No, that's a non sequitur. A slippery slope DOES require a chain of events; it's part of the definition. A DIRECT CAUSAL CONNECTION (ie- one which does not require a chain of events to occur) does not qualify.
It’s a case of “worst case scenario” – which inevitably falls under the “slippery slope” blanket. To some extent, this is “chaining implied.” Observe:
“Banning Communism in the United States would cause an immediate outpouring by the left of sympathy for global socialism. This sympathy would immediately result in active, willful indoctrination to socialist groups nationwide. Said socialist groups would immediately become polarized, developing into the epitome of the brand of Communism originally targeted. Thus the crisis would be more severe than before.”
Generally because Communism doesn't call for the marginalisation, discrimination and stratification that facism generally does.
You speak of socialism or democratic socialism on the European model, not functioning Communism.
Riiiiiight. Thats about the least sensical thing I've read in the past few days.
Least sensical and yet most true.
Benito Mussolini was originally an Italian socialist influenced by the writings of Karl Marx and impressed (on some level) with the work of Vladimir Lenin. Hitler adopted the Fascist mantra from
Il Duce and then wrought upon it certain changes of his own – particularly those related to capitalism. Thus, certain brands of Hitler’s thinking were by way of V.I. Lenin also familiar to Stalin.
Add the what? And also, the gulags were an invention of a totalitarian regime. Not a communist one.
Communism is anarchic, but only immediately following a phase known as “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” Gulags – an inevitable result of the class warfare envisioned by Marx and effected by Soviet Bolsheviks – were thus outcomes of the Communist purge put into other use by Stalin. While he certainly had his own agendas, the camps were nevertheless heirs to the Manifesto’s gloom-and-doom doctrine.
I thought the Bush Administration believed that. Communism believes that the majority of societies problems can be solved by attempting to make all equal, legally, socially and economically.
It’s a Catch 22, so to speak. Communism begets Communism and nothing but. The same was true of Fascism. The problem was that Marx declared his system “most attractive” or “most fit” for the average human being; thus the movement was able to adopt the notions of “equality, liberty, freedom, etc.” Unfortunately, Marx had hijacked the ideas from the
bourgeois movements in Revolutionary France and tempered them with the caveat that the person most in line with libertine thinking would agree and thus desire no party outside that offered by the Communist organizations in power. It’s a failure of logic.
Worse, the “equality, liberty, and social freedom” about which you speak was never achieved. Communism works on “levels.” Not even the Soviets or Chinese would ever have claimed to have moved past “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” a time that is by its very nature repressive, dictatorial, and limiting.
Only if you're a closet nutcase.
In its most pure form, Communism is as dangerous as Fascism – if not more. Marx’s original ideas were predicated upon
global revolution and the utter
liquidation of
bourgeois society.
Everyone's well aware of "Communist" atrocities. Unfortunately, none of them have been commited by or for Communism. Just in its name as a convenience.
By Communism? For Communism?
The Bolshiveks committed atrocities against the White Russians by
and for Communism. Whether or not they were ultimately successful or lived up to Marx’s demands piece by piece is irrelevant. I’m assuming you’ve read the
Manifesto – Marx originally called for
violent, bloody, and merciless liquidation of whole
demographics during an
apocalyptic, worldwide class war.
