Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

No I'm not one of those alt right types, or at least not anymore

I know this is a mostly centrist website when it comes to politics, but I feel like I wanted to vent a tiny bit about this

I used to be a far left sympathizer[I didn't partake, but was genuinely a supporter of shit like antifa] personally, and actually interacting with a lot of socialists who genuinely wanted to murder millions, had zero empathy or tolerance towards anyone who wasn't them, and even one who wanted to fucking recruit me as a child soldier[I'm 17 for the record]

while deradicalizing[thank god] I thankfully also got into economics and I'd say I'm glad to be a centerist again and also learn a lot of useful shit along the way.

I've noted a huge rise in the popularity of communism when it was previously mocked heavily, one could say this was over the course of a few years definetly but it seems to have spiked late last year

I won't say much anymore, but is anyone else concerned about this at all? yes there are genuine problems with capitalism, and you can definetly argue we can't fix problems like climate change purely via market solutions[though hey, that's no reason to discredit them as they're still useful]

I simply want to spark debate, anyone else's thoughts on this?

>I've noted a huge rise in the popularity of communism

As you said, you are 17, so what previous experience do you have? Its not rising, you are just noticing it more.

maybe you have a point. I'm a paranoid fuck overall honestly, hell when I was a kid my first political experiences were the discovery that obama existed and I didn't know anything about WW2 until I was like, 10.

I have a hope a good chunk of people are genuinely reasonable and regardless of any ideology, pro-democracy.

I've just had very bad experiences myself, with communists and neo-nazis, and I've just come to the conclusion to be a centerist.

I used to mock centerism back when I had far left sympathies but now I embrace it. I'm glad to be a """radical centerist""" if anything. both sides are actual fucking trash and cause nothing but groupthink, mass murder & authoritarianism.

that said I have noticed that the rise of antifa, socialist & chapotraphouse types are rising. I spend a good amount of time on reddit and twitter, and I've even seen it outside those spheres. perhaps this is just a matter of "break from social media and people IRL aren't as bad as they seem". but I've also seen raiding and the genuine demonization of moderates & anyone who discourages violence

I would say the pushback from the alt-right to the alt-left kind of balances itself out. There will be radicals when it comes to any political position, regardless of how "common sense" it would seem.

Obviously it's not easier to ignore, but internet is still fairly new (been around <50 years) and the rise of social media just makes all voices louder regardless of whether or not they are reasonable. If someone kicked another person's phone out of their hands, you could have never known like 40 years ago. Now, you can just upload a video and millions can view it. Something as meaningless as that can be shown to everyone in the world in the blink of an eye.

Obviously I don't like those kind of radical peoples but their importance I think is blown a little out of proportion. At the end of the day news stations have to make money, and only reporting important or truthful things isn't necessarily the most lucrative way to do so.

The more one ages and becomes aware of what is around them, the more they will notice it, and that may as well be the case with OP. I don't know if communism is getting a surge in numbers but I can say that with the internet and places within it such as Reddit, you'll be more likely to notice communist, as well as other groups.

The thing is; poochyena is right. "Alt-Leftists" have very little clout while fascists hold public offices. I see no reason to be concerned about communism; online's had commies for years, you just didn't see them until recently. And besides, what's the worst they could do? Kill jeffery bezoson?

Are you sure some of those "extremists" aren't just ironic shitposters like me? With the rise of internet memes, there have come lots of political jokes that aren't serious 50% of the time.

While we do have shitposters that'll roll with alt-right and far left memes and the like, there will also be people unironically going with either one.

To be fair, most people don't even know a thing about actual Leftist theory and ideology. Most people don't even know basic definitions of basic terms like socialism. I absolutely was in that boat just a month ago. If you're seeing a rise in Leftism, it's probably because people are getting fed up enough in the current system to actually look outside of mainstream politics for real solutions and not falling into the fascism trap.

I'm not so sure you know anything about the actual left when all you mention are antifa and "groupthink, mass murder & authoritarianism." That's not to discount your own experiences of course, just that maybe you're reducing what is actually a broad and diverse movement to just the elements that you've personally experienced. I know at least one person, personally, who's made a similar mistake.

