4 ms·

> I know I'm making a mistake in posting this thought so plainly here, for example. Loads of people, especially young people, talk about being communists and s

> I know I'm making a mistake in posting this thought so plainly here, for example. Loads of people, especially young people, talk about being communists and socialists and equity and so forth. It's extremely normalised, particularly amongst young people, whose largest percentage experience in life is one of parents giving them things. Those instincts transfer to politics, especially if encouraged to do so by university professors. > the fear of being accused of sympathizing with Communism is so ingrained in the English speaking world Most of this is not ingrained in the English speaking world, either. In the UK it's not a big thing compared to remembering Germany. Far fewer people know communism's death (and life) tolls in the 20th century than Nazi Germany's, for example, and how much worse it was even without a world war to bump the numbers up. > There's good reason to fear this backlash in a world that is rapidly equating Communism to Nazism and all forms of socialism and redistribution to Stalinism. You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so. That is not what they are saying, and while it could be what they mean, you are not able to discern that any more than anyone else is.

the_af 3y ago
> Far fewer people know communism's death (and life) tolls in the 20th century than Nazi Germany's Oh no. Here we go again. Sigh. My fault really, I knew what I was getting into. > You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so No, this isn't what I said. I suggest you go back and read it. > That is not what they are saying, and while it could be what they mean, you are not able to discern that any more than anyone else is Thankfully that's not what I'm saying either! I knew this was a mistake, thanks for confirming.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  This sighing, world-weary non-response isn't worth anything. I've clearly laid out what I thought your response said, and what I think about that. Why reply with zero courtesy and zero content?
  - the_af 3y ago
    My comment does have content; it rejects your interpretation and also reasserts something: that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics, and they've been taught that there's no more evil thing than Communism, and therefore these topics are fraught with danger. Anyone wishing to discuss anything even tangentially related to the aforementioned topics must carefully coach their words with disclaimers like "well, of course socialism doesn't work" and "of course Communism is authoritarian and evil", lest anyone even thinks they are supporting Stalinism or whatever. Then you get the "history lessons" about death tolls and whatnot, and it's a really tiring topic. Or someone will mention teenagers sometimes go through a phase where they are drawn to communism because they don't understand life, or something trite like that. So it's best to avoid, in English speaking forums, mention of redistribution, income inequality, or socialism; or if you cannot help yourself, then you must add lots of disclaimers that you are not a socialist and that you know that Communism is evil, or you'll engage in.. ... I was going to say "conversations like this one", but this one is pretty mild so far, thankfully. My final thought is that what I said is very descriptive of how these topics tend to go here on HN; it was just an observation. Not a treatise.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics I agree, but for the opposite reason. As soon as I replied to you, you stopped talking about the topic itself and started communicating how tired you were, and how laborious talking about all this is. That's why you can't have a rational discourse on this stuff. But other people can, and do. And no one stops them.
      - the_af 3y ago
        Well, you did claim that > You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so Maybe this assertion of yours didn't help? Are you willing to consider this? edit: but since the OP also misunderstood my observation, I'm willing to concede the point I wasn't clear enough.

the_af 3y ago

> Far fewer people know communism's death (and life) tolls in the 20th century than Nazi Germany's Oh no. Here we go again. Sigh. My fault really, I knew what I was getting into. > You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so No, this isn't what I said. I suggest you go back and read it. > That is not what they are saying, and while it could be what they mean, you are not able to discern that any more than anyone else is Thankfully that's not what I'm saying either! I knew this was a mistake, thanks for confirming.

robertlagrant 3y ago
This sighing, world-weary non-response isn't worth anything. I've clearly laid out what I thought your response said, and what I think about that. Why reply with zero courtesy and zero content?
- the_af 3y ago
  My comment does have content; it rejects your interpretation and also reasserts something: that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics, and they've been taught that there's no more evil thing than Communism, and therefore these topics are fraught with danger. Anyone wishing to discuss anything even tangentially related to the aforementioned topics must carefully coach their words with disclaimers like "well, of course socialism doesn't work" and "of course Communism is authoritarian and evil", lest anyone even thinks they are supporting Stalinism or whatever. Then you get the "history lessons" about death tolls and whatnot, and it's a really tiring topic. Or someone will mention teenagers sometimes go through a phase where they are drawn to communism because they don't understand life, or something trite like that. So it's best to avoid, in English speaking forums, mention of redistribution, income inequality, or socialism; or if you cannot help yourself, then you must add lots of disclaimers that you are not a socialist and that you know that Communism is evil, or you'll engage in.. ... I was going to say "conversations like this one", but this one is pretty mild so far, thankfully. My final thought is that what I said is very descriptive of how these topics tend to go here on HN; it was just an observation. Not a treatise.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics I agree, but for the opposite reason. As soon as I replied to you, you stopped talking about the topic itself and started communicating how tired you were, and how laborious talking about all this is. That's why you can't have a rational discourse on this stuff. But other people can, and do. And no one stops them.
    - the_af 3y ago
      Well, you did claim that > You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so Maybe this assertion of yours didn't help? Are you willing to consider this? edit: but since the OP also misunderstood my observation, I'm willing to concede the point I wasn't clear enough.