: : : A debate about whether Sovietism was a good thing (which I agree it wasn't), with it's corresponding anti-Communist witch-hunt is not a trivial debate no matter how you see it. : : A debate about whether Sovietism was a good thing is trivial because nobody is supporting Sovietism. It's trivial for the same reason, for instance, that nobody is debating whether murder is a good or a bad thing. Perhaps the witch-hunt isn't trivial -- the debate is.
: That's a bad analogy there.
No it's not. Sovietism under Stalin killed 35 million people, possibly the most genocidal movement ever. Sovietism WAS murder. Read Solzhenitsyn's THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO someday. Maybe so many people are so afraid of "communism" because of the record of Sovietism. Addressing that fear should be a first priority of "communists" seeking to redeem "communism" as a concept.
Proving that all their fears of Sovietism are coming true under the regimes of the New World Order, currently being imposed by the G-7 nations upon the world, will be the coup de grace. (First of all, "austerity planning" bears a spooky resemblance to the "forced labor" imposed on people living under Soviet regimes.) Showing that socialism is possible will then be the way they can move forward.
:Paralleling a debate about the good and bad of murder with the good and bad of Sovietism isn't even close to what I've been posting about.
One of the reasons why people are so receptive to "anticommunist" propaganda, the stuff you worry about, is that the communists themselves need to shake the bad reputation given them by Sovietism. People aren't just empty vessels for propaganda. Once this reputation problem is addressed, then maybe communists can start anew the debate about whether socialism can be a reality. One of the things they have to do toward this end is to prove that socialism, real socialism, is actually possible and won't just devolve into Sovietism. So no, it's not irrelevant to your diatribe.
:Whether Sovietism is good or bad is a moot point. Agreed?
Yes, and that was the whole of my point. Sovietism was one of the worst things to happen to the human race, and it was the worst thing to ever happen to communism as a movement. Read Volume 2 of Julius Braunthal's HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL -- after the Third International was imposed upon Communist Parties around the world, the memberships of these same parties decreased by about 75%, because the Leninists had the lists purged of those who wouldn't sign on to the Thirty-One Theses.
:What I posted about was the fact that mainstream propaganda in the western world bought the Soviet version of communism as the real thing and that the imagery brought out was and will continue to be used against dissidents. The debate about that isn't trivial and if you think so then don't debate about it. Any debate on the possibilities of implementing socailism will drag that subject out.
Are we debating whether or not to persecute people for something they're not? Is somebody openly defending persecution based on mislabeling as a good thing? Maybe you have a different idea of debate, one where "debate" means posing a diatribe in some sort of combative interaction. Debate, TO ME, means where at least two people choose opposing sides, BOTH of which are tenable in the current reality. How about this: You can argue that persecuting people for something they're not is a bad thing because it unnecessarily hurts you, and the other side is going to argue that such mislabeling and persecution is enjoyable, that mislabeling you makes you a good target for their rage against the world. Are THEY really going to argue thusly? (If they do, it's a sure sign you don't want to debate with them, 'cause they aren't rational and they won't listen.)
More likely they're going to argue that "communism is bad," and they will smuggle in the thesis that Sovietism is an equivalent of communism *yawn*. You will agree with them that Sovietism is bad, and dare them to show that communism, the promise of a society based on sharing, is a bad thing because sharing is a bad thing. (Well, first of all you'll have to show the promise isn't false.) Or at least you will dare them to show that sharing is better than the daily ripoff which characterizes today's capitalist society. Now whether sharing is or isn't a bad thing for the world as it exists today, whether the rich should be permitted to get away with their authoritarian profit systems or be forced to share the wealth democratically with those who made it, that ISN'T a trivial debate. What type of force would really share the wealth? The force of Lenin or Mao didn't succeed.
Whether or not the right to talk about these issues should be mislabeled "communism," while the real Soviet regime is imposed upon us by "capitalists" (Republicans, in this country) in front of our eyes, well, defending that sort of mislabeling would be going against the banner of freedom, the banner of conservatives and communists alike. Anyone want to DEFEND mislabeling? Or is that debate a trivial one?
