Was communism really that bad??

Yes it was that bad, and worse. It wasn't hated just by the west either. We hated it too. At least those of us who were on the 'wrong side'. But your questions are too many too broad. What are you seeking? any particular aim to this or just curiosity?

Mainly after the stalin years i want to know what was so bad in soviet russia.




-Hans

The Soviet Union was one of the world's most oppressive and murderous governments ever. The DPRK, with a far smaller stage, has done its best to replicate Stalin's system. Ruthlessness has typified all of the so-called communist regimes.

Its hard to imagine how terrible a world we would have today if Hitler and the Axis Powers had not been defeated. Many on the Left seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the Communist block. The Cold War was just as earnest, and fought with just as deadly purpose as WWII. The campaigns and conflicts of the Cold War were often fought in the shadows, and almost always between clients of the two contending sides. When U.S. forces were required, the conflicts were always depicted as if they were separate events, not campaigns in a larger conflict. We "won" by stalemating the DPRK, and, though Vietnam was a political loss, the US/West demonstrated its willingness to directly confront the Communist threat. The political loss in Vietnam was not on the battlefield, but in the livingrooms of America, and the consequences were immediatly evident in other SE Asian countries, SW Asia and Africa. Even so, in the long run the United States prevailed because its political system and economy was far superior to that of the Soviet Block.

If the U.S. really has a problem with communism, they'd better get serious about Korea.

Ok maybe the soviets were bad but in cuba they love castro yet the americans call them "evil" whats with that??





-Hans

This is a falsehood.

We are serious about the DPRK. Our commitment to the security of ROK is firm, though recently we've announced troop reductions of about one third. Kim Jong-Il is in his sixties. He seems to be in reasonably good health, and there are some signs that American willingness to directly engage Saddam did not fall on deaf ears.

DPRK is one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet for several reasons. First, is the military threat they pose to ROK. They have at least some nuclear warheads, and short/medium range delivery systems. They have been developing longer range missiles, but haven't proceeded to the stacking stage yet on them. They have the world's largest special forces units, and large numbers of infantry/artillery/tank regiments. A very high percentage of DPRK first line units are deployed very close to the DMZ, and DPRK artillery can reach well into Seoul. On the other hand they have virtually no air power, and the DPRK naval forces are very poor, though they have a small number of Soviet diesel submarines capable of operating within theater. The threat of the DPRK renewing the Korean War at this time is regarded as low. Jong-Il is unlikely to risk taking on the U.S. Military as long as it is an effective presence in ROK, the U.S. Navy in theater, the Marines on Okinawa, and Airbases in Japan. Jong-Il is eccentric, but not crazy enough to risk loss of power by engaging the US directly.

DPRK is desperately poor, with almost its entire productivity devoted to maintaining one of the world's largest armies. The economy has repeatedly been on the brink of complete collapse, and only supplies from ROK and the United States have prevented collapse several times in the last 20 years. The economy is almost entirely agricultural, but is unable to feed the population. Starvation is a constant threat, and many refugees slip over the border into PRC to beg food. The Party and the Military are fed well, but children suffer chronic malnutrition. Almost the only exports are military supplies, i.e., cheap knockoffs of soviet designed rifles, missiles, etc. There are some strong indications that DPRK has been helping Iran develop a nuclear capacity by exporting vital materials. The danger is that DPRK seems to have no compunction against selling anything to anyone if they have the hard currency.

The DPRK is also a threat to the region if it should suddenly collapse, or if famine becomes much worse in the countryside. The people of the DPRK are probably the world's most brainwashed, and significant numbers have completely "bought into" the propaganda they've been fed for over fifty years. To unleash hordes of starving people on ROK and/or the PRC would be very destabilizing to those economies. Add to that the political fanaticism of many North Koreans and the world could have some really tough problems.

Never trust anything coming out of DPRK. This is a regime who has no compunction about lying, and they only respect force. Give in on anything to the DPRK, and you will be fighting them over details for years as they try to exploit every nuance.

Cuba is on the cusp of change. Castro goes, and it will probably be a whole new ballgame. "Evil" is rhetoric.

I think communism has had great batches of trouble being acted out. So has capitalism. I have always been interested in the inbetween, and the inbetween has always been excoriated in my immediately accessible press. Leaving aside, if you can breathe in, the millions who have died on various sides, just looking at the ideas, why is it ideas are so frightening? wouldn't it be better, gee, now we can do it computeresquely, to extrapolate to futures and talk about matters?

