Socialism and Communism - Kissing, Turbulent Cousins

One of my many pet peeves is the incessant mischaracterization of the Nazis as being "far right" on some sort of linear political spectrum.  There are no common elements between the economic/social controls that the Nazis imposed and the typical, liberal, capitalist, small-d democratic form of government practiced by most western nations.  The communist assertion that the Nazis were "far right" is patently false.

[More about political spectrums at the bottom.]

My understanding of the history of leftist ideology is that the communists originally call themselves "left wing socialists" while they label fascists and similar ne'er-do-wells as "right wing socialists".  Free markets don't even register on the communist political spectrum.  Those of us that support free minds and free markets exist outside of their reality.

Fascist governments have historically engaged in social and economic controls that are very similar to those imposed by communists.  The problem is that no socialist group wants competition.  As a result, the first thing the socialists do after getting into power is shoot the communists.  And vice versa.  They are competing to position their faction as the best expression of collectivist ideology.

I came across a brief essay by Gustavo Jalife at The Conservative Woman.  His thoughts on the topic are quite similar to mine.

The characterisation of the ‘far right’ as nationalist, racist and authoritarian ideologies that seek to eliminate democratic systems, even through violence, is repeated daily by mainstream media pundits who deliberately try to smear whoever defends democracy by resisting the intrusion of the state into every crevice of private life. However, the formula perfectly applies to forces dwelling on the opposite side of the political arc. The Soviet Communist Party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party NSDAP (the Nazi Party), the National Fascist Party of Italy and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, among other totalitarian ensembles, fit the description precisely. That the flagrant subversion of a primary concept has taken root even among presumably learned people confirms the resounding success of one of the greatest propaganda operations ever undertaken.

Gustavo referenced a longer essay by Allen Gindler titled "How and Why Fascism and Nazism Became the ‘Right.’” originally published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.  I'm still chewing through the essay, but there were some early nuggets worth quoting.

Instead, Marxism is a particular and extreme current of socialism called communism. In other words, Marxism is undoubtedly leftist, but the Left is not entirely Marxist. Marxism did not invent socialist thought, which originated centuries earlier and is known by the collective name “utopian socialism.” Marxism’s founders initiated the communist camp and clearly distinguished themselves from contemporary socialists, whom they contemptuously called “so-called socialists.”

and

According to Engels, the last group—democratic socialists—shared the majority of communists’ political objectives but stopped short of accepting all the provisions of Marxist doctrine. They were satisfied with achieving goals within the framework of social democracy. Communists engaged in partnerships with democratic socialists and tried to convince them to embrace communist thought in its entirety.

and

The lesson to be learned and remembered is that left-wing intellectual circles were vibrant yet at the same time hostile environments. Despite the fact that the Left has only one common enemy—capitalism—intractable contradictions in the tactics and strategies of its overthrow made them implacable adversaries.  Even though the bourgeoisie was the Left’s openly proclaimed enemy, they were treated less harshly than opponents from their leftist circles, who were treated like vile traitors. History showed that as soon as one of the left-wing parties gained real power, it immediately persecuted its fellow socialists from other factions.

I invite you to read the essay for yourself.  Thus far it is a clarifying piece that documents the history of leftist factionalism.  From my perspective, there are no significant differences between socialism (even so-called "democratic socialism") and communism.  The only differences are a matter of style...and how they put the bullet in your head for having the temerity to utter the phrase they hold in highest contempt; "I disagree".

---

Regarding political spectrums.  The entire framing of politics as a linear spectrum also has roots in early French republics and other parliamentary systems.  Representatives in those governments had partisan seating such that those on the perceived "left" were seated to the left.

A more accurate depiction of political options is offered in the image below.  Whenever I engage with one of these quiz-based political maps, I generally wind up somewhere in the green circle.  Communists generally end up somewhere toward the left edge of the black circle and fascists end up in the blue area of the black circle.  My point is that communists, socialists, and fascists frequently have far more in common than might be imagined if one uses the flawed, linear political spectrum that places communism at one extreme and fascism at the other.

Horseshoe theory is real.

Most western societies, including the United States, including the much-reviled MAGA movement, generally fall into a range that is a bit above and a bit to the left of my green circle.  You can take one such quiz here. 

