3 ms·

Ah, I see. Those are pretty radical stances. You just compared Marxists to terrorists, which is pretty far out there. Are folks like David Harvey, Cornell West

Ah, I see. Those are pretty radical stances. You just compared Marxists to terrorists, which is pretty far out there. Are folks like David Harvey, Cornell West, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc., unwelcome in your hypothetical country? Sounds like you are equally interested in "cancelling" ideologies, you just have a different set you'd disallow.

throwawaysea 6y ago
> You just compared Marxists to terrorists, which is pretty far out there. There is ample evidence for this comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... Numerous socialist and communist states require absolute adherence because they hold their ideology in absolute terms. A lot of them are one party states for that reason. I still don't mind people discussing these ideas or supporting them from a free speech perspective, as long as they're not calling for oppression of other views/people/groups, or inciting violence, or engaging in other criminal acts. But do we need to give them paths to immigrate here? No - we provide those paths when there is benefit to our nation. Why would we provide such a path to those who support an ideology that so consistently results in bad outcomes (both economically and mortally)? > Sounds like you are equally interested in "cancelling" ideologies, you just have a different set you'd disallow. Not granting visas to members of communist parties is not the same as "cancelling" them, since they aren't being publicly shamed, or having their job taken away from them, or having their status quo disrupted in any way. But they're unlikely to add value to our society because their ideology fundamentally conflicts with our basic values. As the USCIS stated in their policy guidance: > Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  You've clearly selected your data to match your existing understanding of the world. You've selected one carefully curated statistic and used it to justify a sweeping generalization you already held about "Marxists". You also are "lying by omission". Yes, autocratic governments that call themselves communist have killed a great many people in famines and political killings. But so have many democratic governments and non communist autocratic governments. (To say nothing of the hundreds of millions of deaths at the hands of Capitalism.) Look, we can disagree politically. But please at least do so honestly and in good faith.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > There is ample evidence for this comparison: Among the problems with your evidence is that it all concerns Leninist and their ideological descendants. While capitalists tend to accept the Leninist propaganda that Leninism is Marxism, non-Leninist Marxists have, from very early in the existence of Leninism, viewed it as a departure, and even characterized it as “state capitalism”. So, even to the extent that it represents a general problem with Leninism, and also generalizes to a broader category, whether the right broader category is “Marxist” or “capitalist” or something else is a matter itself of ideological dispute that would require additional evidence to answer in any objective fashion, if that is even possible.

throwawaysea 6y ago

> You just compared Marxists to terrorists, which is pretty far out there. There is ample evidence for this comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... Numerous socialist and communist states require absolute adherence because they hold their ideology in absolute terms. A lot of them are one party states for that reason. I still don't mind people discussing these ideas or supporting them from a free speech perspective, as long as they're not calling for oppression of other views/people/groups, or inciting violence, or engaging in other criminal acts. But do we need to give them paths to immigrate here? No - we provide those paths when there is benefit to our nation. Why would we provide such a path to those who support an ideology that so consistently results in bad outcomes (both economically and mortally)? > Sounds like you are equally interested in "cancelling" ideologies, you just have a different set you'd disallow. Not granting visas to members of communist parties is not the same as "cancelling" them, since they aren't being publicly shamed, or having their job taken away from them, or having their status quo disrupted in any way. But they're unlikely to add value to our society because their ideology fundamentally conflicts with our basic values. As the USCIS stated in their policy guidance: > Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Pfhreak 6y ago
You've clearly selected your data to match your existing understanding of the world. You've selected one carefully curated statistic and used it to justify a sweeping generalization you already held about "Marxists". You also are "lying by omission". Yes, autocratic governments that call themselves communist have killed a great many people in famines and political killings. But so have many democratic governments and non communist autocratic governments. (To say nothing of the hundreds of millions of deaths at the hands of Capitalism.) Look, we can disagree politically. But please at least do so honestly and in good faith.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> There is ample evidence for this comparison: Among the problems with your evidence is that it all concerns Leninist and their ideological descendants. While capitalists tend to accept the Leninist propaganda that Leninism is Marxism, non-Leninist Marxists have, from very early in the existence of Leninism, viewed it as a departure, and even characterized it as “state capitalism”. So, even to the extent that it represents a general problem with Leninism, and also generalizes to a broader category, whether the right broader category is “Marxist” or “capitalist” or something else is a matter itself of ideological dispute that would require additional evidence to answer in any objective fashion, if that is even possible.