Communism is an economic system, which doesn’t define social legislation. A social system can go from libertarian, which is full freedom from government legislation, to authoritarian, which is highly legislated social behavior. That is independent of the system of economy, which in the US is defined by more or fewer social programs, or increased or decreased taxation.
Anarchists are socially libertarian by definition. They support full civil liberty, devoid of social legislation.
I understand horseshoe theory as increased social legislation, usually beginning as a way of limiting or censoring “the opposition,” until a new leader takes office and leverages it against their opposition.
Communism, chiefly, is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. A world republic where from each’s ability, each’s needs are satisfied. You cannot separate that from the concept of government.
“Authoritarian” and “Libertarian” are vibes-based labels. Capitalism is inherently a system where the majority do not hold power, yet by your definition it could be “libertarian” or “authoritarian.”
Horseshoe theory again is used purely to equate the left with the far-right and uphold the liberal status quo as a “sensible meeting point” and legitimize the violent system.
I’m not familiar with the term vibes-based regarding social legislation. An example of social legislation in a communist nation would be law against homosexuality in Russia. One is independent of the other. Capitalism is also a system of economy, devoid of social legislation inference.
Are you familial with the Nolan Chart? It displays economic legislation on the X axis and social legislation on the Y axis, defining their clear independence. I find it to be helpful in seeing the difference in restrictions to social freedom independent of economic support (or lack thereof).
While I am loathe to defend Marxist leninist like cowbee. I think it is important to point out that Russia most certainly is not now communist. Nor has it ever been. And that is the trick with Marxist leninists and their communists parties. Their governments have never been communist. They make lofty arguments about the benefits of communism. But have never once managed to actually transition or move towards transition in a reasonable fashion.
It’s the reason that to a 1. Nearly every person you meet who has Marxist leninist aspirations. Can almost always be described as accelerationist. They know full well it is at best a lateral transition. And not a transition to an actually better government. So the only way they can achieve motivating people to switch. Is to make the other worse. Capitalists do the same. They’re both children. And neither should be misconstrued with actual small c communists.
And you are absolutely right to choose Russia as an example. While they are not and have never been communist. They were the very model of a Marxist leninist government. And Putin is a direct spin-off of their kgb. Each and every one of the modern Russian oligarchs has direct ties back to the party’s elite. So you absolutely can trace it all back to Marxist leninism.
My only real objection was the name communism getting caught up in the middle of it far too much than it ever deserved. Many of us in the west really have no idea what it is or what it means. And ML gleefully misuse it only confusing the situation more.
They’re also ML. Very much having an overreaching state and currency. Though the argument could be made that they are the best behaved of all ml examples. Largely because of their isolation and general lack of resources. They haven’t sought massive expansion or been the subject of outside interests.
Largely being left to themselves and their own devices. They kind of stagnated in a bubble. They do have significant cultural and social oppression. A lot of external media is not allowed in. Although that’s not all on cuba. There’s no money in it for capitalists. So they make no effort. Even China will allow Western media in within reason.
None of that has anything to do with horseshoe theory, though, which is the idea that the far left and far right are similar. Homosexuality was decriminalized under Lenin, who was further left than Stalin, who recriminalized it. Your example goes against the original claim.
You should read more about the difference between economic and social legislation. I used that example to illustrate the difference between the two, and the point seems to be lost on you.
Communism is an economic system, which doesn’t define social legislation. A social system can go from libertarian, which is full freedom from government legislation, to authoritarian, which is highly legislated social behavior. That is independent of the system of economy, which in the US is defined by more or fewer social programs, or increased or decreased taxation.
Anarchists are socially libertarian by definition. They support full civil liberty, devoid of social legislation.
I understand horseshoe theory as increased social legislation, usually beginning as a way of limiting or censoring “the opposition,” until a new leader takes office and leverages it against their opposition.
That isn’t really true, nor accurate.
Communism, chiefly, is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. A world republic where from each’s ability, each’s needs are satisfied. You cannot separate that from the concept of government.
“Authoritarian” and “Libertarian” are vibes-based labels. Capitalism is inherently a system where the majority do not hold power, yet by your definition it could be “libertarian” or “authoritarian.”
Horseshoe theory again is used purely to equate the left with the far-right and uphold the liberal status quo as a “sensible meeting point” and legitimize the violent system.
I’m not familiar with the term vibes-based regarding social legislation. An example of social legislation in a communist nation would be law against homosexuality in Russia. One is independent of the other. Capitalism is also a system of economy, devoid of social legislation inference.
Are you familial with the Nolan Chart? It displays economic legislation on the X axis and social legislation on the Y axis, defining their clear independence. I find it to be helpful in seeing the difference in restrictions to social freedom independent of economic support (or lack thereof).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
While I am loathe to defend Marxist leninist like cowbee. I think it is important to point out that Russia most certainly is not now communist. Nor has it ever been. And that is the trick with Marxist leninists and their communists parties. Their governments have never been communist. They make lofty arguments about the benefits of communism. But have never once managed to actually transition or move towards transition in a reasonable fashion.
It’s the reason that to a 1. Nearly every person you meet who has Marxist leninist aspirations. Can almost always be described as accelerationist. They know full well it is at best a lateral transition. And not a transition to an actually better government. So the only way they can achieve motivating people to switch. Is to make the other worse. Capitalists do the same. They’re both children. And neither should be misconstrued with actual small c communists.
That’s fair. There’s no definition for civil rights or social restrictions in a form of economy, so I just chose Russia as an example.
And you are absolutely right to choose Russia as an example. While they are not and have never been communist. They were the very model of a Marxist leninist government. And Putin is a direct spin-off of their kgb. Each and every one of the modern Russian oligarchs has direct ties back to the party’s elite. So you absolutely can trace it all back to Marxist leninism.
My only real objection was the name communism getting caught up in the middle of it far too much than it ever deserved. Many of us in the west really have no idea what it is or what it means. And ML gleefully misuse it only confusing the situation more.
But your criticism of Russia is very valid.
I guess I also could have referenced oppressive civil rights issues in Cuba as a more accurate example of communism existing with authoritarianism.
They’re also ML. Very much having an overreaching state and currency. Though the argument could be made that they are the best behaved of all ml examples. Largely because of their isolation and general lack of resources. They haven’t sought massive expansion or been the subject of outside interests.
Largely being left to themselves and their own devices. They kind of stagnated in a bubble. They do have significant cultural and social oppression. A lot of external media is not allowed in. Although that’s not all on cuba. There’s no money in it for capitalists. So they make no effort. Even China will allow Western media in within reason.
None of that has anything to do with horseshoe theory, though, which is the idea that the far left and far right are similar. Homosexuality was decriminalized under Lenin, who was further left than Stalin, who recriminalized it. Your example goes against the original claim.
You should read more about the difference between economic and social legislation. I used that example to illustrate the difference between the two, and the point seems to be lost on you.
I understand the difference. I fail to see how it proves Horseshoe Theory.