So, to address the whole authoritarianism and violence issues in your perception of the Left, do you know what Anarchism is actually about, for one?

I used to be an anarchist sympathizer personally, I know what it is, I just think it's fucking garbage.

I actually had a debate with an ancom a few days ago.

As someone who, as I believe I've said, is actually studying economics. No, just because it's "libertarian" socialism doesn't mean it will be any less shitty than USSR-style stuff.

Okay can you go ahead and tell me what Anarchism is about then?

In the most unbiased way I can It's a "Stateless, Non-Hierarcial" society.

That would describe an anarchist society I suppose, but anarchism (and by extension, being an anarchist) is just about dismantling unjustified hierarchy, isn’t it?

I really hate this whole ideologue bullshit of "we only support good things". Plus the "unjustified hierarchies" are mostly a subjective thing. maybe don't let your ideology think for you lol.

ps again as someone studying economics gift economies are a fucking joke. in any form.

It’s not really that subjective, unless you think whether or not something makes society run well is “subjective.” Also funny you tell me not to let your ideology think for you when you use your studying economics as an excuse to dump on everything. Like that isn’t letting your ideology (capitalism) think for you.

"unless you think whether or not something makes society run well is “subjective.” "

Yea because that's the nature of political opinions, we can all freely speak of how we ideally would like society to be[but than again implying you types give a shit about that right, uh, what's that about not being authoritarian and violent, Antifa?]

Also if you genuinely actually studied economics most people would tell you a purely gift economy is bad, apparently that's entirely a subjective thing but having political opinions that aren't anarchist aren't.

It's kinda like saying astronomers telling someone the earth isn't flat is just an opinion.

Considering mainstream economics is generally skewed towards capitalism, don’t you think it would try and “disprove” any alternatives to capitalism, even when they’re totally viable? It’s less like astronomers telling someone the earth isn’t flat and more like if automobile companies told the wright brothers that flying vehicles are impossible.

I highly doubt you've even actually read an economics book in your life

"alternative economics" is like alternative medicine lol.

Considering mainstream astronomy is generally skewed towards the earth being round, don't you think it would try and "disprove" any alternatives to round earthism, even when they're totally viable?

I get the feeling you don’t actually care about reaching the truth and just like to think you’re perpetually correct and that anyone who disagrees with you is just stupid/“needs to learn economics.”

False equivalency. Capitalists have a vested interest in maintaining capitalism since that’s the system that keeps them in power. I should hope that astronomers came to the conclusion that the earth is round not because they want to validate their pre-existing beliefs or hold onto some kind of power, but rather that they want to pursue the truth above all else, as any good scientist should.

For someone who supposedly just wants to “spark debate” you seem pretty stubbornly convinced that capitalism is right and everyone that is against capitalism (like Albert Einstein, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, and today Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff and Slavic Zizek) are all just idiots that don’t know what they’re talking about, and if they’d only just read economics, they’d realize this.

If you’re really so “concerned” about the rise of the Left, then maybe you should actually try and respect where people are coming from and try to explain what’s wrong with their beliefs rather than smugly telling them to go learn economics.

Joey Corleone said:

is anyone else concerned about this at all?

Speaking from the US, I'm not. An authoritarian takeover, from either a "dictatorship of the people" or a nationalistic junta, is nearly impossible here due to the decentralized government, long-established electoral system, and dozens of competing entities that want power for themselves.

Tinderfox said:

…do you know what Anarchism is actually about, for one?

An ideology defined primary by the lack of a central governing state, wherein local organized communities tend to be the highest governmental structure in place. There's a number of different schisms within anarchism--from libertarian anarchism, communist anarchism (yes, they really can get along), to capitalist anarchism--primarily relating to what form society will take (muh individualism, muh commune, muh free market) after the abolition of the state.

