Was communism really that bad??

MOU, When I visited Croatia/Balkans last year, we were treated to have a home-hosted meal with a Croatian family in Osijek. Their home and family looked quite happy and content with their life. The children were all smiling and playing around while we ate our meal, and while they showed us around their home. They raised some chicken (or something that looked like a chicken, but smaller), a pig, and some other animals. Vukovar was another story; it still had many bombed out buildings, and the people at the produce market didn't look all that happy. The contrast was quite noticeable.

You had a society ordered from the top down with no responsibility in the picture anywhere at all. American business consists of complex interconnected and self-regulating systems in which somebody starts to lose money the first minute anything in the picture goes wrong.

In the soviet system, when something went wrong, somebody just filled out a report and passed it on up the line until it got to some place where it was filed.

Whenever I've spoken with russians old enough that their parents or grandparents lived under the tsars I've always asked the same question, i.e. was life worse under the tsars or the commies ('zhisn buila xhuzhe pod tsaryami ili pod kommunistami?' or some such) and the answer always comes back the same way, i.e. that life under the tsars was so bad it seemed impossible to picture it getting any worse at the time; nonetheless it didn't just get a little bit worse. After fifteen or twenty years of commie rule, they were talking about tsarist times like those were the good old days.

Gidday Clueless, awful 5h1tty see you, really spoiled my day. Is that a Norte-Americano accent there? Gringoism goes well with your monikker. No I am not talking about that obviously talented, very close advisor to a President of the USA. She did something useful - you just dribbled all your lunch (Big Mac and Coke, right?) down your front.

This forum is restricted to intelligent people, so let's get on with the show.

Communism was thought to be the logical progression directly from feudalism to a state infinitely better than democracy, intended to bypass entirely that rather pathetic Greek ideal. Communist theology has a lot of good ideas, and some brilliant ones. It has only one problem: it can't work.

What poisoned communism was the same genetic ailment that infects democracy: an incurable condition called human greed. You accumulate a little power/money, you "leverage" it to climb further up, you can afford lawyers and you go on from there. Unfortunately, monkies are best at climbing: lookat the real bushie-tailed one we still have gibbering at the very top of that tree over there!

Communism itself wasn't the problem! The big flaw was and always will be that greedy humans drove it. Stalin et al inherited and embraced a really repressive monarchic Hegelian system: peasants exist solely for the betterment of their betters. They didn't change much, nor did the Chinese nor the North Koreans nor... They changed only the mode and method of promotion into the ranks of power and of course boosted the functioning security system.

The Founding Fathers over there on the West Atlantic coast did just about exactly the same. They may have been honest and straight, but they failed to pass on their ethics: who invented the FBI?

In communist countries promotion was the result of political skullduggery; in "the west" financial shenannigans always got you to the top: a big-deal Seppo was convicted this week of defraudng eleven billion -- yes eleven giga-bucks: another presidential candidate drops by the wayside.

The Brits deserved everything they both gave to and got from America: the Revolutionary War almost sunk England's economy and the vaunted British Justice System damn near did the rest. One of the things they gave was a burning greed, a Hegelian disconcern for anyone else.

Unfortunately, I know of NO equitable systemwhich actually enforces honesty; there is no good system to govern humans. We're stuck with what we have.

I see no real division, no dividing-line between religion and politics, or between religion and delusion, or between politics and bu115h1t: if you BELIEVE that your mob is right, then your mob is right for you. People believe what they want: political poseurs, religious nuts; demagogues and liars; demons and monsters, talking clouds, wimmin flying-in on broomsticks...

But if you start to shove it down my throat or bite my hip-pocket, I'll shove it straight back up your arse. Sideways!

Sorry to be so pessimistic fellers, but as soon as we invent any form of government even at village-level, we have (a) objectors & (b) control-freaks; and if the objectors get too noisy or too close to the truth, well, as the American poet Leonard Cohen said last century:



People In Power tend always to lock dissenters up in nasty places, expel them from the group; even main and kill them. In Singapore they called it Operation Cold Storage; in Iraq it was and still is Abu Ghraib; in the UK Dartmoor, in Russia Lubiyanka and the Gulag (still going); in the USA it was The House Committee on Unamerican Activities or the FBI (each worse than the other) and in Afghanistan it is Guantanamo Bay. In Australia we lock up illegal immigrants way out in the desert: winnim, kids the lot.

