'commies'

[D' Artagnan]

IIRC, the last communist states are : Cuba, North Korea, and China. There's no doubt about them being lands of freedom and equality

 

[Jorge]

I think any argument against comunism based on the real experiences (URSS or China) is not valid (as is not valid to argue against cristhianism because of the crusades or the inquisition).

The real argument has to be based on the ideas.

Comunism basic idea can be sumarised as no private ownership of the production means. This would lead in theory to a perfect society without classes.

The big problem is that there is no freedom in this system, as no one is allowed to start a business on his own. This lack of freedom is unacceptable to many people, and that's why comunism is a bad system (a system that makes the citizens unhappy is bad regardless any other consideration in my opinion, as happiness must be one of the main goals of a social system).

 

[Furry Spatula]

well the reason i use the history of communism as a critique of it is simply because it hasn't worked at all. You cannot find an example of Communism being created and not becoming a dictatorship.

True, Christianity has a bad history. But it isn't all bad. There is good parts scaterred throughout. But Communisms history in the real world isn't one of establishing succesful states that treat people well. Sure eveyone is equal ,if they aren't in government. Poor, cold, and brutalized.

 

[John Wayne USA]

Cant compare Christianity and Communism.

One is an ancient religion that has lasted for thousands of years.

The other is the product of pure evil that has brought only more evil onto the world. It is a modern phenomoneon that has had a very very short life span.

Thankfully.

Moderator Action: restricted until the log on name conform with no bashing and no trolling rules. Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by Furry Spatula
well the reason i use the history of communism as a critique of it is simply because it hasn't worked at all. You cannot find an example of Communism being created and not becoming a dictatorship.

True, Christianity has a bad history. But it isn't all bad. There is good parts scaterred throughout. But Communisms history in the real world isn't one of establishing succesful states that treat people well. Sure eveyone is equal ,if they aren't in government. Poor, cold, and brutalized.

Yes, but that was not the purpose of the comunism. They were looking for an ideal society, and that's why some people support it. They don't care weather it have been a failure or not, they still think that in case it were a success it would be the best system. So the only way to argue with this people is showing them that even in the case it were a success, it's not the perfect system they believe it is.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by Boycott France
Cant compare Christianity and Communism.

One is an ancient religion that has lasted for thousands of years.

The other is the product of pure evil that has brought only more evil onto the world. It is a modern phenomoneon that has had a very very short life span.

Thankfully.

Yes, they can be compared. None of them are evil as the people who support those beliefs really think that it's for the good. The problem is that both are wrong.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Furry Spatula
And Fred. I see your point and i didn't mean to come across that way (ie blindly saying that democracies and capitalist countries never turn bad) I know that it happens. However, i was just saying that looking at %ages of countries that succesfully implemented communism and didn't have it deteriorate, it is considerably lower that capitalist democracies, 0% compared with something above 0 .

Well, than we have common ground.

Anyone who read my posts and pay attention, on this thread or any other I participated about this theme (and there were some), will notice that I do not support communist parties nor want it to take over now. Humanity is not ready to live a system that have the mechanics of an utopia. Experience showed us that, and, like you, I’m not blind to the harsh facts.

I just try to establish one concept here: that a bad implementation is not a good reason to hate a good idea. And equality, justice and freedom are always good ideas.

Communism, as an idea, was all about that.

Why it had a 100% rate of failure? Well, you are right about why. Because humanity was not really prepared to it. I think economy is just too complex of an reality so one can break completely with what it was and create something new to replace that. Trying that is not wise, it’s in fact a great prove of megalomania.

I know that Greadius interpreted that as if I was placing the failure of communism in the back of humanity instead of the system, but he is wrong. Not being ready for a good thing is not something detrimental. Because even good things, when implemented in bad timing, can end up in disaster. Even in the simple world of civilization, few of us fail to realize that there is a time and a place for everything, and that forcing things before it comes will rarely work.

To make a long idea short, I think that if someone had tried to force capitalism in Europe (abstractly assuming it existed in theory just for argumentative purposes) right after the fall of the Roman empire, when circumstances called for the Feudalism… well, I doubt it’s rate of success would be any better than that of communism as we knew. And I don’t think it diminishes the merits of what’s good in capitalism one bit.

As I said to Luiz (in Portuguese, so I’ll repeat the point here), if communism comes, I don’t think it will ever be like that. The only chance it ha of working is if it develops little by little, naturally, like it happened in capitalism, when people one day woke up and notice that they were living in a system that is completely different from what it once was. Maybe it will be irrelevant to call it communism then; but naming is hardly what matters to me.

Originally posted by Boycott France
Sometimes it is necessary for the US to support such dictators in some countries......Am I happy about it ? No.
Do I feel it was necessary? Yes
Did it work out in the long run? Yes
Will I apologize for it? Of course not. We were defending freedom. Capitalism is freedom.

