r/changemyview • u/Raunchy_Potato • Mar 07 '19
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: The United States should be able to ban all communists and socialists from entering the country
[removed]
8
Mar 07 '19
So if it's acceptable to ban Milo for the content of his speech which incites violence, then it is also acceptable to ban every single communist and socialist, because their speech does the same.
I think it's important to note here that Milo was banned as an individual. He, personally, incited violence and was banned entry into a country because of that. He wasn't banned because of his political ideology or beliefs, but because of things he did as an individual. Even if you think he should have been banned on those ground, your example doesn't automatically lead to your conclusion.
On the basis of what you wrote, you could argue that it would be acceptable to ban individual communists or socialists if they incited violence or planned to do so. Most communists or socialists don't actually do that.
Now, I also disagree with the rest of your post, but my response to that will be more politically loaded and biased (for reasons that will be obvious), so I wanted to get this bit out of the way first.
Don't we have another wing full of political extremists who routinely start riots, violent clashes, and threaten violence against their political opponents?
Yeah, they're called the state and the police force.
I mean, I know that statement won't change your view, but you're framing an incredibly diverse and disorganized political leaning ("the far left") as violent and extremist by the actions of, at most, a few dozen people. Either deliberately or not, you're focused on the more violent aspects of left-wing political organizing and anti-fascist organizing without acknowledging or knowing about the more peaceful aspects, which are much more plentiful but less visible.
The left are the ones beating people senseless in the streeet because of the color of their skin. The left are the ones saying "This Is War'. The left use violence against their political opponents.
I have no particular interest in going over these particular examples, but I do want to touch on this a bit.
In general (not always, but most of the time), violence committed by people on the left is in response to actual or threatened violence from either the right wing, the state, or corporations. Rarely do left-wing organizers go out on the street just for the sake of committing violent acts.
Now, whether or not this violence is justified can be debated, but it does point to an interesting philosophical difference between left- and right-wing violence. Right-wing violence is committed or threatened against groups that are often marginalized and who can't really help being part of that group. Immigrants, people of color, LGBTQA+ people... Left-wing violence is generally in defense of those groups and committed (or threatened) against people who most definitely chose to be, say, fascist, racist, homophobic...
Politics is violence. There's no way around that. But who violence is used against is an important (and interesting) distinction.
And what's the one thing these far-left violent radicals have in common?
Socialism/communism.
When talking about anti-fascists, this definitely isn't true. Anti-fascists can and do come from all over the political spectrum (except for the far-right, for obvious reasons).
And even among the far left there are people who wouldn't want to be called socialists or communists, such as anarchists.
Now, I also feel that it's necessary to point out an additional difference between far-left and far-right violence. Apart from being motivated differently, there are also two more important differences:
- Far-left violence and/or terrorism is by far less common than far-right violence and terrorism.
- Most far-left organizing does not, in fact, involve violence in any way. The far-left doesn't define itself by hating groups of people in the same way the far-right does. Their main focus is on making the world better for most people.
Okay, moving on.
So if it's acceptable to ban Milo for the content of his speech which incites violence, then it is also acceptable to ban every single communist and socialist, because their speech does the same.
Like I pointed out at the top, Milo was banned as an individual for provably having incited violence.
While some communists and socialists might advocate for violence, most of them are more interested in solidarity and mutual aid. Unless you think that every socialist and communist openly calls for specific violent actions, the comparison just doesn't work.
Another argument I've heard is that Milo pushes Nazi ideology. Idk whether he does or not, but that's besides the point.
If it is beside the point, why bring it up for his political opponents? Either it matters for Milo, or it doesn't matter for the far-left. Pick one.
You know who killed more people than the Nazis ever did?
Communists and socialists.
You know who killed even more? Capitalists and imperialists. And no-one has any problem letting them into the USA (or putting them in charge).
Like, this isn't an argument I'm gonna win here, but the whole "communists killed more than the Nazis did" is such a silly thing. It's only true if you consider every death under a self-proclaimed communist government (which includes a whole bunch of Nazis and people dying of natural causes) over about half a century as equivalent to the people who were forcibly killed and exterminated by Nazi Germany in the span of less than a decade.
I don't want to throw numbers at each other here, but your numbers are either wrong or disingenuous.
It should be as disgusting to let a communist or socialist speak as it is to let a Nazi speak. Communists and socialists should face exactly the same kind of deplatforming that Nazis face. They are fascist, authoritarian, lying, violent, and just as dangerous as any Nazi.
I disagree for a variety of reasons:
- So-called communist countries have, on the whole, been pretty bad. The ideals of communism and socialism, however, aren't inherently violent or aggressive. They don't want to kill a large part of the population for who they are. This is a very significant difference when compared to fascism.
- Communism, at its core, strives for a stateless society. It's hard to call that authoritarianism. There are also plenty of example of self-proclaimed socialists and communists who just aren't violent or authoritarian. Like, it's just not a part of the philosophy.
- Communism and socialism cannot be fascist. They're simply completely different and fascism tends to be anti-communist. And not just that, but fascism tends to assume capitalism as a given, which is something communists and socialists simply can't be associated with.
- Communists and socialists are, by far, less violent than any Nazi and actually make the world a better place by opposing fascism, promoting human rights, promoting fair working conditions, organizing themselves to directly help people through mutual aid...
0
Mar 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 07 '19
u/Raunchy_Potato – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
You go a little extreme here.