Anarchism has the same basic problem communism has: it's a utopian ideal. Power will always have a tendency to corrupt and consolidate and if there aren't checks and balances in place (something very difficult to do without a larger state), then it'll run rampant.

It also has the invasion problem. With no central state in place to protect the people, it's incredibly vulnerable. If Makhno hadn't been around, the bolsheviks would have steamrolled even quicker over the Free Territory than they already did. Catalonia, meanwhile, had to buckle to the communists to try and keep itself alive and still fell to Franco.

is just about dismantling unjustified hierarchy, isn’t it?

No, it's a political ideology advocating a "stateless" society of some form. Anarchists still want to set up something, it just varies, depending on the faction. The libertarian group want full blown private toll roads and volunteer fire departments, the communist group wants local communes where everything's shared, the capitalist group wants free market forces to drive society, etc. And to get to that great utopia, the current system's gotta go.

…even when they’re totally viable.

There's very few political systems I'd say are really viable. Communism has failed as no state was ever able get past the corrupting allure of the dictatorship phase, anarchism's attempts have been crushed by outside invasions and internal disarray, monarchism collapsed from outside interests wanting a say, dictatorships are incredibly unstable and either reliant on economic wealth or foreign help, mercantilism was always incredibly stupid and is responsible for 70% of the current world's problems thanks to the colonies it created, direct democracy is horribly impractical for large states with millions of people.

Well yes, Anarchists are anti-state, because the state is the highest form of hierarchy, but that’s not all that they’re about (also you can’t really call ancaps anarchist in the traditional sense since capitalism is very much hierarchical and their ideal society would just lead to a new kind of state--one entirely headed by corporation, like basically cyberpunk). “

“Power will always have a tendency to corrupt and consolidate.” I see how that can totally happen under Capitalism--how capitalism actually directly drives that--but I don’t see how that would just “naturally” happen under any other system. That didn’t happen for indigenous people, did it? What leads you to believe that that will always happen? The way I see it, in an anarchist society, everyone would be against unjust hierarchy and the consolidation of power, and they’d see it coming and do something about it before it goes too far. Right now the biggest consolidation of power is from the accumulation of wealth and private property, both of which are enforced/directed by capitalism. So how would power consolidation happen in an Anarchist society, and how would it progress to a point of no return before anyone stops it?

As for the viability of socialist (and socialist-attempting) systems (including anarchist ones ofc), any society would’ve buckled under the pressures that they faced, even if they were capitalist. If they were capitalist, the biggest thing that would’ve changed would be that the most powerful country in the world, and the other half of the world, wouldn’t be breathing down their necks doing whatever they can to sabotage them. But that doesn’t mean socialism is inherently flawed, it just points to something that people like Marx already predicted long ago--socialism pretty much has to be global, or whatever socialist societies have to have enough power to protect themselves from the capitalist side of the world.

I have these two points primarily driving my belief in anarchism (and socialism in general). That, if it weren’t for US intervention, many if not all of them would have succeeded, and some of them are doing quite well all things considered (the EZLN, Cuba). And second, that consolidation of power is largely driven by systems like capitalism, and that in an anarchist society, this can be prevented by a conscious community. If you think there’s conclusive evidence against either of those two points, I’m open to hearing them, but I think if there were, if it was so cut and dry, these debates would be done and over with, and you wouldn’t have academics like Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff and many people the world over still pushing for it.

you could only claim this out of ignorance of what the alt-right refers to, it is not a catch all term and should not be used as a snarl.
the movement thank god is a weakened ethnonationalist, acceleration movement with monarchist to totalitarian trends.
ideologically the want the west to collapse, their ideas are uninhabitable, they lack political capital of any sort in about every inch of dirt in the west as a whole.
now if you want to talk about radical authoritarian rightists then maybe but they seem to generally be less popular than socialists and communists as i've seen it, infact the right as a whole appears less popular than the right of any stripe let alone radical ones. that being said i'm canadian.

So first off, nice use of the "No True Scotsman" defense. You can't dismiss a sect of your own movement just because you're embarrassed by what they have have to say. They're insane ramblings are as valid as your own, as are their claim to being anarchist.

