A lot of people read and linked to my recent post about the statue of Lenin in Seattle, and some of them took issue with my disgust. I'm writing this post to clarify my position on communists: I don't like 'em.
People more knowledgable about Russia than I am claim that the millions of dead that can be attributed to communism in the 20th century weren't really Lenin's fault. Fine. I don't really buy it, but I don't want to argue about it because I don't care. Lenin may have been a "moderate" communist, but in my mind that's like being a "moderate" Nazi.
I don't think Lenin was well-intentioned; he and his fellow communist revolutionaries were acting to increase their own power, at the expense of millions. But you know what? Again, I don't care. Lenin may have been a poor, misguided Father Frost. There were certainly millions of Nazis who were well-intentioned, too. Intentions count for nothing, when your actions cause massive destitution, death, and destruction.
The whole concept of communism is against everything I stand for. God, liberty, personal dignity -- all these are anathema to a communist. Communism subsumes free will to the tyranny of the group, violating the very essence of what it means to be human.
Not only that, but communism is generally merely a front for fascism. Most communist leaders are more concerned with remaking society according to their pleasure than they are with helping the proletariat. Promoting "the good of the people" is a ruse, an incredible deception designed to garner support from the masses that the communist leaders hope to dominate.
Many leftists in America (and socialists around the world) really like the idea of communism. They seem to think that although it's been an unquestionable failure every time it's been tried, the idea itself is sound. It'll work, it just needs a little more tweaking. They're wrong, and either evil or self-delusional. Yes, evil. That's a good word to describe someone who believes that utopia can be built by oppressing freedom and eliminating dissent.
To me, communists are worse than Nazis. I won't eat with a communist, I won't let a communist into my home, and I won't converse with a communist about anything other than the evil of their beliefs. I certainly wouldn't display a statue of a communist revolutionary in my city.
It seems to me that most of the persons espousing a sincere belief in Communism are doing so in part because they, individually, want to be the ones on one or more of the various decision making committees. I have yet to hear anyone espousing a belief in Communism who also doesn't want to be on one of those select committees.
That's a particularly amusing, but cruel, bit of self-deception, IMO.
I also wonder if the less informed don't somehow seem to equate Communism with some sort of super-democracy. After all, if everybody is "equal", they all have the same say in decisions, right? (That may be the theory, but it never works that way in practice and I suspect is the basis for the "tweaking" argument.)
Good point, as far as "super-democracy" goes, I hadn't looked at it from that angle. OF course, that's not the way it ever works out, and that's not even how communism is supposed to work.
To say that communists generally want the system because they dream that they will have the levers of power themselves is pretty accurate in my experience. They have no problem with coercion, repression and dictatorship as long as they are on top.
Disgusting.
You might be interested in this link about seeking a way to eliminate the respectability of communism. It meanders and is long but there's good stuff in there.
Murderers, all of 'em. Lenin just didn't have the time to equal Stalin's totals.
Every American schoolchild hears the names of Treblinka, Dachau and Auschwitz; how many American adults recognize Solovki, Vorkuta and Kolyma? This omission in our history education is a disgrace.
Speaking as a communist/socialist (the two are the same), I remain a bitter opponent of Lenin and his Vanguard élite-followers to this day. Communism is the system of society wherein the free development of *each* if teh condition for teh free development of all - that is, individuals, humans in their specific form, come first, not some abstract 'collective'. After all, what can 'from *each* according to their ability, to *each* according to their needs' mean, otehr than the fullest possible self realisation. Who knows what you need better than you. Communism, the free association of producers, bears no resemblance to the state-capitalist nightmare built by Lenin -it is the abolition of the wages system.
p.s. I don't want to be a leader, I am happy to be outvoted.
Uh, Bill, if you are happy to be outvoted, what happens when the collective votes that you don't need what you say you need? What happens when your religion is outvoted? or your desired profession is taken from you because the group needs a janitor instead of a physicist? Will you be happy to be outvoted then? And if so, I weep for you.
Hi Kit,
'the collective' can do those things under any system, humans are a collective animal, and the force of 'mob rule' is incipient in any social system, at least at the level of potentiality. As a materialist (and thus one without religion, incidentally), I would point, rather, to the practical premises of a society. If we have a society which is based on the free association of producers, then 'the collective' would have to go against the basis of its own organisation to enjoin a type of labour upon me, or to deny me equal access to its fruits. That is, it would have to destroy itself to unleash such rule.
Furtehr, there could be no standing mechanism, no state, no police, no army, to enforce such decisions in communism. How can you have a free society with a standing army? Ask any eighteenth century american revolutionary that one.
