Is Communism actually that bad?

[Mr Changsha]

Politically of course, in the sense that it is a communist party that has an iron grip on the power levers of the country.

by definition it is impossible for the government, to the extent it even actually exists in a communist system, to have an iron grip on power in one. china is an authoritarian police state, and is only nominally socialist, much less communist. none of your criticisms of chinese society are a result of communist policies, rather failures to institute them

Yeah, it reads great in a textbook but I think you are missing a fairly key point. Mao DID institute a socialist system into China from 1949 until his death....with the eventual aim of moving on to communism in the end. That period completely fucked the country and any Chinese would tell you the same...if they were being honest with you.

The fact that I've spoken to thousands of mainland Chinese about these things (including the people who lived through these times... including the cultural revolution) might make you step back a bit.

Of course you will claim Mao's communism was all wrong. I know that. But nonetheless, Mao made a genuine and serious attempt at socialism from 1949 - 1978. It was only when Deng got control of the country and began to make some small capitalist reforms that the country began to recover.

Yes and no. For one thing, the Nationalists and Japanese had each ran complete havoc with the country. Do I think the country would have been better rebuilding on its own? Of course! Mao punished intellectuals of all kinds, came close to destroying thousands of years of culture and committed many other ills.

However, fewer people were hungry under Moa than previously. He absolutely suppressed dissent, but China has not precisely had a tradition of free speech.

Btw...'China is an authoritarian police state'. How do you know? Do you live here? Do you actually know shit about China?

You don't have to live there to know that China is hardly a truly free country.

I'm not saying it exactly isn't (though it also isn't so simple I'd need to write an essay to explain why), but what experience have you had to justify the claim?

Everything is complicated, but the way the internet was restricted for even international journalists during the Olympics said a great deal about their "openness", as does the fact that so few Chinese know anything about Tibet or other minority issues.

I hate to close down a debate...truly I do. But China is such a unique, confusing country with layers upon layers to unravel. To say 'China is a police state' IS facile, at least it seems that way to me...probably because I've uncovered more layers to this place than you could dream of.

As an example, in my six years here I've never seen a policeman run. Can you believe that? I've never seen a cop car go whizzing past with its lights on. Can you believe that either? Its a strange police state, where the police truly don't interfere in the lives of their citizens...unless they get political.

To be frank, I could write a book on 'what you don't know about China'.

Maybe you could write a book on what Chinese know about stuff...based on your 'so few Chinese know anything about Tibet or other minority issues'. How do YOU know that? On what are basing that statement?

You say that you don't have to live in a country to have a view on it. I'd day fair enough. But this is not like being from the US and writing about the UK.

I don't have the motivation/energy to write the 3,000 words I would need to point about the flaws in your arguments. You are coming at this subject from one of complete ignorance...there is literally that much to correct between the two of you. Its rather like if you let out where you live in the US, and I googled a few articles about the city and decided to tell you what you don't know about the place.

Anyway, this thread is about communism not China. I've given my views (briefly) on how communism effects a country and I'll leave it at that.

[6.57]

Economically it is more confusing. Hyper-capitalism to an extent, but then there is an enormous percentage of the industrial capacity still in government hands.

You amplify the point that any genuinely communist country develops every ugly characteristic of Uber-Capitalism.

Only a whining, shrill-pitched, 17 year old girly-boy from the US could possibly argue with the experiences of a Chinese resident. What makes me laugh, is that if the socialist dreams of the average college-aged american schoolboy came into fruition, they'd be the first to cry out in their shrill, bleating voices:

"Waaaaah!! WAAAAH! I don't want to go out to pick potatoes in the field.. I want to play on my PS2.. WAAAAAH"

[Mr Changsha]

Economically it is more confusing. Hyper-capitalism to an extent, but then there is an enormous percentage of the industrial capacity still in government hands.

You amplify the point that any genuinely communist country develops every ugly characteristic of Uber-Capitalism.

Only a whining, shrill-pitched, 17 year old girly-boy from the US could possibly argue with the experiences of a Chinese resident. What makes me laugh, is that if the socialist dreams of the average college-aged american schoolboy came into fruition, they'd be the first to cry out in their shrill, bleating voices:

"Waaaaah!! WAAAAH! I don't want to go out to pick potatoes in the field.. I want to play on my PS2.. WAAAAAH"

Well I will just say that political systems evolve, hence the well known point that communism looks great on paper but seems to just go horribly wrong in practice.

