Why do some people (DU'ers too) think that Communism is the worst ?

[ck4829]

Why do some people think it?

I literally have seen it (this one is an old post on YAHOO).

"I would rather live in a Plutocratic state than a Socialist State".

You have no Rights under a Plutocracy

You have no Rights under a Theocracy

You have no Rights under a Corporatocracy

The Crimes of Communism pale in comparison to the Acts of Evil that have been done by Plutocracies and Theocracies.

I'm not one to defend Communism, but this is ridiculous.

The things that the Far Right are planning are the things that we should be acting against, not screaming and ranting about Communist 'threat'.

I should know, real live Theocrats are trying to take over Ohio!

We've got to come together to stop the Far Right, it is the only way we can win.

[Deja Q]

1. Ask them if they'd rather live in a plutocracy over a democracy?

That'll be sufficient, I should think.

We've been a plutocracy for some time now...

Have them ask people who lived and worked in the late 40s-80s. Many of them were shocked when reagan's policies started dismantling the stable way of life they all grew up with.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Decades of corporatist conditioning.

NGU.

[NorthELiberal]

187. "Decades of corporatist conditioning."

No, not in my case, I have read the "Communist Manifesto" a few times and simply wasn't convinced.

[Just Me]

3. They don't get that it is tyrants which fuck up humanity, not ideas.

What can I say?

[Joe Chi Minh]

173. A lot in that, I think. They use the ideas though,

as a front. Well, the ideas of this current perversion of capitalism are so primitive they scarcely qualify as ideas. But they use them, nonetheless, and that's what's so insulting.

[eallen]

4. The theocrats worry me more only because they are now powerful.

If the religious right were an inconsequential minority, while the communists held sway in much of Congress and had elected a sympathetic president, I would be fighting communism as much as I now fight the religious right. But that's not the case. Communists are an inconsequential minority, so I don't much bother with them. That's not because the ideology is inherently less a threat to democracy and freedom, but just because they have no real influence in this nation.

[ClassWarrior]

5. No they're not. The corporatists just let them think they're powerful.

It serves as a useful distraction from the all the looting.

NGU.

[eallen]

36. Why do some people (DU'ers, too) think that corporations are the worst?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. Excellent sarcasm....I think.

Needless to say, the Founding Fathers were very wary of corporations and wanted to limit their charters to something like 70 years. I also believe that they wanted to limit the scope of their operations to the manufacturing of a single item or service. Very farsighted those boys. Why?, you ask.

GE
Halliburton
Archer Daniels Midland
ad nauseum

[eallen]

80. Only partly sarcastic. I think there should be limits on corporations...

If there is a legal principle that seriously needs undoing, it is the notion that corporations are persons, due Constitutional protection. There is no justification for the 19th century Supreme Court decision that enshrined this, neither common sense nor original intent nor strict constructionism nor rights theory nor anything else. I also would keep them out of the political process. Figuring out how to do that is a bit more complicated. But there's no excuse for the existing hand-in-glove cooperation between K-street and the Republicans in Congress.

That doesn't mean corporations are bad. Corporations are a legal abstraction that make investment and business ownership much easier. Speaking of the founding fathers, keep in mind that they were quite keen on commercial enterprise, and even enshrined patent and copyright into our Constitution. The large benefit of corporation is economic dynamism and growth. I don't think it is accident that the economies of the last century that have failed miserably are those that discouraged or banned corporations.

We shouldn't worship corporations. We shouldn't treat them as people. We can and should set limits on them, so that they are a tool for good rather than harm. But the thinking that seems common among some on the left that corporations are the seat and cause of all evil is just nuts.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

106. Well said.

And those that see corporations as evil see them that way for the reasons that you enumerated. Take away personhood and enforce the Sherman Act and those views would likely disappear.

[eallen]

118. Some of the issue is rhetorical...

Business and corporations are no more inherently evil than drugs or sex. In fact, I would argue that all four are essential to a modern society. Yes, they can be abused. But there is a difference between the wingnut preacher who opposes all sex except procreative acts between a Christian husband and wife, and the public attorney who prosecutes pedophiles. When it comes to corporations and business, there is an abstinence-like rhetoric that shares all the excesses of the wingnut preacher, where I wish we would get more to a rhetoric of abuse, boundaries, etc.

[Joe Chi Minh]

175. In a half-sane world, your concern to make a distinction

between the corporations in principle and in current practice, sounds rational, but today, it's rather like speaking of a domestic cat and a full-grown lion; a bit like saying, "Don't keep teasing the cat, when you can see he wants a bit of peace and quiet, or he'll get vicious, and you'll only have yourself to blame", when what is needed is a discourse on how to capture and control an escaped lion, when at the moment we just have a few sticks and a smallish net. The principle of conservation and a balanced eco-system tends to take a back seat.