I might as well ask you, what if the market denies you your needs because you cannot afford to pay, denies you your choice of job because of the law of no profit no employment, denies you the 'spiritual' expansion of religion, as it does to billions the world over today?
Communism requires the individual to sacrifice his individuality. If you are outvoted, your wants and needs are discarded by the group. Or is this all right with you merely because it does not violate your beliefs? What if it violates mine? Am I supposed to grin and bear it for the sake of unity? (Anyone who knows me is at this point laughing at the notion.)
Additionally, no free society can remain free if it DOES NOT have a military because it would be overrun by a society that DID. Just ask any pacifist nation. (Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm, how did that happen?)
Also, capitalists are not going to want their system destroyed. And if you want communism to flourish, at some point you have to remove capitalism. So when there are enough of you, you would stop the capitalists to ensure your "free society." It is the essence of might makes right, and is no more sophisticated than a schoolyard bully stealing from smaller, weaker children.
As to your comment about the market deciding my fate, you're under the misguided notion that the market rules me. You are quite wrong. I am free. And no government can take my freedom from me. The most it can do is kill me.
you obviously have no idea of how communism works. karl marx and friedrich engels (considered the fathers of modern communism) stated that communism is established gradually. first you go through the stages of primal communism (native americans) fuedalism (dark age europe) slavery (early america) capitalism (now) and then communism. communism is established after a period of socialism, which devolops into communism, this in turn develops into anarchy (meaning without rulers, not chaos) as lenin said in revolution and the state: while the state exists there will be no freedom; when freedom exists there will be no state!
communist that think communism will be established overnight are/were delusional. also, communism allows you to do what you want, as long as you harm no one else in the process. it simply garuantees that all have what they need to live (if you want more you still need to be productive) if you want to be a physicist and not a janitor, you can be, and you can get the education to do so for nothing. (except taxes)
you say it has been a failure every time it has been tried, well, guess what? there has NEVER been a communist country! I will repeat that for you stupid rednecks: THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY!!!
USSR: socialist (take note of the name: union of soviet SOCIALIST republics, not union of soviet communist republics) by the way, stalin wasn't a communist. he was a state capitalist with a paranoia streak.
china: while run by people calling themselves communist, is again socialist. they are no longer socialist by the way. they wouldn't allow mc death or starbucks (two of the largest capitalist companies) to set up shop there if they were.
vietnam: nationalist, with socialist tendancies.
cuba: possible the closest to communist yet. they offer 1700 scholarships to(economically)poor americans each year to attend college in cuba. they extend the same offer to people in third world countries. castro is no saint, but he does nothing our own government doesn't do. (IE stomping down revolutions. try openly revolting against america's government)
Lo Kit,
Actually, I think Honduras has no Army, could be wrong, certainly one country round that way. Obviously, I don't mean that, but, that as capitalism exists worlkdwide, it can only be abolished worldwide - and with it the nation state and all borders and boundaries.
There can be no 'group' seperate from its members, and no group can have its need at the expense of those of any member. As I said, the condition of communism is that the condition for the development of all is teh development of each. That is, its organisational basis is such that you cannot advance some people's ineeds on the back of the needs of others. One in, all in.
As for might makes right: tehre is this thing called democracy, you may have heard of it. Once we have a majority who udnerstand and want socialism, we can act to begin running our society together, and reclaim the property stolen from us by the capitalist thieves by main force (unless you don't really believe that American police used to gun down strikers...).
As to your freedom, its not free, it has a price. A price many cannot afford (i.e. the 1 billion who cannot get clean drinking water, the 3 billion in unsanitory conditions, thenmillions of Americans unemployed or who cannot afford even health care nor proper schooling). Unless you are a capitalist, your freedom amounts to the freedom of prostituting yourself for a wage or salary.
As for Redghost, you're incorrect to say that Marx distinguished between socialism and communism, in fact he termed them as 'the higher and lower stage of communism' (Critique of teh Gotha Programme). That was in the nineteenth century, when productive forces were ill developed, today we would have little need of any transitional system.
Bill M.
bill, I am the one that distiguishes socialism from communism. the transistional phase of communism (called socialism) is used to set up the government and organization needed for communism. during this transistionary state the states power is slowly wittled away. with out this stage, capitalism can reestablish it's self, and we would be in the same situation we are now eventually. you need people to realize there are other options, this takes time (at least 2 generations) because the ideals these idiots have is deeply ingrained and they have been brainwashed.
marx formulated a theory and plan, and plans rarely work as the are intended (look at the war against iraq) it's a good base to build on, but hardly a full game plan!
