This is something I do not get. Nearly every American member on these forums have something bad to say about communism. While some of their claims have validity, some are just pure BS, the ugly offspring of false media claims, endless patriotic movies and over patriotism.

Please do not think that I am a communist, nor do I have anything against the United States or other non communist countries. I am simply frustrated because time and time again I have seen my native country China, put down in these forums due merely to the fact that it is a communist country. If I were to see a person put down because of the fact they are Spanish, Etheopian, Australian, Vietnamnese, Russian or German, the offending person would be banned in an instant.

What is synonomous with Communism? The Hammer and Sickle, the red flag ect. However, what most people think of when Communism is mentioned is such atrocities such as Stalin starving the people of Ukaraine, Tianamen Square, The Cold War (including Korea and Vietnam), the invasion of Afghanistan and oppression and loss of freedom.

Firstly, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung starving and killing their own people. Those weren't done due to communism, it was due to those two men and the army/secret police under their command. I doubt Karl Marx wrote anything like "Kill your own people" in the Communist Manifesto. Communism is supposed to be a government in which people are all equal, the fact that in those countries they were treated like animals is because the people leading them did it to them, not because the Communist Manifesto demanded it of them. Saying Mao killed all those people because of Communism is like saying Middle Eastern terrorists kill innocent people because of Islam.

Now Tianamen Square. I am sure most of you people know what happened, so I won't lengthen my post any more by describing it here. This was in all ways a tragedy, thousands of mostly innocent students killed. They were rallying for a democracy, the government was communist. The reason that they were massacred was not because the Communist Manifesto said something like "Kill all people that don't think our way". The reason they were mowed down was because the government was unwilling to talk their differences and open their minds. The conservitiveness and orthodoxy of the Chinese government combined with their ruthlessness and their soldiers who were just following orders like all good soldiers should, killed the students, not Communism.

The Afghan Invasion by the Soviet Union. Again, there is nothing in the Communist Manifesto that states that you must invade nearby countries. Why did the USSR invade? Simple. The desire for more land, plain and simple. They saw Afghanistan as smaller and weaker, thus they decided to flex their military musscle on them, the Soviet government and the Red Army invaded Afghanistan, not Communism (althought it was bought there by them, it had no part in starting the invasion).

The oppression and loss of freedom in communist countries such as China. While people living in America may look down upon a society which still has capital punishment, which extracts the organs of executed people without consent and which has a pretty crappy excuse for a judicial system, look at it from a Chinese person's perspective. Examples are America in which a murderer or a rapist can shorten or eliminate a jail sentence with enough money. Only in England can a burglar break into your house to rob you, slip on a skateboard, injure himself, and sue your family and only in Australia can you buy a gun to defend your home, use it once on a burglar in self defense, and face jail. While I'm sure the Constitution says nothing about letting a serial rapist go because he can afford to buy a bribe, I'm also sure that there is nothing in the Communist Manifesto that says you may kill someone without a fair trial. Get my drift?

Lastly, the Korean war. I'll make it quick. Even someone on these forums mentioned that if America had won in Korea, they would have also taken a large chunk of China aswell. What were the Chinese doing? defending their homeland, fighting back the invaders. They weren't fighting Americans because they were communist, they did it because they wanted to protect their country.

I will conclude with saying this: If you think a country is bad simply because it is communist, it is like saying a rally car as being slow simply because the driver is a loaf of bread. If I offended anybody, I am truely sorry as that was not my aim, my aim was to merely state my opinion which I think the purpose of these forums are for. I know that there is a possibility that I will be banned and this thread removed, but to the moderators that are planning on doing that, if you decide to ban this thread which has had none of the following in it:

*Abusive or rascist/sexist language
*Offensive language
*Obscene references

then by doing so you are acting just like the Chinese government, oppressing the truth even though it is not harming anyone.

1. I agree with you at one fact - it's a stupidity to mask a anti-Chinese position with anticommunism.
I feel the same when I see comments about Romania, Communism & Ceausescu ( how was not Dracula-son or other BS BTW ... ).

2. The "pure' communism stink from the quota of Marx "From everybody after capabilities, to everyone after necesity". It's a pure idealism to belive that the necesity of a person may be satisfied ever - so it's absolutely insane to generalise this to ALL society !! So usually a communist governement implement only first part which usually mean state-robbery !!

But - in real world in most of the time geopolitical interests overrule the ideological ones ... ;)

Regards

1. Sabotage, I think you are being a bit unfair in the sense that everyone will always slip into shorthand: I fight to make sure I say "Serb nationalist" instead of Serb when referring to Milosevic's followers, but I really do mean the former. China's government IS China's government, and often people who really do separate the people from the state might say "China" for simplicity's sake.

2. The problem with communism is that you are reading the wrong books and the wrong history. I sold my copy of the manifesto long ago, although I may buy another this aft to add to this post later. For the moment, though, notice that Communism is not a managerial idealogy like, say, social democracy, but a revolutionary one. It is founded on the ideal of a revolutionary society. And I beleive I am quoting Mao, who is not coincidentally the ideological father of a good deal of Chinese Communist thinking in saying that "a revolution is not a tea party."

Communism was intended by Marx and others to be a VIOLENT overthrow of the capitalist state and its replacement with a dictatorship of the proletariat. Said dictatorship would expropriate all productive property, redistribute the wealth, create a utopian society and THEN you'd have the pretty "from each, to each" society. But the catch is, of course, that no one ever seems to be in a hurry to reach the utopia, because the institutions of power that the CPs in each state have had to create to seize wealth, nationalize assets, jail counterrevolutionaries, stop creeping capitalists, eliminate imperialist opiates like religon and so forth all become so powerful that they acquire an institutional incentive to stay in place.

In other words, people - not Americans, but people (I'm not American) find communism threatening because communism IS threatening.

Have a look at this thread I found at random online in a quick search; it is reminiscent of many conversations I have seen amongst my more radical and "communist" friends.

http://pub11.ezboard.com/fskalmanmessageforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=77.t opic

The gist is that the "red" in the bunch WANTS a violent revolution because it is, in his mind, what is idealogically called for.

3. As for China, I had a friend in Tienamen until just a day or two before the massacre (she was in Beijing learning Chinese). The demos in the square, amusingly, were not a call for capitalism, but a demand for democratic reform and an end to corruption. And even then, the tanks rolled, and religious and political oppression has continued ever since.

The Chinese state deserves to be condemned precisely because of its contempt for the Chinese people, even socialist Chinese people. I have great faith in the ordinary Chinese person. The difference between me and the PRC is that the Chinese state does not share my faith, and so censors its public's news, controls its politics and manages its economy, instead of allowing the public to decide it likes democratic socialism (or whatever) on its own. I am honestly baffled as to how anyone could see it as otherwise, unless they themselves had such an interest in the state's existence that monopolizing power and institutionalizing repression "for the good of the nation" made personal sense to them.

China's government is China's government. I don't hate Chinese people for their government, but I won't let my admiration for the Chinese people be an excuse to forgive their government or the dangers its system creates either.


R.III

I agree that most people who slag off communism don't really know what it is. And yes, Stalin, Mao and all the others were not 'true communists' in the strict Marxist interpretations. But is it coincidence that all the self-described communist leaders tended to be murderous thugs?

The problem with communism is that it denies man's individuality and freedom. It believes we are all puppets of impersonal economic forces and that individuals are worthless compared to the march of history. So it is perfectly OK to cause the starvation of millions of your people if it moves the society towards the glorious end point of a socialist state. It also denies people's rights to own anything, or to better their individual situation. It is therefore against the most basic instincts of humanity - material security for yourself and your family. Have you noticed how communism is usually more popular amongst middle class students, who have nothing to lose and don't really understand poverty, than amongst the working classes, who would like nothing better than to become part of the bourgeoisie.

Those are, I believe, the root causes why people dislike the theory of communism, but the reality of oppression, poverty and corrupt dictatorship doesn't help matters.

True communism is the same communism as those forms practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Zedong, Castro, Kim il-Sung, and Ho Chi Minh.

Neither socialism nor capitalism by itself can be effective as a governing ideology. Under strict socialism, initiative is stiffled, individuality fades, and personal needs are sacrificed for the good of others. Under a strict capitalist society without gov't interference, those with capital make all the real decisions, and nothing can stop them from exploiting the majority of the people if they choose to. Effective governments combine the pros of socialism (social welfare programs, increased worker input) with the pros of capitalism (individual initiative, possibility of becoming wealthy).

Having said this, I think that historically Americans have been opposed to communism because it goes against the traditional "can-do", enterprising nature of Americans. However, Americans have also historically used "communism" as a label for those who don't adhere to the norm. My grandfather believed to his dying day that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist, because that was the label used at the time to describe something so thoroughly un-American as to be harmful.

