Why do people find Communism so threatening?

[Sabotage]

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.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

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

 

[Richard III]

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.topic

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

 

[Supernaut]

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.

 

[amadeus]

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

 

[napoleon526]

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.

 

[Padma]

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.

 

[Rain]

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.

 

[Damien]

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.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

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.

 

[Supernaut]

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.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

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

 

[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".

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.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

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,

 

[Rain]

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.

 

[Richard III]

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...

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

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

 

[bigfatron]

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).

 

[Rain]

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.

 

[sgrig]

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.