ADVERTISEMENT

Why we shouldn't refer to Harris and Walz as communists

You're right, that was a bad analogy, but I can't think of a good one. My intent was simply to highlight that true democratic socialists are actually socialist, while the real life alternatives we have genuinely are not.
I think what you wrote is fine (and they could be thought of on the same spectrum); it's just that neither is actually Marxist. There are lots of types of socialism--Marx's theories are just the most famous.
 
You're right, that was a bad analogy, but I can't think of a good one. My intent was simply to highlight that true democratic socialists are actually socialist, while the real life alternatives we have genuinely are not.
From Britannica (every Marxist I've ever had as a prof was an orthodox one and would have bristled at calling a revisionist a Marxist):

Revisionism

After Engels’s death in 1895, Marx’s followers split into two main camps: “revisionist” Marxists, who favoured a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism, and revolutionary Marxists, among them the leaders of the communist Russian Revolution of 1917. The foremost revisionist was Eduard Bernstein, a leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, who fled his homeland in 1881 to avoid arrest and imprisonment under the antisocialist laws of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bernstein spent most of his exile in Britain, where he befriended Engels and later served as executor of his will. Bernstein’s experiences there (including his association with the gradualist Fabian Society) led him to conclude that a peaceful parliamentary transition to socialism was possible in that country—a conclusion he defended and extended beyond Britain in his Evolutionary Socialism (1899).

Bernstein revised Marxian theory in four interrelated respects. First, he added an ethical dimension that had been largely lacking in Marx’s thought; specifically, he held, following the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, that human beings should be treated as ends in themselves and never as means or instruments, whether by capitalists (who used workers as human machines) or by communists (who were prepared to use them as cannon fodder in the future revolution). Second, he argued that the emergence of trade unions and working-class political parties in late 19th-century Europe presented opportunities that required revisions in Marx’s theory and therefore in Marxian political practice. Third, Bernstein noted that rising wages and better working conditions meant that—contrary to Marx’s prediction of the immiseration of the proletariat—the lives of workers in advanced capitalist countries were actually improving. This trend he traced not to the kindness of capitalists but to the growing power of unions and working-class political parties. Fourth, however, he also warned of the danger of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which was likely to become a dictatorship of “club orators and writers.” On the basis of these four revisions, then, Bernstein advocated gradual, piecemeal, and peaceful reform—“evolutionary” socialism—rather than violent proletarian revolution.

Orthodox Marxists branded Bernstein a bourgeois and a counterrevolutionary traitor to the cause. Chief among his communist critics was Lenin, who had devoted his life to the revolutionary transformation of Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
You're right, that was a bad analogy, but I can't think of a good one. My intent was simply to highlight that true democratic socialists are actually socialist, while the real life alternatives we have genuinely are not.

The problem is that it's never enough -- especially considering that (a) the problems typically persist, and (b) the top motivation of all politicians isn't so much solving them as it is getting and staying in power. As such, it seems likely that accomplishing B, in light of A, the pols are going to tell voters "Keep electing us, we'll keep doing more and finally slay these dragons"....even if it's probably the case that they were actually feeding the dragons. Relying on them, even.

Would you agree that a couple of recent real world examples who represent this distinction would be Chavez/Maduro in Venezuela (actual socialists) and the Peronist/Kirchnerists in Argentina (social democrats)? Granted, the latter didn't go in and expropriate farms, oil/gas assets, etc. as the former did. They still generally respected private property rights far more than Chavez and Maduro did. And I'm sure that the distinctions between them didn't end there.

But both countries still ended up in deep shit, nevertheless. It's probably true that Chavez/Maduro melted down Venezuela faster than the Kirchnerists did Argentina. But, at end of the day, deep shit is still deep shit.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to start a new ideology: Bitcoin Communists.
Lisa Kudrow Valerie Cherish GIF by The Comeback HBO
 
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.
It is your opinion. We can just disagree. trump is a fascist, a wannabe Hitler. He wants to be a king or dictator. He quotes Hitler in his speech.
 
I don’t know about socialism but they’re certainly the founders of our gov explosion. Wilson is considered the founder of public administration
History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States

I'm using this wiki even though it's a ******y source because my wife won't stop bitching about me getting off my phone and starting dinner.
 
I don't think Marx thought that type of transition could take place you are describing. Marx thought it would just get so bad under capitalism that the protetariat would rise up and that the revolution had to come from there. That would produce a socialist state that would only be in the working class/proletariat's interest and would require a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent counterrevolutionaries. Then you'd have an interim period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that would eventually lead to a stateless and classless society--communism.

In other words, in your description of the Democratic socialists, it appears they think they can effect a peaceful transition to proletariat control. Marx would never have thought that possible (as London detailed in the Iron Heel). So they are socialists but not Marxists.
The truth is Karl Marx, prominent socialists, and John Keynes are all f#cking idiots who got off on controlling humans. They’re all f#cking *****. The future is sound money and decentralization. Bitcoin is the technology that finally allows it to happen. Hopefully, they allow me to write the foreword in the history book😁
 
Last edited:
OT: @BradStevens I went out to dinner and had several drinks. Solid dinner with some good friends. They are all very successful and not one of them own Bitcoin. I told them they’re idiots of course. The only one who is bullish is my buddies wife who is a former FBI. My buddy disclosed he’s having another baby. 40s and about to have his third. People hate to pull out. Babies are cute. I’d should have started earlier and popped out 6 or 7 if I could redo it.