Mao really did have an idealised vision of a society without material concerns, everyone pulling together with a common purpose, the elimination of class distinctions, selfishness and greed.

He really did want that...at least in the 50's and 60's, before he got old and into the young girls.

But the result was that they had no money to build anything, so all the building that went up from 1949 till well into the 1990's were absolutely appallingly made and have all had to be knocked down. And while he wanted to eliminate class distinctions, the result was a mass dumbing down that led to a country of ill-educated (terribly ill-educated) people who (literally) forgot about manners and the benefit to society of collectively behaving well. And he wanted to dispose of the landlord class, so he collectivised farming, but he couldn't control his local officials who took more than they should and he couldn't control the bigger cities who then took from the local officials. So then the peasant wondered why he should bother to grow anything at all for anyone else and they all horded their food and then 100 million people died of starvation during the great famine in the 1950's.

However, Mao did unify the country and he was probably the only man who could have done it. That's why the Chinese say Mao was a great man, but he made plenty of mistakes!

So communism looks great on paper, but societies evolve and, at least in the case of China, that evolution (from within the communist prism) made China a much worse place culturally and intellectually... and economically the best one could say was that it stalled for 30 years...in a period of massive economic growth around much of the rest of the world...consider the US from 1949 - 1978 and the progress made. Consider the progress China is making now and you'll see why most Chinese would say that Mao's communism was a bit of a nightmare...''just think where we would be now'' they say, "if we were doing then what we are doing now!" They look at South Korea and Japan and they know that communism was not good at all for the country..

...but then Mao UNIFIED THE COUNTRY and they get confused again and wonder if Mao and his communism were great after all!

Ok, absolutely last post on China. I never write about China here...

[PLAYER57832]

I hate to close down a debate...truly I do. But China is such a unique, confusing country with layers upon layers to unravel. To say 'China is a police state' IS facile, at least it seems that way to me...probably because I've uncovered more layers to this place than you could dream of.

As an example, in my six years here I've never seen a policeman run. Can you believe that? I've never seen a cop car go whizzing past with its lights on. Can you believe that either? Its a strange police state, where the police truly don't interfere in the lives of their citizens...unless they get political.

To be frank, I could write a book on 'what you don't know about China'.

hmmm, only 1... I could write several. And probably also on what I don't know about the US, though I have lived here most of my life (not all).

Anyway, my basic point is that nothing is ever clear-cut, particularly when you are talking about a large nation. To be a "police state" does not really mean you see police everywhere. It means that people do not feel free to speak out agains leadership, the government. In china, it is vastly complicated because A. You can speak out on some topics and B. in many cases people don't even know enough to dissent. Information has been so well suppressed that people don't know a lot (and yes, I fully realize that what people really know and are willing to admit they know are 2 different things).

Maybe you could write a book on what Chinese know about stuff...based on your 'so few Chinese know anything about Tibet or other minority issues'. How do YOU know that? On what are basing that statement?

You say that you don't have to live in a country to have a view on it. I'd day fair enough. But this is not like being from the US and writing about the UK.

No and sometimes that is the point. A small example. I have always been raised to abhore racists. Then I moved down south and suddenly I realized that all those racists had human faces, too. Not only that, but blacks and whites lived and worked together in a way that ALL seemed to argue worked for them. I was baffled and frustrated by some of the hypocrisy, but I also found that the more I lived there, the less critical I was of the people. I moved up north and something similar. Yet, at the same time, leaving the south gave me yet another perspective.

No one perspective is fully correct or fully wrong. You have to look at it all and also understand some inherent biases. That is my point. The fact that you live/have lived in China gives you greater knowledge about some things, but also greater bias.[/quote]

Anyway, this thread is about communism not China. I've given my views (briefly) on how communism effects a country and I'll leave it at that.

That's fine, but for you to dismiss views that might differ from your own is as incorrect as for others to dismiss your views because they vary with their experience/knowledge. Nothing is really gained by saying "I just know better". Even though sometimes, on the internet, it is necessary.

[PLAYER57832]

To get back on track, I remember hearing that one reason Communism was able to take hold in both Russia and China, as opposed to Europe is the extrem feudalism you saw in each of these countries prior. Many people like to consider Russia "western", but it really was always more "eastern" than "western" in many ways. While Gregorian nobility had absolute rule in many areas, just the fact that there were so many more nobles in Europe, so many more kingdoms led to divirsity and more individualism. (greater chance for it). The Tzar had complete and utter control. So, too, the Chinese emperors. Europe already had an emerging middle class well before WWII, but Russia and China were each still largely fuedal. (fuedal is actually not the correct term, but I cannot think of the correct one).

