Nazi hatred hypocrisy?

The Stalinist and totalitarian regimes aside from the Nazi Regime in the 20th Century, and their crimes, do get attention in my opinion, but not as much as the Nazis. There are a number of factors leading to this outcome, I would say:

* The Soviet Union, seen as the main "communist" state of the 20th Century, was not responsible for as many deaths as the Nazi regime was, as the acclaimed historian Prof. Timothy Snyder outlines here. Similarly, Nazi Germany was responsible for the outbreak of WWII in Europe, leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

* Leading on from this, the Soviet Union was instrumental in the defeat of the Nazis, and was allied with Britain, which did probably soften people's attitudes to the country.

* None of the Leninist regimes of the 20th Century were as explicitly racist, if racist at all, as the Nazi regime was.

* These so-called "socialist" states called themselves "socialist", and many people who either supported them or condoned them were what most people would consider morally good people. Right-wing, racist, nationalistic countries - fascist countries - by default are an affront to many people's morals. Socialism, meanwhile, merely calls for greater equality, social justice and public ownership over the means of production. Communism, meanwhile, is defined as a classless, stateless society with no currency, a society of free association and decisions being made by the people through direct democracy. Looking past the distortions that were the Leninist regimes of the 20th Century, many people, whether they see these societies as realistic or not, would ideally wish for them. Most people, by contrast, would not like to live in an unequal, conservative, racist, right-wing society: such a society is an illustration of how primitive humans can sometimes be. Therefore, when people see the word "socialist" in the USSR, they probably subconsciously soften up.

My last point answers your last question as well. To be a communist is to simply believe in a society in which everyone is equal, with no class system, no monetary system and no state. People won't physically suffer in such a society, or indeed mentally suffer. It's an ideal society; a peaceful one. The same can't be said of a fascist society. Therefore, being a communist is not seen as bad as being a Nazi, and rightly so, because there's nothing wrong with being a communist at all.

It appears to me as though you're saying that fascism is inherently wrong, and that you think that communism causes much less harm than National Socialism.

However, believing in a fascist ideology, or any ideology for that matter, does not in any way suggest that you would support the murder of an innocent human being, regardless of their race are beliefs etc. I bet that a lot of the members of the NSDAP didn't buy into the anti semitic bull**** they were being fed 24/7 by Goebbels and his cronies. Instead, they believed in a Germany for Germans, which in a time of no multiculturalism, is understandable.

Just like those who identified with a marxist ideology didn't kill anyone, neither did most ordinary fascist. You seem to be implying that the Soviet population were all holding hands, and waiting for the red revolution and Stalin to fulfill Uncle Karl's global utopian prophecy.

At the end of the day, communism failed to manifest itself without robbing the rich and murdering its opposition, to a similar degree to the Nazi's.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

But hey, at least the Germans benefited for a few years under the Third Reich, where as the Soviets were oppressed until the wall fell down half a century later!

I am saying that fascism is inherently wrong, yes, and I'm saying that communism is inherently right.

You do realise that Communism is contrary to human rights, right? How can you possibly maintain that such a system is inherently right?

So a society with equality, peace, social justice, public ownership over the means of production, no hierarchical structures and no currency is contrary to human rights?

A society in which people freely associate with one another and participate in decision-making through direct democracy is contrary to human rights?

No, on the contrary, capitalism, which inevitably leads to massive inequality, poverty, imperialism and exploitation of the vulnerable is contrary to human rights. The Leninist regimes of the 20th Century, which put into place state capitalism, as Lenin himself admitted, acted contrary to human rights by oppressing people and implementing forced labour camps. The fascist regimes of the 20th Century, such as the Nazi regime, acted contrary to human rights by committing genocides and oppressing their peoples.

Communism, though, does not act contrary to human rights, and in the few places where it has emerged (the Paris Commune, the Ukrainian Free Territory, and the Spanish anarchist regions), human rights were always given credence over the attributes and actions that are intrinsic to capitalist, Leninist and fascist societies.

Yes because it undermines the right to property - nothing is more fundamental than the right to property, unless you'll suggest that you don't even own your own body?

Moreover, how can a system which one is forced into being part of allow human rights in any way - or can people simply opt out of your society?

And quite clearly you're ignoring that fact that it could not possibly work. A group of people cannot trade without currency. A group of people cannot function without hierarchy.

