NationStates Jolt Archive

Mkay, here we go.

In my (admitedly rather limited) knowledge of the US, there is a lot of bad feeling for Communism and Marxism. I am curious as to why this is. Is this bad feeling after the cold war, or something else? Please tell me if I am merely propogating a slightly racist stereotype or if there is a real bad feeling.

If there is a really obvious answer, don't hesitate to post it. As I said, I know very little about the US other than what the english media has told me, and I am sure that that is not at all there is to those across the pond.

Thanks.

Mkay, here we go.

In my (admitedly rather limited) knowledge of the US, there is a lot of bad feeling for Communism and Marxism. I am curious as to why this is. Is this bad feeling after the cold war, or something else? Please tell me if I am merely propogating a slightly racist stereotype or if there is a real bad feeling.

If there is a really obvious answer, don't hesitate to post it. As I said, I know very little about the US other than what the english media has told me, and I am sure that that is not at all there is to those across the pond.

Thanks.

Because of the cold war in part for sure. Also because among some people it is considered necessary (and right) to reward hard work and punish slackers. In addition to this I think most of us Americans think the communism is an unnecessary infringement upon freedom. Choices=good.

Besides the fact that the demographics of a fin de siecle United States were not those that would have facilitated the spread of the ideologies of the far left, the crucial time period in the growth and development of such entities, the opposition to communism, socialism and marxism in general were solidified during the Cold War.

Further, greater private land ownership (and the continual availability of land that was dirt-cheap) and the outlet of religiosity tended to make it harder for leftist ideologies to make their case to common Americans.

So, in other words: The lack of serious leftist political parties in the United States is born of demographics, the perceived hostility towards leftist leaders is born of the Cold War.

I'm confident the USA had a smallish far-left movement at the end of the First World War, but the demestic and international politics that developed in the aftermath of the Second World War - the Cold War and the 'affluent society' ensured that it was nipped in the bud so to speak. I also think the lack of an organised left-wing political/labour movement (like the UK Labour Party, SPD and Parti Socialiste) meant that the political 'centre' in US political discourse was shifted firmly to the right.

I'm confident the USA had a smallish far-left movement at the end of the First World War, but the demestic and international politics that developed in the aftermath of the Second World War - the Cold War and the 'affluent society' ensured that it was nipped in the bud so to speak. I also think the lack of an organised left-wing political/labour movement (like the UK Labour Party, SPD and Parti Socialiste) meant that the political 'centre' in US political discourse was shifted firmly to the right.

A similar thing is happening in the UK actually. The political centre is firmly on the right, and any forays away at all is severely punished by the media. The slippery slope arguement is used over and over again.

Mkay, here we go.

In my (admitedly rather limited) knowledge of the US, there is a lot of bad feeling for Communism and Marxism. I am curious as to why this is. Is this bad feeling after the cold war, or something else? Please tell me if I am merely propogating a slightly racist stereotype or if there is a real bad feeling.

If there is a really obvious answer, don't hesitate to post it. As I said, I know very little about the US other than what the english media has told me, and I am sure that that is not at all there is to those across the pond.

Thanks.



Reason One: Cold War Propoganda

Reason Two: Most US citizens are dim and assume that in order to have communism you must have a dictatorship which is a direct contradiction to the classless society communism aims for.

I'm confident the USA had a smallish far-left movement at the end of the First World War, but the demestic and international politics that developed in the aftermath of the Second World War - the Cold War and the 'affluent society' ensured that it was nipped in the bud so to speak. I also think the lack of an organised left-wing political/labour movement (like the UK Labour Party, SPD and Parti Socialiste) meant that the political 'centre' in US political discourse was shifted firmly to the right.

Actually, just prior to the start of World War One, the Socialist Party of America was led by Eugene V. Debs, and garnered roughly six percent of the vote in the 1912 election, their all-time high. Unfortunately for them, though, Debs' speech in Canton, Ohio during the war resulted in his arrest, and the permanent emblazoning of Socialists as being unpatriotic traitors into the American mindset.

Further, Debs never received public vindication, unlike many of his European contemporaries, for his position, because of how short and low-intensity American involvement in World War I was. It was merely a grand adventure to most Americans, and Debs was forgotten.

Well there are differences between Communism and Marxism.
Communism dominated almost 1/3rd of the globe about 30 years ago, and was a revolution i think, where the lower classes (proletariat) overthrow their upper class (bourgeoisie) oppressors.
Marxism looks the same and is based on class divisions and the unequal distribution of labour, however Marx was against capital punishment, whereas many Communist parties killed many people.
A major flaw of Marxism is it assumes there will be an increase in the lower classes, which is not true there was and is an increase in middle class jobs.
Marxism also places too much emphasis on economic distribution of wealth, also wealth isn't the only thing that can define what class you're in.

For example a person wins the lottery after working in a routine manual job, are they in the same class as a manager of a large car company? Before the routine worker won the lottery he(i'll assume it's a man) probably never socialised with any manager of a large car company.

Communism was based on Marxist teachings, were everyone helps each other out Marx desired a return to the simple social life of "primitive communism". But in a modern world this created disastrous results, often the communist governments would have a dangerous leader, or have a poor system of government otherwise.
As a result of poor government the people in communist countries suffered horrific conditions of living, with a weak economy, crime was rife
These might be some reasons to dislike Communism, it seems to be a relative of Marxism.
Although the two are similar they are not the same, Marxism looks for a community that is equal and is less barbaric than it's relation Communism.
So i suppose people thought the two sound similar and hate them both. That and alot of media propaganda in many "capitalist" nations often depicted Communists as evil, e.g. Red Alert game makes huge stereotypes of soviet Russia, or Bond movies.
Marxism is a theory, Communism a movement that ended in failure.
I hope that helps.

Propaganda. Americans buy into advertising like Halliburton into Iraq contracts.

Thanks, but I still have some questions.

Communism is the overarching theory, but Marxism is just a part of that, isn't it?

There are still several communist countries (in name at least.) such as vietnam.

I would say that communism is a tool which dictators hijacked. It could still work, although it is highly unlikely.

A major flaw of Marxism is it assumes there will be an increase in the lower classes, which is not true there was and is an increase in middle class jobs.it could be argued that the western middle class is built on the backs of a much larger underclass that exists in other nations. without economic exploitation of the third world the first world would not exist. in any event, conflict theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory) has updated marx - whatever the inaccuracies in his older predictions, the basic concepts still all work and are entirely applicable to modern life. the core of marx's observations about class conflict and exploitive power structures is still central to the radical Left and to much of sociology as an academic discipline.

I think most leftists now no longer would consider themselves communists, in part because it's become a pejorative term here in the US, but also because they're now more likely to identify as democratic socialists or anarcho-syndicalists or something like that.

The right-left debates that typically center on the issue of how do we strike a balance between the competing American ideals of liberty and equality are far to the right of something as extreme as compulsory communism.

The above is pretty much the central theme of much of our histories political struggle. However, other ideals that play a less central role are incompatible with communism. We value the right of people to exercise their freedom of religious conscience. Any political theory such as communism that threatens that right has no room within the political discourse of our nation.

We also value self reliance. Our business heroes are those who started with nothing and achieved great wealth from the power of their own ideas and hard work. Communism is not a part of this value.

However, we do not have a problem with non-mandatory communes. In fact we tend to embrace them. We have had many communes and partnerships and corporations where people come together and decide to start an entity where they are free to leave but nonetheless whish to remain in economic cooperation with each other. We are not so individualistic that we avoid associating for mutual benefit. However the point is that we have the freedom to enter these associations or leave them. Although people probably do not think very much about this right. This is our freedom of association and it plays an important part in our society.

Communism is vilified in the USA because there is little or nothing about it that has any support within our values. It is true that there are communists in the USA but they are a small minority. I think most Americans would be shocked to discover that there is a Communist Party of America.

Also, it is tough to be looked at as a "good guy" in any democracy when you are representative of a group that fought against and attempted to undermine that very democracy. It is for this reason that socialism and fascism were somewhat popular here before WWII and the cold war but no longer are on the mainstream politcial radar. I am not sure if this is a rational response but it certainly is the case as has been ably demonstrated by a historian, whose name presently escapes me, on diplomatic relations between the USSR and the West

Also because among some people it is considered necessary (and right) to reward hard work and punish slackers.

Communism somewhat requires that everyone tries to be all they can be for others. There is no real reason to not punish slackers.

Thanks, but I still have some questions.

Communism is the overarching theory, but Marxism is just a part of that, isn't it?

There are still several communist countries (in name at least.) such as vietnam.

I would say that communism is a tool which dictators hijacked. It could still work, although it is highly unlikely.

As far as i know, Marxism was used by Communists to gain support of the lower classes initially, then it just went horribly wrong, try looking up wikipedia, it says it better than i can.
I don't think there's many communist countries around now, i can't think of any.
Well communism was hijacked by dictators that and there's some large flaws with Marxist theory in the first place. It aims for an ideal that just can't happen with human beings, and it's too easily corrupted.

Reagan.

Reagan.*spits* may the name live in infamy -_-

Actually, just prior to the start of World War One, the Socialist Party of America was led by Eugene V. Debs, and garnered roughly six percent of the vote in the 1912 election, their all-time high. Unfortunately for them, though, Debs' speech in Canton, Ohio during the war resulted in his arrest, and the permanent emblazoning of Socialists as being unpatriotic traitors into the American mindset.

Further, Debs never received public vindication, unlike many of his European contemporaries, for his position, because of how short and low-intensity American involvement in World War I was. It was merely a grand adventure to most Americans, and Debs was forgotten.
Perhaps I got my wars mixed up then. Either way, the result was the lack of a labour-orientated social democratic movement during the fifties, which is the key, in my opinion.

Communism and Socialism were dirty words long before Reagan was President.
Likely, but Reagan made it fun for everyone.

Reagan.

Communism and Socialism were dirty words long before Reagan was President.

Communism is vilified in the USA because there is little or nothing about it that has any support within our values. It is true that there are communists in the USA but they are a small minority. I think most Americans would be shocked to discover that there is a Communist Party of America.

I think that at the end of the day, GF is spot on. American values, which prize individual achievement, are just not condusive to a system that destroys individualism and reduces men to cogs in the machine.

Oh, and the fact that some of the most gruesome mass slaughters in history occured under the banner of Communism certainly isn't helping. I think there is a certain amount of failure that people are willing to accept, but the fact that in the 75 years of its existence, every Communist experiment ever attempted has deteriorated into tyrannical dictatorship certainly isn't helping. There comes a point in time when people stop believing excuses.

Now I am not a western sycophant, I understand the difference between Marxist communism and Otto Von Bismark style welfare statism, but the fact is that nationalization of any industry resulted in increasingly declining standards.

it could be argued that the western middle class is built on the backs of a much larger underclass that exists in other nations. without economic exploitation of the third world the first world would not exist. in any event, conflict theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory) has updated marx - whatever the inaccuracies in his older predictions, the basic concepts still all work and are entirely applicable to modern life. the core of marx's observations about class conflict and exploitive power structures is still central to the radical Left and to much of sociology as an academic discipline.



It remains that a fundamental problem of conflict theory is the concept of revolution, and that change is only accomplished through the total reversal of the existing system. It denies that functional change and adaptation are the primary modes of change (an assertion that I would definitely make). More than that, to argue that moral judgments come from the top alone is quite historically untrue.

Reason Two: Most US citizens are dim and assume that in order to have communism you must have a dictatorship which is a direct contradiction to the classless society communism aims for.

I hate that no one pointed this out yet... Most Americans are not dim. However, a majority (64%) have IQ's between 85 and 115 (one standard deviation if I remember Psych class). The assumption that you attribute to American stupidity, is more likely a result of the propaganda that you reference in your first reason.

