YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I wonder if they would call themselves communists though?
-
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!
What is communism?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Not so, . . . publicly or in some collectively own as the property of a government which is defined as public responsibility as in the US government.
The US government considers lands, interests, and all things owned by the government as public ownership. Important issue concerning the entity owned by the US government that may be considered comunist as public ownership. See definition of communism.
Last edited:
No, but the United States may have a publicly owned and controlled entity which is communist.
The rose in any other name would smell as sweet.
The first state enforced Stalinism was done by Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China. I will write some details later. Interesting reading.
Interesting, though important point state enforced Stalinism is not Communism nor Socialism.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I can't help but feel a bit of a no true Scotsman appeal here.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Am I right in thinking that this sort of technical minutia is a fairly modern idea?
Ricktheheretic
"Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"
-
Communism and socialism can have different definitions.
The way the Mormons out in Utah lived in the early days was communism, the community owned everything and everything was distributed equally.
Communism can also be a statist ideology based on Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Usually communism as an ideology is spelled with a capital C. Communism can also be the envisioned outcome of a Communist/Marxist/Marxist-Leninist society, utopia, complete social egalitarianism. Communism is the ideology that aims at creating a perfect classless social arrangement - communism. A person or government that professes such an ideology is a "Communist," so yes the U.S.S.R and Eastern European states were Communist and followed the ideology of Communism.
Communism could also be a non-Marxist ideology that has the same aims, such as Anarchist Communism.
Socialism has just as many definitions. Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and comes in statist, democratic, anarchist and communal forms. Scandinavian welfare-states are an example of democratic socialism.
In Communist ideology socialism is the middle phase of a society under a Communist government, the phase in which the government must redistribute wealth and create a more social egalitarian order that will inevitably lead to the perfect classless social arrangement - communism. In the final phase of a Communist society (the phase in which communism is actually achieved) the government will wither away, people will have learned to share and private property will be a thing of the past. But this will takes years of the appointed government putting private property under public control and distributing wealth in accordance with the peoples needs. Once the way of life of a people has changed from a capitalist way to a way based on sharing the government won't need to act and people will follow what has become natural to them. All property will publicly owned and shared by all equally. At least that's how the theory works.
Communism and socialism can have different definitions.
The way the Mormons out in Utah lived in the early days was communism, the community owned everything and everything was distributed equally.
Communism can also be a statist ideology based on Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Usually communism as an ideology is spelled with a capital C. Communism can also be the envisioned outcome of a Communist/Marxist/Marxist-Leninist society, utopia, complete social egalitarianism. Communism is the ideology that aims at creating a perfect classless social arrangement - communism. A person or government that professes such an ideology is a "Communist," so yes the U.S.S.R and Eastern European states were Communist and followed the ideology of Communism.
Communism could also be a non-Marxist ideology that has the same aims, such as Anarchist Communism.
Socialism has just as many definitions. Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and comes in statist, democratic, anarchist and communal forms. Scandinavian welfare-states are an example of democratic socialism.
In Communist ideology socialism is the middle phase of a society under a Communist government, the phase in which the government must redistribute wealth and create a more social egalitarian order that will inevitably lead to the perfect classless social arrangement - communism. In the final phase of a Communist society (the phase in which communism is actually achieved) the government will wither away, people will have learned to share and private property will be a thing of the past. But this will takes years of the appointed government putting private property under public control and distributing wealth in accordance with the peoples needs. Once the way of life of a people has changed from a capitalist way to a way based on sharing the government won't need to act and people will follow what has become natural to them. All property will publicly owned and shared by all equally. At least that's how the theory works.
Not ever remotely or even close to communism, socialism nor a Scotsman.
No
The public entity under US government that is the closest thing to communism is the Pan Canal Company that ran the Panama Canal from 1904 to 1979. All housing, stores, movie theaters, Canal Zone College, hospitals, and the Canal was run by the Pan Canal Company. In 1979 the Pan Canal Company was transformed into a cooperative venture with Panama and eventually turned over to Panama in 1999. The housing was very uniform and egalitarian, though the management had slightly better, but not much different than the rest of the housing. Even vehicles were provided to all employees. I wrote college paper in an economics class about this, and caused a lot of controversy on all sides.
I attended Canal Zone College, and the Panama University at the time of the riots in over the Canal. It was a hot time maneuvering to try and attend school in both and I eventually left to finish my college in the USA.
No independent or private stores or businesses were allowed in the Canal Zone
I attended Canal Zone College, and the Panama University at the time of the riots in over the Canal. It was a hot time maneuvering to try and attend school in both and I eventually left to finish my college in the USA.
No independent or private stores or businesses were allowed in the Canal Zone
Last edited:
True with qualifications, and it not as broadly defined and shmoozed as you describe in the following. There is a reason I proposed mercantilism as the actual resulting economic/political system the resulted in the countries.
This is a possibility.
It is naive to assume that the leaders of these countries ever really had ideals that would evolve their economic/political system were going to become idealistic communist nor socialist states.
How the theory works is an illusion. I prefer to be descriptive of the reality of political/economic systems associated as they really are, and not hypothetical definitions of what systems hope to be, which I believe the leaders had no such intent for this to happen. There goals and ideals were definitely mercantilist, and nationalism under the guise of communism/socialism was call to unite the country around these goals.
Last edited:
Many young idealists begin their careers in Revolution as flaming optimistic idealists, Most of course perish, but nonetheless, their life after successful rebellion careers is consistent as despotic paranoid dictators ruling by fear and the perpetuation of the egoistic image of themselves. Sound familiar throughout history regardless of the Nationalist tags they use as causes for their own domination?