Apropos the CIA and the Tiger Cages of Con Son Island, Cohen again:



Fortunately the American Revolution forced the Poms to export a lot of talent (even thieves rogues and greedy soldiers have certain skills) to Australia; that beautiful land was invaded, captured, taken and converted. Shaken and stirred; united; add several buckets of common-sense and there you have us in our full, egalitarian, Bronzed-Ozzie glory. Somehow, and I really don't want to know how, we have kept our polies reasonably straight: we're orrite mate!.

Allsix, I disagree with your thesis that "greed" is the failure of capitalism and communism. "Corruption" is the failure of both systems. In capitalism, greed in and of itself drives and motiviates its participants. In communism, nothing is available to motivate it's workers. Both systems are at the opposite sides of the spectrum - and what is good for one is usually not good for the other.

Cicerone Impostor, I agree to the extent that the hoi-polloi had a hard time accumulating "wealth": they had only the bottle of vodka/kilo of ham/open legs with which to grease the ways. The greed was at the level where officials etc could for instance have hard-currency bank accounts; and the after-dinner games included who was senior enough to lock up an account-holder and Guantanano-Bay the right numbers out of him.

Power is more addictive than sex, drugs and rock-n-roll together: whether capitalist, communist or catholic, greed and corruption go together in the quest for power just like, as in that Doris Day song, a horse and carriage. The ultimate rush is Cohen's


or even



THAT is corruption.

It is only the personal honour of the leadership that prevents "leakage of influence". George the First (Washington) and the Founding Fathers may have been straight and honest but Commander-In-Chiefship being not heireditary, the ethics were well diluted by the time people like thetwo recent Georges (41st and 43rd) got their fingers on the trigger.

Hey, even E2R's impeccable genes don't seem to have passed on properly, eh!!

Whatever "E2R's" is, I agree.

Lizzy the second, I suppose :wink:

That's a culturally-defined abbreviation: Elizabeth Regina (Queen) with Roman numerals in the middle: EIIR.

It has been opined that if Stalin has radio-frequency-activated implant chips and modern-style PCs communism could have been forced to work. That's the technology with which US/Canadaian authorities tracked those crazy cows (and all home-pets) - when will we be carrying Social Security numbers permanently under our skin...?

The depression causing suicide in ex-communist countries was the result of mass brain-washing and perpetual control: as soon as this stopped the populace actually felt lost, abandoned by a system that convinced them that they were in paradise, and addicted them to certain state-sponsored benefits including cheap booze. When those physical/moral/philosophical "props" were removed and people had to think for themselves, many couldn't handle it; others saw the opportunities and ripped what they could out of a stunned system.

Sixteen-odd years after Solidarity there is still a floating population in Poland. They are not non-persons, just dropouts, human flotsam and jetsam: during the very cold period one slept in our stair-well. The surprising thing is, he always has enough money to be swaying-drunk by lunch-time...

In the medical profession the term is triage: when you don't have the resources to fix everything you work on problems that will respond; the hopeless cases come last. These dropouts dip out everywhere: I've seen them in my home town in Oz, in Bombay and Jakarta, in the heart of Washington DC; in Warsaw, Prague, Amsterdam, Brussels and London.

The Bible says the poor will always be with us: triage is a fact of life. So are TV advertising, political promises and religious chicanery.

I would say China is more and more parted from the communism now. As what i've known from some sources, it actually has sentence like "market economics or plan economics are just economic methods, plan economics can be used in capitalism method and the market economics can also be used in communism." on their text book. Which means the Chinese recognisees the capitalism is just a economical method, which will not be bothered whether a state is a communist or not. Thus, China had adapted the free market system into its plan market system since the "open door" policy was introduced. The previous president Deng even said "no matter it is a black cat or a white cat, as long as it can catch rats, then it is a good cat." when ccp reviewed the Chinese economy.
The Chinese actually are very realistic and down to earth on many Chinese views, if you look at it's history, you will find that when most of the world's countries were under controlled by religions, and struggling with the religious wars, the Chinese didn't. Neither the Chinese originated Confucian nor the Taoist ideologies become de facto religions, and none of the religions had successfully control China and the Chinese. Look at the Communism in China, the orthodox communism had succeed in most of the former communist states, but it failed to perform in China, though it was high once in the 50s, after the 60s, the real communism never really happened in China at all. Especially after the death of Mao and the fall of the Gang of four, Deng managed to develop a new type of Chinese style communism, which is a mixture of communism and capitalism. Though the political reform after the 90s is slow, in contrast, the social and economical reforms are dramatic. I believe the Communism are not really accepted by the Chinese, not even the 63 million ccp members. Now they even allows the capitalists to enter the congress, and join the ccp. Most Chinese now are actually more concerned about the living standard rather than what political system they are having. As what Deng said " no matter it is a black cat or a white cat, as long as it can catch rats, then it is a good cat." is so true.
Many Chines friends of mine told me that China now is searching a third way to reform its political system, neither communism nor western style of political system. I am not sure what China will be in the future, but i am sure it is stepping forward.
P.S. I found many Americans are quite biased on the issues that concerned with China by the American propagandas and culture, whatever on global security or human rights. I suggest you should really go to see it before you make up your minds.