In my view, the extremes of capitalism are not good for ordinary humans either.

I doubt it. Of course, it is impossible to measure in any comprehensive way, since Castro's government won't allow free elections or even, say, neutral opinion polls or anything. So all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence of various kinds. On the one hand, the Cuban press will assert that everybody does, indeed, love Castro, but then the opposite opinion would not be allowed to be printed. On the other hand, dissident activists relay how many Cubans are disgruntled, and many still risk their life trying to flee across the sea.

Then there is the simple, yet ambiguous anecdotal evidence of what any random Cuban "on the street" will tell, say, a holiday-goer or journalist about what he thinks of Castro. I'll illustrate how it is ambiguous by recounting an anecdote.

In 1986, I went with my family to Poland and then to Prague, in Czechoslovakia. In Poland, the 1980 insurrection had been beaten down and just two years before, a dissident priest had been murdered by officers of the Security Service. People were angry, and did not hesitate for a second to tell us so, cursing General Jaruzelski right behind the backs of marching soldiers. Churches had demonstrative memorials for the priest. In Prague, however, noone came up to us to speak bad of the Communist regime there. In fact, noone much came up to us at all. The one or two times we gently probed someone's general opinion about anything political at all, they'd change the subject.

Now arguably, the whole thing proved that in Poland, where people complained about the Communist regime all the time, there was more freedom than in Czechoslovakia, where noone said anything bad about it at all. So one needs to trod carefully with anecdotal evidence ...

Poland and Hungary were less stalinist than totalitarian Czechoslovakia. Kadar's (Hungary) motto 'who's not against us, is with us' vs. the stalinist 'who's not with us, is against us' (sounds familiar?). But everywhere you would find that elections were 99% in favor of the Communist Party ( if you didn't vote the right way, your child just won't make it to the school of his/her choice or you'll lose your job) and you'd find millions participating in the celebrations of the 1st of May - carefully staged and obligatory. Does that prove people loved the regime? Not in the least. The only people who dared to speak out spent years in prison, were followed, former professors worked as manual workers, etc. etc. Even in Poland and Hungary, at least until 1988, before the first power-sharing attempts.

Just to show the other side of the coin
Yes, the communist regimes were very oppressive, did not tolerate free speech and a range of other rights we take for granted. On the other hand they did believe in the right to a job and in education.

Before Castro rural Cuba was desperately poor and uneducated. The Castro regime brought education to the masses as well as free medical care, etc. Those were real improvements that gave him a large following (whatever the US propaganda likes you to believe). No popular uprising has occurred against Castro despite all the efforts of the CIA.

Unfortunately for the Cubans, the social benefits deteriorated after the fall of the Soviet Union, because they were the main trade partner of Cuba, which as you might know is still under a US embargo after 40 years. The US sanctions are actually what keeps Castro in power, because he can blame all adversity on the US. It has been this spiteful attitude of the US and their support of capitalist right wing dictatorships that have created the circumstances for communist and socialist movements to grow in Latin and South America.

I read the other day that the Bush administration wants to sharpen the embargo "so that the Castro regime will fall sooner", yeah right!

The point I am trying to make is that capitalism is not all good and communism is not all bad. A middle way combining the benefits of both systems in a democratic set up is an achievable ideal. International polls invariably rank the pluriform moderate social democratic countries in the north of Europe as prime examples of progress: best education, heath care, welfare, environmental concern, democratic rights, standard of living and general level of satisfaction. Oh, and also: best track record on human rights.

No, the practice of communism was not really that bad . . . it was much, much worse . . .

I can't compare - like others here - with personal experiences in different communist countries, since I've only been to the "Capital of the German Democratic Republic Berlin" [that has been the official of that city!] a couple of times, got visits by (those selected) GDR-citizens and had a some pen-friends over there.

With this somehow narrowed view I can say:

Set is right here again: re "practise of communism" and re "worse".

Re: Just to show the other side of the coin

The opposite of capitalism is not communism, it's socialism. Communism is just a totalitarian perversion of socialism. In my opinion.

Welcome to A2K, Paaskynen, good to see another European. Havent had many Finns here yet.

Acautally, the opposite of capitalism is collectivism . . . c.f., the "Diggers" in 17th century England, and Le Boeuf's trial and execution during the rule of the Directory . . . Marx, reading in the British Library, was much influenced by both of these . . .