When you and your grandparents have lived with years of seeing very, very, very wealthy and powerful nobles able to take what little you have on a whim (essentially), with little or no checks on their power, having security and the idea of "shared wealth" sounds pretty good. When you start out with no or few rights, you are less likely to worry about their loss. Add in outside threats -- Nazis made a convenient enemy from Russia, Japan from China -- and it became easy to unite. Making the west a new enemy further completed the transition. (which is not to dismiss in any way more personal motives, etc.)

[Rustovitch]

I've heard all the horror stories, but I can't help but wonder if those are just propaganda from the American side, and that it just seems bad because I'm born here. It actually sounds like it could have significant economic benefits along with the disadvantages.
What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Communism is 'bad' because it 'inevitably' results in a dictatorship and it generally arises in countries with serious problems. The net result is that the regime will generally kill a whole lot of people and oppress the survivors.

You can argue however that it does have certain benefits, Russia, a defeated and backward state was transformed into a nuclear armed super power able to compete with America in the space race and indeed the cold war.

Oh sure it ultimately lost of couse, but it had come far. Of course you could counter argue that Russia was not all that backward (rather underdeveloped would be a better term), but would another ideology have raised it so high?

There is of course China, fairly stable, rich, apparently relatively happy and a superpower apart from the lack of military adventurism and aggression.

Even north korea! A nation of starving peasents, utterly stable and holding the war hostage.

All these Communist (or pseudo-communist) countries have the same negatives in common.
They were built on a whole lot of innocent blood.
They look on Capitalism with envy, Russia married it, China is having a secret affair with it, North Korea wishes she would return her calls.

Yea so Communism sucks.

[KuppenTruppen]

I see that there are many people in this thread who do not understand Communism in the slightest. One of the most glaring mistakes is the claim that under Communism, no matter how hard one works, or what one does, you still only make as much money as some dude who picks potatoes, because the wealth is redistributed equally. This is not true, and anyone who has the least understanding of Communism would see that aforementioned form of bastardized socialism is something no sane man would suggest, and something all Marxists would abhor. Marxism was created because people saw that the Capitalist class had forced the workers into an inescapable bondage by only paying the workers enough to keep them coming back. The idea behind it was that Capitalists, were in fact thiefs, because the food they ate, and the roofs they slept under, were paid for by the workers, while they were forced into ghettos with barely enough to survive. The Capitalists were in fact getting luxurious lives, while doing nothing to support it. So you can see that under Communism, it would be ridiculous to have welfare, which is essentially getting something for nothing. Under Communism, you only get what you have created through your own sweat and blood. To get more would mean theft from others, and to get less would mean you are being duped.

By the way, here's the Communist Manifesto, in case anyone wants to read it.
http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CM47.html

[Rustovitch]

There is far more to it than that.

In any case I don't think we should concern ourselves with the details of communist theory because that would lead on and on about how such and such is not Communist and we won't get anywhere at all!

[Simon Viavant]

Communism is 'bad' because it 'inevitably' results in a dictatorship and it generally arises in countries with serious problems.

Any change of government (except a coup) happens because the country has serious problems. Communism cannot turn into a dictatorship because the people are in control, not only of the government, but also of the economy. Capitalism is more fascist than communism. Capitalism is the real one that inevitably turns into a dictatorship. There is a class division, which just grows larger and larger, and becomes an aristocracy and then a dictatorship.

Oh sure it ultimately lost of course, but it had come far. Of course you could counter argue that Russia was not all that backward (rather underdeveloped would be a better term), but would another ideology have raised it so high?

It lost the space race? I'd say they did better than us. We decided we were the
winners because we got to the moon, but they did so much more. If you're talking about them splitting apart, it was because the government turned tyrannical and therefore it wasn't actually communism. (see above post)

They were built on a whole lot of innocent blood.

Not a whole lot, only a little. This is the whole principal of communism, it might hurt a few fatcats but everyone benefits. Industrializing their nation may have cost a few lives in labor and dealing with the locals, but they rose higher than any other nation when they did that.

[KuppenTruppen]

You know what Rustovitch? Get the hell out of this thread. If you are not going to have a reasoned debate, and just say everyone else is wrong, then get out, and go whack off while you dream about Bill O'Reilly.