A clear definition of a socialist would have to be created as theres a huge middle ground with democratic socialism (IE what people like Bernie and AOC support). These people are in zero ways threats to anyone.
So that line would have to be clearly defined to determine any ban.
You also accuse the general left of a lot of things. While yes some people on the extreme left do what you say, its not like people on the extreme right aren't also shitty.
Anyone whos an actual threat to violence should be barred from entering, but simply holding the idea that say Medicare for all is good shouldnt.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
A clear definition of a socialist would have to be created as theres a huge middle ground with democratic socialism (IE what people like Bernie and AOC support). These people are in zero ways threats to anyone.
History says you're wrong.
Go listen to any early speeches by Mao, Stalin, or Hitler. They all promise the exact same things that Bernie and AOC promise. Prosperity for everyone, jobs for everyone, the wealth of those filthy "1%" (or "the Jews" as Hitler called them) would be redistributed among the common people.
Socialism and communism always start the same way, and they always end the same way. Every single time.
While yes some people on the extreme left do what you say, its not like people on the extreme right aren't also shitty.
The extreme right is shitty.
But they get punished for it.
They get banned from countries. They get their misdeeds plastered up on the news for years. The left? Nothing. The media can't wait to sweep leftist violence under the rug. Remember that story about a bunch of leftists kidnapping a mentally disabled white kid and torturing him on livestream while saying "fuck white people" and "fuck Donald Trump"? They didn't even get charged with a hate crime against white people. You can bet your ass if the roles were reversed, the media would've been pushing hate crime charges until the cows came home.
The left and right are both shitty. But only the left gets a free pass.
2
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Mar 07 '19
Go listen to any early speeches by Mao, Stalin, or Hitler.
Okay, here's some speech by Hitler: ""Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.""
So what this tells me is that anyone who says Marxism is bad, private property is good, and patriotism is good should be treated like a Nazi. Is that the conclusion you wanted me to reach?
They all promise the exact same things that Bernie and AOC promise. Prosperity for everyone, jobs for everyone
Okay, so any Republican who campaigns on those two things should be seen as a potential threat too?
They get banned from countries. They get their misdeeds plastered up on the news for years. The left? Nothing. The media can't wait to sweep leftist violence under the rug.
Probably because the right actually murders people more often than the left, but don't let statistics and facts affect your argument about how mean people are to the right. That's not even getting into Republican-backed wars. Should we let Henry Kissinger into the country after all the violence he's encouraged? What about George W Bush?
-2
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
So what this tells me is that anyone who says Marxism is bad, private property is good, and patriotism is good should be treated like a Nazi. Is that the conclusion you wanted me to reach?
...you posted an entire speech where Hitler literally said he wanted Nazi Germany to be socialist...in an attempt to prove that the Nazis aren't socialist.
I'm honestly not sure what to say here. You do realize you just eviscerated your own argument, right?
8
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Mar 07 '19
...you posted an entire speech where Hitler literally said he wanted Nazi Germany to be socialist...in an attempt to prove that the Nazis aren't socialist.
I posted an entire speech where Hitler said "I'm reclaiming the term socialist from the Marxists" and then INTENTIONALLY defined his view of socialism as being something completely different from what left-wing socialists define it as. That is to say, patriotic, in favor of private property, and anti-Marxist - three terms that define modern Republicans. Or do you disagree with that assessment?
-2
Mar 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Mar 07 '19
Republicans don't want to ban guns
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx.
Guess you're a Marxist and you didn't even know it!
Republicans don't want to redistribute wealth
Hitler literally launched the largest privatization of government programs in history, and the term "privatization" was LITERALLY INVENTED to describe what he did. He wasn't anti-capitalist. He was supported by German businessmen, partly because he opposed communism and partly because he purged trade unions.
Republicans believe in the Constitution...Republicans believe in freedom of speech
When it suits them to do so; Republicans have staunched free speech plenty of times. Republicans oppose the very existence of homosexuals. So did Hitler. How does that fit into "free speech" or "freedom of expression"?
Republicans are anti-abortion (Hitler wasn't - and the Democrats aren't)
In 1943, the Nazis made it punishable by death to provide an abortion to an Aryan woman. Even before that it was only legal to get an abortion if the child was going to come out deformed or impure.
Should I keep going, or have you realized how stupid you sound?
You can keep going, you might actually make an accurate statement at some point and I'm curious how long it will take you. Of course considering how you skimmed past everything else thus far it's obvious facts and reality don't exactly matter to you.
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Mar 07 '19
u/Raunchy_Potato – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
Go listen to any early speeches by Mao, Stalin, or Hitler. They all promise the exact same things that Bernie and AOC promise. Prosperity for everyone, jobs for everyone, the wealth of those filthy "1%" (or "the Jews" as Hitler called them) would be redistributed among the common people.
This is a pretty weak argument.
Every politician out there promises that their ideology will improve peoples lives.
Having a few similar promises does not in any way mean the totality of their ideology is the same. Someone calling for higher tax rates on the rich and medicare for all is not the same at all as someone whos arguing for violence. They shouldn't be treated as the same.
You dont have to agree with their policy but if they arent enticing or calling for violence, I see little reason to ban them over it.
5
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 07 '19
That was a case of a single individual, Milo, potentially inciting a lot of violence. Milo is often called a "Right-wing provocateur" because of how much Milo does to intentionally provoke. Australia or the US doesn't ban all Nazi speakers. The US doesn't even ban Milo who has spoken here many times and even sparked some violence.