[NorthELiberal]

208. "Communists are an inconsequential minority,"

Bush was inconsequential in the 90's, nobody dreamed a man like that could come to power........... after that almost anything seems possible.

[BL611]

6. Are you seriously comparing

our society (whatever its many flaws may be ) with a Communist state??? You're right this is ridiculous...

[lovelaureng]

13. I agree with you.

Totally ridiculous.

[MarsThe Cat]

37. when has true communism ever been attempted?

there have been countries that hve been proclaimed by themselves or others as "communist"...but have any of them really been?

[BL611]

44. see post #41

[ptolle]

theocrats & commies

Oddly enough in view of some of the comments above some of the most ideologically pure attempts at true communism have been made by religious groups- think of the Oneida community, or the Shakers- google or wiki bible communists/(ism). Communism and its cousin socialism are both economic theory that inherently say nothing about the sort of political structure imposed over the top of them.As stated by a poster above it's totalitarianism regardless of its economic or social guise that frightens me the worst.We have gotten a lot closer than I ever thought possible in this country with georgism, but thanks to our democratic republic we are about to see this would be dictator peacefully off into the obscurity he so richly deserves and we can set to repairing the damage done our country.

[Yupster]

97. I feel kind of lucky that I went to college

in the Seventies.

As a history major in the 70's, communist doctrine was historical fact among the professors. We were taught a theoretical understanding of communism, and its dialectics, branches and choices.

At the time the Soviet Union looked extremely strong and countries throughout the world, especially in the Third World were changing to a communist form of government.

To the professors this was seen as inevitable, and to us students it was seen as a positive for the world as a whole. With every professor in the history department a Marxist, we were all pretty indocrinated.

Anyway, the dream of communism is Marx's slogan of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to its needs."

In practicality, we were asked to envision a world where people worked at the occupations they wanted to. When you needed things you went to the store and took them.

The lack of need for money would free millions of workers from pencil pushing jobs to truly productive jobs, and therefore the wealth of the society would grow tremendously. Kind of like Star Trek.

The question would always be asked "what if people refuse to work since they aren't getting anything for their labors?"

The answer to that was that "capitalist man" would refuse to work, but through education, a new man called "Communist Man" would be created who would work for the benefit of society, not for his own.

Through the intermediary steps to "Communist Man" a government was necessary. However, once "Communist Man" had been achieved, the state would "wither away and die."

It all seems so obviously silly today, but believe me, it was taken very seriously back then, at least on college campuses.

Anyway, as you'd see at first glance, the problem comes when you take away the incentive to work, people stop, productivity declines. Without opposition parties, the government becomes punitive in forcing people to do what they don't want to do. You end up with Gulags, Cultural Revolutions and Killing Fields.

I wonder today if those same professors are still the true believers they were back then, or are they today teaching an entirely different matrix of beliefs never mentioning the silliness they once taught as inevitibility.

[julianer]

108. See me later

You are heading for a fail in Communism 101.

The idea is not to have governments so 'without opposition parties, the government becomes punitive..' etc is really a description of a failed system of communism.

You are blaming a theory for its implementation, in other words.

[BL611]

109. Aren't you the guy I was arguing about this with the

other day?

Of course you can blame a theory for its implementation, if a theory does not take into account certain factors (like human nature) that are going to be inevitable under any scenario for implementation.

[julianer]

117. Yes that was me

And I have the chance to re-ask a question (I can't remember if it was you I asked): what is human nature? How is it expressed?

You cannot blame a theory for its implementation if the implementation is nowhere mentioned in the theory. Stalin's regime would have been completely unrecognisable to Marx as a communist society, based on what Marx actually wrote that is, not what people imagine he wrote.

[BL611]

122. What is Human Nature

Self Interest, the insecurity of survival instincts, which manifests itself in will to power, if a society does not have the proper structures to curtail power from concentrating it cannot work. The marxist view (DSA types aside, at least that held by most of the orthodox) is that will the flaws in human nature are caused by capitalism, in reality I believe it is quite clear that the flaws in capitalism are caused by human nature (Do you also think Adam's Smith's society is equally as legitimate as Marx because he discounted the possibility that agrarian capitalism would turn into corporate oligopoly), the difference is that at least in (what is now called)a capitalist society there is enough plurality of ownership to create a model of countervailing power, under any Marxist conception of society power becomes too concentrated and leads to despotism.

[julianer]

131. What a grim outlook on life

that is.