Reason Two: Most US citizens are dim and assume that in order to have communism you must have a dictatorship which is a direct contradiction to the classless society communism aims for.

You've gone horribly wrong. Communism is about taking over everything that once was free. Communism allows people to make nothing of their life, so is therefore unpopular and cannot happen without a totalitarian, one-party dictatorship. Communism is revolved around absolute power, and is the most horrible regime on earth.

It comes from the cold war, and we believe that people should earn what they get, and not be given free stuff. No government handouts. If we want to give to other people, we prefer charities.

I hate that no one pointed this out yet... Most Americans are not dim. However, a majority (64%) have IQ's between 85 and 115 (one standard deviation if I remember Psych class). The assumption that you attribute to American stupidity, is more likely a result of the propaganda that you reference in your first reason.


There is a wealth of evidence suggesting most americans are dim, primarially what you stated, buying into propaganda. If you buy into progoganda that easily, I would say you are dim.

Becausem stupid people have stupid ideas about COmmunism that they learnt from the US during the Cold War.

Ie: " In communism anyone who is too good at their job is killed."
"Stalin was a Communist and killed people therefore Communism kills."
"Insert lie or half-truth here"

Propaganda. Americans buy into advertising like Halliburton into Iraq contracts.And you believe whatever the bloggers and your TV tell you.

Because when Commuism dosen't lead to a dictatership and makes your life difficult... well, I don't think there's ever been a Communist government that hasn't been a dictatorship. Plus Capiltalism is more efficent + more freedom.

And you believe whatever the bloggers and your TV tell you.


I dont get it...are you denying Americans by into advertising, because any marketing exec will till you they do, or are you denying that Hal. buys into Iraq contracts, which they also do.

Because when Commuism dosen't lead to a dictatership and makes your life difficult... well, I don't think there's ever been a Communist government that hasn't been a dictatorship. Plus Capiltalism is more efficent + more freedom.

Sir, cease and desist this rubbish. I will admit you might manage to argue on no non-dictatorial Communist Governments, however perfectly effective Anarchist Communist systems have been put into practice before, and have been shown to work. On the same note, I don't consider being owned by a corporation to be particularly conducive to freedom, while Anarchism has always struck me as inherently more free.

Efficiency is really your only possibly valid point, and that's only if you consider direct production and dollar values. While the most effective system for this is probably some sort of corporate police state, the effects on various other areas of the mind make me severely doubt those who pursue efficiency above all in human production.

Also, please amend your spelling. It's really quite horrendous. If you were using a open source browser such as Firefox, it would do automatic spellchecking, but that's obviously too close to Communism --- "What, people can use it without paying?"

The smart American anti-communist can cite a wealth of reasons why a collectivist economic theory won't work, can point to examples of individuals who have been much more successful in capitalist society than they would have been under socialism, and describe all manner of situations in which increasing the freedom of a market made it much more prosperous than it was under a former collectivist or socialist government.

The dim American anti-communist is apt to say things like "Communism means dictatorship. In communism people who don't conform are executed, and nobody owns anything which means that the government can seize your stuff any time it wants. I keep this little collection of semi-automatic assault rifles around in case they ever come to power."

i'm exaggerating, but this is the internet after all.

It was partially due to the Cold War, but not entirely.

I'm confident the USA had a smallish far-left movement at the end of the First World War, but the demestic and international politics that developed in the aftermath of the Second World War - the Cold War and the 'affluent society' ensured that it was nipped in the bud so to speak.I'd say the far-left movement in the USA was from about 1890-1940, and so WWI would be right in the middle there.
Some of the things that hurt it were the Assassination of President McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley_assassination), the suppression of people who opposed the draft during WWI, which Andaluciae touched upon, The Palmer Raids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids), and The New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal), which you mentioned.

The right-left debates that typically center on the issue of how do we strike a balance between the competing American ideals of liberty and equality are far to the right of something as extreme as compulsory communism.Liberty and equality aren't competing ideals, though perhaps they are the way Americans tend to define them.

Mkay, here we go.

In my (admitedly rather limited) knowledge of the US, there is a lot of bad feeling for Communism and Marxism. I am curious as to why this is. Is this bad feeling after the cold war, or something else? Please tell me if I am merely propogating a slightly racist stereotype or if there is a real bad feeling.

If there is a really obvious answer, don't hesitate to post it. As I said, I know very little about the US other than what the english media has told me, and I am sure that that is not at all there is to those across the pond.

Thanks.

Because it is in non-alliance with almost all American values.

Marxism DOES want a dictatorship, so thats completely out of the question, and socialism is not far behind since most Americans do not want a nanny government and a government that is involved with everything. Most Americans like to do what they want, when they want to, without answering to authority. We also believe in personal property and that it is against everything we accept to have property dispersed and taken.

Now, propaganda does certainly hold some part, but compared to the fundamental differences in ideology, the US would never accept pure socialism, communism, or Marxism, or any combination.

Also, please amend your spelling. It's really quite horrendous. If you were using a open source browser such as Firefox, it would do automatic spellchecking, but that's obviously too close to Communism --- "What, people can use it without paying?"
Please, stop the sarcasm, I use Internet Explorer. And nationstates is free.

Sir, cease and desist this rubbish. I will admit you might manage to argue on no non-dictatorial Communist Governments, however perfectly effective Anarchist Communist systems have been put into practice before, and have been shown to work. On the same note, I don't consider being owned by a corporation to be particularly conducive to freedom, while Anarchism has always struck me as inherently more free.

You're right, and I'm wrong on this one, or at least about there being Anarchist Communist systems that have worked. But I failed to see how if you work at a company you are "Owned" by a company. You are free to go to another job should you not like the company. I'm a miniarchist, so I don't agree with the current state of the US right now (Sorry, don't know much about other countries) but that will change when Libertarians get control :D.

Thanks, but I still have some questions.

Communism is the overarching theory, but Marxism is just a part of that, isn't it?

There are still several communist countries (in name at least.) such as vietnam.

I would say that communism is a tool which dictators hijacked. It could still work, although it is highly unlikely.

Yes, there are indeed more brands of communism than just Marxian communism. And communism itself is a subset of the more encompassing term "socialism", which includes a number of other anti-capitalist ideologies ranging from democratic socialism to mutualism to anarcho-syndicalism.

Several countries still exist that are communist in name, but we have to remember that Marx and nearly everyone else defined communism as a stateless, classless society based on redistribution according to need.

Marxism DOES want a dictatorship.


Wrong. Fail.


How can you have a dictatorship in a classless society?

I advise you to read Marx before making up your mind about what he supported. And before anyone says anything, the Dictatorship of the Prolatariate is not the end result, its the transitional stage. In its final stage, there is no ruling class.

Classic example of people buying into propaganda. Thanks for proving my point.

It was partially due to the Cold War, but not entirely.

I'd say the far-left movement in the USA was from about 1890-1940, and so WWI would be right in the middle there.
Some of the things that hurt it were the Assassination of President McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley_assassination), the suppression of people who opposed the draft during WWI, which Andaluciae touched upon, The Palmer Raids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids), and The New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal), which you mentioned.

Liberty and equality aren't competing ideals, though perhaps they are the way Americans tend to define them.

Ah, good of you to point out the McKinley assassination, I completely forgot to mention that, and how it came to be important in forming the American conception of the Anarchist. Czolgosh, besides being totally deranged, hardly looks the type of person to make a good impression on the American people in favor of anarchism, this photo especially. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/First_photograph_of_Leon_F._Czolgosz%2C_the_assassin_of_President_William_McKinley%2C_in_jail.jpg)

Wrong. Fail.


How can you have a dictatorship in a classless society?

I advise you to read Marx before making up your mind about what he supported. And before anyone says anything, the Dictatorship of the Prolatariate is not the end result, its the transitional stage. In its final stage, there is no ruling class.

Classic example of people buying into propaganda. Thanks for proving my point.

Marxism doesn't want a dictatorship but it usually ends up that way due to the near impossibilities of creating a classless society. And I wouldn't call it a "Dictatorship of the Prolatariate". Dictatorship works quite nicely.

Wrong. Fail.


How can you have a dictatorship in a classless society?

I advise you to read Marx before making up your mind about what he supported. And before anyone says anything, the Dictatorship of the Prolatariate is not the end result, its the transitional stage. In its final stage, there is no ruling class.

Classic example of people buying into propaganda. Thanks for proving my point.

However saying that the ruling class will give up power peacefully goes against every signle historical example when its a dictatorship. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. It also goes against human nature. Can you name a signle Dictator that gave up power on his own free will? ANy time A dictator gives up power, he was either forced to flee, or was killed/captured.

However saying that the ruling class will give up power peacefully goes against every signle historical example when its a dictatorship. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. It also goes against human nature. Can you name a signle Dictator that gave up power on his own free will? ANy time A dictator gives up power, he was either forced to flee, or was killed/captured.

True.

However.

Im arguing the philosophy not the practice. He said that Marxism requires a dictatorship, I called out his BS.

Because it is in non-alliance with almost all American values.

Marxism DOES want a dictatorship, so thats completely out of the question, and socialism is not far behind since most Americans do not want a nanny government and a government that is involved with everything. Most Americans like to do what they want, when they want to, without answering to authority. We also believe in personal property and that it is against everything we accept to have property dispersed and taken.

Now, propaganda does certainly hold some part, but compared to the fundamental differences in ideology, the US would never accept pure socialism, communism, or Marxism, or any combination.

zOMG TEH COMMUNIZ ARE TEH DIKTATOR! TEHY CILLZ PEEPLE! zOMG TEHY SIZE YOUZ PROPERTY! zOMG! zOMG!


You must be new around here or very, very stubborn

I dont get it...are you denying Americans by into advertising, because any marketing exec will till you they do, or are you denying that Hal. buys into Iraq contracts, which they also do.
No, I know many Americans are mindless consumers. But at the same time commies are just mindless drones themselves.

True.

However.

Im arguing the philosophy not the practice. He said that Marxism requires a dictatorship, I called out his BS.


You also said that to have a succesful Marxist society, you need a "Dictatorship of the Prolatariate". Despite best intentions, A dictatorship is defined as:

"A government led by a dictator or a despot. Dictatorships are more often than not totalitarian regimes, but there is also a benevolent dictatorship, which is by consent of the people. "

However, humans will not give up power. It is in our nature to be selfish with power, and if could, 99% of the human race would take the chance to change things to what they view as a better world if they were given total power. Despite best intentions, most of them would become tryants. This is backed up by human nautre and historical fact.

You also said that to have a succesful Marxist society, you need a "Dictatorship of the Prolatariate". Despite best intentions, A dictatorship is defined as:

"A government led by a dictator or a despot. Dictatorships are more often than not totalitarian regimes, but there is also a benevolent dictatorship, which is by consent of the people. "

However, humans will not give up power. It is in our nature to be selfish with power, and if could, 99% of the human race would take the chance to change things to what they view as a better world if they were given total power. Despite best intentions, most of them would become tryants. This is backed up by human nautre and historical fact.


However the dicatorship is not the marxist society, what follows it is. A Marxist society is not a dicatorship, the DoP is just the means Marx predicted would happen.


And yeah I know that Marxism would not work, but Im debating the idea, not its practice.

Marxism and Communism are just plain failures of ideas. Americans don't care for Communists because Communists believe in an foolish ideology. Liberal socialist ideas have failed miserably every time they've been put into practice. Not to mention that far over a hundred-million people have died because of Marx. Communism is a stranglehold on humanity, inherently wrong in all of its ways.

Marxists like to say, "Religion is the opiate of the people." Well, apparently, "Marxism is the opiate of imbeciles."

Communism is responsible for the deaths of one hundred million people. I think that explains it.