Review: Academy of Outcasts

Academy of Outcasts by Larry Correia
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a 3-star review which is a reasonable estimate of my experience.

Larry's other fantasy works have been uniformly great. It took me until the afterwards of this book to figure out the problem. This is LitRPG. I rarely find LitRPG worth the effort of reading.

This book was no different. As is typical for LitRPG, there was a focus on "levels" for magic users. Not so much for fighters.

As is typical, the names used for other creatures involved minimal creativity. Sometimes no creativity.

There were enough spelling/grammar errors that I started making notes in my Kindle edition. People wear "striped" shirts and not "stripped" shirts. And once my editor's hat was on, other elements of the novel became noticeable.

One big incongruity is how the first mages set up the Nexus in the first place. All of the elemental components were on elemental plains. So how did those first mages get the elements that would allow them to cast spells to allow them to travel to elemental planes so they could mine more elemental components?

If you like LitRPG, then give this a try. It might be for you. Larry is a very good author...just not enough to make LitRPG interesting for someone that doesn't like LitRPG to begin with.

View all my reviews

Review: Orconomics

Orconomics by J. Zachary Pike
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is a 5-star review.

I rarely give out 5 star reviews. This book is something special.

[I failed to write a review when I read the book in 2019. So this will not be as detailed.]

The world of Orconomics is the world of old-school, hack-and-slash, raid dungeon for gold Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. The only good version of AD&D, in my opinion.

The sub-text of the book is the story of Wall Street trading in stocks, derivatives, and other financial tools. There is, to my layman's eyes, a pretty solid critique in this book to the activities that led to the financial collapse of 2008.

Back to the story, our hero assembles a team of adventurers to go get the McGuffin. In the process of hacking and slashing their way to the McGuffin, they learn that the whole system is a bit of a Ponzi scheme that gets adventurers to rob nominally peaceful non-humans (i.e. orcs, etc.) in order to fulfill investment contracts.

There is a ton of humor in the story. The characters are highly relatable. The economics sub-text informs rather the story rather than surpassing it. This is a solid book that is worthy of your time.

View all my reviews

Division

It's been a rough week.  If you have the time for a 5-minute video, I hope you'll spend a few reading my thoughts as well.

My political life began in the United States Marine Corps.  It began with the rather rapid change from suburban/rural kid from a predominantly white public school to being a recruit in boot camp who ended up showering with a bunch of black guys.  There were other groups present as well, but let's be honest and acknowledge that within the context of American history, that is one of the biggest changes that could have happened to someone like me.

Except, the Corps didn't see color.  We were all green.  While the pragmatists always recognized that there were dark green Marines and light green Marines, we were expected to serve together and support one another.  Any green is green enough.  The Marine Corps taught me strong tolerance for people of other ethnicities.

Within a year, I had to help clean out the wall locker of a young Marine who was discharged for the "offense" of thinking that he might be gay.  This was long before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  He'd never affirmatively done anything beyond hanging out and drinking beer with some gay civilians.  This Marine was tough.  He had won the Golden Gloves in his hometown.  He was smart.  He was attending some of the hardest aviation maintenance schools the Corps offered.  But he said the wrong thing to the wrong person and his departure was so fast that it caused a low pressure pop of the air.  A Marine leader said something along the lines of "Idiot.  If he'd have just kept his mouth closed, no one would have cared."  There's more to that story that makes it even more surprising if you buy into stereotypes.  At the end of the day, the Marine Corps, taught me tolerance for gay folks.  It turns out he wasn't the only gay Marine I'd ever know.

It became apparent early on that politicians would have a serious influence over my life.  The policies they supported/opposed could result in poor equipment, poor training, poor living conditions, or sending my tender backside to the other side of the planet for worthy or unworthy purposes.  So I started reading.  Newspapers.  Magazines.  History, current events, you name it.  

Eventually, I would develop an appreciation for a well defended argument.  I wasn't always right, but I always tried to have the facts.  "Steel-manning" is the phrase that pays these days.  I was pretty good at.  And some might say that I spent a little too much time at it.  I'd spend time at the local library using the microfiche to find old magazine articles and bringing that new information back to the discussion.  The Corps taught me to engage in good faith discussions with people who have a different point of view.

