This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't disagree that normies think Nazism is worse (often far worse) than Communism. That's mostly because of the Holocaust. Communism has some atrocities with higher death counts (e.g. perhaps Mao's Cultural Revolution), but the Holocaust's relatively high death toll + the deliberateness of the whole ordeal is what makes it really pop. If you squint, you can sort of see how many of the deaths in China were accidental. It's hard to do the same for death camps.
It's not that it's a bad to teach them this, it's that there's not really a point since the vast majority already believe it. Yet for some reason much of the motte thinks a huge chunk of the West still harbors Communist sympathies, so most of his answers were specifically addressing that point.
You are thinking of the Great Leap Forward, not the Cultural Revolution (which was devastating to China and cost 1-2 million lives, but is a separate incident).
You're right, I get the two confused.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We have people who argue that on this very forum. Out yonder, in the broader universe, normies who believe whatever's on TV-that-isn't-H2, are not making informed studies of the holocaust to argue that it couldn't have been an accident. They're being told it was deliberate. The holocaust is just like evolution; people don't make up their minds after seeing evidence. They make up their minds on the basis of conformity and then seek out evidence to confirm it.
A huge chunk of the elites of society are informed by people who are actual literal out and out marxists who use falsified marxist postulates as inputs in their theorems. Very little of this has to do with support for command economics, and you can have non-marxist totalitarian command economies.
And we just had Tucker, who informs almost the entire Republican right, interviewing a Nazi with Elon Musk promoting it. Would you take that as evidence that anti-Nazi efforts in the US have failed and that we must now quintuple down on them?
Communism and Nazi sympathies are contrarianism born from negative partisanship, not genuine broad support for those ideologies.
Considering that interviewing a Nazi and promoting the interview aren't indicative of any sort of positive opinion on Nazism - in fact, both behaviors are pretty much orthogonal to one's support of or opposition to the ideology, or any ideology - I'm not sure how this could be claimed to be evidence of such a thing.
This idea only works if a person is seriously committed to exploring viewpoints on their own merits rather than using that as a shield to broadcast highly controversial views. Tucker and the people who watch him might not fully agree with Nazi viewpoints as they're espoused, but they probably agree with at least some of them, and more importantly wish they were in the Overton Window in order to make their own views more palatable.
Sure, but you have no credibility with which to make the judgment whether they're seriously committed to exploring viewpoints on their own merits or using it as a shield to broadcast highly controversial views that they want to pull into the Overton window. In general, very few people have that level of credibility when talking about other people's behaviors, and specifically, if those other people are people one disagrees with or dislikes, then they definitely have no credibility in determining such things. If I disagree with them, then regardless of the underlying reality, of course I'll convince myself that these bad people with bad ideas are dishonest cynics who are cynically being dishonest in order to sneak in their bad ideas to the mainstream, and as such, my conclusion that that's what they're doing carries no weight.
This is why, again, interviewing a Nazi or promoting such an interview tells us nothing about how anti- or pro-Nazi they are; it's some dimension other than the actual ground-level ideological/political beliefs that determines if someone believes that publicizing an interview with [ideological/political beliefs they disagree with] is bad. It's either ideological hubris or ideological authoritarianism or some combination of both that are the determinants.
We don't have to use mind-reading here to determine motives. Rather, we can see if he's done similar things to the other side to determine if he has a genuine interest in all sides of the discussion. Has Tucker had a good faith interview with a far left woke person before? As in, one where the goal wasn't to laugh at them or use them as a foil, but to explore their views as he's comfortable doing with Nazis? I highly doubt it, but feel free to prove me wrong.
If we refuse to do this, then we capitulate to grifters who eternally claim they're "just asking questions". It's bad to give JAQing off a pass.
