Communism--I just don't get it.

[BuckleberryFerry]

So we've been studying the Cold War in history recently and--I just don't get it. Why is Communism held as such a horrible thing? It's just another government, as far as I can see. This opposition to Communism seems about as rational to me as if democrats held the same view toward republicans--it just doesn't seem rational to me. Can someone explain it?

[Texican]

Communism is horrible because it precludes free will.

[Indefatigable]

As an insult ('pinko commie'), it probably stems from the cold war, when Americans and Soviets flaunted their hatred of each other, and were encouraged to look upon the other's politics and way of life as inferior.

As a system of government... it's a neat idea in theory, but doesn't work so well in practice, I guess. Everything that everyone produces and every bit of money they make goes to the government, who decides what to do with it and how to redistribute it. If the government isn't completely honest about it, they can line their own pockets instead of giving decent amounts back to the people and providing social services like health care and education, so you can end up with a few fat cats ruling a lot of poor, unhealthy, and uneducated people.

Another problem (although I don't know if this is an observed phenomenon, or just something made up for propaganda) is that there will always be people who decide not to work because they know they'll get the same amount back from the government anyways. So you have less productive people in the society, again reducing the total amount of money and resources available to each individual.

I wonder which communist countries have been the most successful (by capitalist standards, anyways, i.e. compared to the US or Canada or the UK, where we keep most of our money and pay a portion of it to the government) in terms of keeping the majority of their populations healthy and well-fed and literate.

[BuckleberryFerry]

How so? I apologize for my utter ignorance--I've never understood politics and we've only learned that communism is bad because the US said so.

[BuckleberryFerry]

My above post was directed at Texican, btw...I'm slow in the posting today

[Indefatigable]

I don't know how they choose their leaders, so it may lie in that. But they have no less free will in turning over all the money they make than we do in paying our taxes that are less than 100%.

[Zagadka]

Ugh, here comes some flamin'

The reason WE viewed communism as evil is kinda twofold

One, the Soviet communist movement had the goal of world revolution. We weren't to keen on that, staring over Germany at hordes of military forces.

Two, there was a strong backlash against socialist reform after FDR.

That is pretty much it. The brainwashing transformed Communism as a whole into this horribly evil thing, even though it is just a form of government. The fact that communist nations *tend* to be largely single-party dictatorships doesn't help. Communism as an economic/social system doesn't preclude anything, but like democracy and capitalism, it can be taken in many horrible ways.

[akennett]

The harshest opposition to communism in the US (and amongst our allies) came as a result of the governments that implemented it, not necessarily as a result of an ingrained opposition to the theory. Communism is sort of an end-game to socialism (this is not an exact definition, merely a simplification) - socialism in the extreme. Most people dislike extremist positions, even if they agree with the underlying principle involved.

In just about all nations there had been some sort of a socialist push, either a call for out-and-out socialism, or a move to incorporate some of their ideals into the existing governments; welfare programs, graduated income taxes, and universla health care are all examples of this push. Most (if not all) nations have accepted some of these programs.

However, the communist nations (at least the larger ones) have engaged in a sort of expansionistic tendency that the US and our allies found to be distasteful. This was accentuated by the most obvious example - that of the USSR directly after the second World War. This imperialist expansion was a terrifying reminder for much of Europe and the world of the Nazi expansionism. Couple this with the purges of intellectuals and opposition members by Stalin and you'll see why this was particularly disagreeable to the US and allies. It is with this in mind that the Cold War began - which, of course, would fuel hatred for other communist nations.

[Zagadka]

For a little insight that demonstrates it all very well, the Soviets never ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and America never ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, IIRC.

[Quartz]

Read Marx's Communist Manifesto; then read about the history of the Soviet Union.

[Xema]

The problem is basically with the results Communism has produced. For an interesting example (famous, but not to the degree it deserves), check out the book "Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest.