Second of all, it's really presumptuous of you to claim that in no area of human history have people ever been power hungry and its all that pesky capitalisms fault. The desire to expand what one owns has always been a driving force in human existence. It's why many empires, stretching all the way back to the Mesopotamian era, even before money was a thing and we still relied on a barter system, expanded to cover territories and fought skirmishes with one another. You can easily find the evidence of these kinds of problems existing in plenty of mesoamerican places as well, hell you can easily find examples of orginized hierarchy with a central ruling class in many native historical accounts. The only ones who don't usually have some religious belief in which they put their ruling descions to a religious figure. So unless you plan to start a cult, and run your small group like one, I don't see how people will just decide not to become corrupt, as if it were that easy.

Also for your evidence of how communism doesn't work, all we need to do is look to Cuba. A lot of the strives it's been making are solely owed to it loosening the communist regulations and allowing people to do things like pursue jobs they actually want, own their own property, and actually giving them choices that allow them to self-determine. And even then, you hear stories like how the government has goons threatening people who go to a restaurant too much, or try to muscle them out of the money they earn. It's a joke of a place whose only counting as a success because of it not being a crumbling wreck.

And that pretty much touches on the truth. That these systems are all incredibly janky, limited, and utterly impractical for the real world. For example, Capitalism if described with your same rose colored glasses would be a flawless system where no monopolies ever formed, everyone actually had a fair shot of making money their way, and competition bred fair prices for all goods as well as a higher quality of living for everyone. You ignore the very real faults in your systems with pipedream requirements (100% participation, Non-human acting humans, etc.), and just blame everything on sabotage. The truth is, the only system that works is a blended system with a lot of compromises and with regulations installed.

Like how a lot of western governments lean Capitalist but have varying degrees of socialist or libertarian slants, that vary from policy to policy. As much as you might not like it, it's probably the closest humans have come to a actually fair society.

“No True Scotsman” implies that there’s no clear definition and I’m just being arbitrarily selective. Anarchism is literally defined as being against hierarchy--more specifically it’s about identifying and dismantling unjustified hierarchies. What you’re saying is in effect like if someone were to call a certain shape a triangle, and I pointed out that it’s not because it has four sides, and you came along like “oh ho ho, so it’s only a triangle when you say it is, huh?” Words have definitions. Deal with it.

Also no, capitalism is inherently flawed. It’s not about real-world capitalism being different from “ideal” capitalism, because that’s literally the name of the game--the accumulation of capital. Using any edge you can get to crush the competition and make everything in the world your “private property” isn’t some realist flaw that wouldn’t exist in “ideal” conditions, it’s the very end goal put forth by the system. The only reason you think capitalism is so great and socialism sucks is because you don’t actually know what capitalism and socialism are fundamentally about, and you just eat up everything capitalists tell you about socialism and socialist-attempting countries.

If you think I’m wrong to say that, then prove it. Tell me what you actually know about Leftist theory and ideology. Tell me how socialist societies would inevitably collapse, and it isn’t just the fact that the most powerful country in the world, and friends, have worked against every single attempt at socialism. If you’re seriously so convinced that capitalism is the best, then you should have no trouble convincing me as well.

How about the fact that every experiment involving socialism has completely crumbled without a means of forcing it onto people? I could point to places like North korea who force people to participate. I could bring up the historical failings of russia and china, pointing out all the internal policy problems. I can even take a tour of south east asia or the middle East at the domestic issues that led to their collapse long before the west got serious in its meddling. But I think the funniest example was one in the good old USA that completely flew under the radar.

Because this tale is quite humorous, allow me to tell you tbe time Panera Bread tried and failed at this very endevour. They created a system in which those of lower income would pay less, and those of higher income would pay more to compensate. It was an experiment which ended in failure due to 2 things. The people who were forced to pay more, often pressured into it by staff bordering on harassment, stopped coming to the restaurant. Those who didn't need to pay or who payed little, came multiple times a day for the close to free food. Inevitably, income dried up, the ability to maintain infastrucure dwindled, and the whole thing was shut down.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/amp/operations/paneras-pay-what-you-can-experiment-ends

Though knowing you, you're going to turn around and either call me a shill or claim im just some puppet to the corporatist overlords. Because for someone quick to claim others can only regurgitate doctrine, i find your reliance on semantic arguments and blaming all problems, again, on sabotage, to be pretty sad in all honesty.