We should not concern ourselves with Communist theory because then we would see what is and isn't communist? That's what this thread is about. You know what else? China isn't Communist, and neither is N. Korea, and Neither is Vietnam. They're all god damned fascist police states.
In all those countries, who controls the means of production? The workers? No! It's the state. Who controlled industry in Italy, Spain, and Germany during the reign of Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler?
The state. Nationalization of Industry is not a part of Communism, it is a key part of Fascism. Add to that the personality cults found in N. Korea, Stalins Russia, and China, and you see that they are fascist. What states made their leaders look like infallible idols? Hitler was thought to be Gottlieb. Mussolini was considered higher than the Pope by most Italians. And Republicans still seem to think Bush to be a fricking hero, after he botched 2 wars, destroyed the economy, and set up everything needed to turn the US into a bloody Police state. And now that Obama is in power, you're worried about those things happening. Most of you Americans are just as blind as the Chinese kid who thinks he lives in freedom, or the Vietnamese women who thinks she is in a workers paradise.

[Rustovitch]

Communism is 'bad' because it 'inevitably' results in a dictatorship and it generally arises in countries with serious problems.

Any change of government (except a coup) happens because the country has serious problems. Communism cannot turn into a dictatorship because the people are in control, not only of the government, but also of the economy.

I would really suggest you look up Stalin.
In fact maybe try to find a Communist state that is not a dictatorship!

It lost the space race? I'd say they did better than us. We decided we were the
winners because we got to the moon, but they did so much more. If you're talking about them splitting apart, it was because the government turned tyrannical and therefore it wasn't actually communism. (see above post)

It blatantly lost the overall race, and in any case it was tyrannical from the start.

They were built on a whole lot of innocent blood.

Not a whole lot, only a little. This is the whole principal of communism, it might hurt a few fatcats but everyone benefits. Industrializing their nation may have cost a few lives in labor and dealing with the locals, but they rose higher than any other nation when they did that.[/quote]

http://www.ukrainiangenocide.com/

[Rustovitch]

You know what Rustovitch? Get the hell out of this thread. If you are not going to have a reasoned debate, and just say everyone else is wrong, then get out, and go whack off while you dream about Bill O'Reilly.

Actually you know what I think I will stay.
I did even know who Bill O'Reilly is and I could not be bothered to read the rest of your post sorry!

[KuppenTruppen]

You know what Rustovitch? Get the hell out of this thread. If you are not going to have a reasoned debate, and just say everyone else is wrong, then get out, and go whack off while you dream about Bill O'Reilly.

Actually you know what I think I will stay.
I did even know who Bill O'Reilly is and I could not be bothered to read the rest of your post sorry!

Which is exactly what I mean, you refuse to look at other peoples opinions, and justify it with some BS reply.

[sully800]

Your statement really didn't deserve a reply - name calling and insulting has no place in a reasonable debate. If you want someone to read your points and possibly understand your mentality then you need to be reasonable yourself.

(This is not singling out KuppwnTruppen but anyone who cannot be civilized and listen to the other side and then retort in an educated manner).

[Simon Viavant]

Communism is 'bad' because it 'inevitably' results in a dictatorship and it generally arises in countries with serious problems.

Any change of government (except a coup) happens because the country has serious problems. Communism cannot turn into a dictatorship because the people are in control, not only of the government, but also of the economy.

I would really suggest you look up Stalin.
In fact maybe try to find a Communist state that is not a dictatorship!

Oh stop getting off topic and actually make a real argument

It lost the space race? I'd say they did better than us. We decided we were the
winners because we got to the moon, but they did so much more. If you're talking about them splitting apart, it was because the government turned tyrannical and therefore it wasn't actually communism. (see above post)

It blatantly lost the overall race, and in any case it was tyrannical from the start.

Because you say so? Stop spamming this thread and making bigoted uncivil arguments.

They were built on a whole lot of innocent blood.

Not a whole lot, only a little. This is the whole principal of communism, it might hurt a few fatcats but everyone benefits. Industrializing their nation may have cost a few lives in labor and dealing with the locals, but they rose higher than any other nation when they did that.

http://www.ukrainiangenocide.com/[/quote][/quote]
This is exactly what I'm referring to. Only a tiny part of the country lost out because of that, and everyone else benefited enormously. Of course with your deluded bias and stubborn resistance to see facts you couldn't grasp that notion.

You also completely failed to address my point that capitalism will inevitably morph into fascism.

[Rustovitch]

You know what Rustovitch? Get the hell out of this thread. If you are not going to have a reasoned debate, and just say everyone else is wrong, then get out, and go whack off while you dream about Bill O'Reilly.