[barbitu8]

In the first place, the Communist regimes have been headed by ruthless dictators, for the most part. But the utopian concept of equality for all just doesn't work out in practice. There has to be private enterprise, with the survival of the fittest. If there's no incentive to work and do a good job, then people won't. If the government is to be the only owner and doler of jobs, and decide who is going to do what, the human spirit is somewhat diminished, along with free will.

If Kerenski had not lost the prime minister position to Lenin, Russia would not have been Communistic, but socialistic, which are two different concepts. But Kerenski and the "whites" did lose, and the Soviet of Peoples' Commissars prevailed. Lenin carried through a major distribution of land and nationalized property and the banks. His attempts to accomplish economic revolution while waging civil war led to famine and the virtual collapse of Russia's economy. In his dying days, he warned the country of Stalin, but was helpless to prevent Stalin's obtaining power after his death in 1924.

Stalin enforced his views of achieving "Socialism in One Country" through trials in 1935-8 in which many veterans and army leaders were charged with treason and condemned. Stalin had relied on indirect control until 1941 when he became Prime Minister. It was this Stalinistic Communism which took over European and Asian countries after WWII, setting up puppet governments, and which we tried, eventually, to stop, but was facilitated by the terms of the Yalta agreement.

Castro turned to the Stalin communism after he was, in his mind at least, spurned by us. Cuba turned from bad to worse after he took over, but he did have some noble ideas, such as ridding the country of all of our casinos, Mafia influence and our overwhelming presence, in general. But in doing so, he took over property owned by US persons and corporations without compensation.

So, socialism in and of itself, may not be so bad, but the Communistic version has no redeeming features.

[Zagadka]

hehe, lets not get into Cuba. That is a whole other barrel of monkeys.

[samarm]

You find the following discussions interesting:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...hreadid=156212

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...hreadid=119529

[Musicat]

BuckleberryFerry,It might be instructive to read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. Although fictional, I think you can see the parallels between Rand's tale and the way Communism developed over the 20th Century.

Another good (and mercifully shorter) book would be Animal Farm, by George Orwell.

Formal economic & political treatises have their place, but I think such fiction can better reveal the psychology behind such government structures. The theory (Marxism, Dialectic Materialism) and the practice can be radically different.

To elaborate, Marx & Engels thought it was a waste for factory owners ("capitalists") to take a percentage of the profits from the workers who actually produced the goods. They theorized that, if the profit motive were removed, factories would continuously churn out and stockpile shoes, for example, and when someone needed a shoe, he would go to the pile and take what he needed. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Sounds good, eh? If only human nature could be removed from the equation, it might work. In reality, if there is no incentive (profit) for the factory to make shoes, they tend to turn out very few and of low quality. That's the supply side. On the demand side, if shoes are very cheap, many people would take as many as they could grab. Since the cost is not a disincentive and the supply is theoretically unlimited, why not?

Economists like to say the "market signals" are missing. Without the possibility of greater profit, the factory doesn't invest in new equipment and design better (or fancier) shoes or styles. And if the price is held artificially low, the consumer has no incentive to buy fewer shoes. Communist stores are typically in a boom/bust (mostly bust) cycle, and the supply rarely matches the demand.

Of course, this is an economic argument, and there are other aspects of Communism that fail, also. Don't get me started.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by Zagadka
hehe, lets not get into Cuba. That is a whole other barrel of monkeys.

No, Zagadka, it's the same barrel. The OP asks about why communism is held in such low regard among capitlist countries. Cuba is a communist country.
Peace,
mangeorge

[mangeorge]

samarm is right. There's already a ton of info available.

[slipster]

Communism is offensive as it is a totalilarian system which suppresses freedom of speech, religion and association. It is, besides, a fundamentally flawed theory of economics in the abstract and, in actual practice, a grossly inefficient method for managing the affairs of a state.

