Communism: A Real Evil or A Victim of Propaganda?

[nonconformist]

Perhaps we shouldn't ascribe any death tally to communists and instead chalk the casualties up to dictatorships, as that appears to align more closely to "killing one's own population" than communism. Of course, if communism can only be effectively implemented via dictatorship, it is certainly a black mark on the economic system, as what level of economic prosperity would justify the possibility (one might say probability) of a significant percentage of your nation's population dying?

Right on! This is probably the most constructive thing to come out of this thread, and I agree 100%!

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

@stonesfan Good post dude

I have seen alot of people say that Communism is good in theory, but doesn't work here in reality* - why? It really isn't a good idea. I don't want my whole life mapped out by some 'comrade' who thinks he knows more about me than I do. I don't want to give all my hard-earned money to that same 'comrade' so that he can hand it out to some under-achiever on the other side of the country, "for the good of the people". Its my money and I should be the one thats gains becuase of my hard work. I don't want to be part of the all-knowing hive mind - I want to be an individual, and make choices that concern me myself.

*I don't get this one - if its not good in practice, then how is it good on paper?

 

[Gelion]

Perhaps you should replace "USSR" with "Russia", although I'm fairly certain at least a quarter of the Sovietites Hitler killed were non-Russian.

Perhaps you could read some more history books?!! I disrespect anyone who doesn't make a difference between Russia and USSR and you are one of them.

 

[Gelion]

I don't know what mental illness people develop that makes them support communism. It's not a nice idea, it's a rotten idea. You are forced to be a non-achieving loser. But I guess that's what the neo-commies usually are.

Thats your perception. Tell me honestly what did you read about Communism? Huh? Works of Marx perhaps? Or Lenin? I bet you don't have a clue what it really is. Stop bull***ing it ok? Talk about propaganda.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Perhaps you could read some more history books?!! I disrespect anyone who doesn't make a difference between Russia and USSR and you are one of them.

I am well aware that there were more in the USSR than Russians*, I just thought the Nazis were just as good at killing Ukrainians/Latvians/Estonians/Belorussians/etc. as they were at killing Russians.

*Indeed, the number of countries in the world probably tripled when the USSR fell apart.

 

[Gelion]

Peace ......

 

[nonconformist]

I don't know what mental illness people develop that makes them support communism. It's not a nice idea, it's a rotten idea. You are forced to be a non-achieving loser. But I guess that's what the neo-commies usually are.

This is a completely non-constructuve comment,. and you could quite as easily replace "communist" with "Capitalist" or even "jedi" and it would make as much of an argument.

 

[IglooDame]

Thats your perception. Tell me honestly what did you read about Communism? Huh? Works of Marx perhaps? Or Lenin? I bet you don't have a clue what it really is. Stop bull***ing it ok? Talk about propaganda.

I think there have been several threads on "What is communism" attempting to differentiate "real" communism from what Marx, Lenin, Engels, etc said it was and what the various leaders of Soviet/People's Democratic Republic countries actually implemented. If you'd like to clarify for all of us, please do so.

 

[Free Enterprise]

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.

Exactly correct.

If one is equating communism to the use of a command economy then it is possible to empirically show that it is not effective if effective is defined as a high standard of living for the majority of the population, technological innovation, and good economic growth.
If one says that there has not been communism before (which is true if Marxism and communism are considered one and the same) then there must be some reason what there have been no large scale Marxist societies. I know that people often come up with various ideas about how to run a government however that does not mean that all can be put into practice in the situation that exists in the world. Marxism is not feasible on a large scale (not that I think it works well on a small scale however).

Karl Marx thought that all states would eventually wither away however if one thinks about it how is it really possible to have both anarchy and socialism? If that system worked well it would have to be seen as effective by now. It might can exist temporarily on a very small scale however it does not last very long if it tries to go beyond that. This idea is an additional problem to the inability of a socialist economy or command economy to operate at a competitive capacity.

 

[thestonesfan]

Thats your perception. Tell me honestly what did you read about Communism? Huh? Works of Marx perhaps? Or Lenin? I bet you don't have a clue what it really is. Stop bull***ing it ok? Talk about propaganda.