Anyhoo, the biggest problem with socialism/communism and governments in general is that 95% of people are dishonest. At this point I don’t even think they mean to be dishonest, they just are that way. It’s fascinating watching Trumpers and Liberals justify their terrible positions. You’re an honest person and assume that humanity one day will catch up, but that will never happen.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Reactions: BradStevens
OT: @BradStevens I went out to dinner and had several drinks. Solid dinner with some good friends. They are all very successful and not one of them own Bitcoin. I told them they’re idiots of course. The only one who is bullish is my buddies wife who is a former FBI. My buddy disclosed he’s having another baby. 40s and about to have his third. People hate to pull out. Babies are cute. I’d would have started earlier and popped out 6 or 7 if I could redo it.

Anyhoo, the biggest problem with socialism/communism and governments in general is that 95% of people are dishonest. At this point I don’t even think they mean to be dishonest, they just are that way. It’s fascinating watching Trumpers and Liberals justify their terrible positions. You’re an honest person and assume that humanity one day will catch up, but that will never happen.
The best lesson this board teaches is that many on the left and right genuinely dislike each other. That’s why politics are best left off the table with friends
 
OT: @BradStevens I went out to dinner and had several drinks. Solid dinner with some good friends. They are all very successful and not one of them own Bitcoin. I told them they’re idiots of course. The only one who is bullish is my buddies wife who is a former FBI. My buddy disclosed he’s having another baby. 40s and about to have his third. People hate to pull out. Babies are cute. I’d would have started earlier and popped out 6 or 7 if I could redo it.

Anyhoo, the biggest problem with socialism/communism and governments in general is that 95% of people are dishonest. At this point I don’t even think they mean to be dishonest, they just are that way. It’s fascinating watching Trumpers and Liberals justify their terrible positions. You’re an honest person and assume that humanity one day will catch up, but that will never happen.
You need new friends.

People are dishonest. But I think the bigger knock is that people are selfish by nature and the free-rider problems that develop. For it to work, Marx and a lot of socialists missed a key aspect: you have to develop an amazingly strong culture that instills a work ethic and pride (ironically, the one that got labeled the Protestant work ethic but much stronger) throughout the society so that people don't shirk. I'm not sure that's doable in an advanced capitalist society that is producing a lot of people with nothing to do along with all this entertainment and these tech distractions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and snarlcakes
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.
Professing equality of outcomes in economic terms is simply communism in another name. Forcing some to pay more and some to pay less to arrive at the same net means is part of the ideology.

Harris has used this example many times (see the clips). If outcomes are predetermined, there is no incentive to work hard, meaning private enterprise would cease to exist in the long run.
 
Financial illiteracy is not "man of the people" stuff in my book. I would argue what your figure really evidences is an over-reliance on social security. I would wager he has at least three if not four pensions.

- National Guard
- Teachers
- Congressional/ Federal
- Governors?

None of those alone is likely all that much, but combined that's a pretty healthy monthly income stream (and would go up with a stint as VP) he'll be collecting in retirement.

So maybe he actually is financially literate? He's figured out how to live high on the hog off the taxpayer dime.
Not sure I would refer to it as living high on the hog on tax payer money (he's earned his pensions through sacrifice and CBA's), but I agree with your points. Plus his wife has been a teacher for almost 30 years. He doesn't strike me as a guy who is into the finer things in life- and his service record throughout his working life seems to support that.
 
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture.
In case you missed it:

 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
Not sure I would refer to it as living high on the hog on tax payer money (he's earned his pensions through sacrifice and CBA's), but I agree with your points. Plus his wife has been a teacher for almost 30 years. He doesn't strike me as a guy who is into the finer things in life- and his service record throughout his working life seems to support that.
Public sector CBA’s should be illegal. Especially when those unions turn around and make massive donations to the same politicians who will be bargaining with them on their next CBA. It is the most corrupt bargain in American politics.
 
Professing equality of outcomes in economic terms is simply communism in another name. Forcing some to pay more and some to pay less to arrive at the same net means is part of the ideology.

Harris has used this example many times (see the clips). If outcomes are predetermined, there is no incentive to work hard, meaning private enterprise would cease to exist in the long run.
There will never be equality of outcome because there will always be inequality of output.
 
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.
Thx for the thoughts. Harris has said she would have, "a mandatory buy back gun program" if elected. So she is coming for people's guns. That seems fascist to me. The 2nd Amendment is for us to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic. I heard a discussion on how when the 2nd Amendment first came to be some of the farmers etc were asking if this also pertained to canons. They were told that they could have canons because of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Thx for the thoughts. Harris has said she would have, "a mandatory buy back gun program" if elected. So she is coming for people's guns. That seems fascist to me. The 2nd Amendment is for us to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic. I heard a discussion on how when the 2nd Amendment first came to be some of the farmers etc were asking if this also pertained to canons. They were told that they could have canons because of the 2nd Amendment.