Yes, in those instances, Human Rights have been observed, that is, if you ignore all the instances in which they haven't. Most obvious of these is when a Communist state is established, thereby undermining the fundamental right to property.

"the transformation... into State-ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces...State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution"

In a communist society, people have the right to personal property.

People aren't forced to be part of an anarcho-communist society, it's a society of free association.

Well, your assertions are proven wrong by the empirical evidence, namely the Spanish anarchist regions, to name one example, which, in some places, functioned without currency and hierarchy. Even the workers' militias and armies, which had no hierarchy, had very few drop-outs or defections, as Orwell stated in Homage to Catalonia.

Which other instances? Clearly, you've fallen for the oxymoron that is a 'Communist state'. There's no such thing. Communism, as I've already stated, is a stateless society. This is true in any leftist ideological trend, whether it's libertarian socialism and anarchism, council communism or Marxism.

So? That doesn't mean it doesn't undermine the right to property. In fact it does undermine the right to property, because, as you've stated, there would be public ownership of the means of production.

Oh really. Explain to me how that works, then. Suppose I'm a house-builder, and I've just built a house and am feeling hungry, how do I exchange this for some food?

I don't really think my use of the term 'state' had any influence on my argument, so I'm not sure why it is necessary to point out that misapplication.

People would have homes, therefore they'd have personal property. I don't see why anyone has a right to have any more than that.

Firstly, in such a society, I would expect even house building to be largely mechanised. If there were still house-builders, and they worked, then they would simply take the food, as people did in Spain - the food is produced for the public, and the public consumes it. Again, if such a society were ever to emerge again, technology would mean that production would be massively increased, even in Spain, production increases in many of the anarchist regions. In Spain, and in any communist society, I would expect, everything would work under the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', a principle which is actually derived from the Bible - the necessary essentials for living would be freely distributed in such a society, as would other goods, depending on one's needs. And, as mentioned before, direct democracy would be in operation, allowing this system to function.

You were mentioning the instances in which human rights were not respected, and I assumed you meant the Leninist states of the 20th Century, which, as established, were not communist; if you didn't, then I don't know of an example of communism in which human rights were not broadly observed.

Personal property isn't about access to any arbitrary amount, it's about access on the basis of a principle of acquisition. You could just as easily say 'Here, have an apple, you have personal property; be content!', and it would be as justified as your current suggestion is. Without adherence to a legitimate principle of acquisition, the right to property is not fulfilled. Your communist union would undermine this.

And not 'each according to his right to what he has earned', thereby undermining the right to property and all other rights which are subordinate to that one. Thereby undermining all rights.

Personal property should be based upon one's needs and then upon one's wants so long as everyone else's needs and wants are catered for as well. A house is necessary for shelter and privacy, therefore a house is justified; an apple is not.

What right? Everyone has a right to have which they need and, then, what they desire. I don't believe that anyone has a right to what he has earned, whatever that means - it's a rather ambiguous statement, it seems to me. What is the nature of what he has earned?

The problem with many moral questions, and therefore political questions, is that two people often have different moral outlooks from the start. I myself don't even believe in rights - I'm a utilitarian, and seek to maximise the number of preferences fulfilled and minimise suffering, but the concept of 'rights' is adequate for everyday usage, usually. Everybody having what they need, and following that, everybody having what they desire, is a far better way to minimise suffering than having a few who get what they need and what they want, and many who can barely even get what they need.

The states which called themselves Marxist, or Marxist-Leninist, did indeed violate human rights. They were not communist societies, however, and there has never been a society espousing Marxism that has become communist. The societies I have mentioned were libertarian socialist, or anarchist, societies. The difference being that libertarian socialism, or libertarian communism, believes in spontaneous revolution, whereas Marxism asserts that there has to be a state preceding the communist stage (a democratic state, incidentally and ironically). Libertarian socialists and Marxists argue constantly about how to achieve the same goal, essentially: I am of the former breed.

No, it should not. No-one deserves that to which they have no right, and no-one's right can impinge on that of others. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that a person has a right to a house. Where does this house come from? Out of the pocket of someone else.

Do this latter person not have a right to their own money, or, in your case, whatever commodity they have worked for? Obviously they do, unless you reject the claim that people have a right to their own bodies and whatever they have worked for. And therefore, I fail to see how one can be justified in taking it from them involuntarily.