Yes to the first part: the Religious Right ran Regan and the same mob told and still tell both Shrubs what to do. England and her vast empire were run by the Anglicans, most of the rest of the world by Rome and Mecca; the former USSR + China by communism.

I regard communism/socialism as a religion, the god of which was Marx and his mates. China is still run by Mao's successors, who have force-evolved an amalgam of Confucian Mandarinism and Marxism/Maoism. It will continue to evolve because "market forces" were practically invented by the Chinese, and what will come out of The Sleeping Dragon is anyone's guess.

An interresting book: Tom Clancey's THE BEAR AND THE DRAGON, which I have just started (I'm just past the Grand Seduction Scene). Clancey is a US patriot (who disagrees with a lot of US culutre) but I take his political analyses (plural) and desctiptions of technology very seriously. His RED STORM RISING is a Cold-War classic, describing how Russia and The West fought each other almost to a standstill; if you crave technology, read his THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER.

RED STORM starts with an energy issue inside Russia: BEAR AND DRAGON takes the same theme, only a lot bigger.

I lived in a Communist country; yes, it was horrible.
Regards
Xavier

At what point will China become a democracy? Their economy is not communistic, but their government still controls most things, and their crimes against humanity leaves much to be desired.

Talking about crimes against humanity, I think that the USA. goes first.
Regards
Xavier

I'm not talking about the US. This topic is titled, "Is communism really that bad?" Has absolutely nothing to do with the US - as far as I can see.

Hi Xavier, welcome to A2K. Where are you from? If you would like to tell us a little about the country you lived in and what it was like for you, you'd find an eager audience here, I'm sure! We're all curious folks.

Yes, it has a lot to do with the USA., Sir!
You mentioned crimes against humanity and the USA goes first, then second goes the former Soviet Union.
I can also mention that in a way, the USA. has a lot to do with the rise (first) and then the fall of communism.

Regards
Xavier

Thanks for the welcome.
I lived in the former Yugoslavia at the time of Tito, I lived in Romania at the time of Ceaucescu and in Chile at the time of Allende; I visited the Soviet Union at that time, and Hungary, Poland and Eastern Germany as well. All communist countries at that time; The most horrible experience was Chile at the time of Allende.
Regards.
Xavier

Xavier, "Crimes against humanity" is a topic that, I agree, includes the US, but we're discussing communism and China (or at least I thought I was). This topic isn't about "the fall of communism," but "Was communism really that bad?" "The fall of communism" can also become a topic on it's own. Maybe, there's a middle-ground where communism and capitalism can co-exist somewhat like China of today. As the government of China gets taken over by younger men, their eventual goal might be some sort of democratic-communism as a transitional stage.

I can't believe someone actually voted Cuba. I mean, Stalin anyone? 26 million killed Hmm? Castro was just paranoid because Che Guevera was assasinated and the CIA kept sending him exploding cigars. He isn't that bad, after all. Most of his bad choices came after he became paranoid (unlike Stalin, who was paranoid his entire life). Actually, I don't know if you can really call Castro paranoid 'cuz the CIA was trying to kill him. They should have tried to kill Stalin instead...

Meh. USSR is the obvious choice.

Wow that was quite a roadtrip through life you got. We have a couple of former residents of Tito's Yugoslavia here - MyOwnUsername from Croatia is a great guy, and Relative I think is from Slovenia. But Ceaucescu's Romania, now there's a wholly different story ... were your parents diplomats or something?