I don't watch Tucker - even clips of his other than, say, as part of a montage of right wingers saying ridiculous things, very rarely shows up in the media I consume - so I don't know if he's ever had a good faith interview with a far left "woke" person before. As best as I can tell, he hasn't, and I'd be happy to presume that he hasn't. Given what far left "woke" people have said about their ideology, this seems to be primarily a consequence of there being a dearth of far left "woke" people who are also willing to even consider being in the same room as Tucker, much less being seen having a conversation with him in public. It's the same phenomenon I've seen with interviewers that I have paid attention to, such as Sam Harris, who was practically begging far left "woke" people to converse with him on his platform as of around 5 years ago, with someone like Ezra Klein being the farthest left/farthest "woke" person he managed to land, IIRC. And Harris, even today, isn't considered nearly as much a right-winger as Tucker is.
But, more to the point, singular examples involving a pundit who likely interviews dozens of people a year, hundreds of people in just a few, isn't meaningful, and even more to the point, when the person never claims to be trying to put together an in-aggregate fairly balanced lineup of interviewees in his show (as best as I can tell, Tucker hasn't claimed this). Maybe he has a heavily right-wing bend in his interviewees, and it's done out of intentional bias rather than out of limited options or even unintentional bias. So? Perhaps Tucker wants to provide a platform on which to have good faith discussions about right-wing ideas, especially those that don't tend to get platforms? After all, if Tucker had a good faith conversation with a far left "woke" person, well, an argument between a far left "woke" person and a rightist like Tucker is about a dime a dozen; the views of someone who's far left "woke" are essentially hegemonic in modern media, and there's precious little to be gained from listening to yet another conversation analyzing and critiquing it. There's some gain, potentially, but, I'll just say that I doubt that Tucker is the kind of brilliant mind who'd be able to extract some extra insight that others had missed when discussing the ideas of this far left "woke" person for the umpteenth time. On the other hand, good faith conversations about far right ideas - certainly of the sort that would be espoused by a Nazi - are difficult to come by outside of niche subcultures like this one. Even someone of Tucker's wit and intelligence would be able to offer a lot of valuable new insights into the world merely by asking basic questions, because almost no one is asking or answering those basic questions in good faith.
So don't give them a pass. Who the heck cares if you do or don't give them a pass? What does not giving them a pass even mean in this context? JAQing off is bad only inasmuch as it overwhelms a limited bandwidth, such as taking up the time of a researcher or expert with questions that offer no insight, which prevents the person from spending that time answering actually meaningful questions. There is no limited bandwidth here; Tucker's interviews aren't being forced to be beamed onto everyone's phones at the cost of people being able to download an interview with a far left "woke" person or whatever. People who don't like the questions that are being asked by Tucker and his ilk can just... not download his interviews and leave their bandwidth open for the types of content they do like. Just because they're asking questions doesn't obligate anyone to answer them or to listen to someone answering them. So don't answer them, and don't listen to them. Go ahead and don't give them a pass; just don't go around claiming that someone else answering them or listening to the answers is somehow indicative of their friendliness to whatever questions and answers are the topic here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Interviewing a Nazi" is not analagous to "teaching Marxism".
Who's "teaching marxism" here? The person I responded to deliberately chose fairly wishy-washy language of "informed by people" because more forceful positions like "teaching marxism" aren't backed up by evidence of being widespread.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree, object to this disparity in perception, and think it is reasonably described as "not believing that communism is bad". It's probably true that, in a sense, most people believe that french fries are bad. I think it's pretty clear that most people think smoking is bad. It seems to me that to the extent that normies consider Communism "bad", they consider it less bad than french fries. I think they should consider it more bad than smoking, and roughly as bad as naziism.
Communism has no shortage of deliberate exterminations, starvations, mass rape, mass torture, the whole shebang. The Cambodian communists killed one in four of their population. The Russian communists committed every atrocity imaginable at considerable scale. If there is no shortage of historical atrocity, why should we accept such an extreme difference in perception between the two ideologies? Isn't this disparity a problem? Isn't education the obvious solution? Why treat the present state as some immutable fact of nature, rather than critiquing it as we do other social phenomena?
Do people squint in this way for Nazi atrocities? Do we, generally speaking, tolerate those inclined to do so? Why should it be different for the many, many deliberate atrocities on the part of the Communists? Or is it your argument that no such atrocities exist, that the public perception is correct?
