NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm 15 and I'm not really idealistic when it comes to politics. I'm neither left wing or right wing, more of a mixture. But in the recent past (And to a degree now) a lot of young people have gone for radical left wing politics. A lot of fairly moderate politicians (Mainly in Europe rather than America) in western countries have been communists when they were younger. Then they crawl their way into mainstream politics and everyone dismisses their associations with communists as harmless idealism. That got me thinking, if there was a politician who was a member of a far right group when they were young you'd have a lot of politicians and ordinary people in uproar. There's a good chance something like that would be a career killer, and if it wasn't it would still be very controversial. Bearing in mind that communists have killed more than nazis worldwide, I find this a little hypocritical.

So what does everyone else think of this? Should people with previous far right associations be treated any differently to those of the far left? If not, do you think that young people who've been associated with either extremes should be treated with hostility or should they both be written off as harmless idealism?

As long as they don't kill anybody; I really couldn't care about political ideology.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']That got me thinking, if there was a politician who was a member of a far right group when they were young you'd have a lot of politicians and ordinary people in uproar. There's a good chance something like that would be a career killer, and if it wasn't it would still be very controversial. Bearing in mind that communists have killed more than nazis worldwide, I find this a little hypocritical.


Don't be absurd.

Communism is the ideal of universal brother- and sisterhood, of equality, compassion, solidarity and sharing. Far right extremism involves violent xenophobic nationalism. There's no comparison.

It's the height of absurdity to suggest that communists in general in any way condone or support the perversion of communism which was implemented in the State Socialist dictatorships of Eastern Europe and elsewhere. As you would know if you had any idea what communism means.

Probably because the right is seen as being more controlling than the left, which is people-oriented.

Don't be absurd.

Communism is the ideal of universal brother- and sisterhood, of equality, compassion, solidarity and sharing. Far right extremism involves violent xenophobic nationalism. There's no comparison.

It's the height of absurdity to suggest that communists in general in any way condone or support the perversion of communism which was implemented in the State Socialist dictatorships of Eastern Europe and elsewhere. As you would know if you had any idea what communism means.
I was expecting someone to say something along the lines of "That's not real communism". But despite how nice communism may look, I'd sooner look at the track record of all attempts at creating historical communist regimes across the world when I'm making a judgement on it. And there have been communist regimes that have been as bad as anything that fascists or nazis have done. As for the far right, it has also depended on the regimes in question. Nazi Germany was a bad one, but I'd have sooner lived in Spain under Franco than pretty much any communist regime. So I see supporting a party that would introduce a communist system that's like all the others we've seen (And I've seen no suggestion that it would turn out otherwise) to be as bad as supporting the far right.

Being on the extreme right somewhat suggests that you enjoy beating the shit out of ethnic minorities for the kicks. Being a communists suggests that you're some kind of stoner moron, which is far, far less negative an association.

Being on the extreme right somewhat suggests that you enjoy beating the shit out of ethnic minorities for the kicks. Being a communists suggests that you're some kind of stoner moron, which is far, far less negative an association.
From what I've heard, there were a lot of far left student rioters in the 60s and 70s across the western world. They seemed to get a kick out of beating the shit out of people and burning things down so I don't see how they're any better.

Interesting.
I'l start by saying politics affects your every decision, from what clothes you wear to who you socialise with.
It's also very messy and complex and often dangerous, another reason why many political idealogies fail is that all too often they are designed by lawyers (who although nice people, aren't the only sort), often politics needs to please as many people as possible (then there's people who don't vote), it's often time consuming to form balanced conclusions because we all have different perspectives of what's right and what's wrong.

I think it roughly goes like left-wing politics tends to aim to please lower classes (who although outnumber the other ones often lose out due to lack of education or too busy trying to survive),

and right-wing politics which aims to please the larger monetary organisations and big business (which encourages trade thus wealth, but often at the price of individual freedom, which is why upper classes tend like it).

I don't have a degree in any politics just from my experiences so i fully expect my crude analogies to be incorrect somewhere,
what i'd like to see is more interest in politics for most people, otherwise the government won't give what the public want.