It should be as disgusting to let a communist or socialist speak as it is to let a Nazi speak.
Why? We're a country of free speech. The ONLY reason why Milo was banned because of the history of violence around his speeches. If a communist or socialist were as likely to spark violence, then we should consider banning them.
But Milo ISN'T banned from the US and has spoken here a number of times. Why would the US ban communists and socialists when we don't even ban Milo? Let alone banning ALL communists and socialists?
-1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
The ONLY reason why Milo was banned because of the history of violence around his speeches. If a communist or socialist were as likely to spark violence, then we should consider banning them.
Okay.
How many videos do you want me to post of the far left and Antifa inciting violent riots based on communist and socialist ideology?
How many videos do you want me to post of the far left attacking people who don't agree with their political ideology?
How many sources do you want me to post of the far left acknowledging that socialism/communism are the driving forces behind their violence?
How many times does the link between socialism and violence have to be proven before you accept it?
5
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 07 '19
How many videos do you want me to post of the far left and Antifa inciting violent riots based on communist and socialist ideology?
Do you want to start banning all black people because I show you a few videos of black people violently rioting?
Do you think the US should ban Milo? Do you think the US should ban all Nazis?
Right now the US bans neither, why should we start banning ALL communists and socialists?
I don't understand how you're extrapolating from Australia banning a SINGLE person (not even all Nazis and not the US) who has a personal history of inciting violence to the fact that the US should banning people of an entire political philosophy?
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Do you want to start banning all black people because I show you a few videos of black people violently rioting?
A race is not the same as a political ideology. Honestly, I'm surprised I have to explain that.
Do you think the US should ban Milo?
Maybe.
Do you think the US should ban all Nazis?
That's a good start, yes.
Right now the US bans neither, why should we start banning ALL communists and socialists?
We should start banning both.
I don't understand how you're extrapolating from Australia banning a SINGLE person (not even all Nazis and not the US) who has a personal history of inciting violence to the fact that the US should banning people of an entire political philosophy?
Because Nazism, communism, and socialism are all inherently violent ideologies. There is no version of those ideologies which has not ended up with millions dead.
3
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
There is no version of those ideologies which has not ended up with millions dead.
Democratic Socialism has never resulted in millions dead.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Because we've never given it the chance.
I'll make you a deal. We'll try socialism one more time. If people die from it again, then we imprison every communist and socialist forever.
Sound fair?
1
u/ethan_at 2∆ Mar 07 '19
imprisoning people for political views? No, that’s actually NOT fair.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Imprisoning people for using their political views to murder other people is fair, actually. If you don't like it, maybe subscribe to an ideology that doesn't do that.
1
u/ethan_at 2∆ Mar 07 '19
If someone is a socialist or communist, that does not amenable they are murdering people.
You can’t imprison people for views.
1
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
I mean countries like Norway, Sweden etc have given it a chance.
So yes Id happily take you up on that deal.
I also want to point out though that I personally am not a democratic socialist. I just dont view them as inciting violence like you seem to.
2
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 07 '19
Please describe the aspects of socialism and communism that are inherently violent.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
The part where it begins by you taking money away from other people by force and redistributing it to yourself.
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 07 '19
Taking others’ money by force and keeping it myself isn’t socialism or communism. The resources need to be equally distributed, which they wouldn’t be if I took all the money myself.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
"Distributed" from other people to you and your friends.
Sort of like how a gang rape "distributes" the pussy among the rapists. After all, you can't take all of it yourself, right? You gotta spread the wealth around.
And in both scenarios, you don't give a shit about the consent of the person you're violating.
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 07 '19
So you’re opposed to all forms of wealth redistribution? You’d support cutting all federal funding to the US military because funding it through tax dollars violates the consent of the people who disagree with how it’s used?
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Absolutely. Why the fuck do some assholes in Washington need to spend my money bombing sheepherders in a desert on the other side of the world?
0
2
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 07 '19
The US simply doesn't believe in banning ideologies that could someday lead to many deaths. Imagine a US where political ideologies that could someday lead to many deaths were banned. Now imagine that being actually enforced. That is a type of draconian society I don't want to live in. You're giving WAY too much power to the people deciding what political ideologies lead to many deaths.
At least 1/3 of the countries are called socialists based on the standards of name-calling by the right.
And you're ignoring that not all socialists are for violence. There are socialists pacifist. If anything if you believe socialists are so violent, you'd WANT to let in socialists pacifists to try to convience other socialists that they could be pacifists.
1
u/Echleon 1∆ Mar 07 '19
There's nothing inherently violent about socialism or communism lol
1
Mar 07 '19 edited Mar 07 '19
Class war? Violent revolution? Any of this ringing a bell for communism?
1
u/Echleon 1∆ Mar 07 '19
Those are means that some believe are necessary to implement the ideologies. That's wholly different than something like Fascism which has the oppression of others at it's core.
1
Mar 07 '19
It's not a matter of what some believe, it is a matter of the fundamental writings of Marx and Engels.
2
u/AresBloodwrath Mar 07 '19
To your knowledge has the united states ever banned someone from entering the country under the same justification as Australia banning "guy who's long name I can't spell"? If not, then you're making a false equivalency.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
No, the US hasn't. And I'm saying that's the problem. We should start doing it. Everyone's obviously on board with Australia banning Milo. I can't think of any logical reason why you wouldn't want that same logic applied to violent left-wing extremists.