No, they don't. You can hardly criticise me for ambiguity, and then say that everyone has a right to 'what they need', as if that isn't far more ambiguous.

I know what a Utilitarian is, and I'm honestly surprised that you would admit to being one. You do realise Utilitarianism has been laughed out of modern academia?

But of course you do not support the idea of rights, then, for Utilitarianism neglects the existence of individuals. Indeed, there are none, right? We are just a homogenous mass?

Well, firstly, I don't see where you logically get from having the right to one's own money to having the right to one's own body. They're two completely separate things.

It's simple biology. Humans need warmth, shelter, food, water, etc.

Do you have any evidence for the assertion that it's been laughed out of modern academia? One of the most well-known and respected moral philosophers, Peter Singer, is a Utilitarian, and as far as I can tell, he's not been laughed out of academia at all; to the contrary, he's inspired thousands to do good in the world and the only fault many can find with him is that he is, to quote another moral philosopher, 'too damn logical'.

Individuals exist in a utilitarian worldview and their preferences are taken into account. If an individual does not wish to be murdered, then the individual should not be murdered. However, in utilitarianism, the needs of the many do, of course, outweigh the needs of the few. Nevertheless, if the needs of everyone can be catered for, then that is what should be done.

I've said already I'm not entirely comfortable with the labour theory of acquisition, but I'll use that for now.

One obviously owns one's body, and thus any labour which originates it. We acquire properly through labour, e.g. I pick an apple from a tree and it is therefore mine. Therefore, anything for which I have worked is mine, and any violation of that right is ak to a violation of my body.

You've missed the point - which is whether the state, or society, has an obligation to maintain the lives of the individuals which comprise it, not what would maintain these lives if it did have that obligation. I see no reason why it should - it's role is to protect our rights, I.e. our right to our own bodies, but not to make sure that those rights are fulfilled. Otherwise, the state would have an obligation to maintain our houses and other property.

Peter Singer is also an animal liberationist - just because he believes something, doesn't mean that belief is a well-respected one. I will concede I have not concrete evidence, but Hart said 'We are currently witnessing, I think, the progress of a transition from a once widely accepted old faith that some form of Utilitarianism, if only we could discover the right form, must capture the essence of political morality', and most of western political philosophy now has been framed in response to Rawls, who totally debased Utilitarianism in his work, so I think that's a reasonably comfortable assertion.

They exist, but they aren't protected in any way. The individual is totally disregarded - he is asked to totally sacrifice himself merely for the pleasure of others. This system suggests that there isn't a thing inherently wrong about violating someone else's personal space, raping them, taking their belongings etcetera. Clearly that is bizarre.

Let me ask you a question; suppose you were a doctor, and you were approached by a man who had three children. Two of his children were dying from a fatal kidney disease, which can only be solved by a transplant. The remaining child has two perfectly healthy kidneys which would solve the problem. Do you cause the death of this child, removing his kidneys, to save the lives of the other two?

You're simply assuming, however, that people would work for anything else but the community and to better themselves and humanity. Indeed, as I've already stated, I advocate communism through free association - people, as in Spain and the Free Ukrainian territories, want to work for each other and to better themselves. If they don't, then they don't have to remain part of the society.

You assume that people want anything from their labour - they get many benefits from working without having to acquire something material for it. ?

I see a reason why society should care for every individual within that society - if it did not, then the net suffering would increase. Again, this disagreement is due to diametrically opposed moral worldviews.

I doubt he'd be as respected as he is, however, if utilitarianism were, as you put it laughed out of modern academia. Provided the assumption of preference utilitarianism is correct - that net suffering should decrease and the net preferences fulfilled should be increases, I believe that utilitarianism is logically coherent, as are its implications, including the concept of animal liberation. Even under other moral worldviews, most of them incorporate some form of the 'least harm' principle; as such, I see no logical reason not to advocate animal liberation, but that's a separate matter.

There's nothing inherently wrong about anything as long as it increases the number of what I call equal-preferences that are fulfilled, or reduces the net suffering in the world. My concept of equal-preferences also incorporates the Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. If one uses reason to imagine how one would feel in certain circumstances, then one can judge which preference outweighs another. As for your examples of what aren't inherently wrong, if someone was holding five hostages, and I had to take another person's belongings to save these five hostages for murder, I would do it, therefore, there's nothing inherently wrong about taking another person's belongings.