I would readily concede that they believe "communism is bad" in the sense that "french fries are bad". I see no evidence that they believe it in the sense that "smoking is bad", much less "naziism is bad." It seems obvious to me that the latter is necessary, given the amount of damage that Communism as an ideology has done and might do again.
I can't speak for the community at large, but in my own experience I believe that the West still harbors Communist sympathies because I observe its treatment of previous generations of Communists, and I observe a current generation of violent Communist thugs organizing widespread political violence with the tacit support of their local institutions, as well as local, state and federal governments. Further, I note that Communist ideology appears to be alive and well within the Overton window, while our society chases absurdly diminished returns seeking to further marginalize the already marginalized Nazis. I note that I am routinely lectured on the present threat of nazi ideology by people with the hammer and sickle in their social media bio. I disagree with this state of affairs and believe it should be rectified. Again, "teach normies that Communism is bad" seems like a reasonable shorthand for this aim, which seems obviously unachieved at the present.
Are you sure? How many are actually communist? US Antifa is much more extensively anarchist than it is communist (antifa is non-hierarchal), and outside of that, most of the rioters aren't espousing much in the way of an economic political ideology. Why do you think they are actually communist thugs? Being anti-fascist and/or anti-capitalist is not the same thing as being communist after all.
If communism had even reasonable approval you would have an actually influential communist party, and Trump using communist as an attack against Harris, would not be worth doing (because people would not see it as bad), nor would she have to say she isn't in response. In fact only 14% of Americans even have a favorable opinion of the term communism. (55% have a favorable opinion of the term capitalism just to contrast and socialism at 40%, 10% for Nazism/fascism).
I agree that worldwide communism is roughly as bad as Nazism, in as much as we are balancing huge amounts of horror. But in the US, the reason (in my opinion) why Nazism is seen as worse is that your own history is tangled up with racialized politics. Communism has no real significant negative history inside your nation, nor does it have any real chance of overturning your free(ish) market capitalism. Whereas you had an entire Civil War over an ideology that treated people differently because of race, which pattern matches much closer to Nazism, than Communism. That plus your "golden age" was just after defeating the Nazis and before the Cold War grew monstrously, so seeing the Nazis as the ultimate evil which the US defeated is part of the redemption myth-arc that many conservatives value. In overcoming a racist ideology, you began to overcome your own demons. It's not just left wingers who see Nazis as worse after all. The Silent Generation and Boomers dislike communism more than younger generations, but even they dislike fascism even more (roughly 43% think fascism is the most violent ideology, about 25% think communism or Marxism.)
You (as a nation) dislike Communism, but you HATE Nazis, because your own history is closer to almost becoming Nazis, than it is to becoming Communists. A nation that has emerged from Communism will probably hate Communists more than Nazis (Ukraine and Azov brigade as an example perhaps?) because of their experiences, not because they are making a rationally weighted decision that Communism is worse across the globe and all time than Nazism. So I think wanting America to hate Nazis and Communists just as much is only going to happen after you have a significant Communist government or civil war split across Communism vs Capitalism. Which I do not view as very likely, I admit.
(All stats are taken from polls commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation which works to try and educate Americans as to the fact that Communism/Marxism is as dangerous/more dangerous than fascism, so should if anything be swaying respondents to communism being bad. To be fair they do say: "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance." so they agree with you directionally. Their own figures still show that it is regarded pretty negatively overall. They do accept donations and run museums and sponsor teacher certifications and the like, so if you do feel strongly about their mission, they do seem to be right up your alley so to speak. For transparency, I have donated to them before.)
I suppose that depends on how one defines "communist".
Let's suppose I define it as "generally-left-wing revolutionaries drawing significant ideological influence from Marx and the leaders of the various communist revolutions, rejecting capitalism and the existing rule-of-law and embracing lawless violence against their opponents." It seems to me that this definition covers the vast majority of the black-clad thugs committing lawless violence in numerous American cities, and that these thugs enjoy significant institutional support even from purportedly law-abiding progressive elites and institutions.