Communism is responsible for the deaths of one hundred million people. I think that explains it.
I am firmly anti-communism but 100 MILLION? You are obviously counting just the USSR;)

Reason One: Cold War Propoganda

Reason Two: Most US citizens are dim and assume that in order to have communism you must have a dictatorship which is a direct contradiction to the classless society communism aims for.

And communists seem to think that communism is possible without a dictatorship.

And don't give me that "state-capitalism" BS. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

Reason One: Cold War Propoganda

Reason Two: Most US citizens are dim and assume that in order to have communism you must have a dictatorship which is a direct contradiction to the classless society communism aims for.

exactly.

In theory yes it is possible. In practice, no it is not.

All I am saying is that claiming marxism wants a dicatorship shows a complete lack understanding of Marx, especially because Marx's end goal is an classless society.

And really, what is wrong in aiming for a classless society?

The lack of applicability of it? If it can't be done, don't try it! If there is a lot of undeniable proof that it dosen't work DON'T TRY IT!!!

And communists seem to think that communism is possible without a dictatorship.

And don't give me that "state-capitalism" BS. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.




In theory yes it is possible. In practice, no it is not.

All I am saying is that claiming marxism wants a dicatorship shows a complete lack understanding of Marx, especially because Marx's end goal is an classless society.

And really, what is wrong in aiming for a classless society?

Marxism and Communism are just plain failures of ideas. Americans don't care for Communists because Communists believe in an foolish ideology. Liberal socialist ideas have failed miserably every time they've been put into practice. Not to mention that far over a hundred-million people have died because of Marx. Communism is a stranglehold on humanity, inherently wrong in all of its ways.

Marxists like to say, "Religion is the opiate of the people." Well, apparently, "Marxism is the opiate of imbeciles."

I'm sorry, but your opinions are stunningly ignorant.

Marx never harmed anybody. He was long dead by the time anyone claiming to be a socialist ever came to power. You call communism "a foolish ideology", yet do not provide any reason why this is so. Then you equate American Liberalism with socialism, though the two have barely anything in common. There has not been in recent history any kind of "classless society" that socialists advocate. There have been attempts, but for various reasons they have either failed and the revolutioanaries massacred by the bourgeois state or been co-opted by brutal dictatorships that recreate the class society of capitalism.

The 100 million figure so often quoted, besides being highly inflated, means nothing. Because some maniac who calls himself a socialist kills a lot of people does not mean socialism advocates it. As Marx himself stated, capital punishment is an abomination in any society that calls itself civilized. He also declared that the socialist society that replaced capitalism would be "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

*spits* may the name live in infamy -_-

It will never be held in infamy, you and your communist leftist ideologs will never destroy the memory of one of the greatest presidents ever.

The 100 million figure so often quoted, besides being highly inflated, means nothing. Because some maniac who calls himself a socialist kills a lot of people does not mean socialism advocates it. As Marx himself stated, capital punishment is an abomination in any society that calls itself civilized. He also declared that the socialist society that replaced capitalism would be "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
I'm not argueing that it's inflated, but you think that all of those were by the death penality or the Gulag or something similar according to your response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Chinese_Famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
Mostly caused by bad economic policies.

It will never be held in infamy, you and your communist leftist ideologs will never destroy the memory of one of the greatest presidents ever.



Laughable.

Two words. Iran Contra.

It will never be held in infamy, you and your communist leftist ideologs will never destroy the memory of one of the greatest presidents ever.

Name anything positive he did for the people of the United States.

The lack of applicability of it? If it can't be done, don't try it! If there is a lot of undeniable proof that it dosen't work DON'T TRY IT!!!



Crimeless societies are impossible too. Should we give up on trying to stop crime too?

Thats a great mentality.:rolleyes:

Crimeless societies are impossible too. Should we give up on trying to stop crime too?

Thats a great mentality.
There's a differnce between a low-crime society and a CRIMELESS one. I say we shouldn't be putting down intrusions on our freedom for a "Crimeless" society, but try to prevent what we can. There is no evidence that a low crime society can not exist.

Name anything positive he did for the people of the United States.

For one, he stood up to the soviets.

Name anything positive he did for the people of the United States.

Going by what I've read (since I wasn't actually alive during this period), he offered the US a sense of strength and security in a time when American weakness seemed debilitating.

For one, he stood up to the soviets.


Because he was the only president ever to do that, right?:rolleyes:

Trot asked what he did for the american people, I mentioned one thing. If you have to use sarcasm in terrible taste you must really be desperate for attention.
He was the best President in the last 4 decades, but we've had a bad string of presidents lately.:(

Crimeless societies are impossible too. Should we give up on trying to stop crime too?

Thats a great mentality.:rolleyes:

When you try so hard to get rid of crime that you outlaw the essential freedoms of a society and begin to disrupt its workings, then I say you've contradicted your original purpose. The same goes for class.

Because he was the only president ever to do that, right?:rolleyes:

Trot asked what he did for the american people, I mentioned one thing. If you have to use sarcasm in terrible taste you must really be desperate for attention.

Trot asked what he did for the american people, I mentioned one thing. If you have to use sarcasm in terrible taste you must really be desperate for attention.



Terrible taste? How so? I merely am pointing out that he shouldnt be revered for something that isnt really exclusive to him.


Im sorry if my attack on the neocon/social conservative God has offended you.:rolleyes:

For one, he stood up to the soviets.

How did that help the American people, let alone outweigh the ill that he did? He destabilized detente with his military build up and Star Wars missile defense program, bringing us to the brink of nuclear war.

Capitalism has killed 1000 X more people then Communism. There is nothing inherently wrong in Communists or Communism.

Not to mention the idea that socialism is somehow bad just blows my mind. "You want to help people regardless of weather or not they're rich? You monster!"

Also Marx is not the be all and end all of Communism, he was just the prophet of Communism and the key player behind it. However it is also the combined work of Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.

On a similar note Capitalism is hatred by tons of people from all corners of political thought as a result of Marx's research. Capitalism just doesn't work, it degenerates into rampant consumerism and... well basically the mess the world is in now.

While I'm talking about Marx: "Religion is the opium of the masses" meant that like Opium at the time religion was a great source of pleasure and comfort, helped to inspire many great things, but was a cause of war and could be dangerous in excess. I fail to see how you can compare that analogy to Communism for Proletariats.

i am a Communist and am tired of the crap the Americans and Christians give us simply because we've called their bluff and want to end the cycle of corruption and greed that is not only inherent in Capitalism but is in fact encouraged.

PS. Power does NOT corrupt; the corrupt just usually get power.

Terrible taste? How so? I merely am pointing out that he shouldnt be revered for something that isnt really exclusive to him.


Im sorry if my attack on the neocon/social conservative God has offended you.:rolleyes:

If you have a real point about my post's instead of more terrible sarcasm make it, if not then I won't respond to you anymore.

When you try so hard to get rid of crime that you outlaw the essential freedoms of a society and begin to disrupt its workings, then I say you've contradicted your original purpose. The same goes for class.

Class is to crime like apples are to neutron bombs. They are not evenly remotely equivalent.

Capitalism has killed 1000 X more people then Communism. There is nothing inherently wrong in Communists or Communism.

Not to mention the idea that socialism is somehow bad just blows my mind. "You want to help people regardless of weather or not they're rich? You monster!"

Also Marx is not the be all and end all of Communism, he was just the prophet of Communism and the key player behind it. However it is also the combined work of Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.

On a similar note Capitalism is hatred by tons of people from all corners of political thought as a result of Marx's research. Capitalism just doesn't work, it degenerates into rampant consumerism and... well basically the mess the world is in now.

While I'm talking about Marx: "Religion is the opium of the masses" meant that like Opium at the time religion was a great source of pleasure and comfort, helped to inspire many great things, but was a cause of war and could be dangerous in excess. I fail to see how you can compare that analogy to Communism for Proletariats.

i am a Communist and am tired of the crap the Americans and Christians give us simply because we've called their bluff and want to end the cycle of corruption and greed that is not only inherent in Capitalism but is in fact encouraged.

PS. Power does NOT corrupt; the corrupt just usually get power.

Power DOES corrupt, your idealism just proves you have no clue about the fundamental tenets of human psychology, not to mention history. Also, your note about how capitalism doesn't work might be germane if capitalist societies HADN"T WON THE COLD WAR.

And where the hell did you get "Capitalism kills 1000x more than communism"?? Is that an actual statistic, or your biased, unhistorical perspective?

Class is to crime like apples are to neutron bombs. They are not evenly remotely equivalent.

Apparently that's not the case because KOL made the comparison. Isn't it a great Marxist argument that class and class divisions is a crime?

How did that help the American people, let alone outweigh the ill that he did? He destabilized detente with his military build up and Star Wars missile defense program, bringing us to the brink of nuclear war.

That in particular helped the american people because, without his strength in the matter, the cold war could have dragged on for far longer. The corrupt and decadent Soviet system would have fallen eventually, be he certainly sped up the matter. Any I don't think he was THE best, just one of the best.

Ah, good of you to point out the McKinley assassination, I completely forgot to mention that, and how it came to be important in forming the American conception of the Anarchist. Czolgosh, besides being totally deranged, hardly looks the type of person to make a good impression on the American people in favor of anarchism, this photo especially. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/First_photograph_of_Leon_F._Czolgosz%2C_the_assassin_of_President_William_McKinley%2C_in_jail.jpg)In deed.
Of course, it was a bunch of false propaganda, but it worked.

And communists seem to think that communism is possible without a dictatorship. It is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers)

And don't give me that "state-capitalism" BS. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.Hence why communists use the (inaccurate) term state-capitalism, because it walks and talks like state-capitalism.

I'm not argueing that it's inflated, but you think that all of those were by the death penality or the Gulag or something similar according to your response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Chinese_Famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
Mostly caused by bad economic policies.Yes, they were caused by bad economic policies.
They were not caused by communist economic policies.

That in particular helped the american people because, without his strength in the matter, the cold war could have dragged on for far longer. The corrupt and decadent Soviet system would have fallen eventually, be he certainly sped up the matter. Any I don't think he was THE best, just one of the best.

The Cold War was soon to be over, regardless of Reagen's actions. The jury is still out on whether he hastened the USSR's demise, but either way, I do not think the greatly increased threat of nuclear war is an acceptable cost for the hastening of the USSR's collapse.

The Cold War was soon to be over, regardless of Reagen's actions. The jury is still out on whether he hastened the USSR's demise, but either way, I do not think the greatly increased threat of nuclear war is an acceptable cost for the hastening of the USSR's collapse.

The closest we got to WW3 was during Mr. John Kennedy's term of office.

Indeed.
Of course, it was a bunch of false propaganda, but it worked.

It is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers)

Hence why communists use the (inaccurate) term state-capitalism, because it walks and talks like state-capitalism.

Yes, they were caused by bad economic policies.
They were not caused by communist economic policies.

I'd like to mention that citing Quakers is not keeping within the communist belief of "religion is the opiate of the masses".

Also, if a communist government is capable of causing that level of destruction simply through a bad economic plan, it's not a viable system and therefore not worth considering.

Power DOES corrupt, your idealism just proves you have no clue about the fundamental tenets of human psychology, not to mention history. Also, your note about how capitalism doesn't work might be germane if capitalist societies HADN"T WON THE COLD WAR.

And where the hell did you get "Capitalism kills 1000x more than communism"?? Is that an actual statistic, or your biased, unhistorical perspective?

It depends on what you mean by "work". For the vast majority of the Third World, capitalism does not work and has never worked for them. They bear the load of the First World, first as colonies and now as sources of cheap labor and raw materials. It's brought them nothing but mass starvation as the old village society is pulled up by the roots and vigorously shaken.

So yes, capitalism has been the cause of millions of deaths throughout the Third World. Capitalist regimes have their own spotty track records on human rights. Imperial Britain engineered famines that killed millions of Indian peasants to force them off their land. If you're going to hold Stalin's forced collectivizations against Marxism, then you have to hold Capitalism accountable for India and dozens of nearly identical cases throughout European colonies.

