Communism: A Real Evil or A Victim of Propaganda?

[jroa99]

I don't really demonize nor idolize neither communism nor capitalism...they each have their own (and some shared) flaws and advantages....according to one of my college professors (a pretty left of center but reasonable guy), communist theory has a couple of problems, when applied to the real world:

1)It shares with capitalism/liberalism an almost blind belief that the progress of science will be overwhelmingly positive for society and that it will repair its own contradictions ("science will fix this, science will fix that, eventually. Don't worry...").

Unfortunately, technological progress, in itself, tends to divide, and not unite, society, because of the higher and higher degrees of complexity and specialization that it demands. Other than promising a "world of robots" in the far off (can you say approaching infinite?) future, nobody has adequately addressed this.

2)It couldn't really resolve one of labor's most fundamental divisions: that there's going to be "white collar" and "blue collar" work. Someone has to lead and organize from afar, while others have to follow and get their hands dirty.
You can decree equal remuneration (payment) for both if you want, but the difference isn't going to disappear (even if it becomes easier to handle, in the short term).

The social, political and economic consequences of this lead to further divisions..."equality" becomes a matter of perspective.

And a third (which I've implied from the above and other stuff)...

3)It promises a virtual utopia in some far off (infinite, once again) future, just like capitalism/liberalism did/does. By doing so, it raises its own expectations too high, when faced with the cold realities that come up in life and history.

This is all just roughly speaking, of course. I'm no expert and I can't accurately represent everything that he really said, these are just my own intepretations of his words, which probably have more (or different) holes than what he originally explained. Still, it's a pretty interesting argument, flawed as my exposition may be (can you tell that I won't be surprised at all if someone tries to pick this apart? ).

 

[luiz]

How does the assignment of jobs in capitalism differ from that in communism? In capitalism, the decision is made by those in power in the structure of a company. In communism, the decision is made by those in power within the structure of the government. The decision is still made by someone other than you.

I and only I chose my job, or rather the career that I'm studying to follow. Nobody forced me to do anything.

And I'm not "in power", as you mention with your class-warfare vocabulary. My family does not own a corporation. I'm a middle-class citizen of a poor nation, and yet I chose my proffession freely.

Now if I was a cuban, things would be different.

I'm really not sure of your 'fact' about housing shortages, so I will refrain from answering that for now, but I'd imagine that the devastation of WWII had something to do with it.

Then explain Cuba. There were no nazi troops in Cuba, and yet people are forced to live in tiny homes shared with tens of people.

The explanation has nothing to do with WW2. It has to do with the (rather obvious) fact that without private agents in the building business, the government is forced to pay for all housing constructions. Amd the government, especially under communism, can't pay for that. Hence the overcrowded and crappy houses.

Regarding automobiles, those were a commodity, and not a necessity until very recently in every part of the world other than parts of Europe and the USA. Judging a communist government on its inability to compete with a capitalist one in the realm of commodities is always going to favor capitalist countries. Some people do not value commodities as highly as you do, and they are hardly a universal 'truth'.

Those "some people" are most likely tibetan monks. Because every single person I have met in my entire life takes material comfort very seriously. And to deny that Capitalism can offer more material comfort is to be stupid.

And I reserve to myself the right to determine what is a necessity for me. The government has no right telling me what I need and what I don't.

Atheism should be encouraged as a stepping stone to actually finding some sort of spiritual enlightenment, as it causes a break from dogmatic thinking. I do agree that this factor did affect the downfall of many communist governments, however.

Religion should be a purely personal matter, the government has no right to encourage or discourage it.

Mixing state and religion goes both ways.

 

[newfangle]

I think you accidently quoted Perfection Luiz.

 

[luiz]

I think you accidently quoted Perfection Luiz.

Yep , I had this

copied from another thread.

Fixed it now!

 

[Sims2789]

The more I sit and watch America's so-called Democracy become more and more corrupt, both in the government and by far too many of the people, I wonder what other system might work. Often times my thoughts lean towards something where everyone is equal in a more true sense, sharing more and working together more, for the betterment of all. Now sure, everything is capable of becoming corrupt, but was the fall of Communism due to the corruption, or the nudge that rival Democracies imposed upon it? Couldn't it just as easily have gone the other way, with America fragmented and the CCCP leaning on the world?

I created this thread with the intent of gettings facts about Communism (and maybe comparisons to other governments) without the propaganda, so as to get a better understanding of what worked, what failed, and what was or can be learned from it. Opinions are welcome also, as a revised form of Communism or Socialism is likely the next step towards a Unified-type government - but please, no trolling or flaming. We all know democracy won out - but this is not an America-CCCP thread, it's meant for the understanding of Communism and the future of a potential revised version.

By Communism, do you mean what the Soviet Union claimed was Communism, or do you mean actual Communism?

 

[BasketCase]

When someone points out a Communist state that failed (such as the Soviet Union) the claim that "that wasn't true Communism" is very common.

