The earlier thread about communism got me thinking…
Why are communist states always repressive? The old Eastern Block, China, North Korea, and to some extent, Cuba.
Is it because no one wants to live under communism, and governance through force and intimidation is necessary? Or does the philosophy of Marxism/Communism discourage dissent?
Love the user name.
I suspect this one is heading for either Great Debates, or the Pit, in that it probably doesn’t have a strictly factual answer.
I suspect that it tends to happen as a result of implementing the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and/or punishing all the nasty exploitive capitalists. The other factor is that communism extends the role of government into controlling the economy, which doesn’t usually work very well. So progressively more draconian laws are necessary to force people to abide by the economic model, and to redistribute the proceeds of their labor away from investors.
I better stop here.
Regards,
Shodan
It is a good name, SG! Meanwhile, I’m going to disagree with Shodan, at least in part.
Any political unrest, or any fanaticism, can go bad.
The holders of any strongly-held views tend to discourage dissent, wilfully or not, so I’m sure that’s part of the cause for repression. In most cases (IMHO), it’s more likely that those who win a revolution don’t hold any strong views beyond a desire for power, and just grab the “Communist” (or “Socialist” or “Democratic”) label so they look good. Then the loyalists of the old regime, often with outside support (see, for example, Wikipedia’s article on Salvador Allende in Chile), are trying to get back in by whatever means, and the new guys feel the need to defend themselves with repressive measures.
It isn’t just communism anyway, and doesn’t need a recent revolution. Take a look at the “House Committee on Un-American Activities” (which was really looking for anti-American activities, but no matter) and the repressive stuff they did.
Well, OK, but many of the Communist and formerly Communist countries became that way as the result of armed revolution - USSR, China, etc.
Then political repression becomes an extension of the revolution that imposed the regime in the first place. But you are correct, repression is not limited only to Communism. IIRC, the USA is the first republic to be established by an armed revolution.
Regards,
Shodan
IMHO, (and it’s been a really long time since I studied these concepts)
Communism is an economic model/political theory that appeals to those not in power and those who are disenfranchised. I don’t believe communism, per se, leads to a totalitarian state even though history seems to imply that it does.
I believe many have used this model as a selling point to society whether innocently or not. It is easy to generate momentum for a governement and economical model that promises immediate and drastic redistribution.
Lenin changed the concept of communism to “war” or Lenin communism. This switched the entire focus of communism from basically “all for the community” to “all for the state.” Thus, he intitially (but really solidified by Stalin) reversed the central notion of communism away from the community. However, Lenin kept the “noble lie” that the state worked for the people and thus it was only a mechanism to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth.
It seems that the centralist/command economies in most communist systems put soo much power into the hands of a few that it is too easy to twist the original theoretical principles. There are some out there who think that true communism can only work in small city-sized communities or communes. I would say the real problem with communist models is the centrallization of too much power.
True communism has never existed. It would exist in a place where capitalism had already taken root…Russia and China were mainly agrarian and subsistence economies. Therefore, Marx’s theories had little relevance. In each case, the result was a situation which allowed individuals to take complete control.
North Korea is essentially a left-over, a good example of what China perhaps used to be like (disclaimer: this doesn’t discount the danger N Korea could pose at some point in the future). The Eastern Bloc was the Cold War, not Communism (the Cold War could have happened without Communism). Cuba is an exception ion just about every way - you need to look about American policies as well as Marx to understand that one.
Couldn’t it be argued that the French Revolution created a republic, however short-lived?
:Smack: :smack: :smack:
Ignore that brainfart, please.
We’ve debated this before, but I think repression and totalitarianism are pretty much inevitable with a communist system. Most people are going to be okay with the “to each according to his need” part of communism but the “from each according to his ability” virtually always requires some strong motivation from above.
What England under Cromwell?
Or, what about England under Cromwell?
It is funny that with all the history of the American revolution taught in American schools I didn’t even hear the name “Oliver Cromwell” until I was in my mid 20s. Like the American revolution had no earlier parallel in history, or nobody had the idea of shortening the King of England by 9 inches or so. The English civil war might as well never have happened in most high-school American History classes.
In fact, one can see the Revolution not as an isolated event, but as just one in a series of contests between the English people and the Crown starting with the Magna Carta, which included the Peasents Revolt, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution and the social unrest of the middle 19th century - and those are just a few of the biggest. The American episode was more successful than most of the others, but it wasn’t inherently different.
Well, there is a systemic issue with a communist society in a world that also contains capitalist societies: the problem is that the communist society invests heavily in its citizens: free education, health care, etc., and if a citizen then leaves the country, that investment is lost. Therefore, there is a real and legitimate incentive for a communist country to keep its citizens from emigrating. This is exacerbated by the fact that unfortunately, it’s going to be the most motivated and ambitious citizens who will be leaving, making the drain on the communist society even worse.
E.G. Cuba gives someone a medical school education, and that person takes off for Miami, where they can get paid like a U.S. doctor, (but not have to pay off $500,000 worth of medical school loans like all their colleagues). You can understand why Cuba might not be particularly happy with this outcome.
What about it? It never occurred to me, that’s what. :smack: Sorry.
Because my education was nearly a match with Lemur866’s below:
The only stuff I know about Cromwell comes from related reading based on an attempt to understand Restoration drama. And a lot of it wasn’t good - whoever it was that I read talked about Cromwell as a dictator with a rather low regard for human rights (if that concept makes any sense in the context).
I know almost nothing about the English civil war. How long did the republic last? Was it really a republic, even in the not-really-close sense of the early American republic?
Battle my ignorance, if you please. And if it is not too much of a hijack.
Regards,
Shodan
A highly condensed history of England’s brief history as a republic. King Charles I (1600-1649) was a very unpopular ruler. The King and the Parliament were arguing over who should rule England. A war broke about between the two sides and ran from 1642 to 1651. A Member of Parliament, Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), became the military leader of the Parliament forces which won the war. Charles was removed from power and imprisoned in 1646 and executed in 1649 (his heir went into exile). England was declared a Republic in 1649 called the Commonwealth of England. Cromwell declared himself Lord Protector (essentially a dictator) in 1653. Cromwell died in 1658 and was briefly succeeded by his son Richard who couldn’t keep power. The Commonwealth was briefly revived but also failed. Charles II returned to England and restored the monarchy in 1660.
Thanks, LN. I did a little Googling on my own, and it sounds as if England wound up somewhat as did post-revolutionary France - they may have established a republic, but it didn’t last very long.
Regards,
Shodan
But there’s still the fact that the American Revolution occured a good 15 years before the French one did, so if the French would count, it wouldn’t be the “earliest”