In a way it’s worse. The problem with communism is that it imposes the government into every aspect of the lives of it’s citizens. Thus the degree to which it fails has a far greater impact on the people than the failure of another system that leaves the people more on their own.
jmullaney -
It is highly deceptive of you to imply that you know something of communist rule and life under a communist regime when you have spent no time living in those conditions and experiencing it first hand. You may feel that you have an educated opinion on the subject but it is painfully obvious to me that you do not. The best that you can hope to convince me of is that you understand communist philosophy in THEORY.
So you may resort to speculation and conjecture all you like, you’re still not going to understand the mentality of the system or the people. You may romanticize Engels and Marx till the end of your days, but you will still lack the fundamental knowledge of their philosophy applied on a national scale.
Not only that, you seem to poses very little knowledge of the former Soviet Union’s geography, natural resources, agriculture and industry.
I support the other users in recommending the book “The Gulag Archepelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsin. You’ve much to learn on this subject my friend - I sincerely hope you remain open minded enough to do so.
What is this democracy you speak of? As with communism, democracy never did, and never will work as system of government, but that’s really besides the point. Eventhough i do enjoy the Eutopic ideals that communism offered, i hate what it turned into in Russia and especially China. But as far as socialism goes, i give approval, at least on a limited basis. Just look at countries like Germany, Sweden and France(crappy example…i know).
What you are describing is not communism, but a totalitarian dictatorship. Where one of those happens to call itself communist, it will sneak into people’s lives, where it happens to be capitalist and call itself democratic, it will do the same. Communism itself gives people a much wider degree of freedom in personal relations than you find under any other system.
I don’t think so. Totalitarianism refers to the government’s control over every aspect of a person’s life. I am referring to the governement’s ownership over every aspect of a person’s life. Under Communism, the government is also your employer & your landlord, they make the clothes you wear etc. etc. If the government is inefficient and corrupt then all these aspects of your life are going to be inefficient and corrupt. Under a corrupt but uninvolved monarchy or dictatorship, it is conceivable that economic pressure could keep the rest of society functioning reasonably well. (Just stay out of politics).
What you are refering to is State capitalism. Somethign very different from communism, and something more dislikable to us commies as is normal capitalism. For further explanations of the differences, go back and read those threads I linked. This one has already been covered.
Well, you are half right. Communism gives people a wide degree of freedom as long as they uphold the communist beliefs and practices. When they do not, and many will not in any large application of the theory, totalitarianism is the only recourse for the communist ruling authority.
You see, on a small scale (like a kibbutz), a person or persons who are dissatisfied with the communist agenda may leave the commune without abandoning their country and roots. Unfortunately no such option exists for dissidents under the communist regime. So communism can exist under capitalism on a limited scale without threatening the capitalist structure ( because exchange outside the commune is still done under established market rules). But a capitalist structure of the smallest proportions cannot be tollerated by any communist regime because it instantly flies in the face of that famous communist mantra “From each according to his ability…blah, blah, blah…”.
So much for your maximum freedom theory.
So many problems and factual errors with what you posted QuickSilver. I’m not even going to try, needless, it’s all been addressed before. Go back and read the threads I posted. Then we can talk.
Truth is, what with one thing or another, I’m not up on the latest communist terminology. So you may indeed be right about what I’m refering to being known as “State Capitalism” in communist circles. But, communist though you may be, you do not have exclusive rights to the word Communism. I will try to remember this distinction when discussing the issue with you, but in the minds of most people who speak the English language, the system of government that was and is practiced by the majority of “Communist” governments (such as the USSR) is called Communism. So in the context of this thread, it is proper, and not misleading, to use it that way.
I know this was probably covered somewhere already, but can someone briefly explain the diff between socialism and communism?
Somewhere in my education, this was given:
socialism:communism :: capitalism:fascism
But perhaps I’ve been misled?
IzzyR – a fair point regarding mass use of terminology, but what are we to call the “theory” result of Marxism as opposed to the “what actually happened” result, if we can’t call the former communism? If anyone’s getting involved in a debate about political theories they should use the terms as originally intended as opposed to what the general public take them to mean… If I was talking about the details of plumbing, I’d try to learn the proper names for all of the various bits and pieces, even if most people call them all doodads or thingamajigs.
On second thoughts, forget that analogy. Not one of my better ones.
True. The OP asked “why is communism supposed to be evil and nasty?” I would suggest that the “communism” that is “supposed” to be “evil and nasty” is that which oldscratch calls “State Capitalism”.
Which is not to say that people wouldn’t think that real communism is not equally nasty, if they only knew about it (I don’t). But it is misleading to subtitute that interpretation into a question that seems to be asking about popular thought, and should reflect popular usage.
Fair enough, IzzyR. With regard to the OP I agree. I misread your intention and assumed you were talking generally about “communism” and “state capitalism”; apologies.
