soft, they for example being represented culturally as an outbreak in the 60's USA, then the extreme Left would need to be even softer than were those hippies. We are talking realities, not claims made by politicians or historians regarding political positioning. And as you are aware there were prominent female communists, but not a lot of females on the other side I figure.