I know this. Reagen comes a close second. Luckily, Star Wars turned out to not work, or else the Cold War would have gone very hot very quickly.

Actually during Reagan's administration we had him start the START treaty which reduced the total amount of nuclear weapons. Additionally, we didn't get any closer to nuclear war than previous eras. Moscow was closer to Star Wars then we were, they had a working ABM system protecting Moscow.

The closest we got to WW3 was during Mr. John Kennedy's term of office.

I know this. Reagen comes a close second. Luckily, Star Wars turned out to not work, or else the Cold War would have gone very hot very quickly.

It depends on what you mean by "work". For the vast majority of the Third World, capitalism does not work and has never worked for them. They bear the load of the First World, first as colonies and now as sources of cheap labor and raw materials. It's brought them nothing but mass starvation as the old village society is pulled up by the roots and vigorously shaken.

So yes, capitalism has been the cause of millions of deaths throughout the Third World. Capitalist regimes have their own spotty track records on human rights. Imperial Britain engineered famines that killed millions of Indian peasants to force them off their land. If you're going to hold Stalin's forced collectivizations against Marxism, then you have to hold Capitalism accountable for India and dozens of nearly identical cases throughout European colonies.

Source for the engineered famines. If you want to cast a shadow on the human rights records of Capitalist regimes, consider first the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction of Tibet at the hands of the Chinese, not to mention the millions deported to gulags for no other reason then holding a difference of opinion. Capitalism in the Third World has certainly caused social uprooting and economic discontent, but it hasn't killed millions of people. And you say this as if Communism doesn't cause social uprooting (again, look to Afghanistan).

And if capitalism doesn't work for people in the third world like you said, then please explain the phenomenal rise of China, Malaysia, and South Korea after adopting capitalist systems.

Oh, and btw, unlike Stalin's collectivization, Pol Pot's policies, and China's Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward, capitalism in the colonies didn't actually kill a huge proportion of the population. They may have been very hungry, but that seems to be the same for the Ukrainians during the majority of Stalin's rule.

I know this. Reagen comes a close second. Luckily, Star Wars turned out to not work, or else the Cold War would have gone very hot very quickly.

Star wars was designed to stop nuclear missles not fire them I believe.

Um, if they knew anything about Star Wars systems they would know that they are incapable of destroying the thousands of warheads that the USSR would deploy.

Star wars was designed to stop nuclear missles not fire them I believe.

It's simple game theory.

The US develops a technology that allows it to be impervious to Soviet ICBMS. The USSR has no equivalent.

Between the time the tech is proven, and the time the tech is implemented, the USSR has a window to decide. It has 2 choices. 1: It can issue an ultimatum, demanding that the US abandon the program or else face total nuclear war or 2: It can do nothing, let US build it's missile shield, and then be forced to capitulate, lest it face nuclear annihilation.

It is a lose/lose situation for the USSR. Neither is an optimal result for the USSR. In scenario 1, both sides will lose roughly equally. In scenario 2, only the USSR loses. Do the math.

Apparently that's not the case because KOL made the comparison. Isn't it a great Marxist argument that class and class divisions is a crime?

My comparison was simply to illustrate that shooting for an idealist and impossible goal can do a lot of good anyway even though you'll never achieve it.

Can you name a signle Dictator that gave up power on his own free will?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of a class, not of an individual. Its political form is radically democratic.

Yes, bad for the ussr, but the U.S would not be so stupid as to attack Russia Via nukes, that would be a mistake of Earth destroying proportions.



You have nothing to support that but speculation. It is entirely possible the US may have nuked the USSR. But they may have not, you'll never know.


However Star Wars would have increased the chance of it, because it removes the fear of retalation.

It's simple game theory.

The US develops a technology that allows it to be impervious to Soviet ICBMS. The USSR has no equivalent.

Between the time the tech is proven, and the time the tech is implemented, the USSR has a window to decide. It has 2 choices. 1: It can issue an ultimatum, demanding that the US abandon the program or else face total nuclear war or 2: It can do nothing, let US build it's missile shield, and then be forced to capitulate, lest it face nuclear annihilation.

It is a lose/lose situation for the USSR. Neither is an optimal result for the USSR. In scenario 1, both sides will lose roughly equally. In scenario 2, only the USSR loses. Do the math.

Yes, bad for the ussr, but the U.S would not be so stupid as to attack Russia Via nukes, that would be a mistake of Earth destroying proportions.

Source for the engineered famines. If you want to cast a shadow on the human rights records of Capitalist regimes, consider first the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction of Tibet at the hands of the Chinese, not to mention the millions deported to gulags for no other reason then holding a difference of opinion. Capitalism in the Third World has certainly caused social uprooting and economic discontent, but it hasn't killed millions of people. And you say this as if Communism doesn't cause social uprooting (again, look to Afghanistan).What about the glorious american-sponsored capitalist revolutions in the americas? I'm not very fond of Stalin, but Augusto Pinochet wasn't nice to his people, either.

You are mistaking communism with dictatorship, and capitalism for democracy.

There could be a communistic democracy, and there are plenty of capitalist dictatorships.

And if capitalism doesn't work for people in the third world like you said, then please explain the phenomenal rise of China, Malaysia, and South Korea after adopting capitalist systems.
Because they now exploit either another part of their population (china, malaysia) or exploit other countries (SK).

besides, Africa is capitalist, doesn't mean they got an economic boom.

Oh, and btw, unlike Stalin's collectivization, Pol Pot's policies, and China's Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward, capitalism in the colonies didn't actually kill a huge proportion of the population. They may have been very hungry, but that seems to be the same for the Ukrainians during the majority of Stalin's rule.
See all capitalist dictatorships... ever.

You have nothing to support that but speculation. It is entirely possible the US may have nuked the USSR. But they may have not, you'll never know.


However Star Wars would have increased the chance of it, because it removes the fear of retalation.

I do believe the USSR was offered star wars technology by Reagan.

Source for the engineered famines. If you want to cast a shadow on the human rights records of Capitalist regimes, consider first the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction of Tibet at the hands of the Chinese, not to mention the millions deported to gulags for no other reason then holding a difference of opinion. Capitalism in the Third World has certainly caused social uprooting and economic discontent, but it hasn't killed millions of people. And you say this as if Communism doesn't cause social uprooting (again, look to Afghanistan).

First of all, the Soviet Union and it's ilk were neither communist nor socialist. There aborrent human rights record is a stain on the belief that governments and concentrations of power can be trusted.

As for the engineered famines, I refer you to H.S. Malaiya, a member of the Indian National Congress: "The story is that the British in the process of their domination over India, kept no limits to brutality and savagery which man is capable of practicing. Hitler’s depredations, his Dachaus and Belsens…pale to insignificance before this imperialist savagery…"

He continues "The systematic destruction of Indian manufacturers; the creation of the Zemindari [landed aristocracy] and its parasitical outgrowths; the changes in agrarian structure; the financial losses incurred by tribute; the sharp transition from a pre-monetised economy to one governed by the international price mechanism—these were some of the social and institutional forces that were to bring the apocalypse of death and famine to millions—with few or no compensatory benefits to the ryot [peasant]." (Cited by Frederick Clairement, Economic Liberalism and Underdevelopment, Asia Publishing House 1960.)

And if capitalism doesn't work for people in the third world like you said, then please explain the phenomenal rise of China, Malaysia, and South Korea after adopting capitalist systems.

Oh, and btw, unlike Stalin's collectivization, Pol Pot's policies, and China's Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward, capitalism in the colonies didn't actually kill a huge proportion of the population. They may have been very hungry, but that seems to be the same for the Ukrainians during the majority of Stalin's rule.

Let's see, that's 3 out of 150 countries in the Third World. Real impressive track record. I refer you to world systems theory: under capitalism there will be a developed core and an underdeveloped periphery.

Creating economic conditions that will result in the deaths of millions by starvation is no less of a crime than gassing them en masse. The British did this in Ireland and India, just like Stalin did in Ukraine, Pol Pot did in Cambodia, and Mao did in China.

This is a debate which has happened so many times it's absolutely pointless because at the end of the day, no one will change their opinions.

@ fall of empire:

Anyway, I wonder what you think you know about the Soviet "invasion" of Afghanistan? Did you learn it all from Charlie Wilson's War? The Soviet military presence in Afghanistan was repeatedly REQUESTED by the Afghan government due to the Islamic militant insurgency and the Soviets repeatedly declined because they knew that the US would use it as a political lever on the international stage and as an excuse to fund anti-Soviet movements. Eventually the situation was so dire that the USSR had to send military aid to the Afghan government. It's not really an invasion when you are invited, is it?

Interesting now to see that the very same Islamists who were being funded by the United States to fight the Soviets are now the target of the US's "war on terror". Perhaps it would have been wise to consider the long term consequences of equipping and funding the mujahideen. What would you prefer to live under as an Afghan, a secular state striving for equal rights, diversity and inclusion or an oppressive theocracy where women cannot leave their houses without their husbands, meet other men and must cover their bodies from head to toe to show their "modesty"? I know which I'd choose.

First of all, the Soviet Union and it's ilk were neither communist nor socialist. There aborrent human rights record is a stain on the belief that governments and concentrations of power can be trusted.

As for the engineered famines, I refer you to H.S. Malaiya, a member of the Indian National Congress: "The story is that the British in the process of their domination over India, kept no limits to brutality and savagery which man is capable of practicing. Hitler’s depredations, his Dachaus and Belsens…pale to insignificance before this imperialist savagery…"

He continues "The systematic destruction of Indian manufacturers; the creation of the Zemindari [landed aristocracy] and its parasitical outgrowths; the changes in agrarian structure; the financial losses incurred by tribute; the sharp transition from a pre-monetised economy to one governed by the international price mechanism—these were some of the social and institutional forces that were to bring the apocalypse of death and famine to millions—with few or no compensatory benefits to the ryot [peasant]." (Cited by Frederick Clairement, Economic Liberalism and Underdevelopment, Asia Publishing House 1960.)



Let's see, that's 3 out of 150 countries in the Third World. Real impressive track record. I refer you to world systems theory: under capitalism there will be a developed core and an underdeveloped periphery.

Creating economic conditions that will result in the deaths of millions by starvation is no less of a crime than gassing them en masse. The British did this in Ireland and India, just like Stalin did in Ukraine, Pol Pot did in Cambodia, and Mao did in China.

I think you confuse imperialism with capitalism and that you should know that while one can be used to support the other, the two are not synonomous in the loosest sense of the word. Not to mention that the USSR and China both possessed empires, so imperialism is not restricted to the capitalist nations.

And your belief that "Since the USSR failed, and communism can't fall, therefore the USSR wasn't communist" is completely ridiculous. If you truly believe this, then you should know that if self-labelled communist societies fail so miserably at living up to their ideals, then it really isn't a workable system anyway.

And just so you know, I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect. It clearly has its own severe injustices and problems that must be dealt with. But history shows time and time again, whatever the problems with capitalism, they're far greater with communism.

However the dicatorship is not the marxist society, what follows it is. A Marxist society is not a dicatorship, the DoP is just the means Marx predicted would happen.


And yeah I know that Marxism would not work, but Im debating the idea, not its practice.

Thats like debating about falling up. If you know it won't work what's the point?

I think you confuse imperialism with capitalism and that you should know that while one can be used to support the other, the two are not synonomous in the loosest sense of the word.

You mean like youve been consitantly doing with communism and dicatatorships?;)

Then perhaps we should both be blaming imperialism, and not taking potshot's at each other's economic philosophies, mkay?

True dat, imperialism's the worst of all three. By far. Finally, some common ground.