I’ve done just that. Thanks for reminding me to do my research. However, you’ve still not convinced me of your position on socialism as a workable solution to what ails today’s society (capitalist, communist or totalitarian). You are as eloquently misguided about this as you are about the chickens and inspectors. In short, for all your erudite knowledge of the communist/socialist ideals you have very little real understanding of the human animal on the one hand, and economics on the other. Allow me also to discourage you from putting us all into neat little slots and expecting us to behave so that your pretty little utopic model remains idealic and undisturbed. It’s clear to me that you have little appreciation and tollerance for human diversity.
So with all due respect, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Marx and Engles were wrong a hundred years ago and they are still wrong today. You are no less misguided.
Yes, you were mislead. Communism and Fascism bear much similarity to each other. Fascism is not a logical extension of capitalism.
For the record, the dictionary definition of both is:
**
Communism: A system of government in which the means of production are owned by the state, and operated for the benefit of the workers.
Fascism: A system of government in which the means of production are owned by private individuals, but controlled by the state for the good of the state.
**
Both types of government involve a large statist bureaucracy that controls the means of production. They differ in detail, but not in overall effect. In both types of government you have central planners that dictate the ultimate allocation of resources.
Capitalism is a system that vests power in the individual and not the state. As such, it bears little relationship to either Communism or Fascism.
A better grouping would be something like this:
Statist
Socialism
Fascism
Communism
Non-Statist
Modern Capitalism
Libertarianism
Anarchy
In response to **IzzyR[/r]. True, many have a mistaken conception of communism, however that simply points out the need to re-educate people, rather than changing words. If your only experience with democracyh was the People’s Democratic Republic of the Congo, you would have a pretty dim view of it. I while arguing, would point out that your example was not a democracy at all but a petty dictatorship, and that democracy actually had quite a bit to offer. understand?
For jmullaney. I already answered this one. I post the quote here.
As for how capitalism leads to fascism? I suggest reading some Rosa Luxembourg on this. The short answer is that yes it does, or at least to a crisis where you have two possible alternatives (socialism or fascism). And when you get to that point, you’ll basicly have to choose one. They are about as opposite as you can get. Most of the time, sadly, fascism and reaction has won. Chile, Germany, Italy, Spain. Once, socialism won, only to be crushed and destroyed by stalinism. Russia. Going over how and whys would take up an entire thread on it’s own, and would take quite a while. Suffice to say, I’m not goign to attempt it right now. You can find most of the relevant works free on the internet, at the Marx Engels archive.
QuickSilver posted **
**
Actually I have nothing but respect and admiration for it. It’s one of the reasons I’m a socialist. Under capitalism this “diversity” is crushed, degraded, and turned into a hollow ghost of what could actually exist. We are allowed to be “diverse” as long as we fit into those neat acceptable slots you mention. the defenders of capitalism, have no respect for diversity except their own, as evidenced by one poster’s comment that he would take up arms to prevent the majority from having control of the country, and would support a dictatorship of the minority, as long as it agreed with him.
With all due respect, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You were wrong 5 months ago, and you are wrong today.
Damn. Sorry bout the bold. I hate that shit.
Thanks. I thought I knew what I was talking about for a change!
Ah. So you just accept what Oldscratch says at face value. OldScratch is quoting writers who are way, way out of the mainstream of political thought.
In any event, his logic is circular. He’s saying that Capitalism MUST lead to a ‘crisis’, which will force someone to choose between socialism and fascism. The underlying assumption is that Capitalism cannot work. This assumption has been proven completely wrong countless times. In fact, the opposite is true - fascist regimes never seem to last, and socialist countries have invariably moved towards more capitalistic policies. The capitalist countries in the world have grown stronger and more stable.
Anyway, his reasoning is basically, “Capitalism can’t work. So eventually, the people will have to pick something else.” That ‘something else’ is either socialism/communism or fascism, simply because there’s nothing else left. I could say the same thing about Communism (“It’ll lead to a crisis, and people will have to choose either Capitalism or Fascism”), or about Fascism (“It’ll lead to a crisis, and the people will have to choose either Capitalism or Socialism”).
If we assume the first part about a crisis as truth, then the rest of the statement is also true. But completely meaningless.
I think his underlying assumption is that capitalism in inherently unstable, which can be easily shown. Communism and fascism are actually not as unstable by the same measure, although they may be unstable in other ways, and there are plenty of dictatorships which have a pretty good track record considering modern capitalism hasn’t been around all that long. As technology progresses, communist and fascist systems can increase their stability. I agree with him only because I did a great deal of study in this area in my younger days and reached the exact same conclusion. (although my inclusion in my studies of fascism as a type of economy was considered a very radical idea by the professor I was mentored to, some authors have since beared this idea out.)