To tell you the truth, I AM a little mystified about the elusive and wondrous nature of TRUE communism. Please, tell me what it is, so I may realize the error of my ways, and so I may be unshackled from the burden of logic as you are.

 

[thestonesfan]

This is a completely non-constructuve comment,. and you could quite as easily replace "communist" with "Capitalist" or even "jedi" and it would make as much of an argument.

Let's try it.

I don't know what lack of senselessness people develop that makes them support capitalism. It's not a nice relaxing idea, it's an exhausting idea. You are forced to actually do something. But I guess that's what the neo-cappies are all about.

Yeah, I had to change a few things, but you could fit capitalism in there. Let's do it for jedis.

I don't know what sister-kissing disease people develop that makes them support jedism. It's not a nice idea, using a blaster is a nice idea. You are forced to be a droid-loving hermit. But I guess that's what the neo-jedis usually are.

A stretch, but it works too.

 

[Free Enterprise]

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

Well communism could be considered more than just an economic philosophy. I think it would perhaps be appropriate to compare either socialism or the command economy to a free market economy. Although there are many different definitions of socialism floating around I think it would be possible to argue that socialism is a system of state owned production and distribution that seeks to implement a egalitarian society (only in terms of wealth since socialist countries may or may not seek other types of equality). There are various forms of government that are compatible with socialism.

There is still a question that needs to be resolved however after noting the previous statements: This is whether or not there all forms of the command economy are socialists or whether socialism is simply one form of the command economy. For instance would a state run feudal economy be socialism or would both be different froms of a command economy (since feudalism does not seek equality).

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

That can work effectively provide the proper doses are administered. There must be some role for the state (after all the state and idea of a government have both existed for thousands of years so both are definitely useful). I agree that some state oversight is useful (to prevent malicious actions such as false advertising for example). Despite this there is often a probem with states tending to seek too much power for themselves and being very reluctant to give it up even if it is for the good of society. The proper quantity of each technique is the key.

 

[amadeus]

...or Walesa...

As long as you're heralding Walesa as a communist, you might as well put Chiang kai Shek and Helmut Kohl up there, too.

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

communism has many good points-just many bad people have taken advantage of it.

 

[nonconformist]

As long as you're heralding Walesa as a communist, you might as well put Chiang kai Shek and Helmut Kohl up there, too.

Walesa was a socialist.

 

[luiz]

You are already wrong there: Hitler liked Capitalism as such and was more of a Capitalist himself than a Socialist. Even his army was kitted {sp} out by "private" companies like in most "western" countries.

Even without getting into the name of Hitler's Party, I think it's safe to say that a leader who monopolised pretty much all economic activity in the hands of the state cannot be described as a capitalist. The economy of the Reich was planned, and guess who plans economies? (Hint: not the capitalists).

 

[luiz]

Hitler criticised the USA from time to time, but he was anti-communist as it is physically possible to be.
His economic policies were hardly communist- banning unions was one of the first things he did. His main support came from big companies.

Hitler hated Liberalism and Communism equally, because he perceived both as a threat to german nationalism.

But the way he handled the economy is incompatible with Capitalism.

The big companies you mention were almost 100% controlled by the government. Every single step in the production chain was regulated by the state.

The myth that Hitler was an ultra-capitalist was spread by the KGB, with the purpose of making the western democracies look like theside that resembles the Nazis.

But I need not to remember you which side had a cooperation treaty with the Third Reich. The Soviet Union perceived Germany as a key allie.

 

[luiz]

Walesa was a socialist.

That's really odd, because in an interview Walesa gave to a local newspaper he said that there was "not a single good thing" about communism, and that was his disagreement of Lula.

Doesn't sound very socialistic to me.

 

[amadeus]

"Communism is a monopolistic system, economically and politically. The system suppresses individual initiative, and the 21st century is all about individualism and freedom." - Lech Walesa

"I am not a socialist." - Lech Walesa, 1980.

Walesa also praised the election of Ronald Reagan, saying that it was "good for Poland" and "good for the world."

I don't think he's a socialist.