How do you account for acts of generosity? Why are so many people here so obviously motivated by injustice if they are only self-interested? How do you explain the outpouring of grief and giving that followed the tsunami in SE Asia?

I think you are very confused about Marx. It is a common enough thing, I suppose.

As for your idea that the imperfections of capitalism are caused by the imperfections of human nature - surely that is a good argument to get rid of capitalism, since it inevitably leads to bad things?

Though your idea itself is very silly, I would go along with the idea that capitalism is a system best exploited by very self-interested people, a system that rewards the worst in human behaviour - it's just a shame about the rest of us, apparently.

[BL611]

135. Calling idea's silly while ignoring the point

made, is a waste of both of our time.We are not all bad, we have the possibility of doing good, many of us do commit altruistic acts as forms of love to our fellow human, however this impulse is always in conflict with maximizing self interest which is equally apparent looking at the world.

I answered in my last post that Capitalism will never be anywhere near perfect, but (unlike Communism) at the very least creates a plurality of interest among elites that holds all of them reasonably in check, I have no illusions of any utopian society, that does not mean I do not believe that we can (and should always strive) to improve.

Again you twist my words, we are all self interested, it is part of our nature, every system is best exploited by very self interested people, the difference is at least capitalism (and by Capitalism I mean in its current conception-not as "pure" capitalism, but the mixed economy welfare state) takes this enough into account to provide a level of refuge from the most egregious displays.

I am still curious to hear you answer my question about Smith? If Communism cannot be blamed because attempts at implementation have not followed what you consider Marx's ideal, can Capitalism be blamed, as obviously it has not followed Smith's ideal either? If not, do you find both to be equally legitimate forms of government that just need better "implementation"?

[julianer]

138. I didn't ignore your point

And I haven't twisted your words.

Why must debate always be conducted on the one hand by a pure, ultimately honest person at one keyboard and, on the other by pure malice determined to distort and subvert on the other keyboard?

In reality I may have misunderstood you but I don't want to distort what you say.

Sorry I didn't answer your point about Smith: in short I don't think that capitalism is based on any theory. Smith is occasionally wheeled out to give theoretical justification to some new excess, but I don't think he would have recognised, or approved of, modern capitalism.

And I didn't say that 'Communism cannot be blamed because attempts at implementation have not followed what you consider Marx's ideal'. I wanted to explain that Marx left no road map or signposts beyond a very basic idea of self-government and common ownership. He believed that socialism and communism would be achieved by the actions of working people themselves and they (we) would decide how society would be organised. Stalin perverted this by claiming that communism could be achieved with a system that, uncoincidentally, left Stalin at the top. In communism there should be no 'top'.

And finally, capitalism has no self-restraining mechanism that you imagine it has. Though it's elites are not homogenous, there will always be a camp that calls for moderation and planning. But, and this is a crucial contradiction within capitalism, any capitalist who wants to be more moderate than his competitor will lose the competition. It is only governments acting in the public interest that restrain its excesses, though not at the moment so much, by insisting on universality of standards.

[BL611]

144. OK, but that is not my question

It is obviously a given that Smith's conception of capitalism was not industrial corporate oligopoly, however do you assign as much merit to Smith's "pure capitalism" as Marx's "pure communism"? and if so do you believe a properly implemented capitalism can be as just, as a properly implemented communism?

Capitalism within the context of Liberal Democracy DOES have a self restraining mechanism in the separation between economic and political power, while Marxism(or at least as it has been "implemented" thus far) concentrates all power within one organ, it is the difference between the Weberian outlook of society in which power manifests itself through different applications which can be used to check each other, and Marx's crude materialism.

Since you dismiss all previous attempts and Communist implementation, and believe Marx has nothing to say on the subject, what is your theory on how to implement it.

BTW: As far as your musings on debate, you were the one one who decided to dismiss comments as silly rather then refute them or say you didn't understand them.

[gordianot]

150. Human nature is Human nature.

You are wired for survival-salvation. Human nature and survival is not imperfect it is who we are. The economic, political, religious belief systems that any of us ascribe to works as well at it results in our survival as a species. The imperfections are actions that threaten our comfort or survival.

[julianer]

180. Yes

But the argument about human nature is used to insist that a change of economic system is impossible.

When people use this argument they tend to interpret human nature as something entirely self-interested and motivated by possession and greed. I disagree with this characterisation - it doesn't take account of human generosity to strangers and the general uncrushable instinct in most of us for justice and fairness.

What they also glide over is the fact that this sort of economic system hasn't been around very long and human nature developed before it came into existence.