While all of this is demonstrably true, none of it, really, accounts for the animus traditionally expressed towards Communism in the United States. These same objections can be made against numerous non-Communist states such as Iran under the Shah, the Philippines under Marcos, and any number of undemocratic or marginally democratic third world nations towards which the U. S. remains extremely friendly. Neither does it account for why Yugoslavia, a Communist dictatorship, was given extensive military aid by the United States throughout the Cold War, or why China has not held in the same disdain as the Soviet Union was since Nixon established trade relations with it.

Since the 19th Century Communism has served as a convenient boogie man for the reactionary elements in American society, with pretty much anything which is not in the immediate self-interest of the very rich being denounced as Communism.

In the 1880s when the 40 hour work week was first argued for by labor unions, both the 40 hour work week and labor unions in general were widely denounced as Communist plots.

Similarly, in the 1950s and 60s many conservatives insisted that the civil rights movement was, in the main, a Communist front operation. When he signed the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday, a reporter asked President Reagan if this meant he no longer believed that Dr. King was a Communist agent. He said that he wasn't sure, but he supposed that people would know the truth in a hundred years.

Following the end of World War II, the U. S. found itself in a unique position of economic strength. A view of the world was adopted by the Truman Administration and subsequent presidencies in which the world could be divided into the U.S. and its major industrial trading partners, the Soviet bloc with which we were in competition, and impoverished non-Communist nations, the so-called "third world". American policy was to do whatever it could to maintain "stability" (which often meant dictatorial repression) among nations which the U.S. found it lucrative to trade with, and in which U.S. corporations could take substantial control of natural resources. This was actually discussed openly in State Department documents in the Truman era, which disparaged the idea of supporting "abstractions" such as democracy.

While Americans in general care a great deal about democracy and justice, it has long been U.S. policy to aggressively pursue the immediate short-term economic interests of American and international corporations by influencing the internal affairs of underdeveloped countries. This has come ahead of any interest in promoting self-determination, respect for human rights or the economic well-being of the natives. During Woodrow Wilson's presidency the U.S. invaded and conquered Haiti, not because of any threat to the U.S. or any change in the Haitian government, but because it was feared that the failing economy there would force the government to default on its debts to the U.S. Major Smellie Butler (later Commandant of the U. S. Marine Corps) was appointed "administrator" of the country, and the U.S. remained in control of Haiti until early in the FDR adminsitration.

What was new after World War II was that such conduct became a worldwide policy, and opposition to Communism was continually used as an excuse.

America's relations with Chile serve as a striking example. During the 1964 presidential election in Chile the U.S. spent more money financing the conservative candidate who beat Salvadore Allende than the Democratic and Republican parties combined spent on the contest between Johnson and Goldwater.

Allende was elected in the next presidential election despite U.S. efforts. Although the country maintained free elections, freedom of the press, free labor unions, freedom of relgion and private property rights, Allende and his government were invariably referred to in the U. S. as "Marxist". Mostly this seemed to mean that his administration nationalized the copper industry and raised the cost of Chilean copper to market prices after a period of decades in which American companies bought copper there at bargain basement prices, an arrangement which was benifical to a wealthy elect American trade helped keep in power, but which was detrimental to Chile as a whole.

The U. S. government has since acknowledged that the CIA had "some" involvement in the military coup which ousted the democratically elected government in Chile and replaced it with a right wing dictatorship.

Another illustration of how ecomoic self-interest dominates and defines American foreign policy is the contrasting attitude of the U.S. towards China and China. China is seen as, among other things, a collossal future market for American cigarettes. Cuba is seen as, among other things, a future location for American-owned tobacco farms.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union America's policy of putting immediate economic self-interest first has remained largely the same, except that opposition to Communism cannot be used as readily as an excuse, and the nations of the former Soviet bloc are now also viewed as targets for economic exploitation.

In recent years the U.S. State Department has expressed
"surprise" that the approach it took after the break-up of the Soviet Union was not benificial to the great majority of people in the former Soviet bloc. This was the subject of an interesting PBS Frontline documentary a couple of years back, in which numerous State Department officials shed copious crocodile tears.