But just a final note (since I saw your edit and am too lazy to re-quote it), the USSR had the goal of creating a classless society, and completely failed at doing it. This is the same as every other communist society, proving that as grand as communist ideals sound, they're not attainable. It's far more efficient to work within the frame of capitalism to try to resolve injustices.

Thats like debating about falling up. If you know it won't work what's the point?

Doing so simply as an intellectual exercise, my dear friend:D

Im not even a communist. I just like debating the merits of various philosphies. And sense communism is so often villified and I find it a great system in an ideal society (IE one no run by humans ;)) its one I often champion in such "exercises"

True dat, imperialism's the worst of all three. By far. Finally, some common ground.



Ill agree to that.

I think you confuse imperialism with capitalism and that you should know that while one can be used to support the other, the two are not synonomous in the loosest sense of the word. Not to mention that the USSR and China both possessed empires, so imperialism is not restricted to the capitalist nations.

And your belief that "Since the USSR failed, and communism can't fall, therefore the USSR wasn't communist" is completely ridiculous. If you truly believe this, then you should know that if self-labelled communist societies fail so miserably at living up to their ideals, then it really isn't a workable system anyway.

And just so you know, I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect. It clearly has its own severe injustices and problems that must be dealt with. But history shows time and time again, whatever the problems with capitalism, they're far greater with communism.

Then perhaps we should both be blaming imperialism, and not taking potshot's at each other's economic philosophies, mkay?

You completely mischaracterized my argument about why the USSR is not communist. I don't know where you got that idea. My argument was that the definition of communism as a stateless, classless society (as Marx himself defined it) logically precludes a totalitarian, class based state society from being communist.

Lol. It only took us 95 posts to reach a consensus that imperialism is bad.

Its alright, it took the world...what...600 years?


Pretty good by comparison Id say;)

Lol. It only took us 95 posts to reach a consensus that imperialism is bad.

Its alright, it took the world...what...600 years?


Pretty good by comparison Id say;)

There is hope for humanity yet it seems

Reason Two: Most US citizens are dim and assume that in order to have communism you must have a dictatorship which is a direct contradiction to the classless society communism aims for.
Really now? My main problem with communism is a lack of desire for all workers. If you get paid the same for being a ditch digger or a doctor, then why bother going to school at all? Because either way you will end up at a flat paying job with not chance to make a better life for yourself at all. Not to mention your workers probably get frustrated as hell.

Really now? My main problem with communism is a lack of desire for all workers. If you get paid the same for being a ditch digger or a doctor, then why bother going to school at all? Because either way you will end up at a flat paying job with not chance to make a better life for yourself at all. Not to mention your workers probably get frustrated as hell.

Absolute equality has never been a tenent of communism. It's based around distribution according to need, and each individual's needs are different.

Absolute equality has never been a tenent of communism. It's based around distribution according to need, and each individual's needs are different.Now you are wondering into socialism. Take Cuba for example


http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article663.php

"Everyone gets paid the SAME inadequate wage"

Now you are wondering into socialism. Take Cuba for example


http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article663.php

"Everyone gets paid the SAME inadequate wage"

Cuba is not a classless society. The state controls the economy. There is no worker's self-management and common ownership of the means of production, both fundamental tenets of socialism, Marxian or otherwise.

Communism has been tried in many communities throughout the U.S., and the only places it has shown any form of success is in the communities of Amish and Mennonite religious societies. Every secular collectivist community has collapsed upon itself within a matter of years. The problem lies in human nature: We're lazy. we only work because we expect a reward.

If Bob works his ass off to contribute to the community fund, and Bill does little (whether due to injury or sloth) but both receive equal shares, Bill sees no need to improve, and Bob sees that effort has the same result as non-effort. he will chose, consciously or unconsciously, to not work as hard. Overall productivity declines. It is generally democratically decided that those in a community who don't do their share must be forced to improve standards, and a dictatorship develops. this causes strife and the community disintegrates. the result is anarchy or despotism.

In a capitalist society, you get what you earn through your own labor or ingenuity. The strong and the smart produce, and often need assistance in their endeavors. They hire those who are capable of helping in exchange for a portion of the proceeds from the business (wages, or capital) and the wealth is created and spread. The Republic is the natural form of government, and laws are limited to the punishment of violence, theft, and fraud. "Harm no one. Then do as you will" is the motto of the true capitalist.

The U.S. is not a capitalist society (in the classical sense) and has not been so for a long time. We have been growing into a facist system of government-controlled industry since at least the time of Roosevelt's "New Deal." in fascism, Government controls industry by a combination of direct ownership and extensive regulation. the illusion of personal property is maintained, but in reality a permit or fee or tax or inspection is required before anything may be done.

We in the U.S. oppose communism/socialism because we want to operate under a true capitalist system. We of the libertarian mindset don't want to force capitalism on the world any more than we want communism thrust upon us. Those who wish to live under any system of government ought to have the right to move to the country that uses the system they desire. capitalists may move here, communists may move elsewhere. The problem lies in the fact that most who want communism insist that the whole world accept their way, just like many in the "neo-conservative" movement here want to spread capitalism by force.

Cuba is not a classless society. The state controls the economy. There is no worker's self-management and common ownership of the means of production, both fundamental tenets of socialism, Marxian or otherwise.Where have I mention class at all? I'm talking about standard pay for the average person, who would like to work themselves up to become wealthy. They can't do it.

Where have I mention class at all? I'm talking about standard pay for the average person, who would like to work themselves up to become wealthy. They can't do it.

Cuba is not a socialist country: that is my point. Pointing to the failure of a country that is not socialist/communist does not point to a flaw in socialism/communism.

It is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers)


The various internet quizzes used to label me "Orthodox Quaker" before I gave up on that whole religion thing. Fascinating.

"Communionism." That actually has a nice ring to it.


I'd like to mention that citing Quakers is not keeping within the communist belief of "religion is the opiate of the masses".


I'd like to mention that taking a single Karl Marx quote and proposing it as the sole definition of "communism" is to engage in rather obvious and nonsensical strawman construction.

For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

As far as anti-authoritarian socialism/communism goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operatives

Educate yourself. I disagree with NS General's resident anarcho-/libertarian communists on a fairly regular basis, but I would never propose that they advocate dictatorship. That would be absurd.

Also because among some people it is considered necessary (and right) to reward hard work and punish slackers.

Than you can't support capitalism in which hard workers (even people doing more than one job, or "heroes" like 9-11 emergency workers) are left in very poor situation, while "slackers" who just were there at the right time and tricked/lured other (like Bill Gates) can become billionaires...

In addition to this I think most of us Americans think the communism is an unnecessary infringement upon freedom. Choices=good.

Communism makes choice real, not merely theoretical. ;)

Thanks, but I still have some questions.

Communism is the overarching theory, but Marxism is just a part of that, isn't it?

Well, "communism" is an ideal proposed by Marx, and then claimed and "extended" by many other, in different ways.

Marxism means "following the teaching of Marx", which is more narrow, but quite troublesome because Marx didn't answer to everything, changed his mind on a few things during his life, and did a few mistakes, as any other human being. Marx himself said he was not "marxist", to point out the dangerousness of following blindly the ideas of anyone.

There are still several communist countries (in name at least.) such as vietnam.

Hum... There are a few countries which are officially ruled by a "communist party". That doesn't mean they are communists. Most of them are very far from Marx' view of communism. Most of them don't even claim to be "communism". Communism is a long term goal, the role of communist party nowadays is to make a transition towards communism, but no serious communist would claim that he can implement communism right now.

I would say that communism is a tool which dictators hijacked.

Indeed.

It could still work, although it is highly unlikely.

Well, we can argue for long about the feasibility of the long term goal "communism". That would be as much philosophy as politics. But that doesn't make it impossible to go much closer to this goal than we are now. The question if medicine will be able one day to grant us "immortality" (well, outside of accidents of course) is not revelant when you're trying to postpone death and old age. Of course, it doesn't mean you can do it at any cost, and maintaining in life people who are terminally ill, suffering and wishing to "end it" is not a good thing. The same apply, to a point, with communism.

Well there are differences between Communism and Marxism.


Communism dominated almost 1/3rd of the globe about 30 years ago, and was a revolution i think, where the lower classes (proletariat) overthrow their upper class (bourgeoisie) oppressors.

Communism never was implemented. Communism is a long term goal, which requires cannot be reached in a few years from a capitalist (and even less from a feodal) society. There were countries which were ruled by a party calling itself "communist", and claiming that they wanted to reach communism. We can argue if they really wanted to reach communism, or if they used it as an excuse. But even if they really wanted to reach communism one day, they definitely used methods and ways that I can't agree with.

Marxism looks the same and is based on class divisions and the unequal distribution of labour, however Marx was against capital punishment, whereas many Communist parties killed many people.

That's the eternal "ends justify the means" argument... it was used by both side during the russian civial war, and later on during the "cold war". And it's still used, to a point, by nearly all leaders nowadays. It's one of the major problem of politics... too much of it, and you end up doing the opposite of what you struggle for, too few of it, and you get crushed by those who do accept it.

A major flaw of Marxism is it assumes there will be an increase in the lower classes, which is not true there was and is an increase in middle class jobs.

It's true that Marx underestimated the middle class, but he didn't say there will be an increase of the lower classes.

Marxism also places too much emphasis on economic distribution of wealth, also wealth isn't the only thing that can define what class you're in.

Not really. Marxism (and marxists) considers stuff like education and culture as important as material wealth.

Communism was based on Marxist teachings, were everyone helps each other out Marx desired a return to the simple social life of "primitive communism".

Not exactly. Marx considered history as a progressive change in systems, from slavery to feodalism, from feodalism to capitalism, and then from capitalism to socialism and later on from socialism to communism. The "communism" proposed by Marx takes some of his roots in "primitive communism", but also partly in the bourgeois revolution and in Enlightenmnent.

But in a modern world this created disastrous results, often the communist governments would have a dangerous leader, or have a poor system of government otherwise.

You forget that "communist" parties only took power in poor, rural, pre-capitalist countries, and that they had to face a very strong and violent opposition. That played a huge role in their leaders being forced (or perceiving they were forced) to use the iron fist to "save the revolution" (without realising, or caring, that by doing so they were killing the "soul" of the revolution).

As a result of poor government the people in communist countries suffered horrific conditions of living, with a weak economy, crime was rife

If you look at Russia or some Eastern European countries, they had better living conditions (especially in term of education and healthcare) than they have now, and the crime was much lower. If you look at Cuba today, they have the highest life expectancy and lowest illetteracy rate of the whole Latin America, despite the 50-years old blockade against them. And crime in Cuba is much lower than in most of Latin America. You need to compare comparable things.

You've gone horribly wrong. Communism is about taking over everything that once was free.

That's not at all what communism is about. Communism is about delivering people from oppression - oppression by work, by misery.

Communism allows people to make nothing of their life,

Communism allows everyone to make something of his life. Not just a selected few to do it. That's why "communist" consider public education for everyone, and public healthcare for everyone, so fundamental. Because when you're in bad health, or uneducated, it's much harder to "make something of your life". That's why nowadays, only two Latin America countries are "free of illiteracy": Cuba and Venezuela.

Communism is revolved around absolute power, and is the most horrible regime on earth.

That shows how ignorant you are of communism. In a communist society, as defined by Marx, there is no social class, and... no "state" as we know it. As long as you have "power" of some people over some other people, it's not communism.

Because when Commuism dosen't lead to a dictatership and makes your life difficult... well, I don't think there's ever been a Communist government that hasn't been a dictatorship.

Because those who tried to reach "communism" without using the iron fist were squashed by the capitalist (Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, Sandinist Nicaragua, ...). When you're weak, and alone against everyone else, it's very hard to survive without coming a dictatorship. That doesn't tell anything about communism itself.