[gorbal]

196. You just said what I wanted to say:)

The motivation to work was once more than pure "survival". People tried to bag the biggest deer or reap the biggest harvest or throw the biggest party to gain status and acceptance within their group.

If you look at the richest people and why they work, it isn't for "survival". Why should we assume that they are so much more evolved than those of us on the lower end of the pay scale?

[NorthELiberal]

184. "You cannot blame a theory for its implementation

if the implementation is nowhere mentioned in the theory."

So if I come up with some pie in the sky idea ......... and I give no one a roadmap on how to attain it, I still deserve to get the worldwide acclaim that Marx did in some circles? If I am pissed enough to stage a revolution....... and marx did call for revolution, shouldn't I ground my ideas with a more concrete plan?



In reply #108 you said

"You are blaming a theory for its implementation, in other words." and tell yupster he/she is heading for failure in Communism 101.......... yet you acknowledge Marx is incomplete..... Implementing the theory, what course is that Communism 102?

[julianer]

193. I don't think it is fair to

call Historical Materialism 'pie in the sky' unless you can actually disprove its major claims. Can you?

Marxism is not 'incomplete'. It is not part of Marxism to have a roadmap for a socialist or communist state. How could it be since no one knows when capitalism will end, or how, or what the conditions facing humanity will be?

Marx's theory of Historical Materialism claims that human society develops in stages - stages that are determined by our ability to 'transform nature' i.e. make things for our own survival/enjoyment. So you have primitive life with very limited means to 'transform nature' like flints and bones - and the society is also primitive, it couldn't be anything else.

Later technical developments will arrive, like agriculture, and these changes will also effect changes in social structures, so you have the start of formalised religion and royalty as soon as society is able to produce a surplus.

Marx claims that each new stage is a progression. Under feudalism technical developments in finance and markets were unable to operate properly because the structure of society didn't allow it - you might have developed a way of producing things better but the king may ban it because it threatens one of his favourites, etc. Therefore there was a revolution against feudalism and a structure of society was established that favoured capital and finance. We are still in this stage though it is also running out of time and frustrating humanity's ability to 'transform nature'(half the world lives on less than $2 per day).

According to Marx, capitalisms replacement is historically necessary, but definitely not predictable. Of course he may be wrong, but I don't think so.

[NorthELiberal]

207. "Marxism is not 'incomplete'. "

..... It is not part of Marxism to have a roadmap for a socialist or communist state. How could it be since no one knows when capitalism will end, or how, or what the conditions facing humanity will be?"


By pie in the sky I meant that many people can dream up the of plenty of "theoretical" solutions to society's problems. Marx's theories are social/economic, not something that you can easily test in a lab........... When you make the world your laboratory you have to exercise a little more caution then you do in a lab.

Unlike a lot of other theoreticians Marx did call for direct action. He was calling for revolution. Thats places a slightly larger burden on him to show a way especially if it's as massive an undertaking as transforming the world economy.

"Marx's theory of Historical Materialism claims that human society develops in stages - stages that are determined by our ability to 'transform nature' i.e. make things for our own survival/enjoyment. So you have primitive life with very limited means to 'transform nature' like flints and bones - and the society is also primitive, it couldn't be anything else. "

No kidding, you make it sound as if Marx is the first to examine the impact of technology on human society......... That's very obvious isn't it? (the impact of technology) Literally hundreds of millions people have made that observation on their own (even before Marx). When I was young before I had ever heard of Marx I had more than one elderly relative (who were not very educated --- They didn't make it past elementary school) tell me what it was like to live without plumbing or electricity, what is was like to have the first telephone, car etc. Many if not most inventors have an idea their inventions will impact society and possibly transform it in some way....... it is one of their motivations for creating things. It's not hard to see how new technology changes power relationships in society. That's something many people know instinctively even if they can't articulate it well.

Even if you were to completely credit Marx, for the theory of Historical Materialism............. it is an interesting set of observations on a dimension of history (I use the the word dimension for lack of a better word-------- I hesitate to call it one dimensional....... it is in a way comprehensive while still leaving out many of history's other dimensions.........) and history had many other dimensions to it. There are other philosphies, art, religions, sciences that certainly played a big role.


"Later technical developments will arrive, like agriculture, and these changes will also effect changes in social structures, so you have the start of formalised religion and royalty as soon as society is able to produce a surplus.

Marx claims that each new stage is a progression. Under feudalism technical developments in finance and markets were unable to operate properly because the structure of society didn't allow it - you might have developed a way of producing things better but the king may ban it because it threatens one of his favourites, etc. Therefore there was a revolution against feudalism and a structure of society was established that favoured capital and finance. We are still in this stage though it is also running out of time and frustrating humanity's ability to 'transform nature'(half the world lives on less than $2 per day)."