The U.S. encouraged the governments of Russia and other newly freed nations to distribute assets such as banks and oil companies quickly, thereby concentrating resources into a few hands, rather than taking time first to ensure the rule of law and sound economic policies. This has resulted in even greater poverty and the formation of wealthy oligarchies with which American businesses can deal to their advantage. In fact, the U.S. helped engineer precisely the kind of conditions from which American corporations already benefited throughout the third world.

A good introductory primer on these issues is a short book by Noam Chomsky entitled What Uncle Sam Really Wants. One can learn a great deal from his well-documented factual exposition even if you don't sympathize with his politics.

[BuckleberryFerry]

slipster, would you like to write my history paper? ::grin:: I wish I had the same grasp on history that all you people do!

[Wendell Wagner]

So, in other words, you started this thread so you could get us to do your homework.

Perhaps the reason we have a better grasp on history is that we lived through it.

[BuckleberryFerry]

Not at all, and I rather resent that, Wendell Wagner. True, I have a history paper with a VERY slight mention of the topic of Communism, but I inteded in NO WAY to use ANY information from this thread or any other in my assignment. The only connection between this thread and my assignment is that my assignment prompted me to PERSONALLY further investigate the feelings toward Communism. I posted this for my own information and not to cheat on my homework.

[cainxinth]

Wow slipster, that was incredible. Beautiful recounting of events and insightful interpretation.

::tips hat::

[Zagadka]

Originally posted by mangeorge
No, Zagadka, it's the same barrel. The OP asks about why communism is held in such low regard among capitlist countries. Cuba is a communist country.

No, it is a whole different barrel of monkeys, because there is national conflict beyond the Communist:Capitalist measure. Castro went to the Soviets beause we tried to screw him (like we tried to screw everyone else we put in power there). THAT is what I did not want to get into, because you can argue that for years. Not that you can't argue the rest of it for years, but why mix the two?

The U.S. encouraged the governments of Russia and other newly freed nations to distribute assets such as banks and oil companies quickly, thereby concentrating resources into a few hands, rather than taking time first to ensure the rule of law and sound economic policies. This has resulted in even greater poverty and the formation of wealthy oligarchies with which American businesses can deal to their advantage. In fact, the U.S. helped engineer precisely the kind of conditions from which American corporations already benefited throughout the third world.

That is certianly true, especially in Russia. Books like Sale of the Century by Chrystia Freeland document a lot of the transformations and background of Russian companies changing hands, the various factions, and the influences of foreign investment. It is worth checking out.

[owlofcreamcheese]

best way to understand it:

how much do you trust the governmet now?

answer that then think: would I want to have to depend on them 100% for absolutely everything and let them make some of the more major decisions of your life?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Let's discard all theoretical considerations.

Let's go solely by historical events that occur frequently in many Communist or formerly-Communist nations, thus establishing a pattern.

1) Famine. Communism is basically focused on industrial economics. Little of it applies to farming.

So, millions of deaths from hunger occured in Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Poland, Hungary (no jokes, please, millions dying ain't funny), & others. Ethiopia's famine was mostly due to drought, but bad agricultural policies helped it along. Collective farming is largely a failure, & it is no co-incidence that Gorbachov was the Deputy Minister of Agriculture during the worst wheat harvest in Russia's history.

2)Mass executions. How can I describe this? I can't even begin. During World War 2, Stalin executed as many of his own citizenns as Hitler did Jews. Or more. Mass slaughter was the rule under Mao, & the butchery of the so-called "Cultural Revolution" is insane, with children betraying parents, & parents children. What was done in Laos under the Khmyar Rouge resulted in the extermination of 50% of the population of their nation in 10 years.

Or, keep it simple---the Soviet Union called itself the "Workers' Paradise". They set up barbed wire, minefields, & machine-gun-equipped watchtowers to keep the workers from running away. To a place where Communist doctrine said they would be "exploited". You do the math, pal.

[Indefatigable]

Perhaps the reason we have a better grasp on history is that we lived through it.