As a side note, Ronald Reagan once said something in the 80's about "welfare queens" who were defrauding the government.  I had the singular privilege of watching two of my brother Marines go at it over that issue.  One thought Reagan was full of it.  The other thought he was spot on.  Ironically, it was a dark green Marine (married with one child) who was raised in the inner city who said that he had witnessed everything Reagan was talking about and we ought to cut back on welfare.  It was a light green Marine (single, girlfriend had a child) from the farmlands who was concerned that the government wasn't doing enough to support his girlfriend.

A second side note comes from the wake of the killing of Malice Green in Detroit.  It obviously became a point of discussion.  Let's just say that I learned a few things about the state of (then) modern policing from people who had lived with it.  It was an honest exchange and we all got back to the business of being Marines.  The Corps taught me that listening to other perspectives is a good idea.

Those kinds of sessions taught me the value of skepticism.  At one point in time, I said something silly about the impact of marijuana on the behavior of marijuana users.  I didn't know it was silly then, but it did motivate me to learn a thing or two down the road and I eventually changed my mind.  The Corps taught me that just parroting the last thing you hear or failing to spend the time getting the "rest of the story" will inevitably cause something silly to fall out of your mouth.

After I left active duty, I continued engaging in what were then good faith discussions.  Mostly online.  Probably spent too much time at that and not enough time at more important things.  At one point I had the modestly rewarding experience of pointing out the many problems with nationalized healthcare systems and having someone tell me a few months later that they lived in a country with a national healthcare system and this person had discovered that I was right.  They had experienced the government deciding to deny them care.

I started a blog where I wrote about different topics including current events.  And eventually, the world changed.  Not for the better.  And my engagement has largely waned over the years.

The liberals in those conversations were eventually replaced with progressives, socialists, and communists.  Where the liberals might be persuaded by facts, the rest were thoroughly engaged with dogma/propaganda.  It became quite rare to experience an exchange where someone said "Dann, you've got a good point."  I wasn't looking for utter victory.  I wasn't seeking to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women.  Just a recognition that perhaps their position could use some refinement and perhaps there is a middle ground where we could both find agreement.  

Then there was the change in the major media.  While a leftist bias in the media has long been an issue, there used to be a firmer wall between news and opinion reporting.  That started slipping over the years until you get to the point where a major online dictionary changed the definition of a word during the nomination hearings for a potential Supreme Court Justice just to make the nominee look bad and the major media embraced that action in a manner that should have made George Orwell spin in his grave at 1984 RPM.  

The combination of a dishonest media coupled with those who embraced a socialist/Progressive agenda and were disinterested in any other perspective sapped my motivation to engage.  

Leftist/progressive politicians and leaders along with their allies in the major media have called every GOP nominee for President in this century a "Nazi".  Mitt "Milquetoast" Romney was called a "Nazi" for a hot minute until it was clear that he had no chance of winning.  

For the record, George W. Bush is not a Nazi/fascist.  John McCain was not a Nazi/fascist.  Mitt Romney is not a Nazi/fascist.  And Donald Trump is not a Nazi/fascist.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about each of them.  Asserting that they are a Nazi/fascists is illegitimate.

The major media no longer maintains the pretense to reporting all of the facts, including the ones that are inconvenient for leftist/Progressive politicians and leaders.  When something bad happens that makes the leftist/Progressive position look bad, the major media reports on it briefly at best or ignores it completely at the worst.  If the folks on the right make a big deal about it, the media story is about the right-of-center response to the event and not the actual event itself.  The most recent example of this phenomenon being the murder of a Ukrainian woman Iryna Zarutska.  Killed by a man that a sane society would have put in prison for lesser crimes before he had a chance to take her life.

We have heard, time and again, the call for a "national conversation" over a broad range of issues.  Leftist/Progressive politicians and leaders routinely call for a national conversation whenever some serious event occurs.

But the modern leftist/Progressive debating tactic is to hurl invectives like "Nazi", "racist" , "homophobe", "sexist", and "transphobe" whenever they encounter an opinion that does not perfectly align with the leftist/Progressive leadership's position of the moment.  They do not use that language to be accurate.  They use those words to say "shut up".  Their objective was to have an opportunity to lecture and not to have a conversation.  Within the modern leftist/Progressive leadership mindset, the very worst hate speech in the world is only two words long; "I disagree".