Now the question turns to who gets the surplus, we can start with who benefits from the surplus in modern society........ which is a very big topic for one post, so I will get back to it later....... or go back to feudal societies.......... the example you layed out itself shows that capitalism was an improvement over what came before it...... doesn't the financier or enterpreneur who can deliver the best product or service deserve to profit more than the king or feudal lord and his cronies? (it's not as if they won't benefit anyway, they are still taxing the profit), hence wasn't the rise of capitalism an improvement over what came before it? Oui? Non? The Bourgeoisie (using his terminology...... I am not defending the purely idle rich, but Marx lumped a lot of people into that category, artisans, entrepreneurs, etc) as Marx simplistically called them were an improvement over the Monarchy and Feudalism...... They at least started the trend of upward mobility for themselves and society as a whole. The rise of more modern commerce led to more communication, travel, exchange of ideas, etc. Marx himself admits several times in the Communist Manifesto.


Straight from the Communist Manifesto:

"Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land."

All those factors led to the rise of new values as well, the age of reason, enlightment, etc. ...... and democratic revolutions in human rights which led to the overthrow of Monarchs. The rise of Capitalism went in parallel with the rise of democracy. Not a small achievement don't you think? Early Communists called it the Bourgeoisie Democratic Revolution............ almost in a derogatory way as if the rise of Demcracy was just an afterthought, not a breakthrough that took centuries to come into being. I am not saying early Democracies were perfect but they were a start. (George Washington is someone who Marx would have labeled Bourgeoisie, he was a rich wealthy landowner.......... You wouldn't say the American revolution was purely about business interests was it?)

If you keep reading the manifesto it seems like Marx has many problems with modern progress in general (he almost treats as if it were something that could be controlled....... Yes modern industry came with it's own problems and I am not a complete defender of Capitalism but many people see developments like railroads, telegraphs, steam engines as a positive thing. You can't plan where human thought, discovery, science etc. are going to go and you can't always help the people in the industries it displaces. Candlestick makers went out with light bulb, horse carriage manufacturers with automobile. Society overall still benefitted)


You mentioned we are still in this stage of development........... What if the end Capitalism creates the technology that allows us to take from human nature what we need to feed cloth shelter, etc every man woman child on earth? 200 years ago 97% of the population in America lived on farms, now it's 3 % and because of modern technology we still produce more food than the 97% did before. The transformation is still going on in all areas of life and yes we don't know how it will end................. it may be that we undergo such a huge technological transformation that whether it's a question of socialism, capitalism, whatever becomes a moot point. Marx himself admitted Capitalism was good at developing technology.........


There is a lot more I would like to add and expand on.......... however real life intervenes, when I get the chance I will try to add to this post, it is oversimplified and hastily written.

My main problem with Marx is that dividing the world into the bourgeousie and proletariat (he could have added at least one more class----- the creative/professional ---- even that is too simplistic but it would have allowed for more incentives) seems awfully simplistic, especially for today's world. I view history in multiple dimensions while Marx seems very one dimensional (yes the worker/class struggle is a very very big dimension, but not the only one). Since I am not completely convinced the second problem I have is with the revolutionaries who seem so ready and willing to impose an imperfect theory on everyone else. Marxism doesn't explain the American experience where many people (the proletariat) came here with nothing but shirts on their back and made a good life for themselves.

[NorthELiberal]

210. I give you credit for this..........

"According to Marx, capitalisms replacement is historically necessary, but definitely not predictable. Of course he may be wrong, but I don't think so."

You considered the possiblity Marx may be wrong........ a big step... most Communists I have had discussions with do not leave open the possiblity Marx may be fallible...... Maybe if the early revolutionaries had a more go slow, wait and see, we could be wrong, attitude, Communism wouldn;'t have been such a disaster.

[NorthELiberal]

183. "The idea is not to have governments so

'without opposition parties, the government becomes punitive..' etc is really a description of a failed system of communism. "


What else would you call a "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Suppose I wanted to represent a party of entrepreneurs?

[bvar22]

155. where did you go to school?

I went to several two major Universities in the USA during the late 60's-early 70's. The "MOST" radical professor I experienced endorsed a form of Enlightened Socialism. I NEVER met or was aware of a professor (History or otherwise) who preached Marxism, though some of my young radical firends did.


Perhaps you would be willing to Name Names?

Rush says the Universities are/were a festering pool of Marxism/Communism, but MY experience has been otherwise.

