It's simply not true that communists are canceled. The media regularly openly supports the CCP. The most popular politician in our country as of a couple years ago was open socialist Bernie Sanders. Wearing a swastika is an insta-cancel. Wearing a hammer and sickle gets you a "I wouldn't vote for that guy... maybe."
It's simply not true that communists are canceled.
The media regularly openly supports the CCP. The
most popular politician in our country as of a
couple years ago was open socialist Bernie Sanders
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Communism != Socialism
Each of these terms have been applied to a wide variety of beliefs and practices. Nobody owns these terms, but even Marx himself drew a sharp distinction between the two.
"Communism" is a system in which the state owns everything and resources are, theoretically, fairly and equally distributed to the people. In practice, this has never worked out well, and very few folks view communism as a realistic solution today.
"Socialism" refers to a much wider range of ideas. Broadly speaking, any redistribution of wealth is "socialism" and this would include collecting taxes and using them to build a public library, roads, or fund schooling for children.
In practice, just about every nation on Earth is a blend of socialism and capitalism. In a truly free-market/capitalist society with zero traces of socialism, the government would provide almost literally nothing except for perhaps border defense.
Canada and the UK are capitalist, but lean farther toward socialism (with their nationalized healthcare, etc) than the USA. When a modern American politician like Sanders or AOC advocates for "socialism", this is what they mean.
Unlike communism, socialism works. It's just a question of how much of it you want. Even your most "socialist" politicians in the USA don't advocate the abolition of private property, and even the most libertarian politicians don't advocate the total dismantling of the federal government.
It is also very important to understand that socialism is utterly compatible with democratic elections. Just as you could have a capitalist nation ruled by a dictator, you can have have a socialist nation with democratic elections. A nation's method of choosing leaders is almost entirely orthogonal to how it structures its economy.
The communist bit refers to the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party. Neither communists or socialists are canceled, there is no limit. People who go too far right are canceled.
CCP has "communist" in the name, but this is more of a historical artifact than anything.
Rule of thumb with political parties and countries is that their actual names have little to do with reality -- witness all of the dictatorships that have had "Democratic" in their names over the years.
Democratic Republic of the Congo springs to mind. And of course North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (lol)
I would say that there is a wide gulf between wanting to make sure people have healthcare (Sanders's big position) and the violent revolution and subsequent authoritarianism that Communism tends to require.
I feel like all of this is avoiding the point. If there is such a place on the left that is "too far left" that you will be insta-canceled, what is it? Please provide an example of this happening to a public figure.
2. Not a single person who openly advocates Stalinism or similar forceful collectivisation makes it onto the national stage. Meanwhile Richard Spencer was so "cancelled" that he continued to interviewed on national TV
3. In Germany and Europe, most communist parties are under observation by the constitutional secret service, despite being democratic parties
4. In the US, Colin Kapernick was cancelled by the NFL for kneeling to protest police brutality
Leftist positions, as it turns out, are much less inherently tied to authoritarianism than Nazi ideology. Thus, you often see people advocating for democratic socialism on the national stage, but not for Stalinism and a violent revolution. The latter of which immediately gets them cancelled before they become much of a public figure
1. Suggesting Bernie is "too far left" to get elected President is not canceling. Being forced to resign out of office in disgrace is a canceling. James Damore was a nobody with no power who was put under the national spotlight and canceled spectacularly. Rosanne Barr was canceled.
2. Richard Spencer has not been canceled because he went too far left.
3. So not a single person then.
4. Is Kapernick far left?
I actually see people supporting leftist authoritarians openly pretty regularly. I already provided some pop culture examples elsewhere... AOC tweeted Marx's labor theory of value. Bernie openly supported the USSR (even honeymooned there), Cuba, Venezuela, and is an open socialist. I see people wearing Che Guevera shirts walking down the street.
This is what cognitive dissonance looks like. Instead of addressing my very simple and direct question you are changing the subject and talking about other things. Where is the limit on the left that is too far, and who is someone who has been canceled for going there?
There are open Marxists in Congress, in Hollywood, in the top Universities. Corporate press and the NBA openly supports Communist China. There is no such equivalence on the right. There's no open Hitler supporters pulling the levers of power. Trump is not a white nationalist, not even close.
I tire of this, I have answered that multiple times. A hard limit is Stalinism,forced collectivisation via revolution. Noone who has ever called for that has survived politically. But you don't even need to go that far left: Kapernick was cancelled, his career is over. For criticising racist police violence. MLK was killed.
He only condemned David Duke after a media uproar.
If your standard for "white supremacists" is "openly admits to wanting to eradicate or enslave blacks and Jews, as was done before" and your standard for "far left" is "anyone who admits to some Marxist ideology" then you are measuring with two different sticks. And trying to make these two equivalent is dishonest.
The Marxists in power did so by democratic elections and without any shady business (I know of no ongoing investigations or impeachments at least). The barely shaded fashist in power still has investigations running, has deteriorated the democratic institutions in the US whenever he could and used rubber bullets and gas to (possibly illegally) clear a parc from protestors for a photo op. Which of these are more in line with authoritarianism?
But actually, don't bother to answer unless you will actually engage. If in the charitable case, for you any form of Marxist thought means hardcore left, then you are also dismissing all of social democracy as "far left", which is literally most of Europe. And in the most uncharitable case, you are wasting my time trying to create a false equivalence between democraty compatible socialist ideas and fashism, which is inherently nondemocratic. Have a nice day
Well, one symbol is inherently tied to racial purity politics, the other is a symbol which was used by communists both before and after the atrocities committed by Stalin/Lenin/etc. Is that not a difference?
I'm going to grant you every inch of that. Now please give me an example of a public person who went so far left that they were canceled and are no longer welcome in polite conversation.
I answered you in two replies already, but you will have to define "polite conversation" for this one to make sense. Anyone on the left who calls for or hints at purges in the same way that white nationalists do doesn't even make it onto the national stage. If you define "cancelled" as "losing their job and getting persecuted" then how about Colin Kapernick, for protesting police brutality by kneeling, and the worker who was (most likely illegally) fire by Amazon for pushing for unionisation amidst COVID19?
And being up Bernie Sanders name in "polite" democratic circles, let's see how supportive they are.
Reality is, the far left doesn't get cancelled as much because their popular ideas generally involve democratic control over the means of production and treating everyone like a human being, not revolution, while the far rights "popular" ideas are racism, sexism and the disenfranchisement of the "proles". One of these inherently requires authoritarianism, the other doesn't.
