anti communism

No thanks.

0 Replies

Okay.

0 Replies

I dont remember seeing anywhere in communist ideology the belief that all humans are naturally good (if such notion even exists).
but my knowledge is rather limited, so i could be wrong.

to me some of the ideas semed alright. for example, the concept of soviets in th Soviet Union could have been a good thing.

if im not mistaken, the idea was to organise ppl in small groups (the soviets) so that they could discuss, debate and take decisions regarding work, or life in the village and stuff like that.

this sort of participative democracy looks like a good idea to me.

of course, the extreme centralisation and authoritarism made the soviets just another instrument of power. but the original idea wasn't so bad actually.

plus, many forget it, but many people around the world live in a comunist-like type of society.
here's my point :

in many villages around the world, wether in Asia, Africa or Latin America, people live in small communities living on their agricultural productions.
well this agricultural production is not private. the community, sometimes the elders, sometimes representans of people, discuss and decide how to share it out.
so thats, at least partially, somehow like communism : people work not for an immediate individual benefit, but for the entire community, almost no private ownership (exept for their houses and usually a small portion of land that the women use to plant small stuff), "workers" own the means of production, and a distribution of the food according to each family's needs.

in this case, the "economy" of the community revolves around the population's needs, not around an artificial, and in this situation, useless notion of profit.

and this kind of organisation of course existed thousands of years before western civilisation invented the word "communism", and still exists nowadays.

to me, the major mistakes of communism were the extreme centralisation and concentration of powers in a central comitee, allowing a single person to rule an entire country like a dictator, when the basic concept of communism is "power to the people".

0 Replies

Communism and socialism are two different things. Isn't it Communism that's bad? I mean it invoke violent revolution and the abolishment of private property and government is naive.

Socialism, on the other hand, is pro-democratic, and is focused on helping the people. It has some form of interference in the economy rather than the laissez-faire belief.

0 Replies

im not an expert of both those ideaologies, but i know they are pretty different from what was seen in reality.

i think its way to simplistic to say "communism is bad" plain and simple.

first because "bad" is a totally subjective notion, second because its much more complex than just a good/bad opposition.

when facing a violent and lasting oppresion, i dont see a violent revolt as something naive.

rather a necessity.

i think any oppression i a time bomb, because its a natural instinct to revolt and resist oppression.

depending on many factors, it can take much time, or on the contrary very little time, before the oppressed population revolts.

but it is my opinion that it will happen nontheless.

the abolishment of private property and government are, in my opinion, not naive but unrealistic.

i do think there's a difference between those two notions, and if my english was better i'd try to express my thoughts, but im unable to do so at this moment, sorry.

0 Replies

You expressed it quite well, Miguelito. Just one thing -- "naive" and "unrealistic" mean pretty much the same thing in English.

0 Replies

You're right, but the idea of 'oppression' in communist ideology is outdated, not to mention that they try to provoke revolution in countries that are not even oppressed, and I don't see how the abolishment of government can work.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Just one thing -- "naive" and "unrealistic" mean pretty much the same thing in English.

oh ... well .... my bad Laughing

thinking about it, it might mean the same thing in french too .... but thats a more philosophical debate.

Ray wrote:

the idea of 'oppression' in communist ideology is outdated

humm ... could you be more specific ?

Ray wrote:

they try to provoke revolution in countries that are not even oppressed

well one can argue that Russia was not an oppressed country either.

but the immense majority of the population was.

i think thats the difference. communist try to promote revolution in countries where part of the population is oppressed.

and i think thats why communist ideas spread among the european working classes at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20h century. because their conditions were, indeed, miserable.

Ray wrote:

I don't see how the abolishment of government can work.

i dont really see either. but i guess i'd have to read the works of marxist author to see their theories.

0 Replies

Quote:

humm ... could you be more specific ?

Actually, I'm assuming that most workers now are not as oppressed as they are back then. I mean, when I read Das Kapital, it's like they're really against 'bourgeoisies' and calling all workers as 'slaves' to them and something about treated as machines (that part is pretty insightful).

I just think that the whole world revolution, no government, thing unrealistic. I'm more for socialism.