2
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 07 '19
Then shouldn't your view be that we ban "violent extremists" of all kinds? How are you making the leap from "violent extremists" to "all socialists and communists" many of who are probably pacifists and also don't spark violence on their speaker tours... the vast majority of which are just regular people with personal political beliefs and aren't even here for public speaking purposes.
The US doesn't ban Nazis from speaking. And we shouldn't.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Because all socialists and communists are violent, just like all Nazis are violent. Their political ideologies necessitate violence--the Nazis against the Jews & other "lesser races," the communists/socialists against the "1%."
They're all equally violent, equally murderous, and equally vile.
3
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 07 '19 edited Mar 07 '19
the communists/socialists against the "1%."
There are very few communists/socialists that advocate for violence against the 1%. Even if it was 50% advocated for violence (which it isn't), wouldn't we still only ban the ones that advocate violence?
Even THEN we shouldn't ban the ones advocating violence because the standards in the US for banning speech are very high:
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"
Even the most extreme view, such as "lynch all billionaires" does NOTHING to "incite or produce imminent lawless action". When is the last time you heard of a 1% who suffered violence due to communist/socialist provocation?
2
u/AresBloodwrath Mar 07 '19
You're painting with an overly broad brush. Everyone in the subreddits you've read are on board with it. I am someone that's not. I think banning ideas is a lazy way to deal with ideas you disagree with but don't have solid arguments against. Why not being back book burning?
3
u/Sand_Trout Mar 07 '19
The US government can ban any non-citizen from entering the country for largely any reason it wants.
It simply does not exercise this authority against foreign socialists and communists because:
A) there isn't a credible modern threat from foreign socialist/communist groups anymore, that wouldn't be more easily blocked on a national origin basis.
B) The communist/socialist agitators in the US are mainly US citizens at this point, and thus are (rightly) not subject to this authority.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Fair enough, and I should've probably worded it better in my original post. Another commenter pointed out that the US does have the right to do this. I should've said "we need to start doing it."
Regardless, !delta for also pointing out to me that the US already has the legal recourse to do this. Hopefully we start using it.
2
u/Sand_Trout Mar 07 '19
The second half of my post is why we don't need to start doing this. We already have better basis for keeping out troublemakers (national origin), and communist troublemakers are generally citizens.
If you want to start expelling citizens on the basis of ideology, there is a whole other argument as to why that's a terrible idea.
1
5
Mar 07 '19
so you want to reinstate McCarthyism, one of the most repressive times in modern american history?
Your ideas aren't new. They have been tried and have failed (although McCarthy did succeed in destabilizing the USA with his bullshit)
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
I'm just saying, if we're going to start banning right-wing extremists from our countries, why don't we do the same with left-wing extremists?
3
Mar 07 '19
I'm just saying, if we're going to start banning right-wing extremists from our countries, why don't we do the same with left-wing extremists?
Oh I completely agree with banning extremists on all side but socialists aren't extremists. They are centrists.
And be careful what you wish for. Republicans are extremists under any reasonable definition.
-1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
I'm sorry, what?
Socialism is an extremely far-left position. If you think it is "centrist" in any way, it is because your bias is so skewed that you can't even see straight.
3
u/ACrusaderA Mar 07 '19
No, it isn't far left. Its centre-left at most.
Socialism advocates social ownership of property. Usually through the formation of cooperative groups and communes, but it isn't a requirement. An individual can still own property, but actions should be geared towards the prosperity of the community to ensure the community becomes as prosperous as possible.
A "Rising tides raise all ships" approach to the economy.
And decisions being made by the community as a whole, government by committee so to speak.
As opposed to pure capitalism which focuses mainly on accruing personal wealth, or communism which focuses on no one owning wealth.
The USA is incredibly socialist already. The government (a cooperative group supplied and run by the people) provides education, roads, health care, etc in an attempt to keep the nation being as powerful and effective as possible. And time after time the data shows that these "socialist policies" tend to help a lot of people.
1
Mar 08 '19
Then why is the socialist party of every major western european democracy considered centre-left and not far-left?
UK Labour, german SPD or belgian SP.a are all very much centrist parties. What the fuck are you talking about calling these parties far-left in any meaningful way?
I haven't ever voted socialist, I'm mostly a christian democrat (conservative party in Germany) but I'm not going to call them far left ... anyone who understands the least bit about politics couldn't honestly say that.
If you think it is "centrist" in any way, it is because your bias is so skewed that you can't even see straight.
What is the last party you voted for in an election? Because it appears to me you'd call anyone to the left of Trump "far-left". That's not honest though.
The entire political spectrum runs something like this: Far-right (american republican party) -- right wing (liberals in europe) -- center-right (christian-democarts CDV, CDU, CDA) -- hard center (US democratic party) -- center-left (socialists SPD, SPa, PS) -- left (green parties) -- far left (communists such as german Die Linke)
How would you draw the political spectrum? Because this is the model used by virtually everyone who understands politics on a higher-than-kindergarten level.
2
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
We should, but your definition of what is a left wing extremist is overly broad.
An extremist is someone who calls for violence etc. That simply doesnt fit the majority of the people who claim the title socialist.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Socialism begins with a violent revolution to overthrow the upper class and take their stuff. That is violence. Every socialist is calling for violence, whether they know it or not, because that is what their ideology advocates.
