Previously he's been known for being openly communist (i.e. not just a regular socialist). As an aside, I still find it odd how we've rightfully shunned other totalitarian and mass murdering political ideologies, but we've completely whitewashed communism. I couldn't imagine another newscaster openly identifying as a nazi.

The difference is that communism is an economic idea, which was used by regimes that did brutal things. Whereas the Nazi ideology drove the violence.

In one case, it was correlated. In another, causative.

A core tenet of communist ideology is violent overthrow of democratic governments to implement a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Both are rooted in violence.

Aren't democracy and communism orthogonal? Admittedly, I'm not a scholar, but it seems to me that democracy is mostly concerned w/ how leaders are chosen. Whereas communism is about how resources are distributed. It sounds possible to have a democratically elected government that sets a communist economic policy.

> Aren't democracy and communism orthogonal?

Theoretically, yes. Practically, if you concentrate all ownership in the state you remove the means by which private citizens can check it.

Isn’t communism ownership by the people? I thought totalitarianism or fascism is where the state owns the means of production.

I'm not aware of any communist country that didn't turn into an authoritarian state where the government imposed strict censorship and controls on the population.

When you look at why, it starts to make sense. Without strict economic controls black markets start to appear, where goods are bought and sold outside of the communist economy. Communist philosophy requires that black markets don't exist, because they allow for capitalism, private property, and a market economy. So Communism requires that these things be removed from society, which requires brute force.

Therefore taken from first principles, Communism is an authoritarian philosophy because it controls an individuals ability to buy, sell, and trade goods.

That's not true, because the goal is to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat through violent revolution. Democracies are incompatible with dictatorship and must be overthrown in order to purge the other social classes. This is why every instance of communism has led to human rights abuses and/or mass murder: totalitarianism is part of the ideology.

It’s been a long time since I read the Communist Manifesto. Do you mean to say that Marx’s goal was violent overthrow? I thought he described more of an evolution of systems until the workers paradise was reached.

Not actually true.

Are you sure you haven't just been taken by a talk radio conspiracy theory? The only thing I could find on this was that Glenn Beck was harping on it ten years ago. That guy is not well known for being a fountain of truth. [0]

[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck...

It says on his wikipedia page that he's a Leninist. It's not a conspiracy theory if he's open about it.

I ctrl+f'd "Lenin" on Van Jones' Wiki page, and this is literally the only time Lenin is mentioned:

>He became affiliated with many left activists, and co-founded a socialist collective called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). It protested against police brutality, held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin, and aspired to a multi-racial socialist utopia.[13]

I'm not sure how being in a study group that discusses Lenin's theories automatically makes one an actual Leninist.

Does co-founding a Leninist organization not make one a Leninist? Why would you create an organization if you don't believe in its ideals?

Does one have to adopt every ideal of something when founding an organization? Would that not be the point of discussing those theories? What do we like? Dislike? Want to modify/mold to fit our current system?

But given your tone, and responses to other commenters, I am 100% certain that your feet are dug in and you aren't actually open to being swayed. So, enjoy your day! :)

> Does one have to adopt every ideal of something when founding an organization?

Let's change the labels. If someone founds an organization to spread nazism, is it a reasonable inference to suggest that the founder might be a nazi? I think yes, and that it is facile to suggest that the founder of an organization whose core principle is Leninism, is not actually a Leninist. And that's to say nothing of Jones' other activities that were cleaned off of wikipedia.

Are we supposed to take your word for it that it's a "Leninist organization"? Your only supporting evidence for that idea is the passage above mentioning that members of the group studied ideas from Lenin (and others), but that alone is not enough to make an organization "Leninist" (if it were, then I guess our high schools are all Marxist/Leninist/Nazi organizations too since we studied and discussed those beliefs there).

It is possible (necessary, even) to study, discuss, and debate all of history's notable policial/socio-economic ideologies and movements, regardless of which ideals you yourself hold (and which actions of those movements' prominent figures you view as justifiable).

Don't take my word for it, take theirs. Here is one of their documents. http://www.noisyroom.net/blog/STORMSummation.pdf

His wikipedia page does not say that. It seems like this controversy comes from his stance 30 years ago[1]. Van Jones was protesting the Rodney King verdict and was rounded up as part of mass arrests. From there he fell into a crowd that radicalized him as a communist, but a few years later his politics changed. He became more focused on unity and results rather than revolution for the sake of revolution. He also says “One of my big heroes is Malcolm X, not because I agree with Malcolm, but because he wasn’t afraid to change in public,”. I don't see any reference to him still considering himself either a communist or a Leninist. Why don't we allow him to "change in public"?

[1] - https://eastbayexpress.com/the-new-face-of-environmentalism-...

You are suggesting that we hold him to a different standard than everyone else and give him the benefit of the doubt. Other people have had their careers ruined for far, far less, while Jones gets a television gig and $100M for his troubles.

And wikipedia does discuss his Leninist activities. See below.

>You are suggesting that we hold him to a different standard than everyone else and give him the benefit of the doubt.

The opposite. I am suggesting we allow people to evolve over time. If someone demonstrates that the person they are today is different than the person they were 30 years ago, I think we should be more willing to forgive those 30 year old beliefs. If the person shows no indication of change, I am fine with them being made to account for those old beliefs.

>Other people have had their careers ruined for far, far less, while Jones gets a television gig and $100M for his troubles.

You are insinuating that Jones can just pocket the $100m which almost certainly isn't happening and is probably illegal depending on how all the paperwork is being done on this.

Would you say the same things about someone who was formerly a nazi, but who still engaged in far right politics? I do not believe you would.

A Nazi is not the opposite of a communist. Someone doesn't become a Nazi post-WWII because they believe in fascism. They do it because they are motivated by the hateful beliefs of Nazis. Therefore there is a higher barrier to prove that the person has truly changed before they can be forgiven. However there is still a path to forgiveness.

> Someone doesn't become a Nazi post-WWII because they believe in fascism. They do it because they are motivated by the hateful beliefs of Nazis.

Thank you, this is precisely my point. How can someone still support communism after the Soviet purges, the holodomor, Chinese cultural revolution, the Cambodian genocide, etc., etc.? Communism has oppressed and killed an order of magnitude more people than fascism, but in your opinion is this somehow more tolerable because those victims were killed out of love?

Just as fascists follow their failed ideology because of hatred, communists follow their failed ideology out of a lust for power.

This thread is about Leninist socialism, which is not Stalinist or Maoist tyranny.

That's no more of a defense than claiming you're "only" a fascist instead of a nazi.

(still waiting on the reply cooldown for the other comments ITT)

Would you say republicanism/democracy are immoral due to the slavery of pre-Civil War America?

That is the equivalent of what you are doing. You are blaming a theory of government for the crimes of a specific implementation of that theory. Genocide is not a central tenant of either fascism or communism anymore than slavery is a central tenant of republicanism, democracy, or capitalism. Fascism and communism are more authoritarian than other forms of government so they are both more attractive for people who seek totalitarian power, but that doesn't mean they are synonymous with the crimes of those totalitarians.

If Jones identified as a Stalinist, Maoist, or something similar I would definitely consider that more worrying as that is more similar to someone considering themselves a Nazi. Identifying as a general "communist" is not the same thing.