[NorthELiberal]

189. I had quite a few Marxist professors myself..........

Even in classes where it wasn't warranted they would bring the conversation back to Marx.......

[tocqueville]

7. the crimes of communism are equivalent to the ones you name

Just check Stalin, Mao, Kim and Pol to name some. There is no discussion that those systems were dictatorships and genocidal.

the problem is not there. The fact is that a majority of Americans if proposed European-like solutions for organizing the country, welfare etc... would call it "communism" when in reality it has to do with old social-democratic recipes, even christian-democratic ones. Chirac's party UMP which is considered as a traditional conservative in France would be considered as "left-wing" if running in the US, far to the left to the actual Democratic party.

the US right wing has demonized every collective based solution, when those are mainstream in Europe. They are helped by a libertarian tradition both to the left and the right.

[donheld]

19. "Just check Stalin, Mao, Kim and Pol to name some."

Those were NOT crimes of communism, those were crimes of dictators. Dictators would be no different if they were any other form of government. Any system run amok gets you those crimes.

[tocqueville]

95. those guys stood for a system

like saying facism would have been nice without Hitler

communism leads to dictatorship because it denies individual rights and democracy. Read Lenin

untamed capitalism leads to exactly the same thing, for the same reasons.

[julianer]

119. 'Read Lenin'

What have you read of Lenin's work?

[tocqueville]

167. more than you can imagine

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"
"The State and Revolution"
"What Is To Be Done?"
"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"
"Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder"

as of what I can remember

Communism means the "collective ownership of the means of production" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat"

It has failed in all countries it has been tested

Can someone phone the remaining communist parties ?

[killbotfactory]

171. Has it failed in Cuba?

The lot of the average Cuban has increased, with pretty much free and universal access to medicine and education (despite the fall of the Soviets, our stupid embargo, and other vicious attempts by the CIA to sabatoge their industries or kill their leadership). I know the people who were at the top of the power pyramid fled after Cuba and complain a lot because the government took what they left behind, and like to spread propaganda, but still...

[eomer]

214. Not true: "pretty much free and universal access to medicine"

Cubans on the island routinely have to ask relatives in the U.S. to buy and ship their medicines to them. They have to bring their own sheets to the hospital.

When my wife was visiting the island a few years ago (her one and only trip to Cuba since she left as a young girl), she went with her cousin (who still lived there at the time) to the local government run grocery. Before they went, her cousin told her "I'm going to ask if there is any salt". Sure enough there was no salt on the shelf and when the question was asked the answer was some story (not true of course) that salt would be coming soon. Food sufficient to subsist on is not available by way of legal means. Cubans are forced to resort to activities that are officially illegal just to avoid starvation.

These are the facts. Not propaganda.

[julianer]

182. Can you give me a synopsis

of which work supports your original claim?

[Joe Chi Minh]

177. There is an awful lot I read about the catastrophic

Leap Forward, but no hint of the billions who will have died of famine, always ultimately man-made (like the Potato Famine in Ireland) and economic oppression prior to Communism. The troops of Chiang Kai-shek, earlier an alumnus of organsed crime, were so starved and anxious to join Mao's army. Well, I've just learnt from Wikipedia that the famine was also partly caused by three successive years of natural disasters. The first time I've read of that. Who'd have thunk!

As for democracy, if a fair election were held in China, today, as in Russia, it would revert to Communism in less than a heartbeat. The country is mostly rural and poor.

I heard people on TV who had worked as teachers there, before the Western-engineered lurch to the right (fortunately attenuated in spite of the psychopathic urgings of the psychopaths of Western capitalist geopolitics), and they stated what an incredibly happy and, incidentally law-abiding people the Chinese were. You could leave your door open in a hotel and be confident that nothing would be stolen.

[radio4progressives]

70. Those crimes are from Dictators - There's a hell of alot more to the list

paranoid eglamaniacs - and the list is a lot longer when detach the word "communist" -

And added to this list of dictators may be the name of George W. Bush -and that will be under a so called "democratic" system.

It just won't be the first time that an evil dictator rose to power under a "democractic" system.

[julianer]

110. Bravo

This is the answer to the original question - communism has been demonised and equated with Stalin and Mao.

A very widespread disease which has its effect on every conversation about the future for the left.

It is hard to say whether the misunderstanding is deliberate or merely ingrained. You also equate 'the crimes of communism' with Stalin and Mao. What point are you making beyond the obvious one that these were tyrants and murderers? Obviously that 'communism' will inevitably lead to such murderers.

One might as well talk about christianity in terms of its followers on the lunatic right. If you start getting interested in christianity or want to act like a christian it will lead, inevitably, to you calling for the murder of gay people.

