As you are probably aware, the most well-known Communist nations (China, Russia, Cuba) are known for commiting human rights violations that are nothing short of barbaric, and as a result, Communism has become synonymous with oppression despite the fact that most of the oppression was a result of power-hungry leaders, not Communist ideology.
So, is it possible for a Communist nation where basic human rights are respected exist?
San Marino periodically elects a Communist government, and I’ve never heard about basic rights being suppressed there.
So for as revolutionary (I mean, non-elected) Communist states are concerned, I think Yugoslavia had the best reputation of them all. You couldn’t really vote against Tito, and if you were overt in your anti-Communism you might be suppressed, but compared to other Marxist countries, you’d be pretty well off.
We’re going to need a definition of basic human rights here. I consider property rights to be basic human rights, so I would say that it’s impossible. Others would disagree.
Any particular reason the page thanks me for visiting whenever I try to scroll down?
Salvador Allende of Chile was elected popularly, and he was a Marxist. His administration could have flourished had the CIA not killed him in 1973. And many Social Democrats are in power in Western Europe (Sweden being a good example). Civil liberties aren’t threatened there AFAIK.
And aynrandlover, interesting website, but I object to the classification of Socialism with Fascism. They are very, very different.
By the way, who is John Galt, anyway? 
The CIA din’t kill Allende. He either commited suicide or was assassinated by Pinochet’s troops.
No, because it’s not possible for a Communist nation to exist, period.
The countries you cite as Communist were, quite simply, not. True communism is based on the abolition of classes, which did not occur in any of the countries which experienced a revolution (Russia, China, Cuba) or those upon whom the economic system that collapsed in 1989 was forced (Eastern Europe). In every case what developed was a new ruling class that turned the means of production into the property of the state and directed the development of industry to fulfil its own interests, rather than that of the working class.
Such a system is more properly called state capitalism - the domestic competition between companies and sections of industry is generally eliminated but the necessity of developing industry as a whole and generating profits in order to remain competitive on the global market remains. Workers’ standards of living and their rights as citizens get eroded fairly quickly, as the priority is production for the world market instead of consumer goods and the workers come to be viewed as mere tools for production rather than citizens with needs and rights.
In a global system based on international cooperation and planning from below (i.e. actual socialism), human rights would be a primary and active concern.
Let’s not forget that not all communist societies are Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist societies.
I’d say that it’s certainly possible to have communist societies without violation of human rights, after all, if you read the Book of Acts in the Bible, it essentially describes a communist society.
A Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist society would be very difficult to create without violation of human rights, given the examples in the OP. I don’t know enough about Chile under Allende to say whether that could have been an exception or not.
However, even if the CIA didn’t kill Allende themselves, they certainly participated in his overthrow.
Are you left handed? Its set up to detect right-mouse clicks for mediocre security from plagarism. But only mediocre. 
Great post Olentzero! Few people remember that there has never been a pure Communist (what a juxtaposition!) Government ever. Just as there are few pure forms of any government (our own American one included) of any sort, except maybe Facism or Dictatorship.
The farce known as Communism was so ridiculous as to be unworthy of even such a derogatory label as “Communism”. All that occured was the forcible seizure of personal product and not much more (corruption and kleptocracy do not count as forms of government). I have found that Capitalism is the only system that properly telescopes from the individual up to the society and conversely between society and the individual.
Allow me to quote Winston Churchill;
"Democracy is the worst possible for of Government,
except for all of the rest."
Does anybody know about the Amana people? I have read that they had something close to a communist existence which continued into the 20th century (1932). Granted, this was communism on a small scale, but it was peaceful and worked for almost 90 years. ood was collected into a central area which was shared by the community and there was no money used.
Oddly, they now manufacure appliances.
This does prove that Communism can work on a small scale. On a large scale? You’d have a hard time convincing me that it could work.
Equating socialism with fascism…I find the difference to be almost negligible. In both cases, the government retains the ability to completely control the economy, it is just a matter if that is through public property and extreme regulation or whim of a dictator. It is a bit of a stretch, but they are like two sides of an issue that still agrees: the economy should be controlled. Ok, it is a BIG stretch
Even large scale communism is possible, I suppose, so long as every individual knew what they had to do for the state/party/tribe/whatever. Any dissenters must be eliminated by some means or the system becomes food for parasites. This is why small scale parties might be communist and get away with it (even though I still feel it wrong) while larger communist societies have a hard time from finding out where the resources end up when people are starving in the bread lines. (I know four different people from four different areas of the former USSR, people fucking starved).
I don’t think communism can be applied successfully without violating human rights because it requires everyone to be selfless. But, since I am currently having my ass handed to me in another thread, I’m going to avoid elaboration until I get my act together
The rights would not be violated if they never existed in the first place.
Waterj2 already mentioned property rights, and Communism does away with those quite easily - by stating that property does not belong do any individual (simplified version, I know). We don’t need to stop there. Religion is done away with quite easily. Personal freedoms are, for all practical purposes, non-existent, since it’s the common good that counts. So human rights as we refer to them, really have very little meaning in the Communist philosophy. There is no reason to worry about human rights, since it’s the society that matters.
I am vehemently opposed to communism, but this is not an argument against it, rather an answer to the OP - how can you violate rights that don’t exist? You must first recognize these rights before you can violate them.
BTW, human rights have been violated under every system of Government known to man thus far, and I believe will be violated under every system that will ever exist, strictly due to human nature.
aynrandlover-not quite. I mean, communism doesn’t always equal fascism, and socialism even less so.
Now, if you want to make a case for Bolshevism being equal to Nazism in their use of terror, brutality and sheer inhumanity, then you’ve got a case.
It is not ok to compare economic control but it is ok to compare physical control? Uh, ok…
Well, except the OP assumes that rights do exist…and, when people talk about human rights, the idea is that they’re universal, and exist everywhere, whether they’re recognized to or not. Of course, this is debatable, but that doesn’t seem to be the question of the OP, which I read as saying, granted that there are basic human rights, does a communist nation exist that respects them.
As for the “no communist societies have really existed” argument, I don’t know if that holds water. Have any societies existed laid out under Marx’s economic system? Not modern ones, at least, but, it’s worth remembering that in the cases of Cuba, China, the U.S.S.R., etc, the governments believed they were Marxist. Arguments like that have always reminded me of the other argument, (also seen sometimes on this board):
OP: “If everyone were Christian, there wouldn’t be anymore war, and everyone would love each other.”
Someone Else: “Well, the Crusaders were Christian, and they were violent and did all sorts of bad things.”
OP: “The Crusaders weren’t REALLY Christian, because Christians wouldn’t do what the Crusaders did”
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s impossible, in a case like this, I think, to seperate theory from practice.
As far as economic control, I’m not really concerned. I’m more concerned about HUMAN RIGHTS. Like the right not to be hawled into a gulag for disagreeing with the government.
I think that’s a hell of a lot worse. But the economic principles are very different, from what I understand.
There is NO difference between economic rights and ‘human’ rights, in a world in which your economic condition controls your ability to act freely, and indeed controls your ability to stay alive.
Let me show you how they can be the same - If the government says, “You may not publish bad things about us”, you would consider that a violation of the right to free speech, would you not?
But the government can just as easily say, “You have the right to print anything you want. However, we own the paper mills, and currently paper for those of you not on our ‘approved’ list costs $500 per page”.
The second rule is purely ‘economic’ but has exactly the same effect.
Similarly, the Soviet Union used to have internal visas, and widespread travel around the country was not allowed without permission of the government. We all recognized this as a violation of human rights. However, you can achieve the same thing by nationalizing mass transit, putting tolls on roads going out of the city, and raising prices to the point where ‘undesirables’ can’t afford it. You achieve exactly the same effect.
These are not wild examples - the government of Chile used the former method to control the press. The latter method has been used in other countries as well to control the movement of the people.
One more example - in Cuba, if you are an ‘undesirable’, it’s impossible to find work, because no one will hire someone stamped as ‘undesirable’ for fear of having the government impose sanctions on them. Without a work permit, you can’t afford to live. So that forces you to ‘voluntarily’ move to government-controlled areas, which are essentially an internal exile. The reasons may be ‘economic’, but you have no more choice in the matter than you would if the government kicked in your door and dragged you off.
Captain,
Right you are, and well they should be! But what I’m saying is that part of the reality of Communism, is that these particular rights do not exist. These rights have not been granted to the Citizens (by the Communist Government, which is where rights come from under Communism), and therefore any communist will tell you that there are no rights being violated, because they do not exist. The western world (and you and I both) may disagree, but that is irrelevant.