Sabotage, you make a good point. But to answer your question, I think the problem is that "communism" has, in many people's minds, become equated with "pathologically violent tyranny".

While this is not the objective of a communist revolution, this is where it seems to always get stuck. Hence rmsharpe's post. This is the face communism shows to the world.

While this is not the objective of a communist revolution, this is where it seems to always get stuck. Hence rmsharpe's post. This is the face communism shows to the world.

This is as much Stalinism as anything else. After the Revolution the intial expectation of Lenin and co was that the workers of the world would quickly create communists societies everywhere. The approach of the Communists was not to fight ( in some sense this was a practical approach since they were ill able to in any event). They believed that the capitalists states would be destroyed from within. Ludendorf and Hidenburg quickly cleared this matter up for them and forced the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. After this the Communists moved to a strategy of protecting the revolution in Russia and exporting it later. Militarily they were weak and unindustrialized. They assumed once the war ended that the capitalists states would combine to defeat the revolution in Russia in a fashion similar to the pudown of the 1848 uprisings in Europe that initially inspired a lot of Marx and Engel's ideas.

Thus they gradually moved to a ever more military posture focused on both defence of the Revolution AND offensive export of communism. This philopsophy was based on Trotsky's prediction that the the inconsistencies in capitalism would result in a war between the capitalists and provide the opportuity for a new round of revolutions and communist expansion due to dissatisfaction in western states with these wars.

Stalin's foregn policy closely followed this line of thinking.

Aside from the obvious reasons communists are ill thought of because of their repressive leaders, they are also feared becuase the ideology of communism has long been to export it. The implication is this will not happen peacefully so its logical that capitalists countries or thinkers are wary of communist states since the basis of the ideology is the overthrow of capitalism.
:egypt:

As said b4 in this thread,marxism doesn't foresee any democratic power i think.
My political model is Switzerland;direct democracy n federalism.
Anglo-Saxon people never liked communism.The UK was the 1st industrialised country and brits never liked communism.Many of em believe that,in real communist states,people would work for those who don't,that Good work must be rewarded.

As said b4 in this thread,marxism doesn't foresee any democratic power i think.

The problem with statements like these, and I've seen many, is that democracy is immediately accepted to be synonymous with "good". I disfavour oppressive regimes like those of the former GDR, USSR, the PRC or DRK, but I also cannot accept a society in which a large number of people vegetate on the streets while others sit on their throne and opress the people in other, less essential but annoying ways, like Bill Gates or Leo Kirch do; quite frankly, they use their freedom to take away other people's freedom(s). I don't really think this is the course a well-oriented society should go either.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
True communism is the same communism as those forms practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Zedong, Castro, Kim il-Sung, and Ho Chi Minh.

No it isn't. They all had/have very different ideas and philosophies, all of which are based on but significantly different from Marx's ideas set out in the Communist Manifesto.

In my opinion many people make a confusion between "communism" and "popular ideology" - which is a BS because "true liberalism" and even "true conservatorism" are also "popular" ideology ...

Popular = ( here ) adressed to ( most of ) the people in a society.

Regards

In my mind, Communism is fundimentally opposed to the rights of the individual, in favor of the "group" or "state".

Along that train of thought, anything is justified as long as it's for the "greater good".

Every government that has claimed to be Communist has been oppressive to the rights of man, so I'm skeptical to claims that it "just wasn't done correctly".

China may be much improved today, but still, it's hard to dismiss Mao and the hardliners.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Along that train of thought, anything is justified as long as it's for the "greater good".

Every government that has claimed to be Communist has been oppressive to the rights of man, so I'm skeptical to claims that it "just wasn't done correctly".


Yes, but, to be objective, in a very polarised society some communist policies ( not necessarly the whole doctrinas ) may have good results ...

I'm not defending communism but this is a historical fact. Of course is debatable if a true liberal or conservative policy could had better effect - but this are another questions.

Regards,

Every government that has claimed to be Communist has been oppressive to the rights of man, so I'm skeptical to claims that it "just wasn't done correctly".

This in fact was another prediction arising from the early debates following the revolution. In order to switch to a military strategy based on defense/offense in depth and a preparation for a total war of the people, it was recognized that a dictatorship would arise. This was a necessary precursor to the construction of an industrial base that would allow self sufficiency in military production. Such a base was deemed necessary because of the assessed hostility of capitalist states. So the developed doctrine provided for such transitions. Again this does not presume the types of purges that followed which in fact served in many ways to obstruct this process. In fact it is difficult to see how communism could have developed differently given its inherent goals and the opposition it faced. It is not surprising therefore that virtually all communist countries have followed similar paths in basic structure allowing for ideological variations that suit the countries concerned.

So its not really a matter of it being done incorrectly. To say it was done incorrectly assumes an alternative successful approach which is less than obvious. Certainly it was not the preferred choice of the communists themselves. This of course suggests that the basic underpinnings were flawed.

It is interesting to note that Trotsky also predicted that the dictatorship and construction of a military regime that was deemed inherently a path followed by capitalist imperialists would inevitably lead to the failure of the revolution and the triumph of capitalism. Trotksy argued for alternative approaches but eventually even he shifted his thinking for entirely pragmatic reasons casting further doubt on the "incorrectly done notion". While i doubt he anticipated future history that accurately it does make interesting reading in retrospect.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
but I also cannot accept a society in which a large number of people vegetate on the streets while others sit on their throne and opress the people in other, less essential but annoying ways, like Bill Gates or Leo Kirch do; quite frankly, they use their freedom to take away other people's freedom(s). \

Enlighten me, please, on precisely how Gates and Kirch "take away other people's freedom" or "oppress" people, exactly?

When I hear stuff like this, I find it very very hard not to agree with the bitter old fogies who sit there and say "these kids need to experience a good bloody war so they can appreciate what they have." I mean, come on? Bill Gates is - allegedly - an antitrust problem. And if he is a real antitrust problem (which he isn't at the moment), you can at least rest assured that his company is being prosecuted for this on two continents.

If you don't like him, you don't have to buy his products. And you don't have to watch Kirch's products on the tube or wherever if you don't like the owner. But Chinese Communists: if you don't like them, you go to jail or die at the hands of an army that your taxes paid for? Yeah, you've got it right, man, you're so hip to the oppressive scene...

Coomunism cannot exist on a vountary basis in any group larger than a community. There will always be too many dissenters who want to keep their own labor and goods. Communisn thus is always depedant of strong coercion, and will thus evolve into tyranny as the state contiunues to seek more power and eliminate more freedom s in order to perserve the communism

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
In my mind, Communism is fundimentally opposed to the rights of the individual, in favor of the "group" or "state".

Along that train of thought, anything is justified as long as it's for the "greater good".



But every government of every hue takes away certain individual 'rights' and assigns other individual 'rights'. For instance, on one of these threads the 'right' to vote was stated as being absolute, but the right to food, water or affordable medical care was not.

I'd care to bet whatever you like that most people below the real poverty line would bite your hand off if you offered to trade the right to vote for the rights to eat, drink and get medical aid for ther kids.

Communism simply puts certain 'rights' higher up the list than we tend to in democratic countries - however, we see like variations between different democratic governments. It doesn't automatically make the communist proposition invalid.

Personally I don't support the communist approach, for a variety of reasons too boring to mention.

However, let's not kid ourselves that democracy is not also an expansionist governing process which can fail in spectacular circumstances (Milosevic was elected on a programme of Serb first and we all know where that led, Mugabe was elected on a policy of legalised theft and violence in Zimbabwe, even Hitler was elected).

In my mind, Communism is fundimentally opposed to the rights of the individual, in favor of the "group" or "state".

Along that train of thought, anything is justified as long as it's for the "greater good".

This notion is hardly unique to communism. Its a far more fundamental concept underlying most types of government. Where ever you pay taxes you are sacrificing something for the greater good. Individual/corporate action is restrained by law in all states for the greater good.

This is just utilitarianism writ large.

The flaw in communism is that it presupposes that individuals equate collective happiness with individual happiness. There is no evidence to suggest that people will act in such a manner unless they reach a satiation point. Behavior dictates that collective resources are used by all to the point of extinction because to behave otherwise means that my happiness will be less than yours. (Fish in the sea are a good example). By extension a communist society would actually require that individuals would have no requirements that were not met by the collective or enhanced by collective action. Such a society would have to be extremely advanced - to the point where resources where so abundant that their would be no requirement for competition among individuals. Such a cornucopia of wealth is something we will unlikely achieve for a long time if ever.

Originally posted by Rain


The flaw in communism is that it presupposes that individuals equate collective happiness with individual happiness. There is no evidence to suggest that people will act in such a manner unless they reach a satiation point. Behavior dictates that collective resources are used by all to the point of extinction because to behave otherwise means that my happiness will be less than yours. (Fish in the sea are a good example). By extension a communist society would actually require that individuals would have no requirements that were not met by the collective or enhanced by collective action. Such a society would have to be extremely advanced - to the point where resources where so abundant that their would be no requirement for competition among individuals. Such a cornucopia of wealth is something we will unlikely achieve for a long time if ever.