And so our political space is stunted and our discussion curtailed. Divide and rule.

[NorthELiberal]

186. "communism has been demonised and equated with Stalin and Mao."

The crimes of communism weren't just committed by Stalin and Mao (thet were only the biggest offenders)........ Don't forget Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Jung, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Milsoevic, even Tito in Yugoslavia one of the more moderate former Communist countries. Communism's defenders of course will always go back to the last ditch defense of it's not "theory".

"It is hard to say whether the misunderstanding is deliberate or merely ingrained."

Maybe hard for you, tens of millions of dead will pretty much ingrain it, don't you think?


"And so our political space is stunted and our discussion curtailed. Divide and rule."

The discussion is definitely curtailed when you only want to talk about theory. In the real world let me ask you, with any theory (and yes a good theory can be imperfect in the beginning, that's why you test it to refine it), you eventually do go out to test it don't you? and the results count don't they? Now when Communism was tested, not very good results were they? Not just once, almost every time? Yes? No?

[julianer]

192. You are making my point for me

I believe.

[NorthELiberal]

209. "You are making my point for me......I believe."

Your point was? That because of the mass murders and other failures in the name of Communism it has a credibility problem? It sure does.

[politicaholic]

8. Repubs would use "The Evil Humours" against liberals if they could...

or "Liberalism causes gout and old-maid's creaks", whatever it takes to make people believe that the US will be one big Gitmo under another Democrat.

Somehow they have a small portion of the population convinced that there were manditory abortions during the Clinton Era and that children are going to be given "gay lessons" in elementary school if another Dem is elected.

Communism...*pfft*

[catmother]

9. there is something that bothers me. if we're so free why can't

i travel to cuba? it looks like an interesting place that i would enjoy travelling to.

[bemildred]

10. Brainwashing? The USSR? China? Cambodia?

I think the theory is nice, but so far implementation has sucked.
The only place I can think of that it's worked out is Cuba, and that seems more due to the excellence of Cuba itself and Castro than to any theoretical quality in Communism.

[julianer]

121. Which theories are you talking about?

Are you saying that communism works when it ignores these 'theories' but fails when it applies them?

Cuba is not communist - it has socialised means of production but it doesn't have worker based democracy (though it's representative democracy is much better than the 'west's') and the state still takes the place of an organised population, usurping the role the people should play under a Marxist system. However I don't really doubt the good intentions of Cuba and Castro, and no doubt they would have gone much farther if they hadn't been under economic and military attack for fifty years.

[eomer]

215. Communism has not "worked out" in Cuba.

Rather, it has been a disaster.

The only reason the Cuban people have survived Communism is because they have gone outside the system to find ways to eat and to get medicine and clothing.

And, of course, many didn't survive. It is not that long ago (1994) that the government murdered men, women and children trying to flee on the ship Trece de Marzo.

[VOX]

11. Communism as a bogeyman is being supplanted with "Islamism"

and "Islamofascism," etc. Same old right-wing BS, just a different name.

[JanMichael]

12. I've always loved the arguments against Cuba. Well Mexico is Capitalist...

...and they have a HUGH amount of their population trying to escape to the US. Same with Haiti but we treat them like shit.

[katinmn]

14. Here's a menu of different types of government

from the CIA World Factbook.

A commonwealth sounds good to me but it probably isn't workable for a country of our size.

The US is a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition," according to the book. (I think it's becoming an oligarchy.)

Venezuela is a "Federal Republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives."


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notes...

This entry gives the basic form of government. Definitions of the major governmental terms are as follows:

Anarchy - a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.

Commonwealth - a nation, state, or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.

Communism - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces, or territories, that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.

Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government.

Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.

Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.
Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Dictatorship - a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).
Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.

Federal (Federative) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided - usually by means of a constitution - between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.

Marxism - the political, economic, and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society - communism.

Marxism-Leninism - an expanded form of communism developed by Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers' struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.

Monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign - such as a king, queen, or prince - with constitutionally limited authority.

Oligarchy - a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.

Parliamentary democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.

Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) - a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.

Parliamentary monarchy - a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor - who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.

Sultanate - similar to a monarchy, but a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.

Theocracy - a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, but the Deity's laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.

Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population.

[xchrom]

21. these definitions hold a lot of commentary in them

i.e.
Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.

all western governments -- including our own democratic republic are ''socialist''.

[katinmn]

84. Well it is by the CIA

[Odin2005]

77. The definitions of Socialism and Communism...

are biased, right-wing BS. You can have democratic countries with a socialistic/communistic economic system, and you can have capitalist dictatorial police states. the whole rightwing mantra that you need to be capitalist to be truly democratic is bullshit.