'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.' - Lord John Dalberg-Acton
Last edited:
Ricktheheretic
"Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"
Wasn't mercantilism about having colonies and trading with other countries? The Peoples Republic of Albania had almost no contact with the outside world from after WW2 until the early 1990s. Socialism was established in Albania, the right of all to work, a living wage, public healthcare and education etc. Enver Hoxha drastically lowered the infant mortality rate and the number of syphilis and malaria deaths in Albania, and brought the literacy rate up to nearly 99% in an almost third-world country. You can read about the prosperous society that flourished in Albania under Marxism-Leninism. What I have a hard time with is the idea that the state will give up it's power when it has outlived it's purpose - ending private property and putting the nations "means of production" under public control. I know that in Yugoslavia Josip Broz "Tito" experimented with something called "Self-Management." What that meant is that every industry, farm, business etc. was owned by the state but self-managed by it's employees. A system of central planning was created that was based on cooperation between workers of different industries etc. This doesn't go too far from Lenin's belief that workers trade-unions are important to the management of the "means of production." It also reflects Marxist-syndicalist beliefs.
Ricktheheretic
"Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"
For the record, I believe in civil rights and democratic socialism. But Communism is something I have sympathies for.
I don't know if they were "truly" Communist, whatever that might mean. I try to think in terms of each country individually, while not too concerned whether it fits with some abstract, theoretical "system" that can supposedly be implemented in any and every society while expecting the same results (at least according to the theoreticians).
Revolution is easy enough to understand. If the ruling class becomes too abusive or exploitative of the lower classes, then the resentment and anger of the lower classes will smolder, build up, and then eventually explode if left to fester. Some of that can be ameliorated and/or avoided if the ruling class shows a willingness to compromise and give some measurable consideration to the lower classes - as we've seen in the U.S. and many other Western countries. A mixed economy which can strike a healthy balance between socialism and capitalism can still remain viable and keep the working classes sufficiently content to weaken/forestall any movement towards extremism or revolution.
In Russia and China, though, both countries were facing such dismal conditions and were wrought by constant turmoil and revolt in the decades preceding the communist revolutionary takeover. They weren't dealing with abstract theories or hypothetical models, but no doubt there was a cumulative anger and hatred which had built up over generations which clearly tainted and colored their actions and the kind of system they implemented.
Korea and Eastern Europe may fall into a different category, since they were not really in control of their own destiny and ended up as bargaining chips among the major Allied powers.
As for the relationship between Christianity and communism/socialism, I don't really see it. Of course, I don't really see much of a relationship between Christianity and capitalism either.
Mercantilism can be used in this context, but as I described State or Nationalist Mercantilism it applies best to most countries that call themselves communist/socialist. State Mercantilism has dominated the Socialist/Communist countries throughout modern history.
First, the importance of worker trade unions has history longer than Lenin and Marx.
Second, isolationism in some form or another is a characteristic of these countries including Albania.
Third, yes, these countries mostly have socialist education and health care, as do virtually all European countries and Canada. Yes, this model is the most successful model for education, and health care
Fourth, the problem with the blanket use of communist/socialist label is misleading. For example: US and western used and tolerated governments as dictatorial and down right evil to promote their campaign against the myth of communism. The emphasis should not be misleading label such as communism and socialism.
Fifth, the concept of:
. . . is at the heart of Marx-Lenin communist ideals, but ultimately failed do to state control and ownership of Industries and commerce given priority to rigid hierarchal state controls.
What eventually results in all these countries is simply absolute state ownership and control.
sixth, Previously the word 'Stalinism' was used to describe other governments with a similar isolationist mercantilist brutal dictatorial hierarchy with centralized economic controls like as previously referenced the first emperor of China's rule. The word only sort of works, but I am looking for a more inclusive word and concept that describes these governments irrespective of whether that carry a misleading title of communist/socialist.
I am not the one that described the first emperor as 'Stalinist.' It was another I believe it was sayak83, They indeed have many things in common, but in some ways different. I was searching for a more descriptive term that describes these governments in history.
On Mao Tse Tung's rule is distinctly patterned after the rule of the first emperor on unconditionally and brutally uniting China and standardizing every aspect of Chinese life, and economy.
From: Mao Zedong becomes Chinese Head of State | History Today
Mao Zedong was elected Chairman of the Central People's Government on September 30th, 1949.
The Nationalists had run out of steam and Communist armies took Nanjing in April and Shanghai in May. The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference was summoned to Beijing, where Mao opened the proceedings on September 21st. 'Our work will go down in the history of mankind', he began, 'demonstrating that the Chinese people, comprising one quarter of humanity, have now stood up… Ours will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up.'
The 660 delegates included representatives of labour and business, cultural interests and overseas Chinese, but the Communists dominated the conference, which swiftly proclaimed the new People's Republic of China and endorsed the 'organic law' of the Central People's Government. Also approved was the new 'common programme', which declared that the era of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism in China had ended, to be replaced by 'the people's democratic dictatorship', which would guarantee freedom of thought and speech, and equal rights for women, and transform China from an agricultural into an industrial country.
The first emperor, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung all brutally enforced an absolute centralized government and economy under a rigid hierarchal pyramid structure. Any relationships they had outside their realm were distinctly selfishly nationalist motivated.
Last edited:
The distinct similarity and parallels between the First Emperor of China, Stalin, and Mao Tze Tung are a matter of factual history.
I lived in China eight years (1998 to 2006) and studied history, culture, and Chinese. To my credit I have published translations of Jade Age and Bronze Age Poetry and articles on culture and history jade in China. Many of the Chinese I knew shared the conclusion in the reference.
History Today is a legitimate recognized historical journal. I may cite more references.
Mao Zedong: China's Peasant Emperor