In concrete terms, what does this definition cost me in terms of predictive accuracy? Does it harm my ability to predict who they will ally with, who they will fight against, who will provide them with institutional protection and cover for their violence, which communities will allow them to operate and which they will avoid, etc? If it does not harm predictive accuracy in these matters, where does the predictive accuracy start breaking down, and what salient misconceptions result?
And yet, Communist gunmen can publicly take over portions of American cities, threaten people, even shoot people, and the police, local authorities and media look the other way and refuse to enforce the law against them. And because the media is actively covering for them, the public doesn't appear to grasp that this has happened, or why it is a serious problem.
Do you think there's a straightforward way to ensure that the law is enforced against such violent communist gangs, going forward?
If not, how should people like me go about securing similar tacit approval for our own armed, public infliction of violence on the people we deem deserving?
If the latter does not seem practicable, would it be fair to say that violent communist thugs, as I've defined them above, observably enjoy greater leniency than law-abiding Red Tribe types?
I don't think this is actually true. It seems obvious to me that communism was much more popular and for much longer than Naziism ever was, especially with my nation's elites and leadership. To the extent that America was never close to Gulags and mass starvation as a punitive policy, it was likewise never close to extermination camps. To the extent that it approached authoritarianism, it is not obvious to me that this potential authoritarianism was significantly more fascist than it was communist. Then too, it does not seem to me that the communists were actually immune to persecuting and even exterminating large groups of people on the basis of ethnicity.
I also note that countries that came far closer to falling to communism, like much of Western Europe, and even countries that partially DID fall to Communism, like Germany, conspicuously lack the antibodies to Communism that your argument implies they should possess.
I propose an alternative hypothesis: my nation dislikes Communism but HATES Naziism, because large and influential portions of my country's elite have been broadly sympathetic to Communism, and have systematically downplayed its evils in the public consciousness. There is no principled reason why Communist Atrocity should not be its own film category, in the manner of Holocaust films. There is no principled reason why our history education focuses so much on the one and so consistently ignores the other. Having spent some effort to educate myself, I find I am capable of hating them both, and see no reason why my fellow countrymen should not share this capacity. I note that academia and the media seem obsessed with maintaining the hatred one way, and have a long history of hagiography for the other, from Duranty on down to the evergreen academic studies on Marx and Lenin and Mao as serious, useful thinkers.
What's their plan for changing attitudes on this issue? How does it compare to Progressive plans for changing attitudes toward, say, LGBT+ issues?
It hinders your accuracy because it elides the differences inside the group. If they are Marxist communists then you are at risk of a Stalinist totalitarian state. If they are anarchists they might want to tear down the state but do not want it replaced. They'll be happy to burn a police station, but aren't going to reintroduce the Stasi.
Both might be the same now, but one is much more dangerous long term. You are always going to have people who want to tear down whatever the current system is. That is a given. Anarchists are a low threat though overall, they won't harness state power for gulags, or death camps. They're street level problems. Marxist communists onnthe other hand are a different kettle of fish.
Also it will mean you will miss steps (see Hitler vs Rohm) If antifa gained any sort of power, and starts infighting (which given it is a coalition defined by being against something and has multiple factions who disagree on what should be built instead it will) it is absolutely crucial to understand whether Marxist communists or anarchists or whoever started it and who is winning. Because that is going to be crucial as to what happens next. Out-group homogenity bias means you lose information about your opponents. If you are correct and elites are communist friendly. Then it is highly likely they will have to purge or get rid of an anarchist antifa for example. Again see Rohm. Is an elite clamp down on antifa proof of moderation or proof they are cleaning house to take over more thoroughly? Is it a welcome return to law and order or another Night of Long Knives? Without considering that antifa is not all the same, and understanding factionalism inside it, you will have no clue.
Now I am not arguing if you are caught in a dark alley with black bloc, it makes much of a difference, but socio-politically it really does.
As for the foundation, here is the link. So you can evaluate for yourself.
https://victimsofcommunism.org/
Then how do you explain the notable role Anarchists played in both the Bolshevik movement and in the construction of the actual Stalinist totalitarian state? I understand that they, like many of their Marxist Communist brethren, were subsequently murdered by the Stalinist totalitarian state that they had worked so hard together to build, but that doesn't change the fact that they did in fact build it, does it?
