The double standards in terms of how Communist regimes are seen versus other totalitarian regimes

[Tooting Carmen]

I have not, but I do believe it. I actually am thinking of reading The Philosophy of Fascism to understand the political ideology of fascism. However, I got your point. Fascism was not really separated from other contemporary right wing ideologies in terms of being more racist or anti-Semitic at it's inception.

That's the point though - German fascism had an almost messianic obsession with race and purity in a way that Spanish or Italian fascism didn't to anything like the same extent.

[RN97]

I have not gone through this whole thread to see if someone has mentioned this already but in so called 'true communism' there is no state because it has 'withered away' :

"Withering away of the state" is a Marxist concept coined by Friedrich Engels referring to the idea that, with realization of the ideals of socialism, the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wither...y_of_the_state

The problem with this stupid idea is it tries to repeal two laws of nature and any doctrine that does that is doomed to failure. The first law it tries to repeal is that nature abhors a vacuum and that includes a power vacuum so this statelessness only lasts as long as it takes a few fellows to double up their fists or grab some guns and become the de facto state as people are willing to pay for protection etc... etc...

However, the other law of nature, and most critical law, is that Communism tries to repeal is that people work for reward and the more reward they get the harder they work :

The individual is filled with the unqualified desire of preserving his life, and of keeping it free from all pain, under which is included all want and privation. He wishes to have the greatest possible amount of pleasurable existence and every gratification he is capable of appreciating.

Efforts by Hegelians and Marxists to create a socialist utopia without incentives to work and produce, any private property, or possibility for profit are, by the nature of human action, doomed to failure. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer sums up the matter from a praxeological standpoint this way: “Egoism [self-interest]… will never be argued out of a person, as little as a cat can be talked out of her inclination for mice.”

Therefore, there can never be "true Communism" and instead , when it is practiced, always leads to totalitarianism.

Aha, the appeal to nature argument. Firstly, myself as well as Marx denied that capitalism is natural or arose naturally because it truly did not. Several historical developments led to capitalism. Firstly, this argument is usually quite shady because... For example. White women today in the west want to be tan.... Back in the day they wanted to be pale... What is then, natural? A desire to be corpse-like pale or tan?

It also helps little that the last time humans lived in what could be considered a "natural" environment, i.e. hunter gatherer society, it much more resembled communism rather than capitalism. You also understand very little the concept of the state withering away. Not that I support the idea, but you've misrepresented it. It's about historical determinism, or that humanity is destined to reach communism through it's development; Slavery ->feudalism ->capitalism->socialism->communism. Communism can only happen (according to marx) when socialism has been imposed a long enough time so that capitalist resistance is wiped away, and abundance along with equality is reached. Thus a state to keep order and protect property is unnecessary due to there being nothing to really steal rendering the state obsolete. The state is also not a given as, again, during our hunter gatherer days, we had no state.

You also pretty much described the homo economicus man that capitalist theorists try to ascribe all humans, but is this really the case? I wouldn't fully say so. We are social beings that often make sacrifices for others and find that having people liking us and praising us as more of an achievement rather than owning more material goods. Egoism is a part of us, sure, but the mere fact that we're critical of it shows how it's not our only feature. It's also obvious that when we live in a fully capitalist society we tend to be more like homo economicus than when we don't. You also have to understand that there is little incentive in capitalism to work hard other than being fired and replaced. The capitalists pretty much own your labor and do with the fruits of it as they wish. Nothing about socialism claims that working hard gets you nowhere, in fact, when you own the fruits of your labor, it might make you more motivated to work hard.

[KirillMazur]

Because two communists are two different theories of Marxism.
And the three communists are two theories of Marxism plus a reactionary right revanchist. A revanchist is usually one who is physically weaker.
Why? Because Marxism is a combination of earlier theories, compiled and supplemented by one natural philosopher, full of inaccuracies and white spots and completely unformalized. Too heavy a burden for one person.

Even the name itself hints. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was normal to be an adherent of a particular philosopher, and people called each other "Kontians" (in honor of Auguste Comte, and not Immanuel Kant), "Cartesians", etc.

[Red Pill]

I also thought that Italian Fascism was almost on a par with National Socialism but after reading more about the history of fascism now I believe Mussolini was much milder than Hitler and also Franco. The big problem was that in the 30s his imperialistic ambitions kept growing and he got involved in wars and in the alliance with Hitler. It's true however that fascism betrayed its syndicalist roots and allied itself with the upper classes and the industrialists. The 1919 Fascist manifesto was indeed relatively progressive in social issues.

[Tooting Carmen]

I also thought that Italian Fascism was almost on a par with National Socialism but after reading more about the history of fascism now I believe Mussolini was much milder than Hitler and also Franco. The big problem was that in the 30s his imperialistic ambitions kept growing and he got involved in wars and in the alliance with Hitler. It's true however that fascism betrayed its syndicalist roots and allied itself with the upper classes and the industrialists. The 1919 Fascist manifesto was indeed relatively progressive in social issues.

Yes and no. Although it is true that the Italian business classes regarded Mussolini as a bastion against Communism, ironically from 1925 onwards he took a very state-socialist direction, albeit in part as a response against the Great Depression, whereby Italy became home to more State-owned enterprises than anywhere in the world after the USSR itself.

[Tooting Carmen]

Also, re what Red Pill said about White Southerners, what I'd like to know is:

(1) During the Jim Crow era, were most of them even fully aware of the sheer breadth of discriminatory laws against Blacks, whether regarding marriage, sexual relations, property, voting etc?

(2) Did most White Southerners actively support said legislation, or were a lot of them just passive and indifferent?

(3) Either way, did most White Southerners genuinely dislike Blacks?

[Synapsid]

Also, re what Red Pill said about White Southerners, what I'd like to know is:

(1) During the Jim Crow era, were most of them even fully aware of the sheer breadth of discriminatory laws against Blacks, whether regarding marriage, sexual relations, property, voting etc?

(2) Did most White Southerners actively support said legislation, or were a lot of them just passive and indifferent?

(3) Either way, did most White Southerners genuinely dislike Blacks?

I think they knew but was too emotionally invested to do anything about. Blacks and White southerners is like Pre-War Europeans and Jews, too much bad blood

[Synapsid]

Also, re what Red Pill said about White Southerners, what I'd like to know is:

(1) During the Jim Crow era, were most of them even fully aware of the sheer breadth of discriminatory laws against Blacks, whether regarding marriage, sexual relations, property, voting etc?

(2) Did most White Southerners actively support said legislation, or were a lot of them just passive and indifferent?

(3) Either way, did most White Southerners genuinely dislike Blacks?

Bump