The left wing: Why are so many feminists still bothering with them?

Anyway it's looking pretty good for some forms of democratic capitalism being relatively horror-free. It's the best we've managed so far.

Name one capitalist country where there’s been no slavery. Because I think you’ll find it’s pretty universal. Unless you don’t think modern slavery exists.
I'm not sure there's any country where there's never been slavery. But I can let you know that Britain abolished slavery and has continued to be a capitalist society.

I think at some point a wise person has to let go of an ideology that invariably leads to horror.

The same can be said about capitalism, actually.

Did anybody see last week's Frankie Boyle's New World Order? There was an economist on near the end proposing "radical democracy" as an alternative to capitalism. She seemed sensible to me.

It is perfectly possible to be ideologically communist and also be repelled by the atrocities that have occurred under “communist” dictatorships

I think at some point a wise person has to let go of an ideology that invariably leads to horror. It's been tried, time and time again, by people who were true believers of the ideology, and every single time it has led to unbelievable atrocities that humanity should be ashamed of. Why defend an ideology that we know leads to evil? Maybe the adage about things that seem too good to be true applies here. We should try to learn from the past.

Well, for women who are working class, class based oppression may be the more pressing issue than sex based oppression, and from that perspective I truly can't see how the Tories or Libdems or UKIP would do anything for them but sh*t on them. So...

“ Yep. Especially if they are marching behind Antifa.”

Lolz I see. Yep, I will leave you to it!

I’m left wing, but I’m not party affiliated so to speak.

I’m going to step away now as I think either you’re not really open to a fair discussion or you’re actively arguing in bad faith.

I think fascists just tend to deny they’re fascists don’t they?

Yep. Especially if they are marching behind Antifa.

Well, no, because the political/sociological/philosophical definition of fascism literally always includes dictatorship as a core characteristic. I think fascists just tend to deny they’re fascists don’t they?

Name one capitalist country where there’s been no slavery. Because I think you’ll find it’s pretty universal. Unless you don’t think modern slavery exists.

It is perfectly possible to be ideologically communist and also be repelled by the atrocities that have occurred under “communist” dictatorships. I imagine it’s the same for people who are ideologically capitalist- they believe it’s possible to have a fair and just capitalist society and would condemn what’s going on in the US right now, and the atrocities of colonialism, presumably.

Firstly, this has never happened in any communist regime. Secondly, I think this is a great example of how leftists ignore or downplay the atrocities of communism. It's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - oh, that's not real communism. Real communism gives everyone what they need. Etc

queen
Absolutely true. Every single time.

People might want to change something from within or maybe they are holding onto to something that doesn't really exist anymore. Plus what's the alternative, Conservatives are awful too.

I am left wing but never had a strong affinity to labour as I came to voting age around the Iraq war. I guess I don't have a party that represents me, but I do not understand the people who will jump to the right because some people on the left are ridiculous. I see that a lot in the US, people who claim to be left who suddenly go very right and are talking about voting for Trump. How can morals and beliefs just do a 180.

Communism, then, is the idea of a free society

Nope. Communism is incompatible with freedom. Its ideology is predicated upon state control. Property rights are not seen as the cornerstone of individual freedom, but a bourgeois irrelevance. It is particularly prone to killing its own citizens. Millions of them. Struggle sessions. Show trials. Slogans which are chanted yet contradicted by the grim experience of life under the boot of the state. Do you know what Stalin did to General Zhukov? The guy whose military expertise was pivotal in Stalingrad? Stalin's purge of the military in the 1930s had hobbled the army before Operation Barbarossa. Zhukov managed to overcome some of this serious, self inflicted damage. He went from military hero to banished. He was lucky to survive. Communism is an existential threat to individual freedom. You can't produce a single example of a communist state whose citizens are in anyway 'free.'

That’s a biased and inaccurate definition of communism.

Your link is to a philosophy primer on socialism. I was not trying to define communism in Marxist philosophy (which is impossible, see below) but to describe the real world political system that people who are 'communists' have historically adhered to.

Your link 'defines' communism as:

What would “full communism” be like? Marx never answered this question in detail.....In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but also life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly

I would love it if we could all live in Star Trek- The Next Generation but I don't think that is a remotely accurate description of communism in the real world.

I’m not a fan of capitalism, but I imagine you’d all be up in arms if I said slavery was a key component of a capitalist society.

Capitalism had barely got going before slavery (which had been common to most previous systems) was eliminated. I don't think that's inherent to capitalism but you are mistaken to associate the two.

that doesn’t make it a necessary characteristic.

I did not suggest it does. I wasn't talking hypothetically. How was my description of communism in the real world biased please?

I imagine you’d all be up in arms if I said slavery was a key component of a capitalist society. It features widely through capitalism, but it’s probably not part of the core definition is it?

It wouldn't get me up in arms, but I would just note that capitalism has managed to function in many countries without slavery, so it's probably not a key component, and this is isn't a great analogy.

So the workers now own the means of production and benefit from it. Work becomes meaningful and valued. People contribute what they can and take what they need.

Firstly, this has never happened in any communist regime. Secondly, I think this is a great example of how leftists ignore or downplay the atrocities of communism. It's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - oh, that's not real communism. Real communism gives everyone what they need. Etc.

If fascists used this form of argument people would be (rightly) disgusted. "Oh that's not what fascism really means. That's an inaccurate and biased description of fascism. Fascism is about uplifting the ordinary person and allowing them to reach their full potential."

It's such a strange thing that people refuse to condemn communism. This is why it keeps coming back around I guess.

No, I can’t. But that doesn’t make it a necessary characteristic.

I’m not a fan of capitalism, but I imagine you’d all be up in arms if I said slavery was a key component of a capitalist society. It features widely through capitalism, but it’s probably not part of the core definition is it?

tinier
Can you give an example of a communist country that didn't not function as a dictatorship?

Communism isn’t necessarily characterised by a dictatorship. It isn’t exclusively defined by Soviet Russia or China at all.

The simple definition of communism is basically
“ Communism, then, is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where humanity is free from oppression and scarcity, and where there is no need for governments or countries and no class divisions. It envisages a world in which each person gives according to their abilities, and receives according to their needs.”

www.philosophybasics.com/branch_communism.html

So the workers now own the means of production and benefit from it. Work becomes meaningful and valued. People contribute what they can and take what they need.

queen

^Total suppression of free speech.

• Dictatorship, either openly or covered by a faux Democracy.
• A command economy (excluding recently in China) with no room for enterprise.
• No substantial private property and frequent state seizure of assets.
• State control of culture, civil society and even Science.
• Various degrees of brutal suppression.
• Gangsterism, politicised judiciary and weak rule of law^

I would like to see the explanation of inaccuracies too.

[quote tinierclanger]That’s a biased and inaccurate definition of communism.
You could go here if you want to read a more nuanced analysis, which refers back to Marx.
iep.utm.edu/socialis/[/quote]
Presume you're referring to Radd's explainer above (Communism is more specific. It's the political system implemented in the USSR, China, Cuba etc.)

What do you think is inaccurate in her description? I did click your link but that's a lot of text to read through - could you please explain some of the inaccuracies as you see them?

That’s a biased and inaccurate definition of communism.
You could go here if you want to read a more nuanced analysis, which refers back to Marx.
iep.utm.edu/socialis/

Tyro
If you mean why Robespierre, it's because of the 'fatal purity' aspect of the putative revolutionaries. The archaeological excavations to find something to denounce.

Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children