I think Marx did say in "Capital" that a society would have to be very technologically advanced in order for a communist society to be created.

In fact the Soviet Union wasn't regarded as a communist society - officially it was 'socialist' and communism was a distant utopia. The sacrifices of personal liberties, quality of life, etc were all done in the name of creation of a communist society.

Soviet Union was NOT communist in the strict sense of the word - it was ruled by a communist party, the structure of the society was officially called 'socialism' and was meant to be a sort of transitionary society between capitalism and communism.

I think Marx never supposed that his theories would find application in 'backward' countries at the time such as Russia and China. His theories were aimed at countries which were already industrialised by the mid-19th century, such as Germany, France, Belgium, Britain. I suppose these European countries were lucky that Marx's ideas somehow fell onto fertile soil in Russia. Otherwise it is quite conceivable that successful communist revolutions could have taken place in Europe.

Russia and China weren't very industrialised at the time communist takeovers, but in order to somehow follow communist ideas these countries needed to industrialise rapidly.

According to Marx this should have been done during 'capitalism'. Russia had to industrialise without the benefit of capitalist economy, free market and free enterprise, and it is well-known how many human lives USSR paid for industrialisation (pop rushing vs paid rushing in Civ3!). Actually, it is not a widely known fact, but in the period from 1921 until 1928, a so-called New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced in the Soviet Union which allowed some free enterprise and was aimed at somehow reviving the fully impoverished country after a bloody civil war. This went against communist ideals, but it was understood that some stimulation of the economy is needed before massive industrialisation. However that was too little too late.

Despite heavy industrialisation, the country still could not provide the population with necessary goods even in the 80's. Hence discontent in the population and need to limit personal freedoms by the government (aka MP in civ3).

Massive repression in Stalin's time had nothing to do with communism - he was just eliminating his opponent as any successful dictator would do, it's just he did it very 'efficiently'. :(

What I am trying to say that the reason why "communism" got such a negative image is that countries which tried to implement it were not ready for it and thus the communist governments had to resort to repressive measures to keep control of the country.

As I said it is conceivable that if not for the negative Russian experience, a communist government could've been installed with better results in some industrialised western country. Notice that there hasn't been a single wealthy country which adopted "communism" (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary were war-ravaged after WW2, so don't count as wealthy).

I must also add that even though in a communist state certain personal freedoms might have been limited, it does not mean that this makes life intolerable. For example even in the West only a small proportion of the population is actually politically active and eager to vote, the majority of population wouldn't really care who to vote for - they vote only because of massive campaigning. So generally many people would not feel oppressed if they didn't have a chance to vote.

Freedom of speech is also a right exercised by a minority of population. How many people do actually write letters to newspapers or talk at street corners or demonstrate criticising the government? A small minority. So limit on freedom of speech also affect relatively few people. (Unless of course things are taken to their extreme, such during Stalin's time, when your neighbour could report you to NKVD if you complained that the price of bread is too high! But from 1960's in the USSR things relaxed quite a lot.)

However most people do care if they haven't got all the amenities they'd like to have. That's why the communist government started becoming unpopular in USSR. A few people were allowed to travel abroad and they saw that in the West people generally had a wider variety of clothes, "luxuries" (such as TVs, VCRs, cars) and that the communist propaganda was clearly lying that quality of life is higher in the USSR.

Sorry, I'll stop now. This post seems to be going on forever. I was just expressing my thoughts on the issue in no particular order. My thoughts are only based on the USSR because I am Russian and was born there. Sorry I don't know much about China.

Communism is not, and can never be, democratic.

If communism was truly democratic, then people would be able to vote for pro-capitalistic candidates, which violates every principle of communism -- the government must control the "people's needs" because the average citizen is too stupid to figure it out for themselves.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Communism is not, and can never be, democratic.

If communism was truly democratic, then people would be able to vote for pro-capitalistic candidates, which violates every principle of communism -- the government must control the "people's needs" because the average citizen is too stupid to figure it out for themselves.

This is a highly simplistic view which presupposes some gain to be made by voting for for capitalism. In fact China and Russia were populist revolutions at the time in pre-industrial capitalist states. Capitalism had not conveyed any advantage to these people so why would they vote for it. I doubt very much if the czar would have won an election in 1917.

They were not palace coups. Dictatorship only entered the picture subsequently in Russia. Lenin usurped power during the revolutionary process but that does not deny the popular overthrow of the government. The situation in China was different but again the revolution enjoyed very strong support and likely would have suceeded sooner if not for US support for the nationalists who by the end had lost the support of the people.

Capitalistic govenrments have often been elected solely because they throw lots of money around at election time and then spend the rest of their time feathering the nests of the elite. They have the strongest power base from which to operate to start with. Many so-called democracies are simply oligarchies. To become a leader you either start out in it or find your way in and become part of it.

As to controlling the people needs, that is not the design. Production was necessary to be controlled in an attempt to provide the basic requirements. It was the lack of efficiency that resulted in people's needs not being met. I'm sure if the communists had sufficient capacity they would ensure everyone had what they wanted. It would only make them more secure as leaders.

Originally posted by Rain
As to controlling the people needs, that is not the design. Production was necessary to be controlled in an attempt to provide the basic requirements. It was the lack of efficiency that resulted in people's needs not being met. I'm sure if the communists had sufficient capacity they would ensure everyone had what they wanted. It would only make them more secure as leaders.

I have to disagree. Please read this (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=105002006) article. It says how I feel far better than I could.

your link doesnt work

Rain wrote:

This is a highly simplistic view which presupposes some gain to be made by voting for for capitalism.

Capitalistic govenrments have often been elected solely because they throw lots of money around at election time and then spend the rest of their time feathering the nests of the elite. They have the strongest power base from which to operate to start with. Many so-called democracies are simply oligarchies. To become a leader you either start out in it or find your way in and become part of it.

I was going to avoid this thread because, quite frankly, we've had it in various incarnations many times before. I used to lock horns with - I believe it was Corn? - in the OT over this one, each of us banging our heads against each other to no end. I strongly suggest that everyone try to dig a couple of those older threads up and read what everyone wrote in them. They all have "communism" somewhere in the thread title.

I will answer one thing above though that Rain wrote:

The great thing about democratic and capitalistic societies (the two go hand-in-hand) is that it isn't nearly as important who the leaders are. Yes, every time you have any sort of hierarchy anywhere, from your local stamp-collecting club to national governments, eventually an elite group forms and dominates things. That's human nature. The sign of a democracy though is that it 1. allows others outside the elite to occasionally penetrate it and lead, and 2. more importantly it empowers individual citizens to the point where they can make decisions for themselves with minimal reference to the government. The point of capitalism and democracy is not just that you vote once every couple years for a leader, it's that you also have decision-making power in your daily life. Where will you work? Where will you live? What will you study? What kind of work will you do? How long will you do it? These are the kinds of decisions that are generally moot in a communist society.

For example, let's be honest: The United States is currently being led by an intellectual moron who is functionally illiterate. His inability to articulate an intelligent thought belies a basic inability to reason beyond the most crude ideological principal. George W. Bush is an idiot.

However, despite that fact life in the U.S. goes on largely unimpaired, and the basic quality of my life here goes undisturbed. This isn't to say that Bush isn't capable of doing real harm, but his power is very restricted.

I hate to trot this out everytime we have this discussion but *sigh* here we go. I've lived in a communist state and have no illusions about the communist lies of freedom, equality, etc. In 1989 Hungary as a student I happily hung posters for the SzDSz, one of the anti-communist parties and I have wonderful memories of the secret police. My only run-in with the police here involves my going 85 mph (135 kph) in a 65 mph (100 kph) zone on Route 17 in New York state. I can safely say "Bush is an idiot" and all I have to worry about is whether RMSharpe will be sending me a nasty reply. :D Ever seen a mass grave up close? Pay a visit to Cuba or North Korea for a while and see how the workers' paradises really work.

Switch625: Great article!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20053

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12370

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5854

Read these, they are probably indications of why many here are not big on communism.

This took me a long friggin' time, so I am allowed to post a short-liner here.

Vrylakas, I never really tire of hearing your story...

Too bad the idealists of today couldn't peek inside your memories. Or the memories of the untold millions.:(

Perhaps you think i was defending communism - I wasn't. Nor advocating it or implying that it involves freedom. In fact i think i mentioned earlier that they inevitably turn into repressive dictatorships. I think the original poster was asking why they are feared. My comments re democracy was simply to point out that communists governments were in some cases popularly chosen.