Wendell: That's assuming that everyone here who's forty years old actually paid attention to the news for their whole life, and everyone who's a teenager or a college kid is oblivious to what's going on in the world. If one is old enough to be writing a paper on communism, one has lived through some history... and if one is interested enough in the subject to ask questions purely to satisfy one's own curiosity, one probably doesn't ignore the news either.

And how do you figure you're one of the 'we' that BuckleberryFerry was talking about? You hadn't even posted in the thread yet...

In the 1880s when the 40 hour work week was first argued for by labor unions, both the 40 hour work week and labor unions in general were widely denounced as Communist plots.

I know people who still think like that. All you have to do is mention the word 'union' and they start frothing at the mouth about commies.

[vasyachkin]

according to communists, communism is the inevitable conclusion ... that is eventually they think all of the world will live under communism.

now we all know that our country is run by rich people and corporations, who definitely dont want to live under communism ... so they brainwash the rest of the population, and tell them that communism is bad for everybody, not just the rich mobsters.

basically US wanted to exterminate communism before before the US citizens figure out that its actually not that bad for them. because if they did, and adopted the communism ( socialism whatever ) for the US, that would be BAD for those who are in power ( the rich guys ).

[BuckleberryFerry]

Indefatigable, I appreciate that. ::hugs::

[vasyachkin]

the funny part is, if communism was actually as bad as it was being made out to be, then there would not be any risk that american people will want to adopt it, and thus no reason to fight it.

thus the very fact that US was fighting communism proves that US believed communism to be superior to capitalism.

US won though.

[Crafter_Man]

The biggest problem I see with communism is that it flies in the face of human nature: humans are naturally competitive, and they want to own things.

[ProjectOmega]

The USSR and Nazi Germany were run very similarly. Both had leaders with absolute rule, both had limited personal freedoms, neither allowed public ownership. Both called themselves socialist. Neither was accurate in that description. China, Cuba, North Korea and others do the same thing, calling themselves "communist" when, in fact, they are socialist dictatorships. Why do they mislabel their governments? Because it keeps the people happy. It's easier to cow a population if they think they're working for the common good or some sort of utopian ideal instead of slaving under an iron fist. Some may start with genuine intentions, but it's all too easy to slip into a dictatorship.

Simply put, at its base level, communism requires a lack of government. Anything else is propaganda. Arguments like "Communism limits personal freedoms," "Communism is a dictatorship" and so on demonstrate you're either not sure what you're talking about, or you're going by the Western-Cold-War-Propaganda definition.

[Mandarax]

Originally posted by slipster
When he signed the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday, a reporter asked President Reagan if this meant he no longer believed that Dr. King was a Communist agent. He said that he wasn't sure, but he supposed that people would know the truth in a hundred years.

Nitpick: It was actually 35 years. I believe Reagan was referring to when the FBI file on MLK would be released, which should be only 15 years from now. IIRC, there was a report at the time that Reagan had made a similar quip in the press conference rehearsal, but his aides didn't think he'd be dumb enough to use it if the question came up in the actual press conference.

[Lobsang]

in Capitalism 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth. If that is true (and I would not be surprised if it is) then I choose (ideal)communism! (not the bad kind, which isn't actually communism, but calls it'self communism)


don't flame me - I admit to knowing fuck all. So I don't need telling.

[BuckleberryFerry]

No worries, Lobsang, the more I learn, the more I'm leaning towards your opinion.

[Xema]

Originally posted by ProjectOmega
Simply put, at its base level, communism requires a lack of government.

Some might disagree - Lenin, for example.

[Xema]

Originally posted by Lobsang
... then I choose (ideal)communism!

Can you tell us where we can find this?

[mangeorge]

Zagadka, I think we pretty much agree on Cuba. What I meant was that in the eyes of the US (until recently) Cuba was of the same cloth as the rest of the "Evil Empire".
BTW; much of agriculture and many companies are at least semi-communal.
The dairy industry and UPS come to mind.