If you don't care about politics please, please start caring it's better having an opinion and being wrong than none at all, read newspapers (not the tabloids, the broadsheet ones), watch the news, look up on the internet, take in interest poltics is one of the key ways to improve and remove individual and group way of life.

the founder of one of the largest parties in my country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Dillen):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/22/P04_dillen_karel_%28600_x_600%29.jpg/180px-P04_dillen_karel_%28600_x_600%29.jpg

he even was in the European parliament, so no, I don't think that being associated with the far right kills your political career.
Also note that most communists I know aren't stalinists, but generally caring, friendly and good people. The worst they do is talking a lot and possibly protesting in streets. I have a few extreme left friends (and maybe I am one too I guess) and my parents don't really care, I'm quite sure things would be different if they were neo-nazis.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296385']From what I've heard, there were a lot of far left student rioters in the 60s and 70s across the western world. They seemed to get a kick out of beating the shit out of people and burning things down so I don't see how they're any better.
Not really. Most of the student riots have been lame-arse MC affairs with lots of banner waving and chanting but not much more.

Both ideologies are wrong but communism is seen as having good intentions and so some misguided people see it's crimes as being less serious as that of Nazism and fascism (which are more accurately radical centrist than right wing if you factor economics into it).

I don't believe that a person from either side should be judged too harshly if they believed in a misguided ideology in their youth, providing they have genuinely changed their ideas and did not commit any violence against a particular race or class.

Here we go again... No guys,communism has nothing to do with a state controlled economy by some burrocrats and the head of the state a dictator like Stalin.Communism,is 4 things

1)Democracy based on councils from every neighborhood and business
2)the Social State of Sweden
3)the economic grow of U.S.
4)collective ownership of the means of production like in the U.S.S.R.

To answer your question,yes it's totally different.When you mean "far left" I suppose that you mean revolutionary left,right? Revolutionary left means taking part in demonstrations,expressing your views in public,editing books,like Das Capital,persuading people to fight when they are attacked by their bosses and fighting for more rights for the workers and when the time comes,organise workers people to seize power.

Far right means killing immigrants,or people who disagree with you,support racism and spread hate between people.

Noone should be judged for his beliefs,but if your political actions are killing,beating and stubbing you are not a political group,you are a gang.

P.S. sorry for spelling mistakes.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296358']I was expecting someone to say something along the lines of "That's not real communism". But despite how nice communism may look, I'd sooner look at the track record of all attempts at creating historical communist regimes across the world when I'm making a judgement on it.

Utterly beside the point.

What you're saying is that someone who once expressed support for the idea a caring, compassionate, humane society should be regarded as a homicidal maniac.

"Creating a communist regime", by the way, is by definition a contradiction in terms. Since you claim to know what communism means, I assume I don't need to explain why.

Of course, it suited propaganda-makers in Western countries to press untruths about communism into the malleable minds of voters.

Don't be absurd.

Communism is the ideal of universal brother- and sisterhood, of equality, compassion, solidarity and sharing. Far right extremism involves violent xenophobic nationalism. There's no comparison.

It's the height of absurdity to suggest that communists in general in any way condone or support the perversion of communism which was implemented in the State Socialist dictatorships of Eastern Europe and elsewhere. As you would know if you had any idea what communism means.

Indeed. Watch this. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eSYczEWz1Q4) Even if you disagree with communism, you still have to know the difference.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']I'm 15 and I'm not really idealistic when it comes to politics. I'm neither left wing or right wing, more of a mixture.
Your posting history gives me a right-wing impression, I think.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']But in the recent past (And to a degree now) a lot of young people have gone for radical left wing politics.
Not really. Far left politics are in a very small minority here, and I don't think that Sheffield is the exception rather than the rule.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']A lot of fairly moderate politicians (Mainly in Europe rather than America) in western countries have been communists when they were younger. Then they crawl their way into mainstream politics and everyone dismisses their associations with communists as harmless idealism.
I can't think of any, personally, apart from John Reid. I don't think there's very many at all.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']That got me thinking, if there was a politician who was a member of a far right group when they were young you'd have a lot of politicians and ordinary people in uproar. There's a good chance something like that would be a career killer, and if it wasn't it would still be very controversial. Bearing in mind that communists have killed more than nazis worldwide, I find this a little hypocritical.