Eastern europe's absorption by the soviet union post ww 2 is a different matter obviously. And i have been to Cuba. Ive also been to Mexico. Though what the differnce is between the two when one is allegedly democratic and the other openly is not is less than obvious. Both places share the trappings of a police state. In fact my experiences with the Mexican police were far more dubious than the Cuban ones. I admit this is hardly a wealth of experience to draw on. I guess my point is that stating you are democratic hardly implies any more freedom exists. I wont disagree that democracy is necessary for freedom but its not always a sufficient condition.

Reading it in retrospective my post concerning production may well be ill-conceived and perhaps naive sounding. I wasn't thinking that the leadership would do it out of any concern for the people but out of the intent to secure themselves if the cost was sufficiently small. In reality though leaders everywhere seem to have the desire to grasp every advantage for themselves however small either in the form of money or power.

You can probably tell that im rather cynical of politics in general. I'm afraid i'm a believer in the theory that power corrupts irrespective of the political system in place.

Ahh ok saw the article Wall Street Journal ( hardly likely to a proud supporter of socialism btw lol be like me quoting something from a socialist paper)

Anyway i think this what i was getting at about capitalism not necessarily being an automatic choice because it depends on whether you benefit from it or not (the integration referred to) and is from your article...

"Yet as South American economist Hernando de Soto says at the conclusion of the "Commanding Heights" series, we can't be complacent about free markets. In this technological age, when a poor Third World denizen looks at his television and "sees how you live compared to how he lives, he's going to get very angry. So either you show him a capitalist route to [improve things] and integrate him, or he's going to find another ideology." It happened in France in 1793, in Russia in 1917 and around the world after World War II--and it's happening today in the Muslim world."

"What was wrong with communism wasn't aberrant leadership, it was communism." - William F. Buckley

Originally posted by Rain
Ahh ok saw the article Wall Street Journal ( hardly likely to a proud supporter of socialism btw lol be like me quoting something from a socialist paper)

Anyway i think this what i was getting at about capitalism not necessarily being an automatic choice because it depends on whether you benefit from it or not (the integration referred to) and is from your article...

<article excerpt snipped>


Since I'm no socialist, I'm hardly likely to find articles supporting my point of view in a socialist paper. :D

You missed the point of that passage. That paragraph was a wake-up call to the capitalist nations to do something to help improve the economies of the Middle Eastern nations.

Basically, you have a group of nations that don't produce anything of any real tradable value, other than oil. Some of them don't even have that. Their economies are backward, permanently depressed, with high levels of unemployment and low levels of wealth. They are ruled by autocrats at best, and brutal thugs at worst. These rulers have no incentive to improve things for the common person, because it's easier to keep them poor and ignorant, and put the blame for it all on somebody else (the US and Israel are the usual suspects).

Moving these nations toward a more democratic and capitalistic society would help them immesurably, in my opinion.

What it says is if capitalism doesn't help improve their status they will seek another ideology and gives examples of the French and Russian revolutions. I dont think I missed the point at all. The improvement of their economies as you put it is integration. In the case of the Islamic nations you get Islamic fundamentalists taking control - the new pancea since communism has fallen by the way. Sure they're ruled by dicators - many of them have been put there or propped up by past communists or capitalists over the past century. None of these interventions has benefited the local people. So it should be no surprise if they dont like the countries that intervened.

Anyway somehow this thread has drifted way off the original point so I'm bidding it farewell. :egypt:

Disregarding what our right-wing Rmsharpe has to say with his vision expressed here of "Capitalism good, communism bad" (to paraphrase from Orwell on his grand mockery of communism and most revolution-lead governments that was Animal farm), I think there are a number of factos that explain the failure and fear of communism.

Just like a number of factor explain the failure of old-style pure capitalism. Face it guys ; we're not living in a purely capitalist world anymore. Heck, we never really got there to start with. What we have now is a pretty much middle-of-the-line world (talking about the western world), combining some of the best notions of capitalism and socialism (though the result is by no mean perfect, of course). Some countries are more to the capitalist side (US, though even they aren't too far from the center), some more to the socialst side (Sweden (I think) & co), and some are in the center, hovering from one side to the other (Canada, with Québec being most definitely "socialister" than the average province, with Alberta on the other side being "capitalister"). All those countries are doing fairly well (and while the US may have a higher income per capita, the swedish (or whichever of these three countries I always mix up) or canadians tend to be somewhat more educated, have better health, etc, so it evens out)

Anyway, back to fear of communism.

Factors.

1-Lack of personal freedoms.

This is a key factor in FEAR of communism. While it's a nonsense factor in condeming communist results (given that it tended (post-World War II forced inclusion) all in all to replace governments which weren't scoring any better freedom wise, and generaly no more competent economy-wise). But generaly speaking, people used to having certain freedoms they consider important will balk at the idea of losing them. This is especially true in people (like Vrylakas) who have seen the other side, life WITHOUT those freedoms. Conversely, people who take these freedom for granted and don't give much thought about them are more likely to wonder "Why do people fear communism so much?"

2-The "work for the lazy" feeling.

A main problem of communism which makes it seen as something bad and something that thus should be feared is the fact that no matter how hard you work, you get the exact same reward as the guy who worked for a tenth of what you did. Not very motivating, definitely downrignt discouraging in fact. Compare this with the protesting against taxes being raised to help the poor (which some insist on viewing in the simplist "people too lazy to get a job" view).

3-Bad reputation.

Stalin, NKVD, KGB, Prague Spring, Tian'anmen, Great Leap forward, Cultural Revolution, Red Khmer.

These all contributed to simply associating Communism with one of the most terrible form of tyrany, especially given how these incidents were publicized (as opposed to incidents in "friendly" countries et al). While this is standard conflict time practice (make the enemy look bad), and there WAS a conflict, it certainly left a powerful dark tinge on anything related to communism. They were the enemies for about fourty years. It's just hard to put behind.

4-Power trough revolution.

People who feel comfortable with their life (as most of us tend to do - we are not out there in the street shivering) GENERALY aren't too interested in revolutions, unless they are political intelectual totaly disgruntled with the current system. In fact, they generally see such revolutions as Bad Ideas (tm). Thus, they are afraid of any political ideal which propose to take power through fighting. Especially one that propose idea as outlined above that they dislike.

There probably are other reasons ; I just listed those that came to mind.

Originally posted by Rain
In fact China and Russia were populist revolutions at the time in pre-industrial capitalist states. Capitalism had not conveyed any advantage to these people so why would they vote for it. I doubt very much if the czar would have won an election in 1917.

This is pretty much nonsense.

China and Russia (the October revolution, not The February one) were the antihesis of popular revolutions.

Certainly, although The Bolsheviks went for a populist approach, they never had anything more than a small minority of the population behind them - Hence the civil war.

The Bolsheviks were a small, minority group (have you seen how they fared in the elctions to the constituent assembly, which was subsequently disbanded by them?) that won power by force through brilliant leadership and cohesion at a time when such values were utterly redundant in Russia. However, they were not swept to power on populism.

The February revolution was a popular overthrow of the government, yes. The October revolution certainly was not.

Anyway.

One of the main faults with Communism is that it was always going to be a 'thinking man's' ideology. As socialism evolved from Communist theory, it took a role as the politically popular, and increasingly politically acceptable brother of Communism. After this, Communism was largely redundant as a mass movement in those areas were it was originally meant to take hold - developed, capitalist Western European nations, as Marx had envisaged.

After this, Communism could only become an ideology of men such as Trotsky, Lenin etc.

I think Marx's original works were unparalled in their idealism, and insight into the problems at the core of any society.

However, they operated from a premise that was never fulfilled in actuality, and Marxism had to be perverted into such forms as Marxist-Leninism to work.

In conclusion, yes, I do feel that Communism is something to be feared.

Speaking as a Socialist, it is not the correct way to ensure that people are elevated from squallor and poverty. Democratic Socialism is.

Originally posted by Rain
What it says is if capitalism doesn't help improve their status they will seek another ideology and gives examples of the French... revolutions

The French revolution WAS a bourgeoise, capitalist revolution.

Read up on your history.

Just want to remind people that China, who is often showed in example on how communism is bad, is communist only in name sice about a decade.
What is left of communism in China ? The government. A government elected by a very small percentage of the population (members of the communist party), and ruled by the leaders of this party. Sounds more like a junta or a oligarchy than communism.

Now, the rest of China ? Well, it's been years that China is even more capitalist than USA. Money is always welcomed, and the government took special precautions to ensure the safety of representatives from western corporation, because they can bring money and build projects that will create jobs.
Calling China "communist" is actually a nonsense. It's like calling East Germany "democracy" because it has "democratic" in it's official name.

Why I find Communism and socialism threatening.

1. Kills initiative in people, i.e., no point in doing anything new, since nothing new comes out of it.

2.Kills free thought with the vigorous demand that the state is pure and perfect, even in a democracy.