[Zoe]

If the government isn't completely honest about it, they can line their own pockets instead of giving decent amounts back to the people and providing social services like health care and education, so you can end up with a few fat cats ruling a lot of poor, unhealthy, and uneducated people.

So what's the difference in Communism and Capitalism?

After what happened in the Soviet Union, I don't see how any Communist government could be admired. But there are people in small groups within the USA that choose to live a Communist lifestyle and have been reasonably successful. Some seem to have been able to put the theory in action.

Calling someone a "Commie" has been the insult of choice against liberals. And liberals sometimes use "Facist" in the same way.

I can remember when there was a big debate about putting floride in the water to help prevent tooth decay. Right wing extremists said that it was a "Communist plot." What craziness!

I have been to one Socialist country that seems very successful to my limited knowledge. No poverty. No extreme wealth. Healthcare for all and five weeks vacation for everyone. There was also a noticeable PRIDE in the work ethic. I like to think that greed is not the only motivating factor.

(Actually, I think that this OP was posted by someone in the FBI trying to find out where are the Reds are...)

[BuckleberryFerry]

Originally posted by Zoe
(Actually, I think that this OP was posted by someone in the FBI trying to find out where are the Reds are...)

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I'm trying to do. I've not got homework at all. LoL

[Fear Itself]

Under communism, man oppresses his fellow man; under capitalism, it's the other way around.

[Indefatigable]

But there are people in small groups within the USA that choose to live a Communist lifestyle and have been reasonably successful. Some seem to have been able to put the theory in action.

Zoe: As in, living in a commune, where everyone shares everything? There's no reason why it shouldn't work on small scales... particularly when it's a group of people who all get to see each other's faces regularly... and who don't have a leader who acts as a central controller for all the goods. (If they do have a leader, it's still easy to smoke out corruption when the group is that small and everyone is that visible.) Aside from the most rudimentary concept of 'sharing', I don't think capital-C Communism and communal living are the same thing.

Lobsang: like I said in my first post, I'd be very interested in hearing some statistics comparing capitalist and communist nations. I think what I'd like to know is how many people are 'rich' (they have way more money than they need), how many are 'average' (they might wish they had more money, but they can keep themselves comfortable and fed and have access to information) and how many are 'poor' (they have to choose between feeding the family and heating the house, or maybe they don't even have a house).

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

... What was done in Laos under the Khmyar Rouge resulted in the extermination of 50% of the population of their nation in 10 years.

Cambodia?

[Guinastasia]

Communism, at it's most basic form, is witnessed on small scale-families where everyone pitches in and helps out with the chores, for example, or in a monastery, where everyone does their share for the good of the community.

However, on a larger scale, as a form of government, it sucks.

[John Mace]

Communism is an ECONOMIC system, not a form of gov't. Most, if not all, communist nations have a totalitarian form of gov't for the simple reason that communism cannot survive in a free society. Guinastasia hit the nail on the head. It works great for families, but TERRIBLE for countries. Communism essentially makes all citizens slaves of the state. You cannot own anything, not even your own work. What incentive would there be to work hard if all your money essentially went into the communal pot?

And don't even start with the "it's a noble system, but people are too greedy" whine. That implies that human nature, itself, is the enemy, to be twisted and tortured in order to fit some abstract system.

On a practical level, though, communism fails because there is no price mechanism. Nobody knows the worth of anything. Capitalism thrives because everyone is free to choose what is of value to themselves.

Buck: Atlas Shrugged is a great book and you should read it. Be prepared for a VERY long read, though. For non fiction, try THE ROAD TO SERFDOM by F. von Hayek. Or FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman. Both of the last two books are pretty short, but the final one is probably the easiest to read.