Yes, provided the father does not stop me, I would cause the death of this child to save the lives of the other two. However, if this policy were legally implemented, it could cause a great deal of suffering to people who are apprehensive about even going to the doctor for fear of being murdered and having their organs harvested. Furthermore, as a result of this, society may vote that they do not wish to take organs from a murdered human being if they are dying, meaning that their preferences dictate that this child, let's say, should not be killed.

If this scenario you present me with is behind closed doors, though, then yes, I would say it's morally permissible.

Seeing as we're using hypothetical scenarios, let's say an evil person was about to detonate dozens of nuclear weapons around the globe, killing millions, unless you were to cause the death of one person put in front of you. Would you do it?

And the best way to achieve this is through denying individual rights?

But it's so patently immoral to reject something because it increases suffering with no thought to the individuals involved. Surely you must recognise that, as your society would not exist without the individuals which comprise it. Why would anybody choose to be part of a union in which they will be stepped on and walked over purely for the pleasure of others and at little/no benefit to themselves?

Isn't the point of preference Utilitarianism that we can't judge pleasure easily? So what's the point in trying to distinguish the value of different preferences? Why not, then, just be a traditional Utilitarian?

The point of this thought experiment was not to elicit a contradiction in terms in your argument, merely to demonstrate how brutally Utilitarianism conflicts with common sense and moral intuitions. If you don't see the problem then of course the point ends there.

I think your second point is interesting as an illustration of the tremendous mental gymnastics to which Utilitarians subject themselves; you are resting your moral system in this case solely on a totally arbitrary assumption that the good which would originate from this case would be outweighed by the potential upset of those who go to hospital. This can't be concluded from reason alone, provide me some evidence that one produces more pleasure than the other, and I shall accept your conclusion. Clearly you realise how absurd it is to harvest this (living) girl's organs, or you wouldn't be making this bizarre balancing act.

This depends. If the person was a terrorist who had set the bomb, of course I would.

If the person was an innocent civilian, this is more difficult. Ultimately I'd say rights can, perhaps, be violated to avoid a 'catastrophic moral horror', as Nozick put it. I realise this is problematic, for it suggests rights aren't absolute. However, I think it's obvious enough to all people what constitutes such a horror, even if it is difficult to define. The question for me here is, really, 'is there a more significant leap to accept that in exceptional circumstances rights can be constrained, than to accept that there are no rights at all, and people can be mistreated to an unlimited extent purely for the sake of pleasure, and this is as good a circumstance as there can conceivably be?'

Obviously I choose the former, though it isn't an attractive conclusion.

The Stalinist and totalitarian regimes aside from the Nazi Regime in the 20th Century, and their crimes, do get attention in my opinion, but not as much as the Nazis. There are a number of factors leading to this outcome, I would say:

* The Soviet Union, seen as the main "communist" state of the 20th Century, was not responsible for as many deaths as the Nazi regime was, as the acclaimed historian Prof. Timothy Snyder outlines here. Similarly, Nazi Germany was responsible for the outbreak of WWII in Europe, leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

* Leading on from this, the Soviet Union was instrumental in the defeat of the Nazis, and was allied with Britain, which did probably soften people's attitudes to the country.

* None of the Leninist regimes of the 20th Century were as explicitly racist, if racist at all, as the Nazi regime was.

* These so-called "socialist" states called themselves "socialist", and many people who either supported them or condoned them were what most people would consider morally good people. Right-wing, racist, nationalistic countries - fascist countries - by default are an affront to many people's morals. Socialism, meanwhile, merely calls for greater equality, social justice and public ownership over the means of production. Communism, meanwhile, is defined as a classless, stateless society with no currency, a society of free association and decisions being made by the people through direct democracy. Looking past the distortions that were the Leninist regimes of the 20th Century, many people, whether they see these societies as realistic or not, would ideally wish for them. Most people, by contrast, would not like to live in an unequal, conservative, racist, right-wing society: such a society is an illustration of how primitive humans can sometimes be. Therefore, when people see the word "socialist" in the USSR, they probably subconsciously soften up.

My last point answers your last question as well. To be a communist is to simply believe in a society in which everyone is equal, with no class system, no monetary system and no state. People won't physically suffer in such a society, or indeed mentally suffer. It's an ideal society; a peaceful one. The same can't be said of a fascist society. Therefore, being a communist is not seen as bad as being a Nazi, and rightly so, because there's nothing wrong with being a communist at all.