So what does everyone else think of this? Should people with previous far right associations be treated any differently to those of the far left? If not, do you think that young people who've been associated with either extremes should be treated with hostility or should they both be written off as harmless idealism?
The fact that (apparently) communist governmenets have killed more than the Nazis isn't really relavent. If someone had been a racist BNP member in their youth it might, rightly or wrongly, cast dount on their judgement and character because the BNP is a nasty, racist, white supremacist organisation. As far as I can see, the fringe far-left groups aren't. It's not the 'they killed more people than them' or the 'you're just as extreme as them' that might put people off.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']There's a good chance something like that would be a career killer, and if it wasn't it would still be very controversial.

I have at least four communist friends that I can name off the top of my head. None have ever killed anyone.

Bearing in mind that communists have killed more than nazis worldwide, I find this a little hypocritical.

Capital "c" Communists did, and the vast majority of communists don't consider capital "c" ones to be true communists.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']There's a good chance something like that would be a career killer, and if it wasn't it would still be very controversial. Bearing in mind that communists have killed more than nazis worldwide, I find this a little hypocritical.

WTF? Communism's only ever killed those who tried to implent it. Stalinism, Titoism, Maoism, on the other hand...

1)Democracy based on councils from every neighborhood and business
2)the Social State of Sweden
3)the economic grow of U.S.
4)collective ownership of the means of production like in the U.S.S.R
My USA history is kind of non-existant, but what does Communism have to do with the growth of the American economy? Unless it has something to do with the money spent on the military during the Cold War.

Here we go again... No guys,communism has nothing to do with a state controlled economy by some burrocrats and the head of the state a dictator like Stalin.Communism,is 4 things

1)Democracy based on councils from every neighborhood and business
2)the Social State of Sweden
3)the economic grow of U.S.
4)collective ownership of the means of production like in the U.S.S.R.
What you describe is the socialist state that comes before true communism. Communism, according the the communists I argue with, is this final form of society where the bonds of the state lift away and people just magically care about each other and don't instead turn against each other.

Far right means killing immigrants,or people who disagree with you,support racism and spread hate between people.
Fascism in practice was not what it was meant to be. To say that Italy or the other nations thta warped our early beliefs are Fascists is no different than if I said Stalin was a communist.

The Far Right stands for building a society where there is brotherhood between all citizens. Where people put the common good of the country and the economy before themselves.It's a goal that I admit is about as likely as the creation of a true communist society, but you guys have your impossible dream and I have mine.

God, I think I am going to have to create an entirely new thread to deal with the rampant misconceptions and outright lies going around about Stalin, it seems some people would rather believe Western and Nazi propaganda that analytical responses.

Either way, it's quite normal for teenagers to become Utopian and naive, and most times it means they become a conservative or neoliberal later in life, this is unfortunate because it means shifting belief from one fantasistic impractical 'ideology' to another, both are totally ethically self-contradictive. People shouldn't be looking for an 'ideology' they way they look for new clothes, just something to satisfy their intellectual needs. Instead they should find solace in Marxist material dialectical analysis on an objective basis, Marxism-Leninism is not an ideology but a science which analyzes socio-economic development and the struggle of property classes. It's not easy to be a Marxist, you must let go of all you're preconceived reactionary opinions and thoughts, you must take nothing for granted. You must analyze and conclude on problems in reality only by looking at reality, no spiritual(ideological) back doors for objective thinking. Finally, you must decide if you like Hegelian fantasy-based thinking or Marxist materialism.

God, I think I am going to have to create an entirely new thread to deal with the rampant misconceptions and outright lies going around about Stalin, it seems some people would rather believe Western and Nazi propaganda that analytical responses.

Please do. I need a good laugh.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296385']From what I've heard, there were a lot of far left student rioters in the 60s and 70s across the western world. They seemed to get a kick out of beating the shit out of people and burning things down so I don't see how they're any better.