Which, unfortunately, brings us to Charlie Kirk.  Love him.  Hate him.  Agree with him.  Think he's full of it.  Charlie Kirk was up for a "national conversation".  It was the foundation for everything he accomplished.  If someone wants a discussion, Charlie was up for a discussion.

A discussion where all sides get heard.  Where all sides get fact checked.  Where the flaws in everyone's arguments get exposed.

And I don't know how much I ever agreed with Charlie.  He's a fast talker.  I'm skeptical of fast talkers as they can toss out a lot of information that may (or may not) be accurate.  In a world where news organizations are not committed to reporting all of the truth, some lies ends up halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

But if there was going to be a national conversation, Charlie Kirk was ready to be a part of it.  Until someone told him to shut up.  With a bullet.

There will be more to this story in the coming days and weeks.  I am already seeing people twist little threads to change the narrative of this story.  My usual advice is to wait about a week before getting ready to say something about an event.  The easy and quick response is rarely the best one.

I will say that there are too many folks spoiling for some sort of civil war these days.  As with every other person who graduates from boot camp, I have a solid understanding about the hazards of war.  I served in a combat zone but never was in the thick of a fight.  I just fixed airplanes on an air base hundreds of miles from the front.  We weren't safe, but we were a long way from where the bombs and bullets were flying.  Trust me.  We don't want another civil war.

A final piece of advice is to remember that most folks are just folks.  Don't let the politicians, activists, and other political leaders have too much influence.  Remember when you are talking to a neighbor or co-worker, that y'all share a lot more than might divide you on an issue or two.  Leave some room for reasonable disagreement.  Leave some room for others to change their mind without pushing their back up against the wall.  A little bit of what some folks call "grace" goes a long way.

Review: Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a 3-star review which is being a little generous. I don't recall who might have recommended this book. It tries a bit too hard to be "literary" at the expense of not telling a coherent story with believable character actions and motivations.

It's a little hard to review this book without giving away the major conceit. So... spoilers!

The premise of this book is that people have the ability to create clones of themselves for use when their body parts start to wear out. These clones are raised with the understanding that they will have to enter a period of "service" which will ultimate lead to their deaths.

We follow one group as they grow up in a sort of boarding school environment. They are given a sound education and a supportive environment. Eventually, they are allowed to leave/graduate and pursue other interests before entering their time of "service". Many of the clones actually work within the "service" industry by caring for other clones as their body parts are harvested. Not every surgery is life-ending although eventually, the doctors take something important.

It is implied that the clones are grown as a one-for-one source of parts for another person. Although I believe it is possible for clone to be genetically close enough of a match to others, this isn't a significant element of the story.

The relationship between the "person" and their "clone" is a bit unclear. It isn't clear how the growing of clones is funded or how that funding is justified. The entire arrangement smacks of a bit of the British NHS.

Another thing that isn't clear within the book is how one might know which is the clone and which is the original person. The clones appear to enjoy a large degree of autonomy and travel widely. They are able to pursue employment well beyond their function as clones.

Why can't a clone hop on a boat or a plane to simply leave the country? What is the medical/legal framework that keeps them from running for their literal lives? How might one differentiate a person from their clone? What is the mechanism (beyond propaganda/brain-washing during their formative years) that compels them to "serve". This is the one, huge plot-hole in the entire book. They end up serving as reserve body parts for no other explained reason than because "someone said so".

We eventually learn that this boarding school environment was not typical. It was a sort of experiment that was eventually discontinued due to a lack of funding. Most other clones just sort of plugged along being given a poverty level of existence.

While the book does inspire some level of reflection, the unjustifiable inevitability of the clones' "services" harms the overall reading experience.



View all my reviews

Review: Nemesis

Nemesis by Robert Kroese
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a 3-star review, but 2.5 stars might be closer to my experience.

This series started out as highly inventive with a great mix of economics, politics, and technology.

This book really is a thinly veiled primer on economics mixed with a little bit of politics.