The only real large thing that went wrong in communist nations is they didn't actually completely follow marxs' guidelines. To be a communist nation first you must turn the government into a kind of dictatorship, to stabilize the country then proceed from there(Leaders give up there dictorial rule) but as we all know in some little way we are all corrupt and will corrupt power if we get it. Also remember "absolute power corrupts".





-Hans

Marx didn't exactly put out a clear set of guidelines on what to do after gaining power. His was a good analysis of the social changes that had taken place up to his time, but the further into the future his theories reached, the more abstract and unspecific they were. Nothing much to minutely "follow up" on there, when drafting the latest five-year plan.

However, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" Marx envisioned did likely not have much to do with what we now call a "dictatorship" - or with "stabilising the country", for that matter. Marx 101, from Wikipedia:

"The only real large thing that went wrong in communist nations is ,,," they are ruthless in their willingness to subvert humanity to a fanatical ideal. At best, they are always, and must be, dictatorships forever trying to force human nature into utopian formulas. At worst, they are an excuse for one group of thugs to exploit and enslave entire societies. They deprive individuals of initiative and often even of hope. In communist societies, the individual is always subservient to the State and they are of no consequence in the balance. They are based on fear, force and brutal violence directed at anyone who questions the ideal currently being forced upon the masses by the few. They detest freedom of thought and speech. The communist State has no shame, no pity, no justice. Communism is a long nightmare, and it's amazing that anyone can still find anything good to say for it as a political system.

Communism, at least the Leninist brand, failed as a social and economical system.
It failed everywhere.

It failed miserably in Cuba, too.

There are many myths about pre-Revolutionary Cuba. Yes, it was under a corrupt capitalist dictatorship. Yes, the income distribution was bad. Yes, it was the US brothel. But no, it was NOT desperately poor and uneducated, at least under Latin American standards. And no, their income distribution was not among the worst in the world. We are not talking Haiti here.

Cuba has the highest literacy rate in Latin America. And until the 90s it had the highest health standards in the region. This, plus agrarian reform, are the historical conquests of the Revolution.

What has been the price for those conquests?

Let's start with food rationing -if you don't buy stuff in the black market you starve. Literally.

Let's continue with other rationing. Two bars of soap per family every six months; two reels of harsh toilet paper per family every six months; a pair of shoes every two years...

Let's go on: permanent electricity shortage; there are blackouts every other day, they last hours; big deficit in public transportation (there's hardly any private transport); no toys for children, since the 90s.

Now the main stuff. As a reader, you have two choices: "Granma", the newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party or "Trabajadores", the newspaper of the Cuban Communist Youth. 4 pages each. Only propaganda. Good alternative for toilet paper.
Access to the internet? You need to subscribe, after a thourghout political screening, with the only provider, the State, who has a huge firewall.
TV? Two channels, both controlled by the State. Six daily hours each.
Access to books, magazines, or any printed material from outside Cuba? Forbidden.
Political participation: yes. In the Revolution Defense Commitees (CDRs) or in the Fast Action Brigades (BARs or BRRs). The CDRs are organized in every neigborhood: their main job is to spy on the neighbors activities and to make sure everyone participates in government sponsored activities. The BARs job is to hastle and disturb any one who minimally opposes the government (throw stones at their house, beat them in the street, etc). One out of four Cubans is an informant for the G-2, the Political Police.

Let's continue: people work as little as they can, and try to cheat the State as much as it's possible. "The State pretends to pay me, I pretend to work" is the motto.
A culture of falseness, fear and cynicism has been inyected into the populace. If they don't know you, they'll speak wonders of Fidel. If they know you, they'll often show hatred and dispair.

I am from Cuban descent.
My mother was a member of Directorio 26-J, the Movement that brought Castro into power.
My mother's family lived in Cuba until the late 90s.
My cousin was a party member, and had been a believer (I remember one night, in 1992, when he cried like a baby: everything he had fought for in his life was crap).

The Cuban inteligentsia knows what's going on.
A well-known entertainer told me once, about ten years ago, almost in a whisper: "The Revolution is dead. We live in a Fascist Police State"

The Cuban nomenklatura knows that people hate them.
My cousin's father-in-law is the party chief in a minor city in central Cuba. When his daughter told him they were going to leave the country, he answered, full of anger: "When the Revolution falls and the mob thrashes my body through the streets of our city, you will be among them".

------

The ideals of Communism are good. But the dreams of reason generate monsters. Fidel Castro and his regime are some of those monsters.