My friend, so you think you can defend freedom by destroying the freedom of others?

That is the very logic of dictatorships… the one of defending ideals and not fearing killing, mutilating and enslaving for it. It’s a paradox, and it’s the very definition of hypocrisy.

Even if we agree, again for argumentative purposes, that communism is an evil plot to destroy humanity, supporting dictatorships makes USA just as bad to those countries as the communists would be. When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change. He changes you.

Really, only someone who never experienced the terror of an dictatorship, the terror of having your ideas suppressed and having your life and healthy at disposal of paranoid lunatics fighting ghostly red conspiracies, could ever say something preposterous like that.

It’s very easy to play pragmatic and cut the losses when it’s someone else the one who has to pay the price.

But I wonder, if it were the USA that "had" to become a dictatorship in order to fight communism (and I won't even enter the matter of alternative ways of doing it), if your opinion would be just the same.

Think about that before you go to sleep this night.

Regards .

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by FredLC
The only chance it ha of working is if it develops little by little, naturally, like it happened in capitalism, when people one day woke up and notice that they were living in a system that is completely different from what it once was. Maybe it will be irrelevant to call it communism then; but naming is hardly what matters to me.

That's the way.

In some parts of the world, we're doing just that. This approach seems to work very well.

 

[thestonesfan]

True communism is impossible without iron-fisted oppression from those with authority. If we were ants, it would work great. But we aren't.

I dislike it because the very thought of the community providing everything for the individual is offensive to me. The idealogy is that of those who do not excel, and do not wish for anyone else to. It's not bringing everyone UP to the same level, it's bringing everyone DOWN to the same level. At least, bringing everyone down but the enforcing elite. Enforced equality is not equality at all. I don't want to be a part of the collective. We're all individuals and we should act like it.

People who fail in life, or have yet to really experience it, are communists.

 

[Stapel]

In my view anyone with common sense understands communism only brings poverty by the end. Even hard line former communists say so. A former dutch communist party leader told a couple of weeks ago on TV: I am the only one here that has disbanded a communist party, and I am proud of it.

A small anecdote how communism works:

Everyone has a state provided house and state provided medical care and state provided education. Apart from that any citizin has 1000 euros a month to spend on food, clothing or whatever he or she desires. All is well. Let's assume a bread, baked by the state's bread baking company costs 1 euro in the state owned supermarket.

What if I know a way to make and sell a bread for 80 cents? So that every other citizin will be able to buy more other stuff. Will I do so? No, I won't, because I cannot keep the profit. That simple it is.

People need a reward to make things happen. Money is the best way to do so.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Cecasander
Why do a lot of Americans hate communism so much?
I don't really get it. And don't come with things like 'the treat their people bad' and 'they have punnishment camp' and other Stalin-age stuff, becourse the US opposed the USSR during Lelins age too. Is it becourse Americans don't like 'power to the common people' and 'equilty' (and other Marx-terms), or does the Communist ieda just doesn't fir in the American Way of Life, with 'self-made men' and 'total freedom'?

As posted before: Anyone with common sense hates communism. You most certainly do not need to be american for that.

What does wonder me: Why are americans, in many cases, so affraid for state sponsored healthcare / education? In other words: Why do the hate socialism or at least social aspects, guided by the government?

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by Stapel
What if I know a way to make and sell a bread for 80 cents? So that every other citizin will be able to buy more other stuff. Will I do so? No, I won't, because I cannot keep the profit. That simple it is.

Why not tell the state bakery about it, that way you get cheeper bread and can by more bread. To hold of that knowledge is kind of simple minded " If I can't make money of it NOONE shall benefit from it." Like a child that throws away the candy so noone can have it cuz he is told to share.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by vonork


Why not tell the state bakery about it, that way you get cheeper bread and can by more bread. To hold of that knowledge is kind of simple minded " If I can't make money of it NOONE shall benefit from it." Like a child that throws away the candy so noone can have it cuz he is told to share.

Would the state reward you for your ingenuity? No, that would be unfair to the people who aren't able to innovate bread making. You worked on improving the bread, yet you get nothing for your hard work. Why even work on the bread? For the betterment of humanity? Humanity can get along fine with the current bread system. Suddenly progress just isn't worth the time.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by vonork


Why not tell the state bakery about it, that way you get cheeper bread and can by more bread. To hold of that knowledge is kind of simple minded " If I can't make money of it NOONE shall benefit from it." Like a child that throws away the candy so noone can have it cuz he is told to share.

You like it or not, but this is the way the world turns around!

To give a more decent answer: One wouldn't even think of inventing a cheaper way to bake bread, if one gets no reward.

People need to be stimulated to gets things happen. Money, though not the only stimulation, has proven to be a good one.