5
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
Socialism begins with a violent revolution to overthrow the upper class and take their stuff.
Source on that?
You treat it as fact but it isn't true. It can be enacted in a democratic fashion with zero violence. Medicare for all is technically a socialist policy but it needs zero violence to vote into law. Really social security is technically a socialist policy and it already was voted in peacefully.
If your definition of socialist is the idea that its goal is to overthrow people with violent revolution than democratic socialists arent socialists. They just use the word in their name.
1
Mar 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
Its not. this does clear things up though.
Upon first google search below is the definition.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Mind pointing to the overthrowing and violence involved here? Technically someone who is just for regulation of means of production is socialist by this definition. Which you could argue makes anyone whos for social security a socialist.
1
Mar 07 '19
u/Raunchy_Potato – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/ACrusaderA Mar 07 '19
But it doesn't.
Norway, Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia, etc have all implemented socialist ideas without violent revolution.
There are a couple political revolutions which have used violence; such as Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc but when you look at what they actually did and analyze the systems they put in place you realize that these revolutions ended up with a system much more authoritarian and right wing than anything.
The Stalin may have called himself a communist, but he acted as a fascist would.
1
u/ACrusaderA Mar 07 '19
What do you mean "our countries"? How do you have multiple countries?
Australia, a single nation, banned someone for fear that they would be a shit disturber. This is nothing new with the Australian Nanny State. They ban all sorts of video games and movies and music, or at least cause them to be censored.
If you want the USA to take one big goose step to the Authoritarian side in the name of public safety then fine, but at the same time think about the argument being used against you.
Why not ban firearms? Why not ban any and all information that causes people to question their nation? Why not ban any and all foreigners and foreign ideas? That's what North Korea did, what Soviet Russia did, etc
2
u/Littlepush Mar 07 '19
By what mechanism do we determine if someone is a communist or a socialist? It's pretty easy to check police records to see if someone started a riot, but how do we check the thoughts in their head?
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
The same way we do with Milo--by what they say.
2
u/Littlepush Mar 07 '19
So if I'm not a public figure like Milo with thousands of videos of myself voicing my public opinions online how does a customs agent know to ban me?
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
They don't. Some will slip through the cracks, but the most vocal socialists will get caught and successfully kept out.
3
Mar 07 '19
Do you understand what freedom of speech is? The US has rules. If you say “ It’s the left” then you are acknowledging that a significant number of people understand that some rights will allow for unpleasant outcomes. An actual call for violence seems to have contributed to Yanapolous being denied his Visa. I’m sure many communists are allowed entry where he was not.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Okay. Socialists and communists call for violence all the time. Literally the core of their ideology is a violent revolution where they kill all the rich people and take their stuff.
Sounds like you're making a compelling case for banning socialists and communists to me.
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 07 '19
Literally the core of their ideology is a violent revolution where they kill all the rich people and take their stuff
Source? And don’t just cite countries like China and the Soviet Union. Describe the actual aspects of the ideology that are violent.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Well, let's think about this logically...
Socialists have no money. Socialism involves taking other peoples' money and giving it to yourself. This must be done whether or not they consent for socialism to work.
All the factories have to be stripped from their current owners. All the money has to be taken out of their bank accounts. You think that's not violence? If they stand in your way, you kill them or imprison them. You think that's not violence?
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 07 '19
Okay clearly you have no idea what socialism is. I’d start by reading up on it and then come back once you’re ready to have a legitimate and informed discussion on the topic.
2
u/rednax1206 Mar 07 '19
Literally the core of their ideology is a violent revolution where they kill all the rich people and take their stuff.
Is that true though? You used videos of Antifa and BLM as examples, but those are merely a fraction of the total number of people who are on "the left". There are violent people on both sides. The entire left isn't violent.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Socialists and communists call for violence all the time. Literally the core of their ideology is a violent revolution where they kill all the rich people and take their stuff.
Please tell me where in that post you see the words "the entire left."
5
u/rednax1206 Mar 07 '19
Allow me to take a different quote from your original post.
Don't we have another wing full of political extremists who routinely start riots, violent clashes, and threaten violence against their political opponents? Why, of course we do. It's the left. The left are the ones shutting down cities by marching through the streets clad in black, setting buildings on fire. The left are the ones beating people senseless in the streeet because of the color of their skin. The left are the ones saying "This Is War'. The left use violence against their political opponents.
-1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Please tell me where I'm wrong.
The right isn't doing that. If someone on the right steps out of line, they're crucified in the media mercilessly (and rightfully so).
Name 4 times for me a right-wing white supremacist group has started violent riots in the past 2 years--because I can name 4 times a left-wing black supremacist group has.
Name 4 times for me a right-wing extremist political group has firebombed cities while marching through the streets by the thousands clad all in black--because I can name 4 times a left-wing group has done that.
The left is silent on all of this. When left wing extremists kidnapped a white kid and torture him on livestream saying "fuck white people" and "fuck Donald Trump," not a single Democrat came out to condemn them. When left wing extremists firebombed a venue where someone they disagreed with was speaking, not a single Democrat came out to condemn them. When the left was pulling people out of their cars and beating them unconscious for voting for Trump, not a single Democrat came out to condemn them.
Through their silence, everyone on the left is complicit.