0 Replies

The real irony is that the first successful Communist revolution occured in Russia, of all places. If you read Marx's Das Kapital, he was talking about the industrialized countries -- England, France, Germany. That's where he expected Communism to take hold, not in a pseudo-feudal backwater like Tsarist Russia. He saw capitalism as the enemy, not agricultural feudalism. But, historically, Communism has had its greatest successes in countries with the most autocratic forms of government -- Russia, China, Cuba. Miguelito is quite right about the "oppression" factor. Only a truly oppressed people have ever turned to Communism as a solution.

BTW, Miguelito, if I didn't say this before -- welcome to A2K!

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Actually, I'm assuming that most workers now are not as oppressed as they are back then. I mean, when I read Das Kapital, it's like they're really against 'bourgeoisies' and calling all workers as 'slaves' to them and something about treated as machines (that part is pretty insightful).

well its very true that workers in countries like England, France, Germany .... have MUCH better working conditions nowadays than a hundred years earlier. no doubt about that.

and to be fair, i think one has to mention the influence of communist/socialist (i still have trouble making the difference between the two) ideas that had spread among the proletarians and encouraged them to form unions to defend their rights, and the role of communist parties after WWII, especially in France or Italy, which gathered around 35 to 40% of the votes in the 50's !
those forces pushed for a "Work Code" (im sorry if i translated the wrong way, maybe its "labor code" or something like that. ) that really protects the workers much better than 50 or 60 years earlier.

but if you go in many "third world" countries like Brasil, Mexico or Colombia, you'd see that the oppression is still very present.

maybe im wrong and you did, but if you saw how 7 year-old children have to get up 5am to go work in mines, miles under the surface, with all the heat, breathing all the dust and the poison 12 hours a day, or work in plantations breathing the poison from the pesticides all day long .... with the pressure and brutalisation from the boss/owners ... i mean there's no possible way that i can agree with you that oppression is an outdated notion.

or maybe i just misunderstood you.

and i merely stated the countries i have visited, but what i said is true for the majority of the countries of this planet.

Merry Andrew wrote:

The real irony is that the first successful Communist revolution occured in Russia, of all places. If you read Marx's Das Kapital, he was talking about the industrialized countries -- England, France, Germany. That's where he expected Communism to take hold, not in a pseudo-feudal backwater like Tsarist Russia

i've never read "das kapital" , but yeah i read about this contradiction.

some say its one of the reasons why the russian revolution failed and ended up being a dictature.

Merry Andrew wrote:

BTW, Miguelito, if I didn't say this before -- welcome to A2K!

thanks

btw, there are so many threads in here i cant possibliy read them all, so if you remember some threads that were particularily interesting, could you tell me which ones please ? thanks Idea

0 Replies

Quote:

but if you go in many "third world" countries like Brasil, Mexico or Colombia, you'd see that the oppression is still very present.

maybe im wrong and you did, but if you saw how 7 year-old children have to get up 5am to go work in mines, miles under the surface, with all the heat, breathing all the dust and the poison 12 hours a day, or work in plantations breathing the poison from the pesticides all day long .... with the pressure and brutalisation from the boss/owners ... i mean there's no possible way that i can agree with you that oppression is an outdated notion.

or maybe i just misunderstood you.

and i merely stated the countries i have visited, but what i said is true for the majority of the countries of this planet.

Unfortunately that's true. Communist rebellion won't work though.

0 Replies

Ray said:

Quote:

Communist rebellion won't work though.

I take it this leaves all sorts of other kinds of rebellion open.

Although Communism has a despicable record as governments, it has a remarkably good record when it comes to overturning despotic governments. That is, when it comes to the competition between rebellion types, Communist ideology has a great track record of producing successful revolutions (rather than failed rebellions.) As far as revolution goes, Communism seems to have the elusive quality of actually making them happen, or "working," as you put it.

That it replaces said despotisms with even more ruthless and much more murderous regimes might not be of much note to those suffering under the rule of whomever is currently in power. The opportunity to treat their enemies with even more callous disregard for their individual pursuits of happiness might be, in fact, a sweetener.

0 Replies

Communism - Worst Enemy?
It often seems to me that the attitude towards Communism is such that it would be the worst enemy of the West, worse than Nazism, fascism or some kind of religious fundamentalism. Even Hitler was initially tolerated due to his hatred for Communism.

