"Trotsky were for democratically expressed communism"... which is an oxymoron no less than "democratic centralist" leninism. Economically, communism makes its subjects into slaves to the state. Politically, communism makes its slaves powerless to change the state. Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig mannequin that's more equal than others.
The people in those countries may have called themselves communist, but they lacked the constitutional power to make the *state* communist. (Of course Russia and China and Cuba and others didn't have that little complication - they started with violent revolution, as god/marx intended.)
"I always assumed communism meant dictatorship, but it apparently does not.."
But it does - you were correct. Challenge whoever tells you otherwise what kind of opposition their notion of a communist state would permit vs. punish.
... as in, you can have any color car you choose, as long as it's black? If opposition is outlawed (on the pain of death, as it was back in the USSR), you don't have democracy.
"but democracy is a form of government and communism is an economic system - they are not incompatible"
That is a sorry bit of ignorance. Communism involves single-party rule, in order to force every slave to play along. Or what do you think "dictatorship of the proletariat" means?
"The government ruining someone's life over speech"
Agreed, for but only for different values of "ruining". Merely publishing non-libelous information about such conspiracies likely would not count as that. (An outcome limited to some people not wanting to purchase things from - blacklisting - foreign agents is not "ruining... life".)
"He didn't aim for foreign spies (the ones that did real harm) but instead popular sympathizers."
Those popular sympathizers that were part of (pre-)KGB-funded organizations, and thus agents of an antagonistic foreign power, were legitimate targets of inquiry & publicity. (I don't wish to condone all the details & methods.)
"Therefore, what we must do is fix the underlying problem first: by getting big money out of politics."
Another way to do that would be to squish government back into constitutionally delimited jurisdictions. It would not interfere in economic life as much, would not spend so bloody much, so would not be a target for bribery from business/unions/individuals so much. Adjust "so much" to taste.
But that way lies a less powerful government, something leftists like the "wolf pac" abhor.
Slashdot Mirror
"Trotsky were for democratically expressed communism" ... which is an oxymoron no less than "democratic centralist" leninism. Economically, communism makes its subjects into slaves to the state. Politically, communism makes its slaves powerless to change the state. Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig mannequin that's more equal than others.
"I think the evil is in dictatorship, not in how an electorate chooses to economically express itself."
Communism is economic AND political dictatorship, so for your purposes it should be repugnant.
The people in those countries may have called themselves communist, but they lacked the constitutional power to make the *state* communist. (Of course Russia and China and Cuba and others didn't have that little complication - they started with violent revolution, as god/marx intended.)
"what do you say to the people who've expressed their democratic freedom in communism"
Perhaps we could proceed with our mutual education if you were to name these lucky (?) people, or the place/time you believe they inhabit.
"I always assumed communism meant dictatorship, but it apparently does not.."
But it does - you were correct. Challenge whoever tells you otherwise what kind of opposition their notion of a communist state would permit vs. punish.
Make it of such quality or quantity that it becomes scarce and thus valuable.
... as in, you can have any color car you choose, as long as it's black? If opposition is outlawed (on the pain of death, as it was back in the USSR), you don't have democracy.
"Only if the wealth is shared."
Or if wealth is earned.
Perhaps he is angling to become an example: his columns might improve if done by machine.
"but democracy is a form of government and communism is an economic system - they are not incompatible"
That is a sorry bit of ignorance. Communism involves single-party rule, in order to force every slave to play along. Or what do you think "dictatorship of the proletariat" means?
"I'm a good person. I've never held a gun,"
That juxtaposition suggests the speaker cannot imagine that good people can hold guns.
"The government ruining someone's life over speech"
Agreed, for but only for different values of "ruining". Merely publishing non-libelous information about such conspiracies likely would not count as that. (An outcome limited to some people not wanting to purchase things from - blacklisting - foreign agents is not "ruining ... life".)
"So free speech should be crushed"
I didn't say that, nor did McCarthy. Again.
Those who were agents of an enemy don't deserve that much sympathy.
"So free speech should be crushed"
I didn't say that, nor did McCarthy.
"He didn't aim for foreign spies (the ones that did real harm) but instead popular sympathizers."
Those popular sympathizers that were part of (pre-)KGB-funded organizations, and thus agents of an antagonistic foreign power, were legitimate targets of inquiry & publicity. (I don't wish to condone all the details & methods.)
McCarthy was, on the whole, quite right about the existence of the problem of communist infiltration of american institutions.
"Glad everybody is safe. Cue the impending doom guys ..."
Dude, those are the same people. Check the passenger manifest.
The idea is to take the incentive to bribe away, by taking (back) the power of largesse from government.
"Therefore, what we must do is fix the underlying problem first: by getting big money out of politics."
Another way to do that would be to squish government back into constitutionally delimited jurisdictions. It would not interfere in economic life as much, would not spend so bloody much, so would not be a target for bribery from business/unions/individuals so much. Adjust "so much" to taste.
But that way lies a less powerful government, something leftists like the "wolf pac" abhor.
North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam before the US ever got there -- not at all unlike how North Korea's invasion of the South started that war.
... because every loophole closed is one less place where the wealthy may hide their filthy lucre from the righteous grasp of the state.
Regulations often benefit the entrenched regulated against the newcomer competitor.
"This needs a more nuanced fix ... I *never* want to see"
There is nuance, and then there is *never* nuance.
The "therefore" part of your argument "needs citation". There are many many factors at play.