Nowadays, we see in Latin America countries that claim to be "socialist" (in the "beyond capitalism" meaning of the term) and stay very democratic (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador). But it's hard for them - as you can see with the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela, for example.

Plus Capiltalism is more efficent + more freedom.

More efficient ? Tell that to all those living in poverty inside the richest countries of the planet. About the 20% of US citizen who don't have health coverage. Tell that to those kicked out from their house because a bubble exploded.

As for more freedom... we don't have the same meaning of freedom. For a freedom to exist, it has to be really possible, not just words on paper. You are not free when you've to do two jobs to pay your food. You're not free when you can't enter university because you have no money. You're no free when you can't see a doctor because you can't pay him.

Marxism DOES want a dictatorship,

If you're speaking about the "dictatorship of the proletariat", then you're doing a wrong interpretation of Marx. Remember that Marx wrote in the XIXest century. He used "dictatorship" in the roman meaning of the term, that is a temporary, controlled strong power given to the leader in term of emergency. This "dictatorship" can be very democratic - it has to be, if it's from the "proleteriat". Marx made it quite clear by pointing Paris' Commune (one of the most democratic government that ever existed) and saying "that is the dictatorship of the proletariat".

Most Americans like to do what they want, when they want to, without answering to authority.

Oh, that's why they obey to stock owners and CEOs ? Capitalism is authority - authority of those who own on those who don't own.

We also believe in personal property and that it is against everything we accept to have property dispersed and taken.

But they accept stock owners and CEOs to take the product of their work...

However saying that the ruling class will give up power peacefully goes against every signle historical example when its a dictatorship.

That happened during the roman republic (before the empire). Dictatorship didn't mean absolute power, but "strong power to handle emergency". That's what Marx meant.

You also said that to have a succesful Marxist society, you need a "Dictatorship of the Prolatariate".

First, that's a _way_ to reach communism. The one that Marx felt that would happen, it doesn't mean it's the only way nor the "correct" way to reach it.

Then, "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was not a dictatorship as we nowadays interpret the word, but, as Marx himself said, something like Paris' Commune, that is, a very democratic, but able to take radical measures, government.

Because of the cold war in part for sure. Also because among some people it is considered necessary (and right) to reward hard work and punish slackers. In addition to this I think most of us Americans think the communism is an unnecessary infringement upon freedom. Choices=good.

not to be trolling or anything, but myself and many others i've talked to in this country often find the American idea of 'freedom' differs from what we consider it to be.

in the US, it seems economic freedom is paramount, but social freedoms are a different matter. in this country, our social and political freedoms are what we would consider 'freedom', while our economic freedom seems to matter a lot less (higher taxes, nationalised industries, etc)

this is of course a view that is based on a limited understanding of the States, but i am certainly not alone in this view.


(edit: wow, nice to see you back, KiloB! :))

Communism is responsible for the deaths of one hundred million people. I think that explains it.

And how many deaths for capitalism ? Thousands of people die daily because of it.

But anyway, you make a very bad mistake: you confuse an idea (communism) with what was made in its name. A lot of horrors were made in the made of freedom, of democracy or of christianity. Should be "burn" completely all those too ?

And don't give me that "state-capitalism" BS. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

That's why USSR was much more state capitalism than socialism or communism. Capitalism means "control of the mean of production by those owning them". Socialism means "control of the mean of production by those working in them". Communism means "classless society in which people cooperate to reach a common goal". If you look at what was done in USSR, it was control of mean of production by those owning them - the nomenklatura. Definitely not a "classless society" or "control by the workers".

The lack of applicability of it? If it can't be done, don't try it! If there is a lot of undeniable proof that it dosen't work DON'T TRY IT!!!

That's exactly the kind of conservative attitude that would have left us without blood transfusion (before we understood about the blood groups, it had "lot of undeniable proof that it dosen't work"). The same goes for most scientific studies, and even for stuff like "democracy".

When something fails, don't stop everything. Look at the reasons of failure, learn from them, and try again, without doing the same mistakes. That's how progress is done.

There's a differnce between a low-crime society and a CRIMELESS one. I say we shouldn't be putting down intrusions on our freedom for a "Crimeless" society, but try to prevent what we can. There is no evidence that a low crime society can not exist.

When we "communists" speak of "classless" society, we speak of societies in which class play a very minor roles. They will very likely never totally disappear in all forms, as crime won't totally disappear in all forms.

There is the ideal: communism or crimeless. And there is how you can make the reality close to the ideal. Even if you can't reach it. The same applies to democracy, btw, "power to the people" will never be total.

He was the best President in the last 4 decades, but we've had a bad string of presidents lately.:(

Yep, sure, financing terror groups to slaughter thousands of people and fight a democratically elected government is definitely something a "best president" would do.

The lack of applicability of it? If it can't be done, don't try it! If there is a lot of undeniable proof that it dosen't work DON'T TRY IT!!!Let's sink that silly notion with one carefully placed piece of evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz).

Reason Two: Most US citizens are dim and assume that in order to have communism you must have a dictatorship which is a direct contradiction to the classless society communism aims for.

Some people are dim and assume that communism can work in scales bigger than a few tens of people without dictatorship. Sweetheart, some things will always be in short supply and thus accessible just to a few. You can choose those few either by money (with the added benefit that people work to get some) or by closenes to the "leaders" (and make sure people do continue working using some other incentive).
Dictatorship may be in direct contradiction to the society communism boasts about, but is direct result of any attempt to build such a society.

And where the hell did you get "Capitalism kills 1000x more than communism"?? Is that an actual statistic, or your biased, unhistorical perspective?

As for "crimes of communism" it depends how you count.

But all the death of World War II can be attributed to capitalism (World War II is widely admitted to be a consequence of the 1929 crisis).

All the death provoked by the lower life expectancy in more capitalist countries (if you compare USA with European countries which are less capitalist, or if you compare Cuba with other South American countries) make a lot too.

But the most impressive figure is this one: 25 000 die every day from starvation, in our beautiful globalized capitalism world. That's almost 10 millions per year. That's 150 millions since the fall of the Wall. And yes, capitalism is responsible of that. Only for starvation, not counting deaths of preventable or curable disease, unclean water, ...

I am sure that that is not at all there is to those across the pond.

A bit of history maybe: www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsocialist.htm

All but stamped out for sure.

I'd like to mention that citing Quakers is not keeping within the communist belief of "religion is the opiate of the masses".

You should read the full sentence, not only a part of it. ;)

Also, if a communist government is capable of causing that level of destruction simply through a bad economic plan, it's not a viable system and therefore not worth considering.

If a capitalist system is capable of causing that level of destruction through a bad stock market crash, it's not a viable system and therefore not worth considering.

But planned economy is not something really inherent to communism. It's just a way to implement socialism (transition from capitalism towards communism), and not necessary the best one.

If you want to cast a shadow on the human rights records of Capitalist regimes,

It's a very easy thing to do. All the consequences of colonialism, the behavior of USA towards Latin America (Pinochet, Contras, Condor Plan, ...) the behavior of Europe towards Africa, ...

consider first the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

Soviet "invasion" of Afghanistan was asked for by... the Afghan government. This was a wrong thing to do, but in no way comparable to USA support to the Talibans followed by their invasion of Aghanistan and later on of Irak, to take recent examples.

and the destruction of Tibet at the hands of the Chinese,

And the way Native American are treated in USA ?

Capitalism in the Third World has certainly caused social uprooting and economic discontent, but it hasn't killed millions of people.

Just by starvation, and only in the latest 15 years, it's 150 millions.

And if capitalism doesn't work for people in the third world like you said, then please explain the phenomenal rise of China, Malaysia, and South Korea after adopting capitalist systems.

In China, there may be a huge economical growth, but poverty, misery and starvation is growing *too*.

In South Korea, it's a very special system, which is half-way between capitalism and planned economy (the government there plays a very important role there in protecting and bootstrapping "fields of excellence"). And anyway, South Korea system only works because very few countries follow the same system, so they use the benefits of the partially planned economy to become leaders in a domain and then feed on other capitalist countries. That just can't work for everyone.

I think you confuse imperialism with capitalism

The "good economical situation" you give to rich countries comes as much, if not more, from imperialism than from capitalism. So you can't say "capitalism is a success, see Europe and USA" without including "imperialism" in your scope of "capitalism".

And it can be very coherently argued that imperialism is a natural consequence of a class system like capitalism.

If you truly believe this, then you should know that if self-labelled communist societies fail so miserably at living up to their ideals, then it really isn't a workable system anyway.

So, it's self-labels that matter ? So "terrorists" in Irak are in fact "freedom fighters", the DDR was "democratic" and Saddam's Irak was a "republic" ? Oh, no ? So, self-labels only matter when it helps you...

Marxism and Communism are just plain failures of ideas. Americans don't care for Communists because Communists believe in an foolish ideology. Liberal socialist ideas have failed miserably every time they've been put into practice. Not to mention that far over a hundred-million people have died because of Marx. Communism is a stranglehold on humanity, inherently wrong in all of its ways.

Marxists like to say, "Religion is the opiate of the people." Well, apparently, "Marxism is the opiate of imbeciles."

I see, you had your proper dose of capitalist propaganda. ;)
I am sure, that each communist will say the very same about democracy in all its ways. Its almost like a religious thing, the question is what you want to believe.

Try this two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbTIJ9_bLP4&feature=related

Really now? My main problem with communism is a lack of desire for all workers. If you get paid the same for being a ditch digger or a doctor, then why bother going to school at all? Because either way you will end up at a flat paying job with not chance to make a better life for yourself at all. Not to mention your workers probably get frustrated as hell.

Because even for the same pay, it's much more pleasant and gratifying to be a doctor than a ditch digger ?

I wouldn't want a doctor who does his job just because of the pay ! I want one that does his job because he likes to take of others and be useful in that way.

And studying is, in itself, enlightening, pleasant, useful for everyday life. If you let people chose, most would chose study over manual works, if there is no money issue.

the opposition to communism, socialism and marxism in general were solidified during the Cold War.


...even before. 1918. American Expeditionary Force to Siberia, supporting the White armies. In the subsequent years, prosecution (and persecution) of communists and socialists throughout the US. McCarthy didn't invent anything new, after all.

The demographics issue is quite interesting, too.

Some people are dim and assume that communism can work in scales bigger than a few tens of people without dictatorship. Sweetheart, some things will always be in short supply and thus accessible just to a few. You can choose those few either by money (with the added benefit that people work to get some) or by closenes to the "leaders" (and make sure people do continue working using some other incentive).
Dictatorship may be in direct contradiction to the society communism boasts about, but is direct result of any attempt to build such a society.

Oi. We anarchists would like to disagree with you here. Again, this sort of thing is simply false. How about 3 million people, living in an Anarcho-syndicalist/Anarchist Communist society. Would that count? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution for a beautiful example.

To just pull a quote from Orwell out of that page:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it.

That is the sort of society I speak of. I don't agree with everything the Spanish Anarchists did, but they had one of the best tries so far at making a truly classless society work.

So, it's self-labels that matter ? So "terrorists" in Irak are in fact "freedom fighters", the DDR was "democratic" and Saddam's Irak was a "republic" ? Oh, no ? So, self-labels only matter when it helps you...And North Korea is a Democratic Republic. ;)

Sweetheart, some things will always be in short supply and thus accessible just to a few. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing)

Where have I mention class at all? I'm talking about standard pay for the average person, who would like to work themselves up to become wealthy. They can't do it.

I'm talking about long working days the average person has to do to just survive. They would like to work themselves up to become wealthy, but after their day of work, they just don't have the time left for it.

I could vary with education, money (bank rarely lend to poor people), ... Capitalism prevents many people from doing something else than wasting their lives doing boring, tiring, dangerous work to pay what they need to just survive.

Communism allows everyone to improve themselves, through free and complete education, free healthcare, lower working hours (more free time), ...