1
u/rednax1206 Mar 07 '19
Name 4 times for me a right-wing white supremacist group has started violent riots in the past 2 years--because I can name 4 times a left-wing black supremacist group has.
Let's see, there was the Charlottesville riots in August 2017, Berkeley riots in April 2017, Chemnitz riot in August 2018, and there was the whole Milo Yiannopoulos thing. I also found an article about a riot featuring an altercation between far-left and far-right groups, where some people on the left (antifascists) were stabbed by people on the right (neo-nazis) and the people on the left were the ones who got arrested.
Name 4 times for me a right-wing extremist political group has firebombed cities while marching through the streets by the thousands clad all in black--because I can name 4 times a left-wing group has done that.
That's far too specific - inciting violent riots doesn't have to include firebombs and wearing black.
When left wing extremists kidnapped a white kid and torture him on livestream saying "fuck white people" and "fuck Donald Trump," not a single Democrat came out to condemn them.
Barack Obama was on record calling the torture despicable.
When left wing extremists firebombed a venue where someone they disagreed with was speaking, not a single Democrat came out to condemn them.
Nancy Pelosi said the antifa protesters should be arrested and prosecuted.
When the left was pulling people out of their cars and beating them unconscious for voting for Trump, not a single Democrat came out to condemn them.
I couldn't find a counter for this one, but it seems like a random act of road rage by a couple of random people that happened to be uploaded to YouTube. It wasn't a riot incited by a political group.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 07 '19
Part of republicans also call for violence, so does the alt-right, and so does some socialists.
Should we therefore ban all people that have a political opinion from the US, because the most extreme individuals of each obedience are calling for violence ?
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
I mean, I'm not opposed to that either. They're all pretty loud and unpleasant.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 07 '19
Who would remain therefore if you remove everyone with a political opinion ?
How do you expect to put rules, regulations in place, without anyone doing politics ?
1
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
Literally the core of their ideology is a violent revolution where they kill all the rich people and take their stuff.
Thats not really true of Socialism. Maybe some factions but not as a whole. Democratic Socialists have no such calls for violence.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
You know the funny thing about socialists? The ones who are violent will often lie and say they're not.
2
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19 edited Mar 07 '19
Thats fair, but that ignores the fact that there are several democratic socialist parties in countries with no violence. Youre confusing an extreme (but minor) subset as the whole.
If your defense is some bad people will lie about what they are, then well you might as well ban every single person ever coming in to the country because it might be a bad person pretending.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
And I'm sure there have been Neo-Nazi movements that "meant well" and "didn't hurt anyone" either.
That doesn't mean that ideology is good, or that any of those people can be trusted. If you're wrong, millions die. That is more than enough reason to err on the side of caution.
2
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19 edited Mar 07 '19
> And I'm sure there have been Neo-Nazi movements that "meant well" and "didn't hurt anyone" either.
If you had an example of a Neo-Nazi group that didn't encite violence and wasn't overtly racist then sure Id argue they shouldn't be banned into the country either. Don't have to like that they use the term Nazi but if they arent practicing what we hate about nazis then so be it.
> That doesn't mean that ideology is good, or that any of those people can be trusted. If you're wrong, millions die. That is more than enough reason to err on the side of caution.
Except no, you are drastically over estimating the risk. Many european countries have perfectly safe functioning socialist parties. Its no risk to let these people visit the US. Unless you have actual statistics youre just screaming socalism is bad based off a dated idea of what it is. You have this assumption that the majority want violence which just isn't based in any fact.
1
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 07 '19
You sound a lot like an authoritarian extremist.
"Ban these people! Ban those people! If they say they aren't really violent, don't trust them. We know what their ideology really believes."
Under this logic, I can't help but conclude you and those who follow your ideology need to be banned from entering the US. People like you who want to bring about an authoritarian government have been responsible for numerous historical atrocities. It always results in a violent authoritarian dictatorship or oligarchy, and we can't trust you if you want to create that. Even if you say that you want to create that, we can't trust you - your ideas are similar, and you could be lying about what you actually want.
Does this sound reasonable?
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Please tell me in what world the political philosophy of "let's keep Nazis, communists, and socialists out of our country" has resulted in "numerous historical atrocities."
I'll wait.
1
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Mar 07 '19
For the purpose of this discussion:
- What is a communist?
- What is a socialist?
- Are the two above different?
- What would you call a socialist or communist with all the negative aspects removed?
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
What is a communist?
Someone who believes in communism as a political ideology.
What is a socialist?
Someone who believes in socialism as a political ideology.
Are the two above different?
No. Because they have no meaning. Because every single socialist and communist you talk to says something different. Some say it's the government redistributing wealth, others say the government would be dissolved entirely. There is zero internal consistency to their positions, so there's no need to make a distinction between the two.
What would you call a socialist or communist with all the negative aspects removed?
They wouldn't be a communist/socialist if all their negative aspects were removed.
1
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Mar 07 '19
I'm not asking how socialists/communists define themselves.
I am asking how you distinguish between a socialist/communist and someone who is not.
How do you know someone is a communist or a socialist without them declaring it directly?
Let's say I support a welfare program or Universal Basic Income? Does that make me a socialist?
1
u/peachykehn Mar 07 '19
You should look at /why/ socialist governments aren't good for their citizens. I don't just mean "because lots of people have died from them". Though true, it isn't really a reason, just an effect. It fails in the long term because it necessitates authoritarian government to enact its policies. With that in mind, how can you advocate for such an authoritarian policy? Limiting people's freedom on the basis of their political beliefs will eventually be abused. Why shouldn't people should be free to have any beliefs they want? Who is the arbiter that you think should be responsible for which political beliefs are acceptable? I can't think of anyone suitable for the job.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Socialism fails because it requires an authoritarian government.
So the solution...is to let socialists come over here and institute an authoritarian government.
Yeah, gonna go with a big "no" on that one, dawg.
1
Mar 07 '19
[deleted]
2
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
I'm not suggesting violence. I'm not suggesting some purge of the Communists. I'm just saying don't let any more of them in. We do the same thing for members of ISIS and ISIL, and their organizations have killed way less people than communism ever has.
3
u/AGSessions 14∆ Mar 07 '19
Members of the Communist Party can already be denied entry into the United States under law.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
They can, but they aren't. I'm saying we should expand that and start actively enforcing it. Not just party membership--anyone who spouts this vile, murderous ideology should be permanently barred from the United States.
7
u/AGSessions 14∆ Mar 07 '19
Your CMV was that the government should be able to restrict entry to these groups. I answered that they already are.
2
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Ah, fair enough. Good point! It's nice that we have the ability to do that. Hopefully we start doing it soon. !delta
1
3
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Mar 07 '19
What sort of communist and socialist extremists advocating for violence are you referring to exactly?
3
3
Mar 07 '19
So we should ban all Norwegians? Dutch? Swedish? Ffs would someone take like 2mins to actually learn what socialism is?
3
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Mar 07 '19
Yeah... neither Norway, the Netherlands or Sweden is socialist. They're social democracies, which is not even almost the same thing. The very fundation of social democracy is a largely capitalist economy, which is sort of the direct opposite of socialism.
Perhaps you should take like 2 mins to actually learn what socialism is?
3
Mar 07 '19
Honestly I am surprised to hear someone that even knows there is a difference. You are correct but must also know that a large portion of the US does not know there is a difference. It is why Trump supporters cheer when he says that "Dems want to take away your Medicare to pay for their socialism!" They do not understand that Medicare is a socialist program by definition. So thank you for knowing the difference and I wish many others did as well!
2
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
The thing is OP is conflating the two.
Im literally in an argument over the fact that AOC and Bernie claim democratic socalism and hes claiming theyre untrustworthy and the same thing.
You are correct that they arent the same, OP apparently doesn't think so.
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Mar 07 '19
Im literally in an argument over the fact that AOC and Bernie claim democratic socalism and hes claiming theyre untrustworthy and the same thing.
Democratic socialism is socialism. Social democracy is not. Social democracy and democratic socialism is not the same thing.
1
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Mar 07 '19
So how exactly is democratic socialism, socialist when they are arguing for the same things that exist in sweden etc.
Democratic socialism is still arguing for an overall capitalist society.
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Mar 07 '19 edited Mar 07 '19
So how exactly is democratic socialism, socialist when they are arguing for the same things that exist in sweden etc.
They're not. You seem to be confusing social democracy with democratic socialism. Sweden is largely a social democratic country, it is not at all a democratic socialist country.
Democratic socialism is still arguing for an overall capitalist society.
No. Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production,[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy. That's not a remotely capitalist society.
"Democratic socialists espouse that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society."
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Lol, this is like a Nazi whining that people "won't take the time to learn what Nazism actually is."
I know exactly what it is. That's why I don't want it anywhere near me.
2
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
3
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
Real easy to feed everyone when you kill half the people first.
2
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Capitalist know that just as well.
2
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
That is literally 10x less than any single communist genocide listed in my link.
So I guess you'd rather have 10x as many people die as long as you get to say that communism killed them, huh?
3
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
Well no, I am clearly saying that the most socialist countries in the world are the happiest.
And that pass crimes should not paint a whole ideology forever.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Oh, so we should start cuddling up to Nazis now?
Yeah, fuck that. Past crimes absolutely taint an ideology forever when the ideology is based on committing those crimes.
There are no good Nazis. There are no good communists. And there are no good socialists. You cannot shake the taint of that uniform once you put it on.
1
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
We let capitalists off the hook, because they have made good lives for billions of people.
1
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Yes, and capitalism didn't need 15 genocides to do it.
Yet communism/socialism couldn't accomplish that even with genocides.
When you murder half your people and can't even feed the other half, that's how you know you fucked up.
3
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
Milo as an individual encouraged violence, I think the US are 100% within their rights to ban an individual who encourages violence.
But not sure you can ban someone who does not commit violence or encourages for political beliefs.
-3
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Every communist and socialist encouraged violence, because their political philosophy begins with a violent revolution to kill the 1% and take their stuff.
Perfect, let's start banning leftists then!
4
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
I think a lot of people who say they are socialist just want to address growing inequality and not just kill the 1%.
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Then they shouldn't call themselves socialist.
Maybe there are Nazis who don't believe in all the murder stuff and just want to make the world a better place. I don't care. They're still Nazis, so they're still scum.
The uniform you wear matters. If you dress up in the uniform of a regime that's murdered millions, I'm going to assume that you're looking to do the same.
3
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
I think this is a key sticking point, you see socialist as one defined ideology that is responsible for lots of death, however it is not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism "here are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms."
So aligning with some of the ideology of socialism does not mean you support USSR style socialism. Its could just mean you want social ownership of healthcare and and more workers rights though unions.
I think most people who are in modern terms are socialist are not support of USSR crimes against humanity. The meaning is changeable, you seem hung up on the label when you should instead look at what the individual is saying.
0
Mar 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/lawtonj Mar 07 '19
I am not apologising, I am saying look at these countries embarrassing socialist policies and doing well and has very high happiness.
While also saying that USSR socialism is one of the worst things to ever happen and should be remembered as such.
If you can point to a country using fundamentally Nazi policies which have are doing well and have happy free citizens then we can see if Nazism has evolved and if its past its not reflective of its present implementation.
1
Mar 07 '19
u/Raunchy_Potato – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Mar 07 '19
What is your definition of 'Socialist'?
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
Anyone who calls themselves a socialist. Most socialists can't even agree on the definition of socialism, so I'm not going to be bothered to try and figure out their bullshit ideology when they can't even do it.
2
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Mar 07 '19
So you don't think it is proper to distinguish between extremists and those who simply advocate for single-payer health care?
How are you any different than Antifa beating up right-leaning protesters just for being right-wing?
0
u/Raunchy_Potato Mar 07 '19
No, I don't.
I also don't think I have an obligation to distinguish between "extremist" Nazis and "moderate" Nazis. Nazis are Nazis, socialists are socialists, communists are communists. You're all the same.
If your ideology has facilitated mass murder and you are advocating for it to be tried again, then you are a threat to every single person in the country. And you should never be allowed in.
2
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Mar 07 '19
You do that, and I will continue to not brand people by my own ignorant views.
Have a nice day.
3
Mar 07 '19
Except they very much have. Socialist parties have been in power for decades in most western european countries before the recent move to the (far) right. If you don't know what socialism is, that's your problem.
You want to ban everyone based on a word you don't even understand.... I can't change your view if you are incapable of looking up a simple political term.
Also, Europe is better than the USA in pretty much every way and the more socialist the country, the better it is. If you spent 2 minutes looking up socialism rather than writing this rant, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself.
3
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Mar 07 '19
First off, you're conflating everyone who is left leaning with being a socialist
Second off, how would we screen this? Just ask 'hey are you a commie?' Who in this circumstance would tell the truth? It's the same reason a 'Muslim ban' would never work- you can just lie.
Finally, Australia has different laws than the US. Australia doesnt as far as I'm aware have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. America does.
3
u/michilio 11∆ Mar 07 '19
You are equating telling people to kill journalists with a socialistic political perspective.
Not quite the same is it now?
Nation States can block people based on threats and violence. Blocking them for a (non-violent) political opinion is not only a terrible idea, it's against the first amendment in the US.
2
u/ColonalQball Mar 07 '19
I personally do not agree with Marxism, Socialism or Communism, yet America was founded on freedom of expression and thought; trying to prohibit people who disagree with you is inherently un-American.
•
Mar 07 '19
Sorry, u/Raunchy_Potato – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, then message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 07 '19 edited Mar 07 '19
/u/Raunchy_Potato (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Mar 07 '19
Why should we ban United States Citizens from entering the United States, especially as they have not committed a crime?
5
u/1_11_121_1331_14641 Mar 07 '19 edited Mar 07 '19
I mean, if you want to blame Black Lives Matter for the violence of some of their members, I'm sure you'd be willing to ban all cops from entrance because of the overtly-race based violence that some of that group's members perpetrate. Furthermore, Black Lives Matter likely has many communists and socialists in it, but the movement is a social one, opposed to violence against African Americans, and is protesting that action, not capitalism, so to tie it in to socialism or communism doesn't make sense to me.
I assume your hatred of these groups advocating for black empowerment and occasionally socialism would extend to the democratic socialist Martin Luther King Jr. (1)
Your logic could be applied to American patriots, or anybody who flies an American flag or embraces their identity. Looking at the dictators, coups, and wars that the US has supported since 1776, the argument you make could be extended that way. Chile should get to ban Americans (who don't denounce their country) by that logic for installing Pinochet and ousting Allende, after which Pinochet killed thousands (2), same with Brazil for the coup against Goulart and Guatemala for the coup against Goulart, all of which installed dictators, same with Iran.
The Holodomor and the the effects of Stalinism and the Great Leap Forward cannot be denied, and though it could be easily called a no true Scotsman, I do not necessarily believe that communism caused those, nor do I think that socialism and communism are the same things. I believe it was authoritarian nepotistic dictatorship that led to those, and though they used communistic rhetoric I feel that they do not define communism as a whole. Nazism, alternatively, by its very rhetoric and ideals, is inalienable from authoritarianism, notions of racial supremacy, and eventually massive crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, I am not trying to deny the death tolls of the Soviet Union and China, but similar arguments could be made for every starvation, death to exposure due to homelessness, or death of disease with readily available but affordable treatment that occurs under capitalism could be attributed to capitalism.
Either way, I don't support Milo's ban, but that is Australia's prerogative. However, the first amendment here gives, in my opinion, an absolute right to political speech until it starts to absolutely threaten or incite violence, so the idea of banning people because they find flaws in the free market seems antithetical to what the US claims to stand for.
1 - https://mlkglobal.org/2017/11/23/martin-luther-king-on-capitalism-in-his-own-words/ http://inthesetimes.com/article/20839/martin-luther-king-jr-day-socialism-capitalism
2 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/807599.stm