Here are some extracts from an editorial article published in The New York Times of 15 Dec, 2004 (The Poison Puzzle by Nicholas D. Kristof), just as an example:

Quote:

[..]
In effect, Mr. Putin has steered Russia from a dictatorship of the left to a dictatorship of the right (Chinese leaders have done much the same thing). Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Park Chung Hee and Putin all emerged in societies suffering from economic and political chaos. All consolidated power in part because they established order and made the trains - or planes - run on time.
[..]
Still, a fascist Russia is a much better thing than a Communist Russia. Communism was a failed economic system, while Franco's Spain, General Pinochet's Chile and the others generated solid economic growth, a middle class and international contacts - ultimately laying the groundwork for democracy.
[..]

Full article can be read here:
Replacing Russia's former dictatorship of the left with a dictatorship of the right.

I wonder if this view is a prevalent public opinion? Can it be attributed to the intolerance to a very different system of social values offered by the advocates of Communism in contrast with Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet or even Hitler?

0 Replies

I'm not sure just how prevalent this attitude is in the Western society at large, SerSo, but it seems to make perfectly good sense to those people who insist that "the business of America is business." The dyed-in-the-wool capitalists seem to be willing to put up with the most oppressive dictators, as long as they make good trading partners. Communism, on the other hand, by its very nature, is hostile to free enterprise. The problem with this attitude is not only that it is morally reprehensible, but that it is also very short-sighted. A brutal dictatorship will be overthrown in the long run. Historically, there have been no exceptions to this rule. Thus, in one sense, this attitude fosters Communist revolutions, no matter what the final outcome of such uprisings.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

I'm not sure just how prevalent this attitude is in the Western society at large, SerSo, but it seems to make perfectly good sense to those people who insist that "the business of America is business." The dyed-in-the-wool capitalists seem to be willing to put up with the most oppressive dictators, as long as they make good trading partners. Communism, on the other hand, by its very nature, is hostile to free enterprise. The problem with this attitude is not only that it is morally reprehensible, but that it is also very short-sighted. A brutal dictatorship will be overthrown in the long run. Historically, there have been no exceptions to this rule. Thus, in one sense, this attitude fosters Communist revolutions, no matter what the final outcome of such uprisings.

However it looks as if this antagonism towards Communism is more ideological and conceptual than practical, because the former Soviet Union seems to have been a very reliable partner and customer in international business. It is simply more convenient and less hazardous to deal with a big corporation rather than a small firm, and the Soviet economy functioned as a huge over-centralized nation-wide corporation.

0 Replies

SerSo wrote:

However it looks as if this antagonism towards Communism is more ideological and conceptual than practical[..]

On the other hand one of the first things all pro-communist governments started with was uncompensated nationalization, i.e. confiscation of property, which also affected assets of foreign entities. They also disclaimed financial liabilities of the previous governments etc. Thus I think I was not right when I first wrote that the hatred towards Communism did not have many practical reasons.

0 Replies

SerSo, re: your last post: agreed. The US's violent opposition to Fidel Catro right at the start had less to do with ideological differences than with the fact that so many US businessmen's assets were expropriated. We don't mind if you fly the red flag, but don't take away that gambling casino I invested so much money in.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew said:

Quote:

I'm not sure just how prevalent this attitude is in the Western society at large, SerSo, but it seems to make perfectly good sense to those people who insist that "the business of America is business." The dyed-in-the-wool capitalists seem to be willing to put up with the most oppressive dictators, as long as they make good trading partners.

Following the end of the Cold War, the United States has shown a marked degree of discomfort with despotisms with which it worked previously and has worked to undo those it could work to undo without wilfully ignoring its own interests.

The countries of the E.U., on the other hand, have shown a continued indifference to the nature of the governments around the world if it should prove that they will be of some commercial advantage to them. (Although the Union appears to be quite determined to prosecute Pinochet now that he's safely out of power & can be of no use.)

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

(Although the Union appears to be quite determined to prosecute Pinochet now that he's safely out of power & can be of no use.)

The EU doesn't have a criminal court at all, and thus can't prosecute Pinochet.

Switzerland (a non-EU country, btw), the UK (where Pinochet had been 16 month in custody more than five years ago), Belgium and Spain prosecuted or stil prosecude him due to national laws.

0 Replies

anti communism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know