Well, Bill and Redghost - interesting thoughts.
Fortunately, The USA is not a pure democracy - it is a Democratic Republic. The majority is NOT always right - in fact, many times the majority wants to stamp out the rights of the minority, but they can't do it with our system. The majority of the country was against the Civil Rights Act back in the 1060's - would you have allowed majority rule back then?
I don't know if Bill and Redghost are American Citizens or not - but if they are - they should understand our history and our government better than their words belie.
And yes, the government has many times made horrid mistakes and errors, but the US government has not come close to even 1 percent of the horrors and terrors brought upon the people of the USSR by the Communist Government.
Show me a country - anywhere - where people living in poverty have automobiles, televisions, radios and free education for their children.
Only country I'm aware of where this occurs is the USA.
I'm not ignorant, I used to be a social worker, and the poorest of our poor are vastly richer than the poor of most of the rest of the world.
Is this our fault? No. Not unless it is wrong to work hard - very hard - way harder than the French, Germans, English and other European semi-socialist countries. We reap what we sow. If others want to have what we have, they can work as hard as we do - and they too, will be able to live in a world like we do.
Huh, I'm sorta amazed that anyone actually believes that "real" communism is still a viable political theory.
Our current world order arose from anarchy, over the course of thousands of years. Humans naturally seek order, and the end-stage of communism sounds like a fantasy -- a very unstable equilibrium, even if it could every be established. All it would take is one guy with a spear to bring it all crashing down. Strange.
Lo All,
well, Beth, the American constitution does provide for simple majority rule, through the amendment clause (except for states' representation in the senate, which would require two amendments to amend, if the first of the two were allowed to amend out the no amendment rule). Germany actually has an unamendable constitution, guaranteeing its democratic federal status, for example.
People in poverty in France, Germany, the UK, possibly even Cuba have all those things, mass production and obsolete lines make those things available. But poverty isn't a emasure of material goods, it is a social measure of comparison between the wealth of one person and another. As for hard work, the harders workers often tend to be the lowest paid.
As for Mr. Williams, communism is very far from being an unstable equillibrium, it is a social system wherein the use of a spear becomes disadvantageous. i.e. where co-operative behaviour is rewarded over un-co-operative, and where it is better to try and work with your fellows, as a first option, then to try and screw them over. When one looks at teh history of capitalism, even in America, all one can see is a series of revolts, riots, picthed battles and carnage of trying to impose the inhuman dicattes of the machine onto human beings.
Bill.
Youre all saying that socialism is bad and it is like dictatirship. But think of what it actually means, it means that the people rule and that their need are the important once. Has anyone of you ever lived in a comunist country? Im guessing that no. So why are you saying that people suffer there? In USSR, for example, both elementary and secondary education was free, all health care (including dentistry0 was free, every organization had a union, there was 0% unemployment, the more you worked the more oney you got (regardless of what you do). USSR government always said good things about other coutryies and convinced people about it too, but why here in the USA people think so badly about USSR?
Typical reactionary pirates, the whole lot of you. Kiss my red ass! Long live the commies....
It amazes me to no end that after the Lenin model, the Stalin model, the Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev models, after the Mao, Deng, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Castro, Ceausescu, and all the rest of the bloody butchers and economic incompetents that constitute the sum total of communism's practical experience in power people still think that they can get away with the idea that a century of self-labelled communist nations, all of which were embraced by a majority of theoretical communists in the west as valid expressions of communism, consist of zero actual communist experiments.
The pattern is clear. Communist nations are true communist only until their failure to deliver the supposed goods is made manifest in tyranny and material/spiritual deprivation. Then they are not 'real' communism.
Pathetic.
-redghost- assuredly has never been to a communist
country before. or atleast never lived in one.
they do in fact exist. the former soviet union
was one from which my 1/2 family left. slovakia
is a country from which my immediate family esacped. these were not socialist. canada is socialist i.e welfare, free medical, schooling etc.
as for cuba, the boat loads of people who die trying to escape more than make up for the
1, 500 scholarships they handout for
people like 'redghost' to quote.
Lets examine the difference between Capitalism and Communism shall we:
Under Communism, I need to convince the majority before anything happens that I consider beneficial.
Under Capitalism, I need to convince only the people that I actually economically deal with, which is a small subset of the population that I can change at will at any time, before anything happens that I consider beneficial.
Which method is easier and more efficient to deal with? Which method is friendlier to minorities? I think the answer is obvious.