3.Kills a quest for improvement in people, i.e., why bother to be better, when no benefit is gained from it.

4.Gives rise to blatant nepotism and blinding corruption.

5.Becomes a legit tool for despots and maniacs to take control.

These are my conclusions as to why India suffered in economic growth between 1950-1990 and as to why USSR collapsed and China had to abandon this policy.

This is something I do not get. Nearly every American member on these forums have something bad to say about communism. While some of their claims have validity, some are just pure BS, the ugly offspring of false media claims, endless patriotic movies and over patriotism.

Please do not think that I am a communist, nor do I have anything against the United States or other non communist countries. I am simply frustrated because time and time again I have seen my native country China, put down in these forums due merely to the fact that it is a communist country. If I were to see a person put down because of the fact they are Spanish, Etheopian, Australian, Vietnamnese, Russian or German, the offending person would be banned in an instant.

What is synonomous with Communism? The Hammer and Sickle, the red flag ect. However, what most people think of when Communism is mentioned is such atrocities such as Stalin starving the people of Ukaraine, Tianamen Square, The Cold War (including Korea and Vietnam), the invasion of Afghanistan and oppression and loss of freedom.

Firstly, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung starving and killing their own people. Those weren't done due to communism, it was due to those two men and the army/secret police under their command. I doubt Karl Marx wrote anything like "Kill your own people" in the Communist Manifesto. Communism is supposed to be a government in which people are all equal, the fact that in those countries they were treated like animals is because the people leading them did it to them, not because the Communist Manifesto demanded it of them. Saying Mao killed all those people because of Communism is like saying Middle Eastern terrorists kill innocent people because of Islam.

Now Tianamen Square. I am sure most of you people know what happened, so I won't lengthen my post any more by describing it here. This was in all ways a tragedy, thousands of mostly innocent students killed. They were rallying for a democracy, the government was communist. The reason that they were massacred was not because the Communist Manifesto said something like "Kill all people that don't think our way". The reason they were mowed down was because the government was unwilling to talk their differences and open their minds. The conservitiveness and orthodoxy of the Chinese government combined with their ruthlessness and their soldiers who were just following orders like all good soldiers should, killed the students, not Communism.

The Afghan Invasion by the Soviet Union. Again, there is nothing in the Communist Manifesto that states that you must invade nearby countries. Why did the USSR invade? Simple. The desire for more land, plain and simple. They saw Afghanistan as smaller and weaker, thus they decided to flex their military musscle on them, the Soviet government and the Red Army invaded Afghanistan, not Communism (althought it was bought there by them, it had no part in starting the invasion).

The oppression and loss of freedom in communist countries such as China. While people living in America may look down upon a society which still has capital punishment, which extracts the organs of executed people without consent and which has a pretty crappy excuse for a judicial system, look at it from a Chinese person's perspective. Examples are America in which a murderer or a rapist can shorten or eliminate a jail sentence with enough money. Only in England can a burglar break into your house to rob you, slip on a skateboard, injure himself, and sue your family and only in Australia can you buy a gun to defend your home, use it once on a burglar in self defense, and face jail. While I'm sure the Constitution says nothing about letting a serial rapist go because he can afford to buy a bribe, I'm also sure that there is nothing in the Communist Manifesto that says you may kill someone without a fair trial. Get my drift?

Lastly, the Korean war. I'll make it quick. Even someone on these forums mentioned that if America had won in Korea, they would have also taken a large chunk of China aswell. What were the Chinese doing? defending their homeland, fighting back the invaders. They weren't fighting Americans because they were communist, they did it because they wanted to protect their country.

I will conclude with saying this: If you think a country is bad simply because it is communist, it is like saying a rally car as being slow simply because the driver is a loaf of bread. If I offended anybody, I am truely sorry as that was not my aim, my aim was to merely state my opinion which I think the purpose of these forums are for. I know that there is a possibility that I will be banned and this thread removed, but to the moderators that are planning on doing that, if you decide to ban this thread which has had none of the following in it:

*Abusive or rascist/sexist language
*Offensive language
*Obscene references

then by doing so you are acting just like the Chinese government, oppressing the truth even though it is not harming anyone.



That is probably the best post I have ever seen on these forums:goodjob:

Communism is not, and can never be, democratic

I disagree. I believe that only when the people are economically equal can they be democratically equal.

In capatilism people care only for themselves. Capatilism is all about indvidual gain. How can people possibly share power equally amongst everyone when they are constantly trying to out do each other and profit from each other?

True communism is the same communism as those forms practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Zedong, Castro, Kim il-Sung, and Ho Chi Minh.

of course I disagree with this statement, but this got me thinking.

you see, alot of people describe my views as 'communist'. But I in reality they are more of a hybrid of communism. I think I prefer the term 'Utopin Socialist' to descibe them (thanks to Simon Darkshade for that term).

What I have decided is that the word 'communist' is way to braoder a term, used to describe all the varying forms of radical left-wingers.

If I said to your average person in the street that I beleive everyone should be economically equal they would call me a 'communist'. Yet I despise (for example) Stalin's method of rule, as I belive in Democracy, true democracy.

You see, in true democracy there are no elections, as it is the people who make the laws etc. Everyone has an equal say.

so when rmsharpe says If communism was truly democratic, then people would be able to vote for pro-capitalistic candidates, which violates every principle of communism
he is mistaken, as in true democracy there are no 'candidates'.

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
I do understand that, but it was never communist. I have talked to my Russian friend about this, and he agrees, his country was never communist. he tells me that they (lenin etc) had planned for russia to be communist by 1980, but that never happened.

If I remember correctly, and I may not, Communism includes the evolution necessary to reach the state of utopian equality that is the ultimate goal of Marx's ideals. Lenin might have been working toward that, which I find somewhat doubtful considering his ruthless oppression of anyone who felt differently, but can you honestly tell me that any of his follow-ons felt the same way? Disregarding Stalin, let's think about Kruschev, Brezhnev and Andropov. Would any of them want to give up their dachas, their exclusive limosines, or their exclusive shopping privledge? If they were working toward the ultimate goal of Marxist Communism, they would have to consider it. I can't, for the life of me, believe that they would consider it. And, what does a utopia-in-the-making need with gulags and secret police? True Communism can't work for the same reason that true Democracy can't work. Human nature. Until you change the fundamental nature of humanity, efforts to create a true Communist state will ALWAYS fail.

Switch625, I entirely understand what you mean.

I think many Americans are afraid of Communism because it's always been presented to us as a bad thing. This presentation peaked with Reagan's 'Evil Empire' remark.

I don't fear Communism, I fear the people who think it could work.;)

Davo: If people under a capitalist system don't care for the "have nots", then why does every capitalist country in the world have welfare and unemployment benefits? EVERY SINGLE ONE.

It irks me when people trot out the "capitalist evils". Evils that are indeed there, but mostly unavoidable.

It also irks me that right wing idealists believe that any facet of socialism is "evil". Stupid, Stupid easily led people.

Without socialists, you have a dog-eat-dog world.

Without capitalists you have an unbreakable caste system.

Until there is no more money, there will never be a perfect Socialism.

I keep using Socialism, because Communism is mere fantasy. Until the masses are nerve stapled and lobotomized, you won't convince ANYONE to give it all for the common good. (At least in the sense of Communism.) That kind of enlightenment is NOT possible.

Just look at us for example. We continually post points about our beliefs. One posts a good one, then somebody tries to post a better idea. We strive to be enlightened. YOu would have to remove that part of our BEING to make it (Communism) work.

ComradeDavo...you talk about democratizaiton of Communism, but that goes against every piece of Communist propaganda ever written.

What I don't get is why you're so big on "democracy" under a Communist government, but then you hail the Marxist rebels in Nepal as "freedom fighters."

Communism and democracy have never worked together -- unless it's a Cuban electoral ballot:

[_] - President Castro
[_] - President Fidel Castro

So much better than the neighboring florida form of voting ballot :P

Democrats -\ ______O
_________/__/_
Nader______/__\
______________\____O
Republicans_________O

Communism is an ideology. Trying to run a country based solely on an ideology and setting that ideology as a near-religion is imbecilistic. That goes for pure capitalism as well as communism, as well as nazism/fascism.

ComradeDavo...you talk about democratizaiton of Communism, but that goes against every piece of Communist propaganda ever written.
I have created (mostly by drawing) communist propaganda which promotes democracy.

What I don't get is why you're so big on "democracy" under a Communist government, but then you hail the Marxist rebels in Nepal as "freedom fighters."
I have never said that. You are generalising. How would you like it if I said all Americans wore white hoods and burn crosses? You wouldn't like it would you, just like I don't like being thrown in the same catorgary as Stalinists, Leninists and Maoist's (to name but a few).

The millionares, corporations, and people in power in America are opposed to Communism because, if America were to become Communist, they would no longer have this wealth and power - it would be distributed to the people. God forbid!