[Cooper]

Its clear that Communism on a national scale is unworkable under every current system of Barbara we have yet invented. A lot of it does have to do with the profit motive. For example, how many people would seek MBA or Law degrees if you couldn't make any more money as a business manager or lawyer than you could as a short-order fry cook? How many people would put in unpaid overtime to see their project succeed on schedule if they knew that there would be no bonus at the end of the year, no raise in their next review and that any promotion they got would only mean more responsibility with no increase in salary? How many managers would face one of the most uncomfortable situations imaginable: firing an unproductive employee whom you get along with on a personal level?

However, suppose we had an economy that significantly overproduced, do to our continual application of automation technology. Also assume that there were computer models sophisticated enough to predict demand accurately and provide supply policies that would realistically met. The demand problem would probably not be an issue after a reasonably long time of people seeing the shelves continuously full of whatever they needed (and of course we would still need some sort of quota management system supplies that remained rare). I think it could work. I think a lot of people would apply themselves to their work, because many people want to feel productive and work provides a fulfillment of sorts. Other people can sit and watch television all day, I don't care.

But to get back to reality. I can't see how it can work right now. I can't even see how to get it started anywhere in the near future. In the 1950s is was even more ludicrous than it is today - and then there is everything else others have said. Also, although folks have said this in slightly different ways I don't think anyone has quite spelled it out: the people with all the money have the loudest voice in this country. It is hard to be heard without cash, because most people are really not interested in hearing anyone. And of course, the people with all the money have the most to lose.

[Cooper]

Good grief, I have to get a new spell check. I knew I had misspelled "bureaucracy" in my first sentence above, but I assumed it would pick the correct spelling and not "Barbara"!

[slipster]

This is getting off on a tangent but, despite the cite mandarax Mandarax provides, President Reagan really did say that people would know if Dr. King was a Communist agent in a hundred years.

Yes, he also said we would know in 35 years, and I am impressed that a citation for this was found. This statement about 35 years was made at a press conference in response to a question about remarks Senator Helms had recently made.

As stated above, the remark about one hundred years was made at the signing of the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday. I recall that there was a show on one of the broadcast networks at the time called The News Is The News. It was modeled after a British program called Not Necessarily The News. Both programs combined reports about absurd and surprising things which had happened in the past week with satirical stories about things which sounded more-or-less plausible but had never happened. One episode ended with a news reader quoting Reagan. I mistakenly supposed that this was one of the made- up stories, and then was astounded when, soon after, I saw a clip of Reagan making his remark on a regular week-in-review program. This is how the remark has stuck in my mind.

Then again, in a way Reagan's remark was not surprising. This was, after all, the same man who wrote to Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign and expressed confusion over why more people didn't realize that John F. Kennedy was a "Marxist". In short, Reagan was one of those people who used "Marxist" and "Communist" in the "general" sense--it included all of the socialists, and pretty much any capitalists they didn't like.

[slipster]

Another thought:

As discussed before, for most government leaders in the U. S., denunciation of Communism and public hand-wringing over an international Communist conspiracy during the Cold War was mostly a mask for furthering competition against the Soviet Union for economic influence in underdeveloped countries. At the same time, however, there was a minority of politicians who sincerely believed that the U.S. was in dire threat of conquest by the Soviet Union.

One such politican, evidently, was Ronald Reagan. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, particularly during his first administration, Reagan and his advisors believed that there was a strong possibility of a conventional ground war with the Soviet Union being fought on American soil in the near future.

One weird consequence of this paranoia was the growth of the numerous militia movements around the country. While it was little publicized at the time, and even less remembered today, the Reagan Administration undertook programs to arm and train volunteer militia groups. These efforts helped give birth to the largely anti-government militias which exist today.

Many members of such right-wing paramilitary groups believe that the U.S. is in eminent danger of its own government installing a dictatorial regime. Among the sources for this belief were the various more-or-less clandestine operations the Reagan Administration undertook to draw up plans and otherwise prepare U.S. troops for combat within the U.S., to plan for internment camps, etc. Oliver North even drafted a proposal to place dissidents in camps if opposition to government policy in Nicaragua and El Salvador became too great.