>Panera Bread
That whole thing is so far removed from socialism I have to wonder if you actually even know the basic definition of the word.

>reliance on semantic arguments and blaming all problems, again, on sabotage, to be pretty sad in all honesty.

You’re the one that blatantly misapplied a term to try and discredit my explanation of an ideology that you most likely don’t understand beyond the paltry and--quite frankly--inaccurate definition that pop culture has told you.

>How about the fact that every experiment involving socialism has completely crumbled without a means of forcing it onto people?

Guessing you’ve never heard of the EZLN? The Paris Commune? Anarchist Spain? Or gosh I dunno, Cuba?

But as for the failings of socialist and socialist-attempting nations: when the greatest world power and its allies have interfered in virtually every single one of them, how does that prove anything other than “don’t align yourself against the US or you’re gonna have a bad time?” But here, I’ll give you a chance to disprove socialism through this route anyway. Take any one example of a socialist or socialist-attempting nation and give me an analysis on how the nation would have failed even if you removed US interference and other factors that aren’t inherent to socialism. Go on, I’m listening.

If you think I’m wrong to say that, then prove it. Tell me what you actually know about Leftist theory and ideology. Tell me how socialist societies would inevitably collapse, and it isn’t just the fact that the most powerful country in the world, and friends, have worked against every single attempt at socialism.

Most socialist and """socialist attempting""" countries would not have been socialist to begin with had it not been for the USSR's interference. In turn, the USSR (i.e. ex-Imperial Russia) only became socialist due to a coup, that was supported by a tiny minority of the country's population (i.e. the urban working class and the army) and most of the awful consequences that followed were borne by the absolute majority, the peasantry, that was left completely deprived of rights.

Overall, the communist ideology has been a horrible plague that robbed whole generations of people in various parts of the world of development, and countless millions of lives.

I don't find the whole neo-communism thing concerning, however it is slightly infuriating. But an average Westerner finding communism fundamentally less morally wrong than nazism on a subconscious level is, obviously, due siding with the Soviets during the war, and many decades of media exposure. When was the last time you saw commies being the bad guys?

In a perfect world, someone declaring himself a commie would bear the same consequences as someone declaring himself a nazi.

>In a perfect world, someone declaring himself a commie would bear the same consequences as someone declaring himself a nazi.

I could just stop you right here considering you’re pushing the absolutely wacko idea that “kill all Jews and undesirables and put your people before anyone else” is somehow equivalent to “end the exploitation of the working class and ultimately establish a classless, stateless, moneyless society,” but I’ll be charitable and address your other points anyway.

>that was supported by a tiny minority of the country's population (i.e. the urban working class and the army) and most of the awful consequences that followed were borne by the absolute majority, the peasantry, that was left completely deprived of rights.

Gonna need a citation on that, considering the peasantry were pretty deprived of rights already, having to work for the small minority that actually owned land, and not able to own land themselves or otherwise work on their own terms.

>Overall, the communist ideology has been a horrible plague that robbed whole generations of people in various parts of the world of development, and countless millions of lives.

Really now? Even if that were true, more people have died per-capita under capitalism than under socialist states, from direct exploitation and war for resources to straight up withholding of resources that can easily be provided. If you’re using the deaths under socialist states to paint socialism as some murderous ideology, then I can do the same, and show capitalism as straight up genocidal.

kill all Jews and undesirables

Are the lives of Jews considered so much more valuable and precious that the lives of, say, Kazakhs? Ukrainians? Chinese? What about numerous ethnic groups like Chechens that were completely ethnically cleansed?

