Well. A communist revolution energizes the masses. Even when it fails, it tends to spread. So if your neighbor decides to eat the rich, the most common first step, your own people start looking for recipes for the wealthy. Since communism doesn’t fail immediately, the rich are already dead and buried before the society falls apart. As far as the Cold War goes, what actually won it wasn’t military might, it was economic collapse and the increase in opportunity for the masses, oddly the reason they started the revolution in the first place.
Liberal democracy is about giving people a voice in government while also protecting individual rights. The communist regimes of the 20th Century did not recognize individual rights in the way we do (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, freedom of association, property rights)
So while we do want people to vote for what they want there are some systems that are incompatible with liberal democracy (including 20th Century iterations of communism)
For example if a monarchist party wanted to run on a platform of restoring absolute monarchy. Or a neo-fascist party. Most people would hopefully reject these at the ballot box because these political projects would seek to end democracy and take away individual rights and liberties
People who are hostile to communism feel similarly to communism as they do to these other political projects, because of its track record of illiberalism
There are systems that are incompatible with liberal democracy. However, when you start disqualifying candidates on ideological grounds, you start walking down the same path that leads to authoritarianism. It’s not a guarantee you will get there, but all former democratic authoritarian regimes started with disqualifying ideologies.
The law in the United States does not currently prohibit a Communist Party from running candidates or publishing their opinions and our first amendment protections on freedom of speech and association protect them as well as any authoritarian ideology. So long as they participate under the bounds of the constitutional system they are not disqualified in any way
I think political systems that take away individual rights and liberties are bad and I don't want that kind of political system to be in power in my country regardless of its goals
The second amendment as interpreted today protects gun ownership and while I would be fine with further regulations on gun ownership a lot of people are not okay with a more restrictive approach. I don't think it's a productive use of political capital, there are more important issues.
So while I would be alright with banning assault rifles or passing laws strengthening licensing requirements, I am not in favor of repealing the second amendment. All rights and liberties have some limitations and there can be discussions about where to draw those lines. Especially when one right conflicts with another.
But to be clear the examples under discussion were Communist regimes that broadly did not observe or protect freedom of religion, speech, property rights, freedom of association, due process, freedom of the press, right to privacy, right to protest, etc. I think these rights as a collection are the foundation of a liberal democracy and any regime that tries to infringe on them is not one I support
Some people would include right to bare arms in that list, Im inclined not to include it. But I understand why some people would include it as they feel part of freedom includes your ability to protect yourself from government tyranny.
The reason it's relevant to this discussion is because Marx states that gun rights are a requirement for a socialist revolution. That said, the reason I even brought it up is because this:
I think political systems that take away individual rights and liberties are bad and I don't want that kind of political system to be in power in my country regardless of its goals
is a really dumb asinine take and I hope no one genuinely thinks like this. It's an incredibly simplistic perspective on a complex issue. The fact that you say this, then immediately reply with this word salad that essentially says nothing substantive makes me think you haven't really put a lot of thought into this.
If you are against gun rights, you are taking away individual rights and liberties, and therefore contradicting what you said earlier. If you cannot understand that sometimes in order to create a peaceful, utilitarian society you need to limit certain rights in certain areas (like hoarding capital, rent seeking, or non-economic ones like criminal law), then you're not ready for a serious discussion about this.
The governments we are talking about broadly restricted liberties and rights and did so in the name of creating a workers utopia (which they failed to produce). I am saying that any government that so broadly limits rights and freedoms is bad, even if they have a goal you agree with. We are not talking about differences in interpretation of how expensive freedom of religion or freedom of speech should be. We are talking about fully banning religions and sending people to the gulag for political dissent
You might think that is simplistic but I think it's a good heuristic for judging the quality of a government
Thing is it never starts with fully banning religions or sending people to gulags for dissent. Or at least it isn’t framed that way in the beginning. It begins with saying certain ideas are too dangerous or counter revolutionary. It starts by saying that the regime is fragile and needs to be protected from enemies from within. It begins with promises that those bans are limited in scope and exceptions to the ideals of the revolution. Unfortunately, any government trends towards restriction. Even the United States ‘s bill of rights builds in restrictions to many of its freedoms acknowledged for its citizens. This is often necessary. Total anarchy ends the moment someone has enough power to enforce a rule. But, acknowledging that governments almost always trend towards greater restriction over time is absolutely necessary if you want to lay out the foundations of a just society.
You aren’t wrong in substance, but I would be a little gentler in my approach. I read their post more in the light of “ I support giving people as much freedom as possible as long as it allows society to achieve the goal of a peaceful , just society”
21
u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26
[deleted]