Actually you know what I think I will stay.
I did even know who Bill O'Reilly is and I could not be bothered to read the rest of your post sorry!

Which is exactly what I mean, you refuse to look at other peoples opinions, and justify it with some BS reply.

Or conversely I address the opinion offer a contrary one and supply evidence for my position. If you don't want your views examined by other people then don't post them. I have just as much of a right to post as you do.

[Rustovitch]

Oh stop getting off topic and actually make a real argument

You stated that Communism can not be a dictatorship. I suggested that you look up Stalin and maybe find a Communist country that was not a dictatorship.

Because you say so? Stop spamming this thread and making bigoted uncivil arguments.

I have not spammed, I made a cogent response. I have not many bigoted or uncivil remarks.

This is exactly what I'm referring to. Only a tiny part of the country lost out because of that, and everyone else benefited enormously. Of course with your deluded bias and stubborn resistance to see facts you couldn't grasp that notion.

10 million people is not a tiny part of the country! This is merely one example of the genocide conducted under Russian Communism.

You also completely failed to address my point that capitalism will inevitably morph into fascism.

That was not a point, I assumed you were joking.
Maybe you would like to support your point with examples?

Out of interest, why start this thread asking for a discussion when all you will do is insult and scream at anyone who is not a Communist?

[hecter]

Oh stop getting off topic and actually make a real argument

You stated that Communism can not be a dictatorship. I suggested that you look up Stalin and maybe find a Communist country that was not a dictatorship.

Well, first you'd have to actually find a communist country.

[6.57]

Find a capitalist country as well, whilst you're at it.

[muy_thaiguy]

Oh stop getting off topic and actually make a real argument

You stated that Communism can not be a dictatorship. I suggested that you look up Stalin and maybe find a Communist country that was not a dictatorship.

Well, first you'd have to actually find a communist country.

Well, there were a few that started out along that path, but each and every one has gotten stuck on the dictatorship part.

[6.57]

I think that the idealism involved within belief systems such as Communism and socialism is all well and good, but unfortunately limited to kids who have no idea of the value of a Pound (or buck), who's idealism and niaveity are very sweet and endearing (clears throat and spits aggressively on floor) but are hosts to thoughts and ideas that are impractical, unnatural and altogether unproductive.

Unfortunately alot of these nippers have been raised within a society that is painfully politically motivated. Risen by appathetic, wayward parents, these poor kids look towards someone to look after them, as they feel helpless having been risen within weak families, with no sense of dignity or class. These children then become indoctrinated within the state systems of their nation, and look to the government for the parental guidance they never recieved as a child, thus becomming attracted to a feeling of care they have never experienced in their lives.

Thus, big government is the answer to these emotionally deprived kids, who will entrust with all the might they can muster into the 'loving, caring big brother' that they never had as a child.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry for them.

[notyou2]

The problems are not with communism, fascism, socialism or capitalism, the problems are with the people. People are generally greedy and like to exploit others, this I believe to be the root of the problem. Human nature is the culprit.

Some ideologies work better for some things as an example capitalism has the benefit of the products produced may be continually improved on a faster basis.

I believe the best system is an amalgamation of all of them which seems to result in a predominately socialist style with a capitalist economy.

[6.57]

I believe the best system is an amalgamation of all of them which seems to result in a predominately socialist style with a capitalist economy.

This best describe Britain's disposition.

It aint great mate.

And yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you that people are the problem.. I fucking hate people.

The sooner the nukes come into play the better.

[Symmetry]

I'm no huge fan of communism, but I'll throw in my two cents. First off, it's pretty clear that communism as described by Marx is pretty different from the kinds of structures employed in "communist" countries. The economic philosophy behind communist principles has been particularly effective though.

Once you get away from Cold War era fear of the word, you can see that a significant number of major countries benefitted from communist rule. Of the major Cold War enemies of the US- the USSR, China, Cuba, and Vietnam, all seem to have emerged from periods of strong communist rule economically better off than if they had followed capitalist paths. This is meant just as a casual observation, so I welcome criticism. I'm not going to pretend that human rights aren't a major issue either.

My point is that communism provides a solid transition stage between a hardline dictatorship and full capitalist democracy in a lot of cases. Democracy can, after all, be divisive without tradition. I wonder if communism would benefit a nation like Afghanistan, for example, as a way of transition between hardman rule and the active participation of citizens in the political process.

[Snorri1234]

Wait...why hasn't Norse been banned yet?