Likewise, you appear to be aware that Anarchists and Marxist Communists fight together here and now with the explicit goal of destroying our present society, and you appear to be explicitly claiming that we shouldn't worry about the Anarchists because if they're only active, dedicated allies of the people who want to commit mass murder, not planning mass murder themselves. I have zero confidence that even a pure Anarchist revolution would not generate mass murder, since I do not believe their ideology is even slightly coherent or grounded in reality, and I observe that utopian left-wing revolutionaries have a long track record of papering over the failures of their ideologies by killing the people they find most visibly inconvenient. Marxist Communism likewise had no history of mass murder until it actually won, and then the mass murders began immediately. Why should we suppose it would be different for the Anarchists, even if by some miracle they should manage not to simply empower another Stalin like they did the last several times?
The other part that I don't get is how you recognize that both of these groups are actively working to destroy the present peace, and then expect, should they succeed, for the results to somehow bifurcate based on which of the two is dominant over the other. Again, you seem to recognize that there is no observable separation between the two in their current actions, which are directed at destroying the relative peace and order of our present society. To the extent that they succeed in that goal, the next step is not that we get either an Anarchist or a Marxist Communist revolution, but rather Reds joining the political violence game wholesale, decisively ending peace and order for the foreseeable future. Avoiding that eventuality should be your priority, and in this there is no meaningful distinction between them. To the extent that you are willing either to tolerate either lawless violence from the Anarchists or the tacit support granted that violence by Blue institutions, it seems to me that you are, wittingly or not, endorsing Red violence as well. To the extent that you wish to forestall Red violence, it behooves you to forestall Anarchist violence and the tacit support granted to it in equal measure to Marxist Communist violence.
I disagree, because it does not seem to me that the nature of Antifa allows tight coordination with the authorities such that this sort of factionalism would be a concern. Antifa are thugs, and they are utilized as a deniable, arms-length tool by Blue elites. Their usefulness begins and ends with using violence to shut down and demoralize Reds, and all that the Elites provide for this is turning a blind eye. There is no plausible scenario where Antifa themselves actually end up in power. Their significance begins and ends with their ability to inflict lawless violence without consequence, and that significance is not altered by the ideological peculiarities of the various factions. They attack people Blues don't like, and Blues let them because Blues derive social and political advantage from the resulting chaos and dismay. The ultimate concern is the Blues running this system, and it is difficult to see how the differences between Marxist Communists and Anarchists register compared to the reality of the system as a whole. Likewise if one faction or the other were to be purged; the problem is the people in control of the system, not the pawns. Are they allowing lawless violence, or are they punishing it? If they arrest one faction and tell the other that they have to lay low, then they're not tolerating violence. If they arrest one faction but give the other free reign, they are tolerating violence. Which faction is doing or not doing the violence is irrelevant.
Blue Tribe toleration of their violence can permanently destroy peace and order either way, and their differences don't materially impact that destruction in any meaningful way. So no, I don't think it really does, socio-politically or in any other way.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I think anarchists are bad, and I think Marxist communists are bad. And I do not support either of their visions of the future, because I think either will be significantly worse than current. However, it is still really important to understand the differences, in local terms. Violence on the streets is generally bad, but it is not as bad as either a communist state or a complete state of anarchy.
Even granting your entire premise about the Blue Tribe using antifa, it has a number of different outcomes, depending on exactly what happens.
2)Actual Marxist-communists have or gain control over antifa and use it as part of a campaign to institute real communism - this is exceptionally unlikely but would be catastrophic.
I am saying pragmatically, that what happens next and how bad it is, can depend very much on who has, or gains control. You think it won't be 2) or 3) and I agree it is unlikely. But the world is full of more extreme people winning internal struggles and seizing power over an organization (See IRA to Provisional IRA to the "Real' IRA and so on). If one had the ability to know which splinter faction was going to take leadership, you could do something about it.