The world rapidly shifted into a "low trust" mode, but the outcome of the story relies on "high trust" behaviors. The odds of that outcome are low.

If you read and enjoyed the prior two entries, then reading this book is a good choice. You won't miss much by skipping it.

View all my reviews

Review: Cold Silver for Souls

Cold Silver for Souls by Tori Tecken
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a 3-star review. Maybe a weak 3.5 star experience.

This book combines the "wild west" with a gold rush with magic with land barons with company towns. And it is a fun and easy read. If anything about the author's/publisher's synopsis makes this book sound even remotely attractive, then go read it. A good experience awaits you.

So...why only 3 stars?

This fictional world has rules. Some of them are explained. Most are at best half explained. If there are rules, then I'd like to understand them.

There is a ton of backstory that is implied but never really explored within the book. This appears to be the first in a series that is enticing readers to hang around to get the "rest of the story".

I'm a fan of the first book in any series being self-contained. The reader should be able to walk away from book 1 with a solid experience and no expectation that the rest of the answers will come later in the series. If the reader elects to continue the series, then have all the cliffhangers you want. But book 1 should stand alone.

Peter V. Brett did a masterful job of that in The Warded Man.

View all my reviews

Review: Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy

Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy by Jonah Goldberg
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a 3-star review.

I didn't finish the book because at roughly 1/4 the way through, I had already heard all of these arguments via his various podcasts.

View all my reviews

Review: The Devils

The Devils by Joe Abercrombie
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is a 3.5-star review. Rounding up to 4 stars as it was an engaging read.

Consider the medieval world but where magic is real. There are vampires, mages, and werewolves. Elves are around but are considered evil. The relationships are either tortured or slapstick...and sometimes a bit of both!

At one point, the she-werewolf ends up fighting a he-werewolf. At least they start of fighting...

Something similar occurs at another point in the book when two armies are poised to destroy one another until their leaders...an estranged husband and wife...patch things up. Ah..l'amour!

The Pope is a pre-teen/early-teen girl who performs powerful magic on a whim.

And a street rat girl is plucked from the streets and told she is to the heir to an empire. A select team is assembled to see her installed on the throne. A vampire, a mage, a werewolf, an immortal fighter, an elf, and a jack of all trades.

Much jocularity ensues. Along with a lot of bloodshed and other forms of nastiness.

The author continues his reign as the lord of all grimdark; leavening a heavily flawed world with some spicy banter and a little spicier action. A nice enough read.

View all my reviews

Review: Breaking Hel

Breaking Hel by Miles Cameron
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a 3-star review which a reasonable estimate of my experience.

While I enjoyed the first two books in the series, this one didn't really work as well.

One reason is the large number of characters coupled with the large armies. It was hard to keep the protagonists separate from the antagonists. Couple that with the fact that characters switch sides a few times.

A second reason is that the ultimate "big bad" in the series is never really exposed until this last book. The character(s) are in the other books, and quite a bit is done to question their motives, but those questions are never really answered.

Thirdly, the "big bad" involves worms that inhabit/coopt human bodies. The author did the same thing in another series.

Lastly, the book goes full on identarian with no useful differences between the sexes when it comes to fighting. And the author is an early Greek (as in BC era Greek) army reenactor. The dude knows better.

If you enjoyed the first two books in the series, then you will enjoy the conclusion enough to warrant reading it.

View all my reviews

Review: The Book That Held Her Heart

The Book That Held Her Heart by Mark Lawrence
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a 3-star review.

There are times when the last book in a series doesn't stick the landing. This is one of those times.

The first two books were great reads. So what went wrong here?

The author is a bona fide mathematics genius. With that comes great familiarity with the string theory that we are living in one of many parallel, nearly identical worlds.

The author attempts to illustrate how there might be so many possible realities in the narrative of the book. The reader ends up consuming several different versions of what might have been. Think of the multiple endings of Tolkien's Return of the King, but not quite as well executed.

Couple that with an ending that is essentially, "conflict resolved because we wish it to be so". It is a fantasy book, so I suppose that's as good an ending as any other, but it felt a bit unjustified.

If you enjoyed the first two books in the series, then you will enjoy this enough as well.

View all my reviews