Our policy in Nicaragua and El Salvador during the 80s also serves as a good illustration of the largely bogus nature of the U.S.'s anti-Communist pose. It was claimed throughout the 80s that the Sandanista government in Nicaragua was a repressive Communist regime. While hardly an ideal model of democratic government, the Sandanistas permitted opposition newspapers and independent newspapers. The government in El Salvador, which we were shoring up at the same time, did not.

There was an incident in the mid-1980s where a newsprint shortage in Nicaragua effected the opposition newspapers in the country. The Reagan Amdinistration cited this as proof of the Communist nature of the government there, overlooking that the newsprint shortage was impacting pro-government newspapers as well, and that a Communist dictatorship would not have allowed opposition newspapers to operate openly in the first place. The fact that the El Salvador government forbade oppostion newspapers was, of course, also overlooked.

The Contra movement in Nicaragua which the Reagan Administration financed was composed in large part of people left over from the former Nicarguan government, which the Carter Administration had listed as a major abuser of human rights. In the end the Nicarguan people did not stick with the Sandanista government, but it did not go with the Contras either. Instead a broad coalition government succeeded the Sandanistas. There is a fine irony here, as that coalition included the actual Communist Party in Nicaragua. The U.S. was more comfortable with a coalition government from which it could extract favorable terms for doing business, even one with a minority Communist element, than it was with an agressively nationalist government which pursued the country's general economic self-interest.

This is purely a personal interpretation, but I suspect that some of this fear of the Soviets and of Communism generally amounted to the expression of an inferiority complex. Many people with deep seated feelings of inferiority make continual, inflated assertions about their importance and accomplishments. It seems to me that some--but by no means all--conservatives do the same thing in continually boasting about the greatness of the U.S. and its system, continually defending it even in the absence of detractors. It is as though they are eassuring themselves that they shouldn't have these feelings of inferiority about their nation which secretly plague them.

And there is plenty of reason for suspecting that Reagan and many of his closest advisors had a deep-rooted, unspoken fear that America and its system was actually inferior. Documents from the Reagan Administration have shown that the government had produced projections that the Soviet economy--which was actually about a sixth the size of the U.S. economy in terms of gross domestic product, and smaller than Japan's--was growing so rapidly that it would rank ahead of the U.S. by the end of the 1990s. Similarly, the CIA estimated that East Germany, which was roughly a third the size of West Germany, was outproducing West Germany. After the two nations consolidated, it was found that the grossly inefficient East German economy was only about a quarter the size of West Germany's.

The U.S. had a long history of making such inflated estimations of Communist nations and their accomplishments. In the years after World War II it was estimated by the U.S. government that the troops in East Germany outnumbered the ones in West Germany by two to one. In fact, they were about equal in number, and it was overlooked that the Western forces were vastly better equipped; the West German army was fully motorized at a time when roughly half of the East German army's vehicles were drawn by horses.

[furt]

Originally posted by Lobsang
[b]in Capitalism 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth. If that is true (and I would not be surprised if it is) then I choose (ideal)communism! (not the bad kind, which isn't actually communism, but calls it'self communism)

A faulty statistic, followed by a "no true scotsman." Nicely done.

[Derleth]

Cooper, your second graf essentially describes Postscarcity Economics. The whole theory is based around, as you said, relentless automation driving humans out of all jobs that can be accomplished without creativity: Cabbies lose their jobs but not writers, for example. This leads to completely efficient utilization of resources and a massive overproduction of not only everything needed for life, but most luxuries, as well. Filet mignon costs the same as Purina People Chow costs the same as a new Bentley costs the same as a Yugo costs the same as a shack in the woods costs the same as a mansion: Nothing, because production is self-sustaining and no longer profit-driven.

Of course, it hasn't happened yet, but it just might be the only functional form of Utopian Socialism that's even possible. Or it might, in some quasi-mystical way related to `the laws of nature' and a Lamarckian notion of `devolution', lead to humanity's downfall.