To which, this idea just occurred to me: the fact that so few "true" Communist governments have cropped up, in a world where so many desire true Communism, suggests that "true" Communist governments are unable to get a foothold.

If true Communism can't survive in the real world, there ya go.

 

[stormbind]

There has never been a safe Communist state. I think it can only work with Democracy.

Every former Communist nation has been a hypocricy. Stalin, for example, was a Capitalist - because he profited at the expense of others. One rule for himself (or his friends) and one rule for everyone else.

 

[Longasc]

rmsharpe: Nobody is going to like the "communism" of East Germany or the former USSR.

Describe my idea of a "good"/"better" communism more as socialism. I am no advocate of job assignment by anyone else than me, too.


newfangle: OK, you have an insurance, great. You took care for yourself.

What about those who have no private insurance. They have obviously failed, they do not deserve better or what?

I do not see any problem with losing "freedom" by a mandatory social insurance for everyone, an insurance everyone can afford. It is also close to positive morale values:

"I care for myself, no time to care for the others" is too true nowadays. This is by far no "communism" at all. I think it is WHY a mandatory social insurance for everyone is a very needed and good addition to free enterprise and capitalism. You could still chose your insurance, but you would have to have one. There are different systems, only one governmental health / social insurance or multiple ones, some private enterprises, too. I guess this is leading a bit too far to discuss this in detail as such things are obviously a new idea to americans - this is not intended to be an insult, it is just because it is obviously a new idea for America. (Vote me for president, the latest test has shown that I am a bit left man of the middle, hehe)

Private Insurances have problems - nobody is going to insure someone who has an expensive illness. The weak, those who need it, fail with this system. Not everyone has the money of a Christopher Reeves.

finally

Longasc: Now think of a social insurance, everyone is supposed to pay in. Poor unlucky newfangle gets at least the basic treatment. Not bad at all!

newfangle: I'd consider the prospect that someone was forced by the government to take care of me to be far crueler than actually being crippled...

You should NOT MISQUOTE or misinterpret me. Please stop that.

You have problems to grasp the concept? You have horror visions I do not know where they derive from.

Modern Societies would grant you money in this case for:

- hiring a helping hand / nurse
- get necessary machines

without taking you the right of choice.

 

[The Person]

What's the point in discussing this? This is the kind of argument where people are so entrenched in their own opinions that it's impossible for anybody to switch sides. As long as both sides think that their opinion is "right", nothing will be achieved.

 

[Longasc]

As long as everyone thinks EXTREME communism and EXTREME capitalism are the answers, things will be all wrong and theoretical. The truth is somewhere in the middle, the truth of the thinking man.

I advocate that capitalism needs some social parts, or it will end up like communist socialism did in the past.

 

[(+) Influence]

Stalin, and FDR both killed a lot of people. They both kill their enemies. Yet when an imaginary boundary is drawn around where they act, one is evil and the other is virtuous.
Mao and Lincoln both killed their countrymen. Yet when one does it, he is evil and when the other does it he is virtuous.
Huessin and Reagan both funded terrorist states. Yet when the American does it he is virtuous.

 

[Sims2789]

When someone points out a Communist state that failed (such as the Soviet Union) the claim that "that wasn't true Communism" is very common.

To which, this idea just occurred to me: the fact that so few "true" Communist governments have cropped up, in a world where so many desire true Communism, suggests that "true" Communist governments are unable to get a foothold.

If true Communism can't survive in the real world, there ya go.

True Communism would work if people were perfect. But we're not. That's why Communism (I mean Communism, not Soviet 1-Partyism) cannot work. Note that that is not to say that Soviet 1-Partyism does work.

 

[amadeus]

True Communism would work if people were perfect.

There you go again!

How is the destruction of the initiative of man a step to "perfection?"

This "perfect" commune that you describe, is it voluntary or compulsory?

 

[Winner]

Nothing personal, but i think, that people who have not lived in some communist country, can really imagine, how absurd, stupid and crazy the communist regime was

I can post few examples based on my own experience from former Czechoslovakia:

Only adequate adress was "comrade". So the children in school called their teacher "comrade teacher". Anybody who used different words such as "miss" or "sir", was suspected of being anti-communist and thus anti-state element by police and secret police (StB - State Security in CZ). Another signs of anti-regime thinking were long hair, singing english songs etc.

Almost everyone hated communist rule and Soviet Union (expecially after they invaded us in 1968), but had to listen incredibly stupid communist propaganda. One of regime's slogans was "Forever with Soviet Union!". Czech people paraphrased it to "Forever with Soviet Union, but not a single day longer!"

Everyone had a job. Unemployment was oficially non-existent. In fact, this system was absolutly ineffecient - the work, which is in capitalist countries done by one man, was done by three or four workers in communist states. Just for the reason they HAD to have a work. Who refused to do inadequate work regarding his education, was jailed as a "parasite"

It was really terrible and i am so happy, it is over. Pople in the West should be grateful they lived in free, democratic part of world.