Gonna need a citation on that, considering the peasantry were pretty deprived of rights already

"Podrazvyorstka", dekulakization, collectivization and peasants' rebellions during the Civil War, that actually forced the Soviet government to adopt the NEP. I'm not going to pretend like life was good before the communists, but it was never as gruesome.

Really now? Even if that were true, more people have died per-capita under capitalism than under socialist states

Doubt.

I can do the same, and show capitalism as straight up genocidal.

Doubt.

Bottom line, there's always an easy way to check if your ideology is worth fighting for: if you have to create militarized borders that people will still risk their lives to cross to get OUT of your proletarian paradise, you may want to reconsider your political views.

First off, iff you doubt that more people have died under capitalism than socialism, I recommend you give this video a look. https://youtu.be/QnIsdVaCnUE The guy does the math and presents the information in a digestible, interesting format, and also makes sure to cite his sources in the description.

Now, onto your points.

>What about numerous ethnic groups like Chechens that were completely ethnically cleansed?

What about them? Can you tell me where in the Communist Manifesto or any other Leftist texts it says “kill the Chechens?” Because as I understand it, removing “undesirables” is part of Nazi ideology. It isn’t a part of communist ideology. But sure let’s imprison Christians because the Catholic Church raped and pillaged through the crusades.

>I'm not going to pretend like life was good before the communists, but it was never as gruesome

Then why is it that the vast majority of citizens held the USSR in good favor right before (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum) and well after (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/in-russia-nostalgia-for-soviet-union-and-positive-feelings-about-stalin/) its dissolution?

>if you have to create militarized borders that people will still risk their lives to cross to get OUT of your proletarian paradise, your system might not be very well.

I agree. I’m for Anarcho-Communism, so I think we should demilitarize borders as much as possible, and even get rid of them, when/if society is at a level where they are not necessary.

What about them? Can you tell me where in the Communist Manifesto or any other Leftist texts it says “kill the Chechens?”

Sure, communism is very convenient in a sense that you're free to choose who is an undesirable that needs to be exterminated at a particular moment in time, a peasant wealthy enough to afford his own plot of land, a kid who's parents may harbor anti-soviet sentiment, or a whole pesky ethnic group, which existence hinders the advance of the proletarian cause. I don't know if this freedom in choosing who should be exterminated makes communism better from a moral standpoint.

Then why is it that the vast majority of citizens held the USSR in good favor right before

1. If you read carefully you will notice that it wasn't a referendum on whether the USSR should continue existing, it was a referendum on whether it should be reorganized.
2. As for "well after" a. the article is strictly about Russia b. there is a variety of reasons why many Russians miss the USSR, and this discussion would warrant a separate thread. It'd be hard to find any other place in post-Soviet Europe where most people look fondly on the USSR. Maybe Belarus or Serbia.

>Sure, communism is very convenient in a sense that you're free to choose who is an undesirable that needs to be exterminated at a particular moment in time

Tell me where in what Leftist text it says anything at all about “undesirables.” I’m utterly convinced you have no idea what you’re talking about. Leftists texts criticize capitalism’s systemic flaws and failures and show how socialism would solve them. They discuss equity and orienting production and distribution toward real human need and want not just what is most profitable. They call for workers to take ownership of their labor back from the capitalist class, to seize the means of production. Tell me how any of that warrants, or even so much as encourages the extermination of any one at all.

> If you read carefully you will notice that it wasn't a referendum on whether the USSR should continue existing, it was a referendum on whether it should be reorganized.

True, but it’s still useful. Do you have a better study or poll of people’s opinions of the USSR taken before its dissolution?

>the article is strictly about Russia

The article mentions “17 other countries” as well as Russia, even if it does focus mainly on Russia. And if you look at the Pew study it cites, you’ll find that the majority of people 35+ years in age in Georgia, Belarus, Moldova, and Armenia say that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a bad thing as well.

>there is a variety of reasons why many Russians miss the USSR

And there are a variety of reasons why people suffered or were oppressed in the USSR. But if you’re going to blame everything bad that happened in the USSR on socialism, then you ought to attribute all the good that happened in the USSR and any good sentiment people have for it on socialism as well.