Comrade Davo,

U were talkin about a system without elections;i think u should read my posts about Switzerland(the best country);there people have a counter-power(they can cast referendums).I think democracy should be led by associations;making the debates;the state distributing the papers(for/against and recycled) per post.
Political parties lower democracy to a fight of interests(industrial towns voting for the left-wing and the country-side n the bourgeoisie for the right-wing).My home town(Le Havre) stayed communist till the end of the Cold War and i agree with many things that Marx said(vs nationalism n landownership).However i think he's wrong on many things;especially when he holds everybody for insane;manipulated by capitalists n therefore forgetting democracy.Pure democratic life among the community is the key to people's happiness.

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
I disagree. I believe that only when the people are economically equal can they be democratically equal.

In capatilism people care only for themselves. Capatilism is all about indvidual gain. How can people possibly share power equally amongst everyone when they are constantly trying to out do each other and profit from each other?What defines 'economically equal?' Should a man who spent 10 years in schooling and training to be a doctor REALLY get paid the same amount as a man who works at wal-mart? If a poor man, through hard work and effort, starts up a company that makes him a millionaire (Which HAS happened), he shouldnt reap the benefits of his hard work? THIS is why people dont like the idea of communism. People like the idea they are getting paid what they're worth and that, if they work hard, they can earn more for themselves and their families. It's a proverbial carrot in front of the mule. What is going to be used to motivate them with this taken away? Idealogy? Why would someone who can do a lousy job and still get assured work and good pay not continue to do a lousy job?

there is point arguing if you can't accept the fact that some people actually want to be doctors. for reason other than money.

not everyone is motivated by money.

Originally posted by D.Shaffer
...If a poor man, through hard work and effort, starts up a company that makes him a millionaire (Which HAS happened), he shouldnt reap the benefits of his hard work? THIS is why people dont like the idea of communism. People like the idea they are getting paid what they're worth and that, if they work hard, they can earn more for themselves and their families.

I hope people have better reasons than this for not liking communism.

Even in China's past, people that performed more important functions were 'paid' more. A poor man in today's China has opportunity (though less frequent than in America) to create a successful company and enjoy the riches of success.

China, to the best of my knowledge, is still communist.

Maybe people dislike 'socialism' because it is the great equalizer economically. I think most people dislike 'communism' because human communist history has tended to be totalitarian.

I find communism threatening.
First off let me point out that this conversation alone would lead to some of us being put to death in a communist country. Speaking my mind is one of the freedoms I utterly enjoy. I also like politicians to have checks on them. Communists have no checks, either you play ball, or else you get whisked off in the night. It's nice to have the freedom to choose what to do with my life, where I live, what work I will do. The incentive to do better and make more money if I wish to. Then there's my 5 children, which I had through basic human instinct. You don't have that liberty of procreation in communist China.
Communism just tries to supress basic human insticts. As I've said.. speaking your mind- you have to "learn" not to, procreation (China only) very sad here, making a better life for you and your children (HEY I make enough to buy bread, and some vodka--And my son will too!!--) what a wonderful existense.
I can go on but I've made my most stiking points. Communism in practice is nothing like the theory. Democracy is far from perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far.

Democratic government with socialist inspired economic safeguards (often refered to as social-democracy) is the best there's been so far. It helps gives everyone more of a chance.

To the people defending america and wondering why the early communists were so set against democracy and capitalism, remember that back in the 19th century the balance was a lot more of "Rich owners who get richer ; poor worker who get poorer, and no chance to anyone."

Free Health Care, Free Education, Minimum wages, Social Wellfare and the like really changed the face of society, and though some of the lack of balance remain, chances are much more equal now in the more social-democrats country without sacrificing freedom of speech, democracy or the ability to make money based on your task.

It's not perfect, but it works. Sure there are high taxes, but better high taxes than a large chunk of the population barely being able to etch a living despite having a job. Sure there's some inequality, but at least people have an encouragement to strike out on their own, and to work hard.

Capitalism is all about absolute freedom - including economic.
Communism is all about equality.
Social-Democracy is about sacrificing a part of each while retaining most of it so that the system actually works.

Originally posted by ArmOrAttAk
I find communism threatening.
First off let me point out that this conversation alone would lead to some of us being put to death in a communist country. Speaking my mind is one of the freedoms I utterly enjoy. I also like politicians to have checks on them. Communists have no checks, either you play ball, or else you get whisked off in the night. It's nice to have the freedom to choose what to do with my life, where I live, what work I will do. The incentive to do better and make more money if I wish to. Then there's my 5 children, which I had through basic human instinct. You don't have that liberty of procreation in communist China.
Communism just tries to supress basic human insticts. As I've said.. speaking your mind- you have to "learn" not to, procreation (China only) very sad here, making a better life for you and your children (HEY I make enough to buy bread, and some vodka--And my son will too!!--) what a wonderful existense.
I can go on but I've made my most stiking points. Communism in practice is nothing like the theory. Democracy is far from perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far.


All I read here is thing against totalitarism not communism. China natality policy exist because the country is overcrowded, not because it is communism. Of course many communism ended up being dictatorship. There is a reason for that. Take Cuba for example. If Castro has accepted free speech, free organization, etc, the revolution would have lasted 1 or 2 years like Batista expected. If tomorow the USA is treatened and must suppress all freedom to conduct a research I'm sure msharpe, you or many one here won't be against so respect that if another country do the same.

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
there is point arguing if you can't accept the fact that some people actually want to be doctors. for reason other than money.

not everyone is motivated by money.
THat's just it. Not everybody is motivated by money. But I'd guarantee that most of them ARE. What about those who control where the wealth goes? How do you control who gets those positions? How do you ensure only the honest get a position of power? When you rely on idealism to keep your government honest, you end up with problems because for every idealist, there will be at LEAST one oppurtunist who will GLADLY work the system over for his own favor.

Originally posted by ArmOrAttAk
I find communism threatening.
Neither I, nor anyone else, can pacify another's fear of a ghost.

First off let me point out that this conversation alone would lead to some of us being put to death in a communist country.
Which communist country would this be? I've said worse in a communist country.

Speaking my mind is one of the freedoms I utterly enjoy. I also like politicians to have checks on them. Communists have no checks, either you play ball, or else you get whisked off in the night.
I suppose the USA is a communist country. Professors at MIT not permitted to speak their minds regarding NMD. Vietnam protesters blacklisted. Cambodian protesters shot to death.

It's nice to have the freedom to choose what to do with my life, where I live, what work I will do. The incentive to do better and make more money if I wish to.
This assumes incorrectly that a citizen in China does not have the 'right' to work where and when he chooses. Or that he will not get paid more and be promoted for quality. Or that he is not permitted to start a business.

Then there's my 5 children, which I had through basic human instinct. You don't have that liberty of procreation in communist China.
This assumes incorrectly that the '1 child policy' is literally what its title suggests. The '1 child policy' enforcement really means that a family not economically capable of supporting children shall be permitted one 'state supported' child. You can have as many as you want so long as YOU can support them.

I can go on but I've made my most stiking points.
Please go on...

Communism in practice is nothing like the theory. Democracy is far from perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far.
Maybe better to say:
Totalitarianism, in practice is exactly like theory - it sucks.
Democracy, is nothing like theory - it isn't quite paradise.

Communism, in practice is close to theory - most suffer communally.
Capitalism, in practice is close to theory - the few suffer less, the mass suffer more.

Originally posted by muppet
Then there's my 5 children, which I had through basic human instinct. You don't have that liberty of procreation in communist China.
This assumes incorrectly that the '1 child policy' is literally what its title suggests. The '1 child policy' enforcement really means that a family not economically capable of supporting children shall be permitted one 'state supported' child. You can have as many as you want so long as YOU can support them.


In fact this seems for me a question of responsability. Evan that involve a violation of a basic human-right today it clearly will have better effect tommorow


First off let me point out that this conversation alone would lead to some of us being put to death in a communist country.
Which communist country would this be? I've said worse in a communist country


During 1950's in Romania many people was imprisoned for something like this ! And also in U.R.S.S. !!
And also - there was almost impossible to have your own buisness in Eastern Europe during 1950-1989 !


Communism, in practice is close to theory - most suffer communally.
Capitalism, in practice is close to theory - the few suffer less, the mass suffer more.