If I tell you, a hardline communist will take control of antifa (which would obviously have to include some amount of re-organization and purging) from say distributed Blue Tribe Bob's, do you think they will be less violent or more? If you had a choice of preventing it is your argument that it wouldn't really make a difference? As you yourself point out, the Blues want to run the system roughly as it is now. And if antifa is more anarchist than communist, then who you need to be keeping an eye out for and what kind of changes might be indicative of an increase in threat is very different.
I've lived with a simmering ideological conflict between factions, which includes street violence and much more and it isn't a picnic by any stretch of the imagination...but kids can still go to school and play in the park and listen to music and you can still watch the football and bbq (assuming Northern Irish weather allowed for it!). It's not an existential threat to the system. And the destruction of the system in a nation of 330 million people will be catastrophic.
I believe you, for what it's worth.
You appear to be claiming that KKK-style oppression aimed at Reds is bad for Reds, but that we survived the KKK so we'll survive this. The problem is that Reds have guns and no small measure of political support of their own, and that unlike the KKK, Antifa has at least the tacit support of Blue Tribe on a national level, in the sense that when an Antifa goon is shot, the average Blue arrives at the conclusion that he was an innocent protester murdered by an evil Red. The obvious first-order result is a steady stream of killings that operate like Shiri's Scissor to accelerate cultural polarization; this is already happening. The likely second-order effect is that Reds are encouraged to cease confining themselves to defense, and try some offense of their own, an eventuality that our society almost certainly cannot survive. It is not obvious to me why burning down an abortion clinic or a university facility is worse than burning down a police station or a church. You talk about burning police stations as a thing that, you know, sort of happens, and of course there are no shortage of examples of church fires also happening. If consequence-free arson becomes a equitably-distributed crime, do you think social stability holds steady?
When people kill or otherwise inflict great harm on each other, it's important that we as a society generally get on the same page about who was in the wrong. If we can't do that any more for some types of crimes, it becomes very, very important to prevent and to minimize those types of killings, because fundamental, systematic disagreements over justice lead to spiraling escalations. Society cannot survive a major faction gaining common knowledge that their political opponents have in fact stripped them of their legal and social rights, and intend to commit lawless violence against them without consequence. Once that common knowledge is established, cooperation is over, the opponents' political action becomes an existential threat, and people start supporting lawless violence of their own. That is what is massively destructive to the entire order.
Antifa normalizes and escalates political violence. There is only so much political violence a society can handle without falling apart. We are currently below that threshold because Red Tribe declines to commit their share. If that changes, I and people like me will not be in favor of enforcing consequences on the Reds, because we have seen that there were no consequences for Blues. The longer this goes, the more people like me there will be.
I don't think it would make any statistically significant difference at all. Their level of violence does not appear to be determined by ideology, but by enforcement or lack of enforcement by Blue authorities. If they confine themselves to mob-stomping innocent victims, property destruction and arson, the cops look the other way. If they commit blatant gun murders, the cops show up and shut things down, and occasionally even jail or kill them if the optics are bad enough. If a "hardline communist" takes over, they'll buck this system and the cops will promptly come down on them like a ton of bricks, and then they won't be a problem any more.
If you're being menaced by a vicious dog on a leash, is the problem whether or not the dog has rabies, or is it that a human has intentionally brought a vicious dog into your personal space? Whether the dog has rabies or not, he's not going to break the leash, and you can get a shot in any event. But the guy on the other end of the leash created this situation, and he has significant control over how bad it gets. He's the real problem, not the dog.
There are other examples where it's gone worse, and it seems to me that there's a number of reasons to suspect that, in America, it will in fact be worse.
If the dog breaks the leash, savages the leash holder and then you (or you and then the leash holder for that matter) that is worse than just being menaced (in my opinion of course). I think that it is possible for the leash to break in this analogy. And whether the dog is crazed and rabid, hungry, or been beaten has some significant impact on whether the leash can or will be broken and what the dog will do after. Dogs are not my strong suit but hopefully you take my point.
The temperament of the dog is actually useful information. If it hates the owner as much (or more!) as it does you, then cutting the leash yourself is a dangerous but possibly useful option. If it is trained only to hate you and loves its owner then cutting the leash is not a good idea at all. Is it very well trained and thus will only bite on command, or will it bite of its own accord? If the former then preventing the owner from issuing commands could help.