(and pleas forgive me my english )

 

[amadeus]

Thank you, Winner, for that very insightful input on the kind of life lived in the Eastern Bloc.

Be wary, though. Your descriptions, as horrible as they are, are probably the kind of utopia that an acne/angst-riddled teenager is searching for.

 

[Winner]

Thw worst on this is a fact, that Czechoslovakia wasn't the most brutal of Eastern bloc countries. I think situation in DDR (east germany) or Romania was much worse. Not even talking about USSR itself.

And actually, 15 years after velvet revolution we have still Comunnist party in parliament, and its support range from 10 to 20 percent. It is terrible, how short the memory of some people is...

 

[sourboy]

I'm glad to see a plethora of responses here, as many good points were made. However, I still don't have enough reason to call Communism unreasonable.

The CCCP failed, but in another version, China has found at least some success. Many have said it isn't worth the effort to live under Communism because the people can't abide, but what if they did? Could it not thrive if given enough time? I look at the military, and though they aren't following Communist patterns, they are working together with a not so far off approach. If Communism can't work the way it's been done so far, what could be altered to make it work - assuming the people give it a fair shot as a whole?

Eventually a new type of government will emerge and I think it's safe to say it will be comprised of the positive elements of Democracy & Communism. I made this thread to gain an understanding of Communism itself, with the Soviet Union and China, and even Cuba, as nothing more then examples of its flexibility. Why couldn't industry, healthcare, housing, and food fall under Communistic ways - so that all give and receive, but then have the direction of the country, laws, science, etc fall under Democratic ways, so as to let the people contain actions of corrupt leaders?

No need to respond to this post as a crazy rant, but please show me how this isn't at least reasonable - or maybe give ideas as to what may work better.

 

[Winner]

But there was one attempt to merge socialism and democracy. On the end of 60's, there was a movemet called Prague spring (maybe you heard about it). The basics were to remove censorship, restore freedom of speech and reform socialist economy to something more efficient, some hybrid of capitalism and socialism, one can call it "third way". People were enthusiastic, were allowed to travel tu the West to see their relatives, who fled after communist coup in 1948, and they admired reformist communist in government.

This all ended in august 1968 with Soviet invasion. It was not as brutal as it was in Hungary, but still there were more that hundred killed people. After invasion, the period called "Normalisation", in fact return to the communist totality, followed.

So much for humane communism

 

[MajII]

The more I sit and watch America's so-called Democracy become more and more corrupt, both in the government and by far too many of the people, I wonder what other system might work. Often times my thoughts lean towards something where everyone is equal in a more true sense, sharing more and working together more, for the betterment of all. Now sure, everything is capable of becoming corrupt, but was the fall of Communism due to the corruption, or the nudge that rival Democracies imposed upon it? Couldn't it just as easily have gone the other way, with America fragmented and the CCCP leaning on the world?

I created this thread with the intent of gettings facts about Communism (and maybe comparisons to other governments) without the propaganda, so as to get a better understanding of what worked, what failed, and what was or can be learned from it. Opinions are welcome also, as a revised form of Communism or Socialism is likely the next step towards a Unified-type government - but please, no trolling or flaming. We all know democracy won out - but this is not an America-CCCP thread, it's meant for the understanding of Communism and the future of a potential revised version.

I can understand how you would become disenchanted with your democracy, as I am beginning to feel the same way about my own and that of other nations. But I still believe it to be the most egalitarian, prosperous and free system of government. When combined with a capitalist economy it can combine to form an excellent social order.

The success of a democracy hinges on the vigilance of the people that form it; essentially the electorate decides its course. Should apathy and disinterest set in, the system begins to fail, and the megalomaniacs of society begin to take hold. Should voter laziness continue, the power brokers' foothold strengthens as their influence on the binding facets of society (legislation & law, education, policing, business, policy etc.) mounts. Their personal interest trumps that of the group; not by virtue of their righteousness, but by the power of their position. There is no single overarching conspiracy, only the common behaviour of power-hungry persons that explains the gradual shift in events. Small groups may form in which these individuals plan small grabs and takeovers. In small numbers, these groups do not make a significant impact on the society as a whole, but altogether they form an incredible erosive force.

I can't think of any way to sustain a democracy. Unless a strong democratic ethos is implanted in the collective psyche and enforced by an exemplary education system, the democracy will revert to a simpler form of government (e.g. oligarchy).

A democratic communist government may work, but its lifespan would be much shorter than that of a democratic capitalist one.

 

[Longasc]

The problem is that people only see absolute capitalism and absolute communism.

Both governments have positive aspects. Lets combine social ideas in an otherwise free market, freedom of speech and democracy.


We could start a list of the POSITIVE ideas of capitalism and communism. Then try to merge them!

Extremism in every form is stupid and will not work, picking out the advantages and combining them is well worth the effort.