 

[bigfatron]

Marxist communism is fatally flawed due to Marx's determination that it could only be brought through violence. I cannot condone any political system that espouses violence rather than peaceful change.

As a philosophy it fails due to the way that it puts the levers of society into the hands of a small group, which can - and invariably will - perpetuate itself rather than surrender power. In this way it is no better than any other dictatorship.

Democracy is the only system that MAY prevent this tendency for social groups to obtain a headlock on power - the Bush-Gore election, betweeen the sons fo two established and powerful political families, showed how hard it is, even in a real democracy such as the US, to ensure that power is genuinely dispersed.

However, I would never say that I HATE Communism, any more than I hate Christianity or Capitalism - it is the ABUSE of these philosophies for power, money or status that I abhor.

Freedom, justice and equality are a dynamic - too much of any and too little of the others leads to suffering; the trick is to get the balance right and keep it there. Communism fails because it puts too great an emphasis on one of the three 'legs' of the base on which society rests.



Just one other point: claiming that effort, progress and innovation is impossible without capitalism is very wrong IMHO. One of my colleagues comes from an immensely wealthy family and need never do a day's work in his life if he so chose, yet he works hard and does a truly excellent job.

Many of us do jobs because we derive satisfaction from them, and we work hard because we enjoy doing something well. We innovate because we enjoy the challenge of creating something new and better. Sure a financial reward helps, but it is not the be-all; otherwise, how to explain the great amount of charitable work that people willingly do?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Furry Spatula
I agree with you that it has had a less than favourable past. I know you are not condonig what is happening, and i didn't mean to pick solely on China, but that is a communist state that has a long history of killing people of religious groups and it was the first that came to my mind as i know some missionaries who worked there. But remember that Communism has a less than favourable history too, the sword is double edged.

I'm just pointing out that probably that the Chinese Communist govt crack down on religious groups, as much because they're Chinese, as they're Communist.

Imperial China had a long history of cracking down on religion - beginning with the Tang cracking down on Buddhism (too many lands were being taken off the tax lists into the hands of Buddhist temples), in the 7th century CE. That's why we don't have anything like the Catholic Church in the West e.g., in China.

Religious or pseudo-religious groups had also had a long history of being leading peasant rebellions against the imperial govt, like e.g. the Christian Taipings in the mid 19th century. Probably the most devastating in terms of human losses in world history (yes, worse than WW2).

Occasionally they succeeded though. Like the Ming, which grew out of a pseudo-religious anti-Mongol grassroots movement.

Hence the Chinese attitude.

But mistake me not; I have no love for Communism...

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Greadius
Redundancy again. If you can't vote for much of anyhting, NOT being able to vote for a communist isn't a tragedy in and of itself, but part of the greater tragedy of political oppression.

I don't quite understand.

There've always been opposition parties in M'sia and S'pore (probably not, in Suharto Indonesia though). Like PAS in M'sia, the presently the most powerful one and Islamic. They controlled 2 state govts in the NE W M'sia (the most Malay ones), and almost took 1 more (the PM's home state even).

Many of the component parties in the ruling coalition National Front used to be opposition parties as well; wooed to join the govt side over the decades.

There's still the Workers Party in Singapore, even today, but marginalized 'cause the ruling PAP is simply too entrenched and popularly supported...

Democracy is well and alive in these parts (sort of) - just we're too small, and too new perhaps, to have the style of democratic tradition in the West. Not every democracy has to follow the pattern set down by you guys IMO...

It's only the Communist Parties that're banned.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by bigfatron
Just one other point: claiming that effort, progress and innovation is impossible without capitalism is very wrong IMHO. One of my colleagues comes from an immensely wealthy family and need never do a day's work in his life if he so chose, yet he works hard and does a truly excellent job.

Many of us do jobs because we derive satisfaction from them, and we work hard because we enjoy doing something well. We innovate because we enjoy the challenge of creating something new and better. Sure a financial reward helps, but it is not the be-all; otherwise, how to explain the great amount of charitable work that people willingly do?

Money is not the only thing that makes people work. But it is one of the most important things. Others are education/example (my mummy taught me to work hard / my daddy works hard, thus so do I) or pride.

As to your arguement of 'challenge of creating something new and better': In many cases it is not just the invention of something new, but the way it is put in to the market / brought to the consumer. At this point, money is what counts!

 

[tonberry]

Originally posted by SunTzu
don't feel like getting involved in this one, i'm too tired :yawn:
Anywho, got one question for all of you commie lovin really cool guys out there Is Vietnam still a communists state? or have the changed into a more democratic nation?

Still communist. Why do you ask?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by XIII
It's only the Communist Parties that're banned.

Which just begs the question "Why?"

There are many measures of democracy, and part of that is the tradition and establishment concurrent with it. Banning parties is not the sign of a democratic state.