He he ... that's nice !! :goodjob:

Regards

The countries that would have you dead for disenting political views: U.S.S.R maybe you need a refresher course in the ways Lenin and the gang handled this, Also: China- Tianamin Sq. will be my example.
As far as these professors at MIT, and Cambodian protestors: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Assuming Chinamen have all the personal freedoms that I enjoy, where to live, work is wrong? Maybe you're thinking this is a Honk Kong thread, it isn't. People are willing to risk their lives and their families lives to sneak out of that country. I can go live and work in GB if I want, without my govt. holding my family hostage and taking steps to prevent my leaving.
About this 1 child policy -being able to have more? I've never heard of this, I could be wrong but until I see evidence to the contrary I'll go on believing it's 1.
Go on: ok
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is what Democracy stands for.
All I've ever seen Communists do is take away these basic human rights. I see you quoted most of my post but you missed one part:(HEY I make enough to buy bread, and some vodka--And my son will too!!--) what a wonderful existense.
For all of you who think communism is great: I invite you to go live where it's in place. Great thing you can go, we don't build walls around here to keep the people in. You're just big hipocrites praising communism from your democratic abode. GO LIVE THERE I'm sure the communists govts. of the world will accept you with open arms.
No, it's better the way I said it.
Communism in practice is nothing like the theory.
In theory it works for the whole populace building a better place. In practice it supresses the populace nothing more.

Originally posted by ArmOrAttAk
Communism in practice is nothing like the theory.


I don't know if in 1950's Romania was a communist country but those decade was from far the devastating in my country history !! So I'm sick of "communism" ... :(

Anyway - people whine so much about fascism but here is a sad fact : The Iron Guard killed in 1930's 4 ministers and the commies killed in 1950's ALL the ex-ministers of the country who wasn't clever enough to run out of border !!

Regards

Democracy is where the people equally share the power.

Communsim is where the people equally share the wealth.

I believe these two to compliment quite nicely.

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
Democracy is where the people equally share the power.

Communsim is where the people equally share the wealth.

I believe these two to compliment quite nicely.

IF pure democracy or pure communism were possible, you might be right. Neither are. Pure democracy is mob rule. Pure communism is anarchy. Neither state is stable or desirable.

Originally posted by ArmOrAttAk
The countries that would have you dead for disenting political views: U.S.S.R maybe you need a refresher course in the ways Lenin and the gang handled this, Also: China- Tianamin Sq. will be my example.
The former USSR and China are both totalitarian.
Neither 'practiced' communism, though both 'claimed' to be communist.

As far as these professors at MIT, and Cambodian protestors: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe you need a refresher course in both American history and current affairs.

Assuming Chinamen have all the personal freedoms that I enjoy, where to live, work is wrong? Maybe you're thinking this is a Honk Kong thread, it isn't. People are willing to risk their lives and their families lives to sneak out of that country.
The desire to leave China has more to do with economic circumstances and life in a totalitarian state.

I can go live and work in GB if I want, without my govt. holding my family hostage and taking steps to prevent my leaving.
I do not doubt your country would not hinder your departure.
I have concerns the UK may not welcome your arrival.

China has no problem with the departure of its citizens.
The US has a problem with the arrival of 'illegal' Chinese immigrants.
Maybe the US could permit 'legal' immigration of these poor people so they no longer have to risk their lives?

About this 1 child policy -being able to have more? I've never heard of this, I could be wrong but until I see evidence to the contrary I'll go on believing it's 1.
I have seen it with my own eyes. When I asked, the explanation was simply, "We can afford to have children, so we are permited."
It makes sense to me. Why bankrupt the state when a family can not afford to feed its own children?

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is what Democracy stands for.
I have never read this definition anywhere. I could be wrong but until I see evidence to the contrary I won't believe it.

All I've ever seen Communists do is take away these basic human rights. I see you quoted most of my post but you missed one part:(HEY I make enough to buy bread, and some vodka--And my son will too!!--) what a wonderful existense.
It was not missed. Many in the pretend to be 'communist' countries are also economically wealthy, and their sons will be as well. It is just that a 'smaller' percentage of them enjoy a 'greater' percentage of the country's wealth. In a manner of speaking, they are more capitalistic than we are.

For all of you who think communism is great: I invite you to go live where it's in place.
As suggested earlier. There is no such thing as a communist state in the world we live in. They are totalitarian states, claiming to be communist and have adopted the communist lingo.
This is an impossible invitation to accept. One can not find a communist state in the world today.

Great thing you can go, we don't build walls around here to keep the people in.
Emmigration is not nearly as great an obstacle as immigration.

You're just big hipocrites praising communism from your democratic abode. GO LIVE THERE I'm sure the communists govts. of the world will accept you with open arms.
I am not a hypocrite. I have a unique perspective.

No, it's better the way I said it.
Communism in practice is nothing like the theory.
In theory it works for the whole populace building a better place. In practice it supresses the populace nothing more.
You are describing a totalitarian state claiming to exercise communist ideology.

The cold war is suppose to be over. Cold war propoganda should be dropped as well.
WE should stop criticizing communism.
THEY should stop claiming to be communist.

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
During 1950's in Romania many people was imprisoned for something like this ! And also in U.R.S.S. !!
And also - there was almost impossible to have your own buisness in Eastern Europe during 1950-1989 !

That sounds pretty horrible. What is Romania like today? Is it still a 'communist' state?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ArmOrAttAk
The countries that would have you dead for disenting political views: U.S.S.R maybe you need a refresher course in the ways Lenin and the gang handled this, Also: China- Tianamin Sq. will be my example.
The former USSR and China are both totalitarian. Neither practiced communism, though both 'claimed' to be communist.

As far as these professors at MIT, and Cambodian protestors: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe you need a refresher course in both American history and current affairs.

Assuming Chinamen have all the personal freedoms that I enjoy, where to live, work is wrong? Maybe you're thinking this is a Honk Kong thread, it isn't. People are willing to risk their lives and their families lives to sneak out of that country.
I have never even suggested that a Chinaman has the same freedoms as an American. The desire to leave China has more to do with economic circumstances and surviving in a totalitarian state.

I can go live and work in GB if I want, without my govt. holding my family hostage and taking steps to prevent my leaving.
I have no doubt the US has no problem with your departure.
I have concerns that the UK may not welcome your arrival.

China has no problem with the departure of its citizens.
The US has a problem with the arrival of 'illegal' Chinese immigrants. Maybe the US could permit 'legal' immigration of these poor people so they no longer have to risk their lives?

About this 1 child policy -being able to have more? I've never heard of this, I could be wrong but until I see evidence to the contrary I'll go on believing it's 1.
I have seen it with my own eyes. When I asked, the explanation was simply, "We can afford to have children, so we are permited."
It makes sense to me. Why bankrupt the state when a family can not afford to feed its own children?

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is what Democracy stands for.
I have never read this definition anywhere. I could be wrong but until I see evidence to the contrary I won't believe it.

All I've ever seen Communists do is take away these basic human rights. I see you quoted most of my post but you missed one part:(HEY I make enough to buy bread, and some vodka--And my son will too!!--) what a wonderful existense.
It was not missed. Many in the pretend to be 'communist' countries are also economically wealthy, and their sons will be as well. It is just that a 'smaller' percentage of them enjoy a 'greater' percentage of the country's wealth. In a manner of speaking, they are more capitalistic than we are.

For all of you who think communism is great: I invite you to go live where it's in place.
As suggested earlier. There is no such thing as a communist state in the world we live in. They are totalitarian states, claiming to be communist and have adopted the communist lingo. This is an impossible invitation to execute. One can not find a communist state in the world today.

Great thing you can go, we don't build walls around here to keep the people in.
The problem has more to do with immigration than emmigration.

You're just big hipocrites praising communism from your democratic abode. GO LIVE THERE I'm sure the communists govts. of the world will accept you with open arms.
I am not a hypocrite. I have a unique perspective.

No, it's better the way I said it.
Communism in practice is nothing like the theory.
In theory it works for the whole populace building a better place. In practice it supresses the populace nothing more.
You are describing a totalitarian state claiming to exercise communist ideology.

The cold war is suppose to be over.
WE should stop criticizing communism.
THEY should stop claiming to be communist.

As far as these professors at MIT, and Cambodian protestors: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe you need a refresher course in both American history and current affairs. I guess I need a refresher course, too. I have studied American History, and followed current affairs for all of my adult life (I'm 47 yrs old), and I cannot recall either of these two instances.

Please post a link to a reputable source.

IF pure democracy or pure communism were possible, you might be right. Neither are. Pure democracy is mob rule. Pure communism is anarchy. Neither state is stable or desirable.

Well I believe pure democracy is cabable, so were gonna have to agree to disagree:)

As for communism, well i'm not a purerist, so there's not much point me commenting.

As I have said many times before, communism is far to broader a word, it is used to describe far too many different idealogies/different groups.

For example:
My own views are vastly different to one of a Stalinist yet we would both get called communist.

All the arguments appear to be that "Mao and Stalin committed atrocities, but they are not real communists, therefore communism is not bad". The fact remains that communism is a failed ideology. It ruined Cambodia, North Korea, and the Soviet Union. It caused the deaths of thousands in the shadows between East and West Germany.

How do you claim that the Soviet Union was not a communist countries? By their own government's admission, they operated a communist planned economy.