No one is coming for your guns. Maybe use common sense before believing everything you hear from your propaganda.
 
Professing equality of outcomes in economic terms is simply communism in another name. Forcing some to pay more and some to pay less to arrive at the same net means is part of the ideology.

Harris has used this example many times (see the clips). If outcomes are predetermined, there is no incentive to work hard, meaning private enterprise would cease to exist in the long run.
Even if Harris wants to spend 4 years trying to ensure every single American has the same amount of wealth or income (and she doesn't), that still wouldn't be communism. It'd be something else, with one of the goals of communism (not exactly, though), and it would be bad.

But, of course, she won't spend her time doing that. More likely, in her ideal vision of her presidency, she'd move us on a spectrum, like @crazed_hoosier2 (who in the hell is "crazed_hoosier?") mentioned in another thread, towards less income inequality and less educational outcome inequality based on race. How far she'll push that, though, will be highly circumscribed by public opinion and her desire to be reelected--she's a career opportunist with a particular idealogical bent.

Of course, I'm saying all this and have zero interviews, deep policy proscriptions, or debates to base it off of since her 2020 run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Milton
she'd move us on a spectrum, like @crazed_hoosier2 (who in the hell is "crazed_hoosier?") mentioned in another thread, towards less income inequality

crazed_hoosier was my first username, many years ago. I've long since forgotten why I created the 2nd one -- but it probably had to do with some kind of blocking or suspension.

Also, I go out to Southern California fairly often -- probably 4 or 5 times in the past couple years. And whenever I'm there, I have to marvel at what "less income inequality" looks like after years of high taxes and social spending to achieve this.

I'm kidding, of course. It's among the major epicenters of income inequality. We always seem to get so confused between intentions and results, don't we?
 
Professing equality of outcomes in economic terms is simply communism in another name. Forcing some to pay more and some to pay less to arrive at the same net means is part of the ideology.

Harris has used this example many times (see the clips). If outcomes are predetermined, there is no incentive to work hard, meaning private enterprise would cease to exist in the long run.
Sounds much like the failed experiment, New Harmony Indiana.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Willdog7
crazed_hoosier was my first username, many years ago. I've long since forgotten why I created the 2nd one -- but it probably had to do with some kind of blocking or suspension.

Also, I go out to Southern California fairly often -- probably 4 or 5 times in the past couple years. And whenever I'm there, I have to marvel at what "less income inequality" looks like after years of high taxes and social spending to achieve this.

I'm kidding, of course. It's among the major epicenters of income inequality. We always seem to get so confused between intentions and results, don't we?
I'd love to see some more detailed information about how programs initiated by the state of California over the past couple of years that you've been visiting have changed, what the estimated impact has been of those programs over the past couple of years that you've been visiting, and what estimates suggest the situation would be absent such programs in the time since they were first initiated.
 
  • Love
Reactions: UncleMark
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him.

I try to avoid using shock labels as much as I can. I think a lot of ears go into shutdown mode whenever any of these terms are used to describe prominent contemporary politicians. I know that mine usually do.

Orange Jesus and Orange Turd and all that, along with your Lord, your Savior, etc. are ones I wish people would quit using. I don't find them offensive, just juvenile and lame. Offensive can even be a good thing, but juvenile and lame never are.
 
Utopia= Lots of boobs, cash galore, no wives and 1 guy for every 10 women.
I would rather have a .308 Lapua to the base of my skull than have 2 women, let alone ten. The GD Vietcong didn't know how to torcher like one woman. Absolute EVIL on earth, is what Women are. If I was gay, at least I would have had a buddy, but noooo I can't even stomach that either. The biggest trick God pulled, was his total design flaws of that model called woman. Sombitch should have been shitcanned at the apple event. Zero Question ! EVIL and worthless.
 
Orange Jesus and Orange Turd and all that, along with your Lord, your Savior, etc. are ones I wish people would quit using. I don't find them offensive, just juvenile and lame. Offensive can even be a good thing, but juvenile and lame never are.
That you allow those insults but won’t allow heels up Harris shows your bias.
 
No one is coming for your guns. Maybe use common sense before believing everything you hear from your propaganda.

Just because your propaganda denies or downplays it doesn't mean she didn't say it. She was all for a mandatory buyback in the primaries leading up to 2020.

If they could come for them, they would. In an interview after the passage of the ban I. '94, Dianne Feinstein said if it was up to her we'd be turning them all in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.

My parents were convinced FDR was taking us down the road to socialism with programs such as Social Security.

Avowed socialist Michael Harrington called programs such as Social Security as being capitalist welfare programs designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism and thus preventing socialism from taking root.

Interesting how different people see communism, socialism, and capitalism differently depending on how they define them along with their own political ideology.
 
My parents were convinced FDR was taking us down the road to socialism with programs such as Social Security.

Avowed socialist Michael Harrington called programs such as Social Security as being capitalist welfare programs designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism and thus preventing socialism from taking root.

Interesting how different people see communism, socialism, and capitalism differently depending on how they define them along with their own political ideology.
You had wise parents. They sound like great people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT