4 ms·

Anarchists and communists have long been banned from entering the US. And I've noticed a strong push back against most of the more mild socialists ideas. The US

Anarchists and communists have long been banned from entering the US. And I've noticed a strong push back against most of the more mild socialists ideas. The US have not been "the land of the free" for a long time. And I will argue that communism is fundamentally a good ideology. While fascism has never leaned on the good side of human nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_na... PS: statues of Lenin and Stalin were removed without much second thought, only USians would keep statues of their (war criminals)|(rebels) for 150 years. And political bronzes are not art, they are at best political camping and grandiloquence.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
To be fair, anarchists didn't exactly make anyone their friends from the late 1800s forward. There was an incredible amount of political violence at the time. Russia saw tens of millions murdered because the anarchists and communists (of that day) got exactly what they wanted in the overthrow of the old regime. It's weird how communism and fascism seem to appear out of the ether together and fight with each other. How many states were destabilized by that combo in the last 100 years? Russia, Germany, Spain, at least, South American countries, etc. Fascists and communists are like pb & j. There must have been a lot of normal people who just wanted to live normal lives but saw them destroyed by extremists who knew the right way to live.
- vidarh 9y ago
  The anarchists in Russia, and a substantial proportion of the communists fought against the Bolshevik coup, and most of them ended up murdered or in exile for it. Or both. Trying to paint them all with one brush is ignorant.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Well yeah, but they made a deal with the devil. The anarchists in Russia were murdering thousands of people a year from 1904 forward. They killed one of the few liberalish emperors in 1881. Russia could have been a very different place in 1915 without their action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnaya_Volya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnaya_Volya Here's a long list of the infamous actions of the anarchists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed#Notable_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed#Notable... The sailors on Kronstadt who supported Lenin during the July Days and were one of his strongest bases of support ended up getting put down and executed when they rebelled after the revolution. Guess it suggests that making friends with violent people is a bad idea, regardless of convenience or agreement.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      The idea of treating anarchists of all people as one singular, cohesive unit, when even the elitist, strictly organised Bolsheviks with their high party discipline took many years to manage to fully purge/murder even the opposition within their own party, is beyond ridiculous. The Russian left was deeply divided to start with, and split further as the Bolsheviks intentions became clearer, leading to a number of uprisings against them from the left as well [1]. Frankly, it is deeply offensive to the memories of the many thousands of them who ended up laying down their lives to try to stop the Bolsheviks that you're lumping them all together and trying to assign them blame for things they fought to the bitter end. Some of them had at some point made the fault of trusting Lenin, at a time when the Bolsheviks had not yet demonstrated much willingness to oppress, but most had not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_th... (with the caveat that the page contains a number of statements about specifics that to me seem overly biased in favour of the Bolsheviks, but the specifics of which groups opposed them looks reasonably correct)
vidarh 9y ago
The US dropped its blanket ban on anarchists and communists well over 20 years ago. I personally know people in both camps who have visited the UK and one who has permanent US residency. I'd argue that while the US has many problems when it comes to its treatment of the left, things have moved in the opposite direction of what you indicate. E.g. the far rights attack on Obama coupled with generations now growing up who never experienced the cold war combined to make words like "socialism" far less scary.
Houshalter 9y ago
>And I will argue that communism is fundamentally a good ideology. This is a dangerous thing to say publicly! As you mention yourself, the United States has had red scares just a generation ago. Who is to say it won't happen again? And that is exactly why you should support freedom of speech and tolerance of differing ideologies. Or the next red scare will be even worse. >statues of Lenin and Stalin were removed without much second thought, only USians would keep statues of their (war criminals)|(rebels) for 150 years. As far as I know most of the USSR world war 2 monuments are still standinding. The US is removing even monuments to soldiers that don't feature any specific general or leader. By your logic we should tear down the famous Vietnam war memorial because the US lost the war.
- yrro 9y ago
  > By your logic we should tear down the famous Vietnam war memorial because the US lost the war Nonsense, the statues are not being removed because they are from the losing side, they are being removed because they commemorate terrorists and traitors, and were in many causes erected by racists later on.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    They commemorate soldiers who died in the largest war in American history, and were mostly funded by veterans.
    - yrro 9y ago
      Like I said, they celebrate traitors and terrorists, and they were mostly erected by racist terrorists later on during the days of Jim Crow, the KKK and the Civil Rights movement. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story...
    - alew1 9y ago
      They largely went up in two waves, in the 1890s and the 1960s, as explicit symbols of white supremacy. They were not erected shortly after the war to commemorate soldiers. They falsely evoke a time right after the war when Southerners held great respect for confederate "heroes," but that's misleading. I was surprised to learn this too. http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12015570/confederate-monuments/ http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12015570/... https://www.google.com/amp/jezebel.com/confederate-monuments-arent-history-theyre-a-cheap-cul-1797854438/amp https://www.google.com/amp/jezebel.com/confederate-monuments...
thehardsphere 9y ago
> Anarchists and communists have long been banned from entering the US. And I've noticed a strong push back against most of the more mild socialists ideas. The US have not been "the land of the free" for a long time. American citizens are perfectly free to hold those beliefs. They are also free to determine what kind of people they want to allow in their country, just like every other country on Earth can. That they choose not to allow people who openly advocate destroying all existing social institutions (which is the end goal of communism as stated by Marx in The Communist Manifesto) to enter the country does not mean that the country is not free. > And I will argue that communism is fundamentally a good ideology. While fascism has never leaned on the good side of human nature. There are 100 million people who died in the 20th century who would disagree with you. But, even if we ignore that, the US does not allow Nazis to enter the country either, for very similar reasons. As a matter of fact, if you apply for permanent residency today, you still have to sign a statement that says you're not a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party or adhere to any of its beliefs, even though that party is defunct and most of its members are dead.
- vacri 9y ago
  You seem to be rebutting a rebuttal without having read the grandparent comment. "What about the nazi ban?" is a non-sequitor in context.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    Yes, I am rebutting the comment I replied to. Not every reply to every comment needs to assume the grandparent comment as necessary context; it's perfectly fine as far as I know to start tangents. Also, the grandparent comment did not discuss immigration policy, so by your standard the parent is an irrelevant rebuttal.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

To be fair, anarchists didn't exactly make anyone their friends from the late 1800s forward. There was an incredible amount of political violence at the time. Russia saw tens of millions murdered because the anarchists and communists (of that day) got exactly what they wanted in the overthrow of the old regime. It's weird how communism and fascism seem to appear out of the ether together and fight with each other. How many states were destabilized by that combo in the last 100 years? Russia, Germany, Spain, at least, South American countries, etc. Fascists and communists are like pb & j. There must have been a lot of normal people who just wanted to live normal lives but saw them destroyed by extremists who knew the right way to live.

vidarh 9y ago
The anarchists in Russia, and a substantial proportion of the communists fought against the Bolshevik coup, and most of them ended up murdered or in exile for it. Or both. Trying to paint them all with one brush is ignorant.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Well yeah, but they made a deal with the devil. The anarchists in Russia were murdering thousands of people a year from 1904 forward. They killed one of the few liberalish emperors in 1881. Russia could have been a very different place in 1915 without their action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnaya_Volya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnaya_Volya Here's a long list of the infamous actions of the anarchists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed#Notable_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed#Notable... The sailors on Kronstadt who supported Lenin during the July Days and were one of his strongest bases of support ended up getting put down and executed when they rebelled after the revolution. Guess it suggests that making friends with violent people is a bad idea, regardless of convenience or agreement.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    The idea of treating anarchists of all people as one singular, cohesive unit, when even the elitist, strictly organised Bolsheviks with their high party discipline took many years to manage to fully purge/murder even the opposition within their own party, is beyond ridiculous. The Russian left was deeply divided to start with, and split further as the Bolsheviks intentions became clearer, leading to a number of uprisings against them from the left as well [1]. Frankly, it is deeply offensive to the memories of the many thousands of them who ended up laying down their lives to try to stop the Bolsheviks that you're lumping them all together and trying to assign them blame for things they fought to the bitter end. Some of them had at some point made the fault of trusting Lenin, at a time when the Bolsheviks had not yet demonstrated much willingness to oppress, but most had not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_th... (with the caveat that the page contains a number of statements about specifics that to me seem overly biased in favour of the Bolsheviks, but the specifics of which groups opposed them looks reasonably correct)

vidarh 9y ago

The US dropped its blanket ban on anarchists and communists well over 20 years ago. I personally know people in both camps who have visited the UK and one who has permanent US residency. I'd argue that while the US has many problems when it comes to its treatment of the left, things have moved in the opposite direction of what you indicate. E.g. the far rights attack on Obama coupled with generations now growing up who never experienced the cold war combined to make words like "socialism" far less scary.

Houshalter 9y ago

>And I will argue that communism is fundamentally a good ideology. This is a dangerous thing to say publicly! As you mention yourself, the United States has had red scares just a generation ago. Who is to say it won't happen again? And that is exactly why you should support freedom of speech and tolerance of differing ideologies. Or the next red scare will be even worse. >statues of Lenin and Stalin were removed without much second thought, only USians would keep statues of their (war criminals)|(rebels) for 150 years. As far as I know most of the USSR world war 2 monuments are still standinding. The US is removing even monuments to soldiers that don't feature any specific general or leader. By your logic we should tear down the famous Vietnam war memorial because the US lost the war.

yrro 9y ago
> By your logic we should tear down the famous Vietnam war memorial because the US lost the war Nonsense, the statues are not being removed because they are from the losing side, they are being removed because they commemorate terrorists and traitors, and were in many causes erected by racists later on.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  They commemorate soldiers who died in the largest war in American history, and were mostly funded by veterans.
  - yrro 9y ago
    Like I said, they celebrate traitors and terrorists, and they were mostly erected by racist terrorists later on during the days of Jim Crow, the KKK and the Civil Rights movement. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story...
  - alew1 9y ago
    They largely went up in two waves, in the 1890s and the 1960s, as explicit symbols of white supremacy. They were not erected shortly after the war to commemorate soldiers. They falsely evoke a time right after the war when Southerners held great respect for confederate "heroes," but that's misleading. I was surprised to learn this too. http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12015570/confederate-monuments/ http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12015570/... https://www.google.com/amp/jezebel.com/confederate-monuments-arent-history-theyre-a-cheap-cul-1797854438/amp https://www.google.com/amp/jezebel.com/confederate-monuments...

thehardsphere 9y ago

> Anarchists and communists have long been banned from entering the US. And I've noticed a strong push back against most of the more mild socialists ideas. The US have not been "the land of the free" for a long time. American citizens are perfectly free to hold those beliefs. They are also free to determine what kind of people they want to allow in their country, just like every other country on Earth can. That they choose not to allow people who openly advocate destroying all existing social institutions (which is the end goal of communism as stated by Marx in The Communist Manifesto) to enter the country does not mean that the country is not free. > And I will argue that communism is fundamentally a good ideology. While fascism has never leaned on the good side of human nature. There are 100 million people who died in the 20th century who would disagree with you. But, even if we ignore that, the US does not allow Nazis to enter the country either, for very similar reasons. As a matter of fact, if you apply for permanent residency today, you still have to sign a statement that says you're not a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party or adhere to any of its beliefs, even though that party is defunct and most of its members are dead.

vacri 9y ago
You seem to be rebutting a rebuttal without having read the grandparent comment. "What about the nazi ban?" is a non-sequitor in context.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Yes, I am rebutting the comment I replied to. Not every reply to every comment needs to assume the grandparent comment as necessary context; it's perfectly fine as far as I know to start tangents. Also, the grandparent comment did not discuss immigration policy, so by your standard the parent is an irrelevant rebuttal.