First of all, with regard to politicians hiding Right-wing (i.e. fascist/Nazi) pasts, I have one thing to say: *cough*Kurt Waldheim*cough*

Second, in regard to this horribly inaccurate piece of tripe in the box above, I can only say "FROM WHAT YOU'VE HEARD?!?" Kid, if you're going to let "what you've heard" dictate how you think about things, you may as well start doing a recreational drug of your choosing and drop out of thinking circles now. For the love of all that's holy, don't let anyone else but your own eyes, ears and experience inform you. "Student rioters" were, for the most part, the ones RECEIVING the beatings. Whether it was for helping integrate the South or protesting the War in Vietnam, most student protesters were trying to right the wrongs they saw in society and in their government. Sure, some of it was misguided and even naive, but they chose to act instead of doing nothing. Look up events like the 1970 Kent State massacre to see what happens when a good idea is poorly executed in the presence of nervous people holding weapons.

In fact, please look up EVERYTHING you're trying to talk about. Read and listen and read some more. The one thing we don't need in the future is people so willing to swallow whatever they're told that anyone with a shiny enough lure can hook enough people to get elected...where REAL damage gets done.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296358']I was expecting someone to say something along the lines of "That's not real communism". But despite how nice communism may look, I'd sooner look at the track record of all attempts at creating historical communist regimes across the world when I'm making a judgement on it.


You're absolutely right. Great atrocities have been committed in the name of communism. However, such atrocities are hardly "the track record of all attempts" at reaching communism, and you're still missing the point.

"That's not real communism" is a perfectly appropriate response exactly because Stalinism, Maoism, and the other dictatorial schools you cite are only a few of all the schools that fall under "communism." But there are also democratic, anarchist, libertarian, and other sorts of "communism" which condemn Stalinist, Maoist and all other violent authoritarian regimes.

Now, please point out a single school of Nazism which is also democratic, anarchist, libertarian or which also condemns violence and authoritarianism.

Can't think of any? Well, there's your answer.

The reason why you haven't seen democratic communism in large-scale practice is because the far right has been so successful in crushing it with violence and authoritarianism. For a specific history of such in the United States, I recommend the book Subterranean Fire, published by Haymarket Books (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Haymarket&Product_Code=LMSF). It contains a history of the labor movement in the United States, including all the workers who fell to the guns and batons of the Pinkerton squads, police, and National Guard under the command of right-wing anti-communists. Of course, the Communists so repressed were one of the leading forces behind all kinds of democratic movements, including the Civil Rights Movement (the 1930s Scottsboro Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys) case is specifically discussed in this book).

You ask why in the West (Europe/America) former communists get a break while the far right does not? Well, its simply because Western history is marked by the authoritarian far right committing atrocities against nascent left wing democratic movements, which included many a communist. See, when trying to explain why something happens in Europe/America you need to consider the ideological paradigms of Europe/America, not that of the Soviet Union or China.

God, I think I am going to have to create an entirely new thread to deal with the rampant misconceptions and outright lies going around about Stalin, it seems some people would rather believe Western and Nazi propaganda that analytical responses.


Is it still "Western and Nazi propaganda" if it comes from the mouths of communists and socialists?

Is it still "Western and Nazi propaganda" if it comes from the mouths of communists and socialists?

Self-professed socialists and communists maybe, but the only one's it comes from are anti-communist Trots and watery bourgeois social-liberals looking to make a politically opportunistic grab by throwing mud at the work of Stalin, thus Marxism-Leninism itself. All true communists need to ask themselves two very simple questions, 1) Do you support class struggle rather than collaboration, and 2) Do you support revolution to topple capitalism or not? The answer will tell you very quickly who the real Marxists are and who the watered-down capitulationists are. And before you start sprouting the 'bureaucratic apparatus' Trot junk, please read the below linked work.
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Edit: I remember in the DSP once we had a Trot (or at least someone who brought the anti-Stalin rhetoric), but by the time we had got through talking to him he was a true ML, the whole 'give me a child and he'll be a Bolshevik forever' was never so true.