And it's not "becoming wealthy" which is the best for the society. Be it an artist, a scientist, or just a parent taking care of his child, all those are (usually) motivated by something else than money, and BECAUSE of that, they contribute a lot to society. Von Neumann and Turing did far more for computer science than all the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world.

I think some of the reasons as to why Communism isn't that popular in the US could be that these events somewhat tainted any popular taste for it;

1) Korean war - 36,000 US soldiers dead. 93,000 US soldiers wounded. 7,300 prisoners of war. 8,100 missing in action. 444,000 war veterans.

2) Vietnam war - 58,209 US soldiers dead. 305,000 US soldiers wounded. 1,141,000 war veterans.

3) Cuban missile crisis. Nuclear war with possible projection of 300+million dead only slightly averted.

4) Cold War. Permanent threat of US positions being overrun in Western Europe and war transcending into a nuclear holocaust.


I believe that could have played quite a role. Perhaps you as a 14 year old idealist kid who lives in a white suburban neighborhood with no troubles and no experiences in the world might feel disconnected from it. However please feel free to convince a grieving grandma in a retirement home who lost her only son to Korean communists, that the people who killed her son followed "the good side." Or for that matter someone who's father only has one leg because of a Vietnamese landmine. etc... It was this, and the expansionists attitude of bolshevik communism that doomed any socialists movement in the US.
Also before we enter semantics, the Korean and Vietnamese war were both legitimate wars. The legally democratically elected governments of both nations begged the US for intervention from an illegal revolutionary group, that was trying to overthrow a democratic state.

I think some of the reasons as to why Communism isn't that popular in the US could be that these events somewhat tainted any popular taste for it;

1) Korean war - 36,000 US soldiers dead. 93,000 US soldiers wounded. 7,300 prisoners of war. 8,100 missing in action. 444,000 war veterans.

2) Vietnam war - 58,209 US soldiers dead. 305,000 US soldiers wounded. 1,141,000 war veterans.

3) Cuban missile crisis. Nuclear war with possible projection of 300+million dead only slightly averted.

4) Cold War. Permanent threat of US positions being overrun in Western Europe and war transcending into a nuclear holocaust.

1) As opposed to the millions of civilian causalities caused by Allied bombing campaigns, and the four hundred thousand North Korean and Chinese soldiers killed...

2) Against 1 million military deaths and 2,000,000-5,000,000 civilians deaths caused by the US bombing and military occupation. Those numbers are real, real significant. :headbang:

3) Have you once considered that the USSR would have lost just as much as the US in Kennedy's absurd game of brinkmanship?

4) It takes two to have an arms race. You cannot blame the USSR for all of it.


I believe that could have played quite a role. Perhaps you as a 14 year old idealist kid who lives in a white suburban neighborhood with no troubles and no experiences in the world might feel disconnected from it. However please feel free to convince a grieving grandma in a retirement home who lost her only son to Korean communists, that the people who killed her son followed "the good side." Or for that matter someone who's father only has one leg because of a Vietnamese landmine. etc... It was this, and the expansionists attitude of bolshevik communism that doomed any socialists movement in the US.

War is never just, regardless of who is fighting. The fact that the people who fought on the other side lived under dictators who called themselves communists is irrelevant. It makes as much sense to blame communism as it does to blame them for being Asian.

Also before we enter semantics, the Korean and Vietnamese war were both legitimate wars. The legally democratically elected governments of both nations begged the US for intervention from an illegal revolutionary group, that was trying to overthrow a democratic state.

Your ignorance is astounding.

There is no such thing as a legitimate war, and the Korean and Second Indochina War were by no means legitimate. South Korea was a military dictatorship. There was no democracy in South Korea before the war, and there wasn't for at least 40 years afterward. The US propped up a brutal dictatorship that could not maintain the support of it's own people, let alone fend off a foreign aggressor.

And Vietnam was even worse. South Vietnam was a brutal dictatorship propped up by the US and Western allies. The US ignored the results of the 1958 election which would have made Ho Chi Minh the president of a united Vietnam. The US supplied arms and troops to support the puppet while conducting a full scale war on the Viet Cong guerillas who could take no more of their country's dictatorial policies. The Viet Cong was made up of South Vietnamese peasants fighting against a government they could not stand. The fact that the increasingly Stalinized North used the war to pull them under their orbit is irrelevant. Please read a book on history before you spout this insanity.

I think some of the reasons as to why Communism isn't that popular in the US could be that these events somewhat tainted any popular taste for it;
Although you clearly haven't exactly thought about it.

1) Korean war - 36,000 US soldiers dead. 93,000 US soldiers wounded. 7,300 prisoners of war. 8,100 missing in action. 444,000 war veterans.
The Korean War was a nationalist war, not one of capitalism against communism. Both leaders wanted to unite the country after decades of Japanese rule under a single, Korean government. Had there been two capitalist, communist, fascist or any other 'ist' governments in Korea at the time, the end result would have been the same.

2) Vietnam war - 58,209 US soldiers dead. 305,000 US soldiers wounded. 1,141,000 war veterans.
Funnily enough, Ho Chi Minh won democratic elections and was popular in both South and North Vietnam, both as a result of nationalist situation like Korea and a genuine desire of South Vietnamese peasants to live under a communist government. South Vietnam, by contrast, was an unpopular puppet of the USA. I dislike war as a means of attaining any goal, but Diem and his many successors had less a right to rule the South than Ho, whose movement actually won elections in the South.

3) Cuban missile crisis. Nuclear war with possible projection of 300+million dead only slightly averted.
The USSR wasn't the only country to put missiles as close as possible to its rival.

4) Cold War. Permanent threat of US positions being overrun in Western Europe and war transcending into a nuclear holocaust.
You're suggesting the Cold War was solely the result of the USSR? We chucked out the Orthodox School half a century ago...

I believe that could have played quite a role. Perhaps you as a 14 year old idealist kid who lives in a white suburban neighborhood with no troubles and no experiences in the world might feel disconnected from it.
Well, I've an education in history, which helps, I suppose.

However please feel free to convince a grieving grandma in a retirement home who lost her only son to Korean communists, that the people who killed her son followed "the good side." Or for that matter someone who's father only has one leg because of a Vietnamese landmine. etc... It was this, and the expansionists attitude of bolshevik communism that doomed any socialists movement in the US.
Babble.

Also before we enter semantics, the Korean and Vietnamese war were both legitimate wars. The legally democratically elected governments of both nations begged the US for intervention from an illegal revolutionary group, that was trying to overthrow a democratic state.
Governments that were just as bloodthirsty as their communist rivals and propped up on a raft of US aid and support. South Korea was run by a dictator, Syngman Rhee, and continued to be run by various military and civilian dictatorships right up until the end of the twentieth century. At the time, South Korea was not really any better off than than the North. Arguably the mistakes had been made earlier, and there should have been more of a push for UN Trusteeship as originally envisaged, but that doesn't make the South Korean government in any way legitimate.

The situation in South Vietnam was that the person running North Vietnam had already won elections in South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's government was hardly pleasant, but at least it had vague support among the South (and North) Vietnamese population, most of whom already lived communal rural lifestyles anyway. Diem, on the other hand, was an entirely vile dictator, not just that, but at corrupt and incompetent vile dictator who got exactly what was coming to him when army officers bundled him into a truck and shot him with tacit US support. The South Vietnamese simply didn't want him or any of his US-backed successors.

Lack of reading comprehension ftw....

Did I say anything about the two wars or their motives? No I just said that the US fought in them, for ideological reasons, and lost a lot of men. And both times the enemy espoused a socialist/communist ideology. One can hardly be surprised that the US people are not very accepting of an ideology that cost them no less than 100,000+ fine young men.
For the same reason why as soon as the US entered WW2, the US Nazi party pretty much disappeared as well. Communism/socialism/etc.. has the mark of being the enemy, the bad, the evil. The one that robbed us of our children, who were forced to die at the other end of the world /continue emotive rant, etc..


PS: As for legality. I was referring to the fact that the Korean war was UN sanctioned.

PSS: Who pissed in your soup, or why all the unreasoned personal attacks? Did I give any reason to deserve them? I was nothing but civil.

Although you clearly haven't exactly thought about it.


The Korean War was a nationalist war, not one of capitalism against communism. Both leaders wanted to unite the country after decades of Japanese rule under a single, Korean government. Had there been two capitalist, communist, fascist or any other 'ist' governments in Korea at the time, the end result would have been the same.


Funnily enough, Ho Chi Minh won democratic elections and was popular in both South and North Vietnam, both as a result of nationalist situation like Korea and a genuine desire of South Vietnamese peasants to live under a communist government. South Vietnam, by contrast, was an unpopular puppet of the USA. I dislike war as a means of attaining any goal, but Diem and his many successors had less a right to rule the South than Ho, whose movement actually won elections in the South.


The USSR wasn't the only country to put missiles as close as possible to its rival.


You're suggesting the Cold War was solely the result of the USSR? We chucked out the Orthodox School half a century ago...


Well, I've an education in history, which helps, I suppose.


Babble.


Governments that were just as bloodthirsty as their communist rivals and propped up on a raft of US aid and support. South Korea was run by a dictator, Syngman Rhee, and continued to be run by various military and civilian dictatorships right up until the end of the twentieth century. At the time, South Korea was not really any better off than than the North. Arguably the mistakes had been made earlier, and there should have been more of a push for UN Trusteeship as originally envisaged, but that doesn't make the South Korean government in any way legitimate.

The situation in South Vietnam was that the person running North Vietnam had already won elections in South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's government was hardly pleasant, but at least it had vague support among the South (and North) Vietnamese population, most of whom already lived communal rural lifestyles anyway. Diem, on the other hand, was an entirely vile dictator, not just that, but at corrupt and incompetent vile dictator who got exactly what was coming to him when army officers bundled him into a truck and shot him with tacit US support. The South Vietnamese simply didn't want him or any of his US-backed successors.

He clearly wasn't debating the actual historical nature of the wars, just the American perception of them and how that affects the US's outlook on communism.

He clearly wasn't debating the actual historical nature of the wars, just the American perception of them and how that affects the US's outlook on communism.

My point exactly. They rant how I am insane/dumb and wrong, yet they did not even bother to read my post. And wasted god knows how much precious time writing completely irrelevant data.

Nice to know at least someone had the brains to understand the post. I seriously didn't think it was that hard to decipher.

He clearly wasn't debating the actual historical nature of the wars, just the American perception of them and how that affects the US's outlook on communism.
No, but there's nothing wrong in correcting people on those perceptions when they think they're right. Arguably his last paragraph was debating the historical nature of both wars as he sought to justify his perceptions.

My point exactly. They rant how I am insane/dumb and wrong, yet they did not even bother to read my post. And wasted god knows how much precious time writing completely irrelevant data.

Nice to know at least someone had the brains to understand the post. I seriously didn't think it was that hard to decipher.

This is NSG, the home of the pedantic. If there are factual errors, you will be corrected. In this case, you were using them for illustrative purposes, but you still made mistakes, specifically your commentary on the named wars being legitimate. Therefore you were called out on it.

This is NSG, the home of the pedantic. If there are factual errors, you will be corrected. In this case, you were using them for illustrative purposes, but you still made mistakes, specifically your commentary on the named wars being legitimate. Therefore you were called out on it.

Hardly. All they did was rant "POV" tirades. Also the legitemacy of a war, is also a point of view. As one stated, he/she believes no wars are legit. However I view that if a war has been sanctioned by the Senate of the respective nation that is invading through a democratic decision, it is as of that point a legal war. As it represents the will of the people.
A UN backed sanctioning of the war, such as with the Korean conflict even adds more legitimacy to it.
So tell me where was the "factual" error? Not taking irrelevant personal views into account?

Hardly. All they did was rant "POV" tirades. Also the legitemacy of a war, is also a point of view. As one stated, he/she believes no wars are legit. However I view that if a war has been sanctioned by the Senate of the respective nation that is invading through a democratic decision, it is as of that point a legal war. As it represents the will of the people.
A UN backed sanctioning of the war, such as with the Korean conflict even adds more legitimacy to it.
So tell me where was the "factual" error? Not taking irrelevant personal views into account?

Well, I'll admit to having not looked into the history myself for some time, but looking at the responses you got, it would seem to be this:

<snip>
Also before we enter semantics, the Korean and Vietnamese war were both legitimate wars. The legally democratically elected governments of both nations begged the US for intervention from an illegal revolutionary group, that was trying to overthrow a democratic state.
(Emphasis mine)

It appears that people took issue with your characterisation of either of these nations as democratic, and the majority of all those posts was devoted to saying so, in detail, with supporting evidence. In fact, those comments you complain* about are: "Your ignorance is astounding." (In reference to the neatly falsified claims you made), "Please read a book on history before you spout this insanity." (In reference to same), and "Although you clearly haven't exactly thought about it." (Less clear what this is aimed at overall, although the post goes on to argue with your historical claims).

The rest of it, of course, was taking issue with your main point, and as is usual for NSG, slipped in the occasional personal argument. Of course, your post was possibly slightly inaccurate in the way you characterised those who disagreed, namely, and I quote, "Perhaps you as a 14 year old idealist kid who lives in a white suburban neighborhood with no troubles and no experiences in the world might feel disconnected from it."

As a general rule, refrain from saying anything which is easily shown to be factually false, and refrain from stating that those who disagree are 14 year old kids leading sheltered lives, and people will play nice with you. Of course, this relaxes over time as you gain standing in the community.

*Well, could feasibly complain about anyway.

Well I call BS on it. They were both democratically elected legal governments. For the simple reason that;

1) South Korea was a democracy until 1960, when in General Park Chung-hee's went through with a military coup, following the crumbling of the current government. Note that the conflict went from 1950-53. So South Korea was a democracy during the duration of the actual war.

2) Vietnam was a republic. So there is not much debate there. There have been allegations of corruption against the South Vietnamese president, however to be fair they were a lot more democratic than North Vietnam. So to rag on the South while condoning the North when arguing about democracy is a tad bit hypocritical.


As for the actual point. I merely wanted to point out how it might be from a US perspective. Also I used the "14 year" example, as a point to show that many youths in the new generation are not really affected by it and can see it through seemingly neutral eyes. Yet they should have the grace to understand that not all Americans can, especially not those who lost family in the conflicts against the communist governments.

Well I call BS on it. They were both democratically elected legal governments. For the simple reason that;

1) South Korea was a democracy until 1960, when in General Park Chung-hee's went through with a military coup, following the crumbling of the current government. Note that the conflict went from 1950-53. So South Korea was a democracy during the duration of the actual war.

2) Vietnam was a republic. So there is not much debate there. There have been allegations of corruption against the South Vietnamese president, however to be fair they were a lot more democratic than North Vietnam. So to rag on the South while condoning the North when arguing about democracy is a tad bit hypocritical.


As for the actual point. I merely wanted to point out how it might be from a US perspective. Also I used the "14 year" example, as a point to show that many youths in the new generation are not really affected by it and can see it through seemingly neutral eyes. Yet they should have the grace to understand that not all Americans can, especially not those who lost family in the conflicts against the communist governments.

There we go, we're now actually getting to something where a useful discussion can take place. Anyway, it seems to have been pointed out that the leader of the North won an election in the South, but you appear to have not addressed that. Nevermind, I'm not actually in this side debate.

However, as to the main part of it: Emotional responses are generally not good ways of making an objective decision of the merits of a particular system. At risk of Godwin, Nazi Germany was certainly horrendous. I can, however, decide on it's merits without worrying about that, by looking at the total disrespect for civil liberties, oppression of political opponents, and generally dictatorial nature.

In the same way, I am certain that there are those who would consider capitalism bad because it killed someone they knew. This response isn't a good one to base your decision on. Instead, oppose it because you feel it is too profit focused, ignores other aspects in favour of maximising the economy, and when unrestricted leads to horrific abuses by employers.

Therefore, if you wish to advance a serious argument against communism, saying "Communists killed Americans" isn't really a good way to go about it. Of course, one can quite easily argue that dictatorships such as Soviet Russia were not even true communist systems, and that the closest we have had is those implemented in Spain, and on a smaller scale in many communes and similar societies.

Edit: Finally, it is fairly undeniable that there is a large bias among most of America against communism, and that this is likely a result of Cold War propaganda, both the blatant (Communism is teh ebil) and the more subtle (Communism would never work in practice, Communism wants to steal your stuff and give it to the lazy). This is sad in many ways, as it has lead to various weaknesses of the current US system, including it being crazily right wing in comparison to many more reasonable nations.

All communists are terrorists, its a fact proven by science!

All communists are terrorists, its a fact proven by science!



Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

There we go, we're now actually getting to something where a useful discussion can take place. Anyway, it seems to have been pointed out that the leader of the North won an election in the South, but you appear to have not addressed that. Nevermind, I'm not actually in this side debate.

However, as to the main part of it: Emotional responses are generally not good ways of making an objective decision of the merits of a particular system. At risk of Godwin, Nazi Germany was certainly horrendous. I can, however, decide on it's merits without worrying about that, by looking at the total disrespect for civil liberties, oppression of political opponents, and generally dictatorial nature.

In the same way, I am certain that there are those who would consider capitalism bad because it killed someone they knew. This response isn't a good one to base your decision on. Instead, oppose it because you feel it is too profit focused, ignores other aspects in favour of maximising the economy, and when unrestricted leads to horrific abuses by employers.

Therefore, if you wish to advance a serious argument against communism, saying "Communists killed Americans" isn't really a good way to go about it. Of course, one can quite easily argue that dictatorships such as Soviet Russia were not even true communist systems, and that the closest we have had is those implemented in Spain, and on a smaller scale in many communes and similar societies.

Edit: Finally, it is fairly undeniable that there is a large bias among most of America against communism, and that this is likely a result of Cold War propaganda, both the blatant (Communism is teh ebil) and the more subtle (Communism would never work in practice, Communism wants to steal your stuff and give it to the lazy). This is sad in many ways, as it has lead to various weaknesses of the current US system, including it being crazily right wing in comparison to many more reasonable nations.


I never once made a judgement about Communism. My original post wasn't my personal view,...it was my take on how the general American public probably feels about it, as an attempt to explain why anything with the term socialist/communist is shotdown before it even gets up on one foot.

Also look at my original post. I agreed with you that emotional responses are not the way to go. But I said the issue is based on "emotion" and not "logic." Hence one shouldn't look for a logical problem to it. As I said, these events were less than half a century ago. They are still too fresh and bloody for all to be forgiven and forgotten. At least in the view of many Americans in my view. As I also said in the original post; guilt by association.
Hence even a patriotic American socialist party is doomed in the US. Simply as long as they hold any ties to Marx/Lenin/Stalin or anything that has any connonation or ideological link to the USSR/North Korea/North Vietnam. This is the same reason why after the US entrance into WW2 any National Socialist party in the US also doesn't get much of a chance to rise in popularity.

All communists are terrorists, its a fact proven by science!
I quite agree - IIRC the UK ran tests in the 1960s (1964 I think), and 84% of those interviewed being self-professed communists had 'traitorous' values.

Well I call BS on it. They were both democratically elected legal governments. For the simple reason that;
Well, if you wanted a historical debate, you've got one.

1) South Korea was a democracy until 1960, when in General Park Chung-hee's went through with a military coup, following the crumbling of the current government. Note that the conflict went from 1950-53. So South Korea was a democracy during the duration of the actual war.
South Korea was not a fuctioning democracy, arguably except for a brief period after Syngman Rhee fled the county and before Park took over. Elections were rigged in order to give Rhee huge majorites in polls (90%+) and
use state security in order to ensure political opponents were not a threat to him or his chosen power base (the military, bureaucracy and security services) and could not remove him from power. On the other hand, I have not read a single article, book, journal or internet source claiming that South Korea was a democracy under Rhee at either university or A-Level level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee#Presidency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Revolution
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDsyngman.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/rhee/
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/koreanwar/terms/char_8.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IF14Dg01.html

2) Vietnam was a republic. So there is not much debate there. There have been allegations of corruption against the South Vietnamese president,
Allegations of corruption? South Vietnam was one of the most corrupt and one of the most authoritarian regimes I can think of, as well as being one of the most hopelessly inept. Under the post-Diem military governments, South Vietnam managed to siphon off enough concrete of US aid to pave the entire country. Diem managed to claim over 100% of the popular vote in one election, rigged others, and if they produced a result he didn't want, as in 1958, simply ignored them. There is simply no way anyone can call it democratic. Not by a long shot.

Diệm's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Diệm Can Lao political party, who was an opium addict and Hitler admirer. He modeled the Can Lao secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs.[15] Ngô Đình Cẩn, his younger brother, was put in charge of the former Imperial City of Huế. Although neither Cẩn or Nhu held any official role in the government, they ruled their regions of South Vietnam, commanding private armies and secret police. Another brother, Ngô Đình Luyện, was appointed Ambassador to the United Kingdom. His elder brother, Ngô Đình Thục, was the archbishop of Huế. Despite this, Thuc lived in the Presidential Palace, along with Nhu, Nhu's wife and Diệm. Diệm was nationalistic, devout Catholic, anti-Communist, and preferred the philosophies of personalism and Confucianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/exhibits/vietnam/720719a.htm
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/vietnam.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=MlNaN_k4YtcC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22south+vietnam%22+dictator&source=web&ots=d9qT-8neCr&sig=vYhZNoC36XV7-mUDkqi2yFb90bI

however to be fair they were a lot more democratic than North Vietnam. So to rag on the South while condoning the North when arguing about democracy is a tad bit hypocritical.
It's not the point. Regardless of North Vietnam being a dictatorship, the South Vietnamese people wanted Ho Chi Minh as their president in a unified Vietnam. The Vietnam War was not a war aginst North Vietnam, it was a war aginst South Vietnamese who wanted to overthrow the South Vietnamese government which denied their choice of elected government, assuming Diem didn't rig elections so that Ho Chi Minh would win (http://www.vietnamgear.com/war1959.aspx).

As for the actual point. I merely wanted to point out how it might be from a US perspective. Also I used the "14 year" example, as a point to show that many youths in the new generation are not really affected by it and can see it through seemingly neutral eyes. Yet they should have the grace to understand that not all Americans can, especially not those who lost family in the conflicts against the communist governments.
That's no excuse; emotion does not change historical fact. Losing a son or daughter to a 'war' against the Vietcong to support the South Vietnamese government does not mean that said war is the right course of action. The same goes for any war, from British colonial wars to the war in Iraq. Whether a war is the right course of action or not should be judged by rational argument, not by emotion.

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

It's a known fact that communism leads to a loss of a sense of humor, especially that of the sarcastic kind.

I wouldn't want a doctor who does his job just because of the pay ! I want one that does his job because he likes to take of others and be useful in that way.

If I'm going to work my ass off as a doctor, I would at least like to be compensated appropriately. No one said it has to be "just for the pay" but why the hell not reward the service appropriately?

And you can have your doctor who likes working for free and helping people, I'll take the doctor who's actually competent, knows what he's doing, and asks for a little money in return.

It's a known fact that communism leads to a loss of a sense of humor, especially that of the sarcastic kind.

I don't think that's common knowledge. Mind providing a source?

Wow....

Ignorant rightist: Communism didn't work.
Naive Leftist: It has never been tried.

Damn, that's why I used revleft instead of NSG, the caliber of the discussion on communism around here is pretty low...