Hi, here I am again.
muppet: The former Soviet Union, and China were/are communist. Just because you disagree with their interpretation of it doesn't make it untrue. I can't begin to fathom the benefit of claiming your government system is "a" when it's in fact "b". Thus I draw my conclusion communism in practice, etc. People don't like it so the government decides to supress them.
I would also like to see some lit on the MIT/Cambodians mentioned. I though my last post gave the impression of asking.
You did suggest chinamen have the same freedoms if they work hard, etc.
Please don't concern yourself with my being wanted in UK, but do tell why you think my arrival would be unwelcome.
China has no problems with departure of it's citizens. Pure nonsense: statements like this makes me wonder what propaganda you suscribe to.
Who did you ask about the one child policy? What is the income level needed to make 2?
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the american declaration of independence.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -Thomas Jefferson
Too bad mr. Jefferson isn't here to debate with you, he was much more eloquent than me.
On to next point. The wall I was referring to was Berlin wall, not the great wall of china. The problem was more so emmigration. There you go again making false claims.
There you have it, feel free to disect it line by line. Just don't doublepost it to page 5 :P

Originally posted by Padma
I guess I need a refresher course, too. I have studied American History, and followed current affairs for all of my adult life (I'm 47 yrs old), and I cannot recall either of these two instances.

Please post a link to a reputable source.

http://www.techreview.com/articles/taubes0402.asp?p=1

A five page article in techreview concerning:
(a) MIT Professor Theodore Postol
(b) Nira Schwartz
(c) Patriot Missiles
(d) National Missile Defence
(e) Abnormal behavior of TRW
(e) Government 'classification' of public information to prevent public debate.

http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Issue29/29okent.html

Just a site I found that lists a student protest in Ohio that resulted in the National Guard killing some rock throwing students. I am sure you can find old newspaper and film material on this event at a major library.

Padma, don't misunderstand me. I do not mean that the so called communists are better than us. I only mean that we are not saints either. Between the two, I would never give up my democratic rights.

After reading this thread I think maybe we should divide the debate between

1. communism as a particular ideology
and
2. communism as it is/was practiced by different states.

I guess that the threatening feeling comes from the second one. What the western media presented as "Communism" that was really threatening not just because of the actual problems (I grew up in Hungary so I have some experience) but because of the western government/media coverage bias also. But I find it weird that after the collapse of the Soviet Block this seems still a "threat" for some guys, when only a couple of so-called "Communist" states remained (but most of them are quite isolated as Cuba or North Korea).

Before someone would say :nono: , what's about China?, I think China is a special case, an interesting mixture of Communism and Capitalism.

Originally posted by ArmOrAttAk
Hi, here I am again.
muppet: The former Soviet Union, and China were/are communist. Just because you disagree with their interpretation of it doesn't make it untrue. I can't begin to fathom the benefit of claiming your government system is "a" when it's in fact "b"...
They were/are tyrannies and/or oligarchies. They advance the agenda's of the elite class by claiming their actions are done for the good of the whole based on communist principles. They manage to convince enough of the population to help supress the remainder.

I would also like to see some lit on the MIT/Cambodians mentioned. I though my last post gave the impression of asking.
See posted above. This does not mean I do not agree with the actions of the state. In a sense I think the state acted appropriately. I just believe we should be more aware of our nasty behaviors in situations of 'neccessity' (sp?).

You did suggest chinamen have the same freedoms if they work hard, etc.
You're right. Correction: What I meant is that they do have some degree of economic mobility. Though generally, I agree they have far far less freedom than we do.

Please don't concern yourself with my being wanted in UK, but do tell why you think my arrival would be unwelcome.
I don't really mean that they might not like you. Only that immigration to a '1st' world nation is not automatic. EX: I can immigrate to Japan or the US because I have a degree. The 'average' Canadian or American can not immigrate, for example, to Japan just because he/she feels like it.

China has no problems with departure of it's citizens. Pure nonsense: statements like this makes me wonder what propaganda you suscribe to.
There are probably millions of immigration applications made from China to countries like Canada and the US every year. WE accept very few of them. The bottleneck is in the receiving country.

Who did you ask about the one child policy? What is the income level needed to make 2?
I contact of mine who is a company President in China, is a Chinese citizen, and has 2 children.

Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the american declaration of independence.
Exactly. It is a passage from the Declaration of Independence. It is not the 'definition' of democracy.

On to next point. The wall I was referring to was Berlin wall, not the great wall of china. The problem was more so emmigration. There you go again making false claims.
OK. You're right. I was referring to the excess immigration applications from China that WE in North America are turning down. I concede that I never even thought about the Berlin Wall. I didn't even think about problems in Romania.

I tend to think of 'now'. I have a habit of forgetting about 'then'.
I refuse to accept that these countries are communist. They do not fit the definition of communist. They fit very well the definition of tyranny, totalitarian, etc. We shouldn't fear communism. We should fear tyrants!

Why do people find it threatening?

Simple, cause its not democratic.

Lastly, the Korean war. I'll make it quick. Even someone on these forums mentioned that if America had won in Korea, they would have also taken a large chunk of China aswell. What were the Chinese doing? defending their homeland, fighting back the invaders. They weren't fighting Americans because they were communist, they did it because they wanted to protect their country.

Thats incorrect. China attacked UN forces outside its borders, without provocation. They only did so to save the rapidly collapsing North Korean communist government from annihilation.

However, the past is the past. I for one am very happy to see our two countries drawing closer again.

America and China now share intertwined destinies in this new century.

I expect the Chinese will play the key role in reigning in the current North Korean government, and avoiding a new Korean war in the future.

Originally posted by muppet
That sounds pretty horrible. What is Romania like today? Is it still a 'communist' state?

What part sound pretty horible ?

No - it's not a communist state - but it's somekind of "political-industrial oligarchy ruled state with bad advices from IMF" ... what is probably even worse in many aspects. :(

Regards

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan

No - it's not a communist state - but it's somekind of "political-industrial oligarchy ruled state with bad advices from IMF" ... what is probably even worse in many aspects. :(

Actually most countries in Eastern Europe have the same problem. They are run by a left- or right-wing oligarchy (in Hungary for instance we change them at every election :crazyeye: but it doesn't get better of course). The only difference between them is that right-wing oligarcies in EE also try to force sovinist ideologies. I guess we have to wait some generations to get rid of this "elites".
And on the other hand unfortunately most countries in EE have to follow the IMF "advices" since they have a lot inherited financial problems but struggle with a political pressure from the population that wants western-type lifestyle. It's really a 'catch 22' you will not be re-elected if you try to reorganize economy by raising prices. People don't care about macro-level economic achievements, because don't understand them, if they see that the price of bread is increasing: game over.

Originally posted by klazlo
And on the other hand unfortunately most countries in EE have to follow the IMF "advices" since they have a lot inherited financial problems but struggle with a political pressure from the population that wants western-type lifestyle. It's really a 'catch 22' you will not be re-elected if you try to reorganize economy by raising prices. People don't care about macro-level economic achievements, because don't understand them, if they see that the price of bread is increasing: game over.

In fact IMF advices are definately a non-sense in many aspects : almost anywhere applied go to disastrous results.

The problem is more "deeply" with this advices ...

Regards

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan

In fact IMF advices are definately a non-sense in many aspects : almost anywhere applied go to disastrous results.


Maybe the structural adjustment program of the WB/IMF in South Korea is a clear case for this, I think Bruce Cummings had a chapter about it somewhere.

Originally posted by muppet


http://www.techreview.com/articles/taubes0402.asp?p=1

A five page article in techreview concerning:
(a) MIT Professor Theodore Postol
(b) Nira Schwartz
(c) Patriot Missiles
(d) National Missile Defence
(e) Abnormal behavior of TRW
(e) Government 'classification' of public information to prevent public debate.

http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Issue29/29okent.html

Just a site I found that lists a student protest in Ohio that resulted in the National Guard killing some rock throwing students. I am sure you can find old newspaper and film material on this event at a major library.

Padma, don't misunderstand me. I do not mean that the so called communists are better than us. I only mean that we are not saints either. Between the two, I would never give up my democratic rights. I don't think I misunderstand you, I just have some problems with your arguments. :)

1) I thought you might be talking about Postol. But he hasn't actually been prevented from voicing his opinion on this. Yes, the government has played some silly classification games which prevent the issue from being fully and openly discussed, but he is still free to voice his opinion. Otherwise, we wouldn't even know about it.

2) I thought you meant "Cambodian Protestors", not "protestors against the actions in Cambodia". I do remember Kent State. That was a case of group of National Guard members (the same age as the protestors) being physically attacked by the protestors. Being young, and scared, some of them "broke" and fired on the protestors. A terrible event, as traumatizing to the shooters as to the victims. But it definitely was not a deliberate, planned killing of protestors.