All true communists need to ask themselves two very simple questions, 1) Do you support class struggle rather than collaboration, and 2) Do you support revolution to topple capitalism or not? The answer will tell you very quickly who the real Marxists are and who the watered-down capitulationists are.


Before I'd go around telling other people what they are or are not, I'd ask myself one very simple question:

1) Is my own position based upon a rather blatant No True Scotsman Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)? There are, of course, all kinds of contemporary and historically recorded communists and socialists, those who would abolish capitalism and everything having to do with it, who consider democracy absolutely vital. They are part of the "accepted definition" of "communism," like it or not.


And before you start sprouting the 'bureaucratic apparatus' Trot junk, please read the below linked work.
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html


In the absence of an argument worthy of any serious consideration, there is no reason to "sprout" anything further. Your apparent need to equate me with Trotskyism simply demonstrates the absurdity of your position, as any of the other anti-authoritarian socialists/communists on this forum familiar with my posting history will testify. Never mind the contents of my signature below. The school of thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) I follow most closely split away from the rest before Trotsky was even born.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296332']I'm 15 and I'm not really idealistic when it comes to politics. I'm neither left wing or right wing, more of a mixture. But in the recent past (And to a degree now) a lot of young people have gone for radical left wing politics. A lot of fairly moderate politicians (Mainly in Europe rather than America) in western countries have been communists when they were younger. Then they crawl their way into mainstream politics and everyone dismisses their associations with communists as harmless idealism. That got me thinking, if there was a politician who was a member of a far right group when they were young you'd have a lot of politicians and ordinary people in uproar. There's a good chance something like that would be a career killer, and if it wasn't it would still be very controversial. Bearing in mind that communists have killed more than nazis worldwide, I find this a little hypocritical.


1.Your last sentence is historically false, unless you claim that all the casualties of WW2 are on Stalin's count (hence, you would define yourself as such an ideologically-driven anticommunist that all of your anti-commie bias becomes quite suspect).

2.That other statement of yours (bolded, bold mine) is false. Here are two examples:

Gianfranco Fini, Italy, leader of the Alleanza Nazionale post-fascist party, formerly a leader in the Movimento Sociale Italiano (neo-fascist party, derived directly from Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista and the Repubblica Sociale Italiana, italian Nazi puppet state 1943-1945). His party was in the alliance that won the elections in 1994, and had part in the first Berlusconi cabinet. Vice-Prime-Minister in the second Berlusconi cabinet (2001-2006), and also has held the office of Foreign Minister. About 10 years ago he stated that "Benito Mussolini has been the best italian politician."

Josè Maria Aznar, Spain, leader of the Partido Popular right-wing party, during the dictatorship was a leader in the youth formations of Francisco Franco's party. Two times PM of Spain.

Lear history BEFORE trying to make commentaries.

"That's not real communism" is a perfectly appropriate response exactly because Stalinism, Maoism, and the other dictatorial schools you cite are only a few of all the schools that fall under "communism."

By the way, Marx stated that communism was a state of society following advanced capitalism, while CCCP and Mao's China tried to create socialism and communism in countries who were still in the initial phases of capitalism (and still mostly feudal).

EA, still waiting for your Stalin thread.

2.That other statement of yours (bolded, bold mine) is false. Here are two examples:

Gianfranco Fini, Italy, leader of the Alleanza Nazionale post-fascist party, formerly a leader in the Movimento Sociale Italiano (neo-fascist party, derived directly from Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista and the Repubblica Sociale Italiana, italian Nazi puppet state 1943-1945). His party was in the alliance that won the elections in 1994, and had part in the first Berlusconi cabinet. Vice-Prime-Minister in the second Berlusconi cabinet (2001-2006), and also has held the office of Foreign Minister. About 10 years ago he stated that "Benito Mussolini has been the best italian politician."

Josè Maria Aznar, Spain, leader of the Partido Popular right-wing party, during the dictatorship was a leader in the youth formations of Francisco Franco's party. Two times PM of Spain.

Lear history BEFORE trying to make commentaries.

Kurt Waldheim, ftw.

Please do. I need a good laugh.

Yes. We all do :)

His rabid stalinists stances unite both left and right from what I've seen :P