Tell me how any of that warrants, or even so much as encourages the extermination of any one at all.

We were explicitly discussing the historical experience of socialism. Your leftist texts would matter very little to a Chechen whos family was deported from their ancestral home to a barren land and died of cold and starvation because they were considered undesirable. I am really not interested in discussing theory.

I’m utterly convinced you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I want to be reasonably cordial here, but I really dislike someone americaslpaining to me what I do and do not understand on this particular topic.

True, but it’s still useful. Do you have a better study or poll of people’s opinions of the USSR taken before its dissolution?

It's really not useful. Answering "no" would just imply that you prefer things to stay the way they are. Also notice the way it was worded.

Don't know if you could consider this a poll, but almost no one supported the coup that intended to save the USSR from dissolution . People just really didn't care, even in Russia.

you ought to attribute all the good that happened in the USSR and any good sentiment people have for it on socialism as well.

Fair enough.

So about that video which I think is very bad.
1. He assumes that the vast amount of wealth we have accumulated due to capitalism would be available for redistribution under socialism, which is not true since we would not have accumulated such wealth.
2. He claims that capitalist greed causes more suffering than socialist mismanagement and brutality, which is wrong.
3. He somehow blames common problems of pre-industrial societies on capitalism, which just doesn't make any sense. If anything, socialism wasn't even intended for pre-industrial/immature societies, which is why the Bolsheviks had to invent the whole "vanguard party" shtick, adapting their ideology to agrarian Russia.

>We were explicitly discussing the historical experience of socialism.
It didn't sound like it to me. You originally said "In a perfect world, someone declaring himself a commie would bear the same consequences as someone declaring himself a nazi" and I interpreted that as saying that someone who subscribes to communist theory/ideology is equivalent to someone who subscribed to nazi theory/ideology, then went on to explain how that assertion is blatantly false, not just in historical experience, but also on the level of theories and motives. But if I misinterpreted your original statement, then I apologize, and I'd like to hear what you really meant, then.

>I want to be reasonably cordial here, but I really dislike someone americaslpaining to me what I do and do not understand on this particular topic.

I certainly appreciate the sentiment, but when you resort to emotionally-charged rhetoric like the above, it doesn't totally feel like you're trying to be fair here. Also I don't really know what america has to do with this, unless you think americans tend to know less about Leftism in particular than the rest of the world does. But your lack of "interest" in discussing theory definitely doesn't help your case. But it wouldn't be any kind of personal failing--most people don't know even the basic definitions of terms and anarchism, and just think whatever the mainstream media and their side's writings on history tell them.

>It's really not useful. Answering "no" would just imply that you prefer things to stay the way they are. Also notice the way it was worded.

Good point. I can definitely see how the questions could be interpreted that way and how they're not very simple or clear. I think I'll do a bit more research on the USSR in particular now then, but whatever the USSR did or didn't do, it's far from the be-all-end-all of communism.

>1. He assumes that the vast amount of wealth we have accumulated due to capitalism would be available for redistribution under socialism, which is not true since we would not have accumulated such wealth.
2. He claims that capitalist greed causes more suffering than socialist mismanagement and brutality, which is wrong.
3. He somehow blames common problems on pre-industrial and industrializing societies on capitalism, which just doesn't make any sense.

You don't get to just make assertions like that and claim them as fact. It's true that, under socialism, wealth wouldn't have accumulated in the hands of a few like capitalism, but instead, wealth would have accumulated across many hands; there'd be just as much wealth--or maybe even more--but distributed more equitably. Starving people would have food, because we can produce it, and they need it. It wouldn't be withheld from them because it's not "profitable." Also, Iirc he gives some pretty concrete examples of how capitalist greed has caused suffering, and he explained pretty clearly as well how those pre-industrial and industrializing societies wouldn't be suffering if it weren't for the exploitation and theft perpetrated by external capitalist forces.

It didn't sound like it to me.

