If Communism is evil and dangerous – as you’ve just admitted -, then what’s not to ban?So, first of all, this is all fine and dandy, but it has nothing to do with banning communism. Even if it is evil and dangerous.
The only cogent arguments have been as follows:
(A) Communism exists today merely as a legacy (in the form of socialism or social democracy).
(B) To ban Communism would be anathema to “the left,” forcing martyrs’ status upon the movement and swelling its ranks (albeit out of sympathy rather than ideological agreement – not to mention illegally).
The chief argument appears to be that Communism is no longer a threat. While still evident in socialism, its strains are predominately (outside the given radical fringe groups) economic, social, and political rather than violent (by any means) or even revolutionary (from a Marxian perspective).
You’re walking objective ground.COMMUNISM IS NOT MARXISM.
Communism was modeled on Marxism. Communism inherently draws on the original vision of Karl Marx, even if tailored largely to the agrarian or pre-industrial world. We’re talking about different shades of the same color. Whether or not his doctrine was “pure” in application, the man did advocate liquidation of the bourgeois population and their “craven sympathizers” – that’s hundreds of millions if not billions – as well as an anarchy anathema to all organized government. Communism adopted those ultimate goals. Communist nations continue to forward them, China and Cuba included. You can defend Marx as having been misunderstood and misinterpreted – even misapplied -, but never non-violent.
Marx’s vision called for class warfare. While Stalin obviously strayed from the “true revolutionary objectives” set forth by V.I. Lenin, the framework for his oppression – in the form of Gulags and a rigid class structure – was already in place. The massive socialist beauracracy, Party elite, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and “purge” mentality were inherited by Stalin, Khruschev, and others directly from Lenin and Trotsky, the pair of whom dedicated their work and drew most of their direction from Marx himself.To blame Marx for what happened under Stalin is like saying that Jesus was directly responsible for the actions of the Inquisition. Well, maybe that analogy isn't that grand.
Jesus Christ’s is another story entirely. “Love thy neighbor” is inherently different from, “Throw off your chains and liquidate your employer, his family, his class, and his dependants.” Both Christianity and Communism have at times been warped, but Christianity was subject to greater manipulation from its basic foundations than was Marxism. Remember that Jesus didn’t intend to found a new religion; his disciples were responsible for those actions. Marx intended for a nation such as the Soviet Union to rise. One can actually go so far as to argue that he intended for a dictatorship to arise as well given the Manifesto’s actual outline.
But Nazism is Fascism. And Fascism was derived from National Socialism – itself a derivative and manipulation of Marxism (and thus Communism).Er....Fascism is not Nazism.
If we judge all ideologies or doctrines by their fruit, I fail to see where one can actually vindicate rather than roundly condemn Karl Marx.