[julianer]

114. That's right

There are many, many examples of 'democracies' being overthrown and replaced with capital friendly dictators.

But this is part of the illusion of life - that we life in an ideology free wonderland of liberty and democracy.

The ruling ideology isn't even recognised as such. People who disagree are labelled as 'ideologues' by the real, unconscious, ideologues of capitalism.

Thus the current ideology is summed up as 'We are by default better human beings than anyone else - because we have no ideology!' Hard to find a more concise metaphor for self-delusion.

Edit for punctuation and sense.

[quiet.american]

15. I'm confused- the quote in your reference seems to refer to socialism. n/t

[ck4829]

17. I know

I'm just getting the idea across.

I could have said he supported a Plutocracy over a Communist State, but then I would be lying.

[leftstreet]

16. JEEBUS! Can't we just make up a new "ism?"

Why do people always look backwards to old systems. Surely we're ready to accept that NO system has been ideal.

[BL611]

18. No system will EVER be ideal

because the PEOPLE who govern it will never be ideal, we don't need a new ism, Liberal Democracy is just find and it is a constant and never ending process to continually improve it...

[leftstreet]

22. Wake me up when this 'Liberal Democracy' improves

[BL611]

24. See thats the thing about democracy

Its YOUR responsibility to improve it!!!

[leftstreet]

26. No! I don't wanna!

I want those morans I keep voting to represent me, to take my HUGH tax donations and fix things! I'm freakin PAYING them to do it!

[xchrom]

28. any system is a

''constant and never ending process to continually improve it...''

that's a grand brush stroke.

[BL611]

38. Yes but liberal democracy when sustained, actually

can accomplish such. Facism & Communism have a different view of "imprrovement"....

[xchrom]

40. i have socialist tendencies, so that's my political choice.

but i will say what we've tried so far are dictatorships -- not communism.

facism is lost on me because i don't have a nationalist bone in my body.

and before we start counting up the dead bodies -- let's not forget the rape and pillage of africa and the near complete genocide of first nations people here.

[BL611]

41. Yes but you see the progression from our past to now

we've taken a small step back over the last view years, but thats part of the process certainly we have made great strides over the last couple century's.

As far as "real" Communism never being tried, my belief is that because the Communist system concentrates all political and economic power into one organ (the state) it will always wind up a dictatorship...

[CanuckAmok]

201. Plus, strictly economically...

...a Communist state cannot exist in a world in which it must interact with corporatist/capitalist states.

[NorthELiberal]

211. "a Communist state cannot exist in a world

in which it must interact with corporatist/capitalist states"

Why not? if it's so great......... The former Soviet Union and other Communist countries covered enough of the territory on Earth at one point that they had the natural resources they needed........ The West stood on it's own, why couldn't Communist countries?

[cascadiance]

75. It's kind of like libertarianism...

There hasn't really been a true "libertarian" state, and I don't really believe that it's possible to have one. If everyone were honest, truely altruistic and without greed, and you had unlimited and uncorruptable resources, libertarianism might work too, just as socialism would also work well.

The problem is that the reality of environmental limits, people's inherent greed, and many other variables make it so these systems don't work. All it takes is a few people that want to abuse it to drive it's purpose away from what helps people and they can be made vehicles for dictatorship (whether it be communism or fascism).

The reason our system has worked for so long, has been our constitution that has enforced checks and balances, guaranteed people rights from being oppressed from a tyrannical majority, etc. Upset that balance of power, and our system can turn into a dictatorship.

Ideally, I want a society where everyone is given the opportunities to pursue education, and as much high level understanding as they are capable of to ensure that when they function as part of a democracy, they will make good and independently arrived at choices when holding our leaders accountable and making the right choices on how to "guide" and "select" them. There are realities that prevent this from happening too (mental disabilities, laziness, greed, etc.), but if you put in the right incentives, checks and balances, then hopefully this happens.

If we can keep any one group of people from having too much power, whether it is the financial elite that are wielding their power through feudal corporate personhood proxies, or overly centralized government like that which made monsters like Stalin, that is what will allow us to reach a more ideal society rather than dictatorship.

We've had our set of checks and balances put in place a long time ago, which is a tribute to our founders like George Washington, etc. that didn't seek to hold onto strong powers for themselves, and surrendered themselves to the control of constitutional authority. Ask yourself if Dubya or the other neocons would have made that same sacrifice if they were our founders, and I think we all know the answer would be a solid NO. This sort of question is what we should ask ourselves whenever we elect someone to congress or presidential office from this point forward, so that we can adjust our governmental rules