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

[RN97]

Marxism from the start always had the seeds of totalitarianism in it - its bloodcurdling class-based hatreds, its belief in the all-encompassing State and command economy, its social and historical determinism.

I guess you could argue that, but then again... You can do that sort of mental gymnastics with all ideologies such as lassiez-faire capitalism. I mean, if you want to have a capitalist country you can't technically have a party that is outside of that frame-work. There also exists democratic socialists who believe the path to communism is through the ballot box. I guess you could technically argue that in a socialist state such as the USSR, the state hold a lot more power than in most capitalist countries, but in capitalist countries the capitalist class has the equal amount of power. Here in Norway a lot of enterprise is owned publicly and I must say... It's not that bad at all, it's quite good for workers as the state cares more for us than some random capitalist who cares only for profit.

[Tooting Carmen]

I guess you could argue that, but then again... You can do that sort of mental gymnastics with all ideologies such as lassiez-faire capitalism. I mean, if you want to have a capitalist country you can't technically have a party that is outside of that frame-work. There also exists democratic socialists who believe the path to communism is through the ballot box. I guess you could technically argue that in a socialist state such as the USSR, the state hold a lot more power than in most capitalist countries, but in capitalist countries the capitalist class has the equal amount of power. Here in Norway a lot of enterprise is owned publicly and I must say... It's not that bad at all, it's quite good for workers as the state cares more for us than some random capitalist who cares only for profit.

Well I agree that social democracy is the best way forward, as it combines both the innovation and enterprise of capitalism and the wealth redistribution and emphasis on public services and duty of socialism.

[RN97]

No of course Mussolini was no saint, just saying he wasn't AS brutal as the Nazis, the Falangists, various Communist regimes or even Third World dictators like Suharto or Idi Amin. And he was perfectly happy having Jews in the Italian Fascist Party - at one point they made up fully ONE THIRD of the party's membership, up to and including his mistress and his Foreign Minister as late as 1939. The anti-Semitic laws he eventually did introduce were mostly to appease Hitler. For the most part, his conception of Italy as a nation was not racialised in quite the same way the Nazis viewed the German nation.

I mean, I won't proclaim myself to be an expert on those rulers so maybe they were more brutal, but he was very brutal as well. I also know how he created policies to appease Hitler, but I just proclaimed that he wasn't really a egalitarian, pro-jewish man before that. IDK where you got that the fascist party was once 1/3rd jewish as anti-Semitic member were there from the start basically. Like 5 out of the original 117 members in the party were jews, but that's about it.... You probably had some jewish members and some pro-jewish Italian fascists, but I'd say that generally they had unfavorable views towards jews. Not like Hitler, but more mild.

[RN97]

Well I agree that social democracy is the best way forward, as it combines both the innovation and enterprise of capitalism and the wealth redistribution and emphasis on public services and duty of socialism.

Well, I'd be cautious ascribing innovation to capitalism, but yeah, I don't believe in full socialism. I do however, believe in the state owning a huge chunk of enterprises, especially in key areas such as natural resources.

[Tooting Carmen]

Well, I'd be Kautokeinos ascribing innovation to capitalism, but yeah, I don't believe in full socialism. I do however, believe in the state owning a huge chunk of enterprises, especially in key areas such as natural resources.

Me too.

[Hulu]

It put Italy on its feet economically in a time of need. Church and state interfered (ironically) less in each other's deeds than it is nowadays even in some democratic countries (what left for comparing to the USSR). Family values were promoted. Back in Mussolini's Italy being masculine was treated as something good, while in nowadays liberal and feminist dominated societies it's seen as a ''flaw'' or even worse - a ''sin''. Also, the state controlled important entities such as healthcare which is, in my opinion, the better variant.

There was a joke in Albania about this. A gypsy guy wanted to become a communist during the communism in Albania. Why do you want to become communist, they ask him. He: So we can eat and drink like in fascism times Italy invested a great deal in Albania during that time.

"Te hame e te pime si ne kohe te fashizmit" in Albanian.

[Tooting Carmen]

I mean, I won't proclaim myself to be an expert on those rulers so maybe they were more brutal, but he was very brutal as well. I also know how he created policies to appease Hitler, but I just proclaimed that he wasn't really a egalitarian, pro-jewish man before that. IDK where you got that the fascist party was once 1/3rd jewish as anti-Semitic member were there from the start basically. Like 5 out of the original 117 members in the party were jews, but that's about it.... You probably had some jewish members and some pro-jewish Italian fascists, but I'd say that generally they had unfavorable views towards jews. Not like Hitler, but more mild.

Have you heard of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and his book Hitler's Willing Executioners? In there, he argues that Germans were motivated by an eliminationist, genocidal anti-Semitism that was different from anything else on the Continent, and that such beliefs were not confined to a minority of hardcore Nazis.

[JamesBond007]

Am I the only one who has noticed this? There are many people not just on the far Left, but even quite centrist, moderate people who argue that the main problem with the USSR, pre-1980s China, Eastern Europe, the Khmer Rouge etc. is that they "didn't really practice Communism". By contrast, nobody remotely sane and normal would argue that the main problem with South Africa was that they "didn't really practice Apartheid", or that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy "didn't really practice Fascism", or that the current Saudi and Iranian regimes "don't really practice Islam". (Actually, perhaps people like Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi might argue that, but nobody remotely in the realm of reality would). What explains this dissonance? Why are Communist regimes seen as problematic, cruel and despotic in spite of their guiding ideologies, whereas other totalitarian regimes are (correctly) seen as problematic, cruel and despotic because of their guiding ideologies?

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.

[Ethel]

Actually this is something that happens a lot with liberals, it's an argumentative logic called Self-Assigned Immunity Syndrome. It's basically creating an ideal weberian model of a X economic-politic project, and when this isn't achieved or fails, then you say "it wasn't liberal/socialist (enough)!". This also happens a lot on the left, especially when it comes to the USSR.
While it's true that Communism, as the post-socialist phase utopia, never existed, one can't deny that the USSR or Cuba are/were Socialism experiments, but still there are people who say it wasn't, using the argumentative logic mentioned. What these people fail to realise though is that there's no "cookie recipe" for socialism and that it changes radically from context to context, time and space, therefore it's impossible to create a perfect model of socialism as a guideline that could be applied anywhere, these things are built based on the material realities that a certain people live.

[RN97]

Have you heard of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and his book Hitler's Willing Executioners? In there, he argues that Germans were motivated by an eliminationist, genocidal anti-Semitism that was different from anything else on the Continent, and that such beliefs were not confined to a minority of hardcore Nazis.

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.