-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Communism is right because
- Thread starter robocop (actually)
- Start date
The problem is that communism always evolves into a militant authoritarian/totalitarian government. Sure it can work on a very small scale, examples I can think of is like a small farming community. Even they sometimes go awry and become akin to an occult of sorts. But anyways let's see the wonderful health care communism in Cuba brings.
The Real Cuba
I'll just let the pictures and articles speak for themselves. Forgot to add that Fidel Castro died with a net worth of $900 million. While his people wallowed in filth and poverty. Communism at it's best!
I don't even think it's accurate to say "it failed." In the case of Russia and China, communism was a rousing success, when compared to how they were prior to their respective communist revolutions. Considering how backward and devastated they were, the fact that they were able to give the West a good run for its money is quite a testament to their achievements.
The truest measure of a nation's success or failure is in war, and capitalist Russia's dismal performance in WW1 versus communist Russia's success in WW2 (against the same enemy) speaks for itself. Same for China. Capitalist China did horribly against the Japanese during WW2, but after they became communist, they were able to hold off the combined strength of the US (which defeated Japan) and the United Nations in the Korean War.
Even in the USA, we found it necessary to implement temporary measures which some considered "communistic" in order to organize and marshal our resources to become a major force in WW2. Even after the war, we maintained the national security state, giving the FBI more power and creating the CIA and NSA in the process, directly borrowing from the NKVD/KGB playbook. We also implemented programs which some regarded as "socialistic," yet it enhanced and improved our standard of living by leaps and bounds.
I actually believe that it's possible to take the best elements of capitalism and the best elements of socialism and combine them into a balanced mixed economy, which is what many have tried to do here in the West. I think both systems fail when its adherents start to think of their "system" as a religion. Our "system" is better than their "system" - this is the constant refrain we hear in these kinds of debates.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They didn't "evolve" that way though. Lenin was quick to anger from what I've read about him. Stalin was a dictator who shared very little in common with Marxism, and many Left winged Party Members, such as Trotsky, where exiled or executed. China began violent, total, and adopted Stalin's approach. Which is pretty much what we saw anywhere it went. It's even typical for a political scientist or historian to concede that Marxism has never been tried and Communism has only been seen in smaller, often religious, communes as well as a rough approximation of the economy and ownership (or, more accurately, lack thereof) concepts that are typical for hunter/gatherer and nomadic societies.
You still have your things, but material possessions and wealth and ownership are not goals in Communism like they are Capitalism. Really, regards to how the concept of ownership in Communism is so commonly misunderstood, it's very similar to how most people are wrong when they assume Anarchy is lawlessness and chaos.
And another issue is that people who criticize Communism for military overreach, humanitarian abuses, and other such concerns, they typically neglect to include their own governments often do it, but they tend to export the Iron Fist and install loyal sycophants to rule in other countries. Peripheral support of slavery is also common. And though they don't use weapons of mass destruction, they use weapons of mass funding to cripple nations struggling to develop their infrastructure. Basically the things that Communists were fighting against and turned obscure nobodies like Che Guevara into common household names. Really, it's also a lot of the same stuff radical Jihadists are fighting over (just add in religious motives).
Basically, if Tsars didn't have a reputation of cruelty and if Capitalist nations weren't economically exploiting and militarily repressing others, it wouldn't have happened.
There's many points I won't deny you about capitalism but please excuse my laziness if I'm not responding in full. I'm not asserting that capitalism is perfect but this is a comparison between the two. There is much data to suggest that today's capitalism is much better than today's communism in economical and social aspects. I have experience and have physically seen the realities of both governments. I can honestly tell anyone that my life in Vietnam would have been limited. My health would have been worse. I would have been less educated. I would have less freedom. Not many folks can give a direct comparison outside of theories and statistics. The theories are great on paper. One should at least assess the actual statistics which I feel most communists deny.
The only time I believe communism will work is when technology advances to a point where automation helps perfect solutions of gathering and maintaining resources. It also needs a tweak in some of its doctrines specifically indoctrination and incitement of revolution. We do not need to use force in knowledge and will to achieve a communal environment. When we have a solution to limited resources then humans can be humans.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Im all for it. It recreates the American dream. The majority shouldn't empower the minority of wealth, but at the same time they can not be allowed to bully this or any minority.
I understand. My only complaint is that everytime communism is put into effect, it is initially in acted under good intentions. With the thought of well it would have worked if >insert reasons here <, but it will work if we >insert reasons <. And so far this has not been true. That's why I say it always evolves into a authoritarian/totalitarian regime. Che Guevera is a good example, he started out with good intentions, then became a tyrant.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Communism is right until you're no longer a teenager.
siti
Well-Known Member
But the point of capitalism is to ensure that we never do have a solution to limited resources. Ghandi got that right - there is already enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed. If resources were ever so plentiful that we could all just go and get what we want, prices would tumble and capitalism would collapse. Anybody who is not "still a teenager" (to use @Kilgore Trout's juvenile phraseology) in their understanding of economics would immediately understand that.
siti
Well-Known Member
Seriously? He died after being captured and shot 9 times (on the orders of a US- and Gulf Oil-supported dictator who had seized power in a military coup 3 years earlier) after being captured by Bolivian soldiers acting under the guidance of two CIA operatives who were respectively a Cuban exile and a Nazi war criminal whilst (he, Guevara, was) leading a small guerilla group opposing the military dictatorship in Bolivia. How exactly does this make him a tyrant?
