NeilBru

You'd be surprised how often that actually does happen, though.

I can't find anything related to this. Please link to examples and statistics on frequency of occurence.

Banning Mein Kampf and other politically taboo books will never stop people from becoming authoritarian monsters. This pearl clutching about reading material seems to be endless.

Of course, it shouldn't be required reading for an average person. It should for someone who claims to be an expert on subjects that are directly related to it.

If a counter-terrorism intelligence analyst doesn't read the manifestos of their targets, they can't do their jobs effectively and should be fired. Doesn't mean that they secretly harbor a yearning for a "global caliphate" or bombing more federal buildings.

Normal folks shouldn't have to read "taboo" material, or anything for that matter (I had to read it for History class), but if they don't and claim to be experts or pass themselves as authorities on said material, then they're wannabe know-it-alls whose opinion about it is next to worthless.

Why? Because they didn't do the homework related to primary source material and are uninformed about the nature of what they purport to fight against. If reading only Mein Kampf turns you into a national socialist, then you were already a weak-minded idiot. And yes, Nazi Germany was a nation of millions of weak-minded idiots.

Yes. Understand the enemy if you wish to defeat them.

My book reading club does not seem interested in that though, which is sad.

This, right here, is a sign of stupidity.

If one downplays or denigrates the importance of understanding opponents' arguments or positions, that is a person incapable of critical thought. They're not capable of informed decisions, and their opinions on the subjects or opponents in question are worthless.

Yes, I don't consider the CCP to be "left wing". Where in my original post did I say "US good"? I don't think you read what I wrote.

And who am I "apologizing" for?

Let's, for a moment, sidestep your interpretation of the definitions of previously mentioned political parties, economic systems, or forms of governance. I don't agree with much of it, but that's irrelevant.

In my post, I am referring to those who outwardly refer to themselves as "socialists" or "communists", but on closer scrutiny, are apologists for mass-murderers and are just really bloodthirsty tyrants waiting for their turn at the pig-trough of unchecked power.

The idea that those who claim to be on the "left" are infallible, incorruptible, or morally unassailable is incredibly naive, given the weight of history and what we as a species know about human group dynamics.

Simply put, one must always be wary of those who seek control. Especially, when they want it without question, permanently, and require adulation for it.

Make sense?

If we're talking about economic systems or political parties, socialism can indeed be one "answer to authoritarianism". It can also be authoritarian, even more than what its members seek to replace.

those are opposites.

Not exclusively.

I have.

Yes, he was. I would refine the description as a democratic socialist.

One can be a "socialist" and still be anti-authoritarian.

I would say I'm more of a democratic market-socialist, with a strong preference for "consent of the governed", and bottomless contempt for arbitrary authority.