I was mainly replying to this take of yours:

when the greatest world power and its allies have interfered in virtually every single one of them

which is outrageous, given that most socialist regimes were enforced by the USSR's tanks, not by a democratic choice of the people. The USSR itself came to be as a result of a coup by a tiny minority that then exploited the majority to reach whatever their ideological goals were. See "vanguard party" which I mentioned before.

The rest of what I wrote was just me replying to the OP.

And I was just explaining how declaring yourself a commie is not an inherently bad thing like it is with declaring yourself a nazi. Communism isn't defined by what any one party in history did in the name of communism, anymore than Christianity is defined by the crusades.

As for US intervention against socialism, it isn't just the USSR.

Every time socialism has been attempted, the US has intervened either directly through war against socialist countries:

-Korean War 1950-53
-Lebanon Crisis 1958
-Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba 1961
-Simba Rebellion 1964
-Vietnam War 1965-75
-Communist Insurgency in Thailand 1965-83
-Multinational Force in Lebanon 1982-1884
-Invasion of Grenada 1983

Or through having the CIA perform a government change:

-The 1953 Iranian coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected socialist (Mohammad Mosaddegh) in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi).
-The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected social democrat (Jacobo Árbenz) in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Carlos Castillo Armas).
-The 1973 Chilean coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected socialist (Salvador Allende) in favour of a totalitarian fascist dictator (Augusto Pinochet who went on to kill over 3000 people, torture 30,000 people, and put 80,000 people in concentration camps).
-The 1991 Haitian coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected social democrat (Jean-Bertrand Aristide), who is widely believed to have been the winner of the first honest election in Haiti, in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Raoul Cédras).

And keep in mind that the above is only a list of successful regime changes by the CIA against socialist nations. It does not include unsuccessful attempts at regime changes by the CIA, nor any attempts (successful or not) at regime changes by the CIA against non-socialist nations. The CIA has been involved in at least 21 covert actions of regime change.

Or indirectly through supporting enemies of socialists:

-Russian Civil War 1918-20
-Chinese Civil War 1944-49
-Greek Civil War 1944-49
-First Indochina War 1946-54
-Paraguayan Civil War 1947
-Malayan Emergency 1948-60
-Mau Mau Uprising 1952-60
-Cuban Revolution 1953-59
-Second Indochina War 1953-75
-First Taiwan Strait Crisis 1954-55
-Algerian War 1954-62
-Second Taiwan Strait Crisis 1958
-Central American Crisis 1960-96
-Congo Crisis 1960-65
-Eritrean War of Independence 1961-91
-Dhofar Rebellion 1962-76
-Sarawak Communist Insurgency 1962-90
-Insurgency in Northeast India 1963-Present
-Dominican Civil War 1965
-Chadian Civil War 1965-79
-Bolivian Campaign 1966-67
-Second Korean War 1966-69
-South African Border War 1966-90
-Years of Lead 1968-82 (where the US supported Nazis fighting against Marxist-Leninist anti-fascists)
-Communist insurgency in Malaysia 1968-89
-Al-Wadiah War 1969
-Civil conflict in the Philippines 1969-Present
-Yemenite War of 1972
-Angolan Civil War 1974-2002
-Ethiopian Civil War 1974-91
-Lebanese Civil War 1975-90
-Western Sahara War 1975-91
-Indonesian occupation of East Timor 1975-91
-Insurgency in Laos 1975-Present
-Civil conflict in Turkey 1976-Present
-Ogaden War 1977-78
-Cambodian-Vietnamese War 1977-91 (where the US supported the mass-murdering pretend-socialist Pol Pot)
-Mozambican Civil War 1977-92
-NDF Rebellion 1978-82
-Chadian–Libyan conflict 1978-87
-Yemenite War of 1979
-Afghan-Soviet War 1979-89 (where the US supported "freedom fighting" islamist groups who later went on to form Al-Qaeda and ISIS)
-Internal conflict in Peru 1980-Present
-Afghan Civil War 1989-92

--https://www.socialism101.com/basic