To put it in the Northern Irish context, some of the Loyalist paramilitaries were closer to the Unionist parties than others and some to the government (unoffically) and whether the UDR was out to get you or the UVF, or the UDA etc. determines where you could go, and who might help you (and likewise with Sinn Fein and the various IRA's and the like). If you got in trouble with the Provos you could go to your local Sinn Fein rep and ask them to intercede. But if it was the "Real" IRA (who believed Sinn Fein were traitors to the cause), then even though both would be against the British, then you would definitely not want to go to Sinn Fein to intervene. The same overall goals, but different levels of control, ideology and internal enmities. And indeed you can exploit those internal enmities when one faction will share information about another faction to their shared enemies. Which has happened more than once. Lenny Murphy (Shankill Butchers) was sold out to the IRA by his own side for example.
If you get targeted by antifa, if they are mainly a group of disorganized anarchists, then that leads to different set of options than if they are a centrally organized Marxist communist group, and changes again if they have direct access to Blue Tribe resources, or are reliant on whatever scraps they get thrown. And changes once again if there are different factions with a balance of power between them. Or to go back to the dog analogy, knowing if you are running from a dog that will stop every 2 minutes to chase a capitalist squirrel vs a dog that has been trained from birth to sniff out Red Tribers for an organized purge, is pretty useful information to have.
Put simply, even if you are correct about who is deploying weapons (or holding the leash etc.) against you, correctly understanding the specifications of the weapons (or training of the dog) themselves is also tactically and practically helpful information.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Antifa’s closet historical analogues are the Tsarist Black Hundreds, urban lumpenproletariat thugs doing violence against the working class in the service of a failed dictatorship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was more describing why people felt that way rather than claiming it was correct. It was on the "is" side of the "is-ought" divide. Staying on that side for a moment, I can't think of any atrocities committed by Communists that had the same death toll x deliberateness that the Holocaust had. It had some with plausibly higher death totals, and some that were just as deliberate, but none that were both.
Moving to the "ought" part, I think Communism should be lumped in with Nazism broadly as "Authoritarianism" and stand in contrast to Democracy or Liberalism. We can quibble over exactly how much proportional guilt should be assigned to something like the Cultural Revolution compared to the Holocaust (0.5x? 0.8x?) but any measurements would pale in comparison to how relatively well-behaved democracies have been. They've obviously done some bad things themselves (e.g. Japanese internment), but the difference in scale and severity is readily apparent.
ANTIFA is not guilty of widespread political violence since it's not popular enough to generate such action, and BLM can't reasonably be called communist.
Deranged leftists on Twitter are not evidence of widespread communist sympathies. At least, they're no more evidence than deranged right-wingers on 4chan or this very site(!) are of widespread Nazi sympathies.
More options
Context Copy link
The reason the hammer and sickle doesn't draw the same level of opprobrium as the swastika is the same reason anything associated with the Ottomans, or the Mongols,.or the Huns, or the Sudanese, or any other murderous regime doesn't either. There's a tacit understanding that this kind of behavior is historically common and continues to be common until a civilization reaches a certain level of development. Russia had always been a backwater so it was easy to dismiss Stalin as a thug, and most other Communist countries were even further behind economically, culturally, scientifically, and socially. Germany, on the other hand, was one of the most advanced countries in Europe, and had been viewed as such for a long time. The Holocaust wasn't the same kind of mass butchery that had always existed; it was a high-tech process optimized for efficiency with every detail down to the amount of gold extracted from dental fillings meticulously recorded, perpetrated by an army of bureaucrats in business suits and a leader who had been popularly elected. The idea that "progress" could lead to something like that was terrifying.
The Soviets were treated in the media as one of the most advanced countries in the world.
I'll suggest the conflict theory explanation instead: The average person doesn't think Communism is very bad because decades of leftist media propaganda has tried to minimize any bad things that Communists did from at least the 1960s until Communism died out. And even afterwards, they never tried to stir up hysteria about Communists being around every corner like they did with fascists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link