Establishing a totalitarian police state, formed and lead death squads, mass murder, these are traits of a tyrant.
siti
Well-Known Member
Death squads? Mass murder? I think you might be slightly exaggerating here.
But I suppose if we are saying armed police, the death penalty, forced removal of legitimate landowners from their property, military involvement in overseas conflicts that did not pose a direct military threat, and denial of democratic rights are tyrannical, you might have a point. And the US-backed Batista dictatorship that Guevara helped depose was much better I suppose - not to mention the US's own record in all of those areas.
Please read the history rather than the outdated propaganda - Castro's firing squads almost certainly executed fewer in the 40 years after the revolution than Batista's did in the 4 years before it (and Batista's death toll included public executions of students suspected of supporting the insurgents).
But I suppose if we are saying armed police, the death penalty, forced removal of legitimate landowners from their property, military involvement in overseas conflicts that did not pose a direct military threat, and denial of democratic rights are tyrannical, you might have a point. And the US-backed Batista dictatorship that Guevara helped depose was much better I suppose - not to mention the US's own record in all of those areas.
Please read the history rather than the outdated propaganda - Castro's firing squads almost certainly executed fewer in the 40 years after the revolution than Batista's did in the 4 years before it (and Batista's death toll included public executions of students suspected of supporting the insurgents).
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Given that the world of humans has only known of Communism for 180 years, in its present form, it is a bit of a reach to describe any other societies as being Communistic. I do understand the revisionist modeling of former societies, however sad the portrayal is, especially when contrasted to the monstrosity that Communism is in our current era.
Trust me, I don't do Fox-speak, so save the sentiments for those who are less aware of history. Again, to describe former societies as communistic is a huge reach given that communism is a political ideal that stretches into every aspect of daily life. Such was simply not the case in earlier societies.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They have started like that. Even Marx wrote that although a violent revolution would probably be necessary because those in power tend to not like giving it up, that ideally we could peacefully transition from Capitalism, through Socialism, and transitioning until Class, Capitalism, and the State are abolished.
And even among Marxists today, very few dogmatically cling to Classic Marxism.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Communism is a good way to stuff up your life, and everyone's else's, that's what I believe.
Perhaps Guevera started out well intentioned. Even if so he got corrupted by power, as most humans do when presented with it. To qoute a silly movie "You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain". I feel this qoute can be applied to him and a lot of political figures/freedom fighters etc.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I suppose that is a good quote. Granted in violent revolution or any other attempts to overthrow the state you are going to have to kill certain people because they will kill you if you don't kill them, mass executions and labor/death camps are extreme, and part of the reason why political scientists are often hesitant to label such as Communism, because it the proletariat was marginalized as power was centralized, the proletariat was by all intentions and purposes enslaved in some cases, and the state that is supposed to function as the protectorate of the proletariat elevated some of them (to lesser or greater extents) and damned others.
Really, I think what ultimately damned the run of Communism that has defined it to most people is that the Left-winged Party members weren't as quick to pull the trigger as their Right-winged counterparts. They were there, but yet dictators such as Stalin still ascended to power.
And I don't think the appeal of Communism will ever go away until Bourgeoisie Capitalists own up to their own faults and injustices, and we make serious economic changes that create a more equitable environment for the whole of society, which will probably require ending commercial venturism, not just for reasons of equity, but because it has lead to consuming far more than the Earth can produce. Or we can nurture the next threat that makes Soviet Russia and ISIS combined look on par with a toddler learning to walk.
I think the answer to questions like this might also be found if we examine ourselves and our own history (as well as aspects of our own culture). Ironically, there's a scene in a very anti-communist film called Red Dawn, in which American partisans are in a struggle against Soviet occupiers in their area. They were faced with a situation where they had a Soviet prisoner and one of their own who was forced to become an informer and a traitor. This led to an argument among them, since they couldn't let them go but felt that killing them would be murder. The question was asked, "If we do this, what makes us any different from them?" The answer given in the film was, "Because we live here!"
Yes, one could press the letter of the law and correctly say they're guilty of murder, but they were also facing a very difficult situation to begin with. I was watching this scene with a friend of mine and we got into a hypothetical discussion about that scene, where he asked me if I was capable of doing what they were planning to do (kill your best friend if he betrayed the cause you were fighting for). My friend had served in Vietnam and knew something of guerilla tactics, and his conclusion was that they had no other choice but to kill the guy - even though he was their close friend. That was kind of chilling to think about at the time, but to some extent, I could understand his reasoning.
In a revolutionary situation or a civil war, people might think that everyone must be on one side or another. "Those who are not with us are against us." We haven't really had any deep political divisions like that since our own Civil War, so it may be difficult to fathom what actually happens to those who live in situations where there's an insurrection, revolution, or civil war. We might be coming to that point, as there has been some talk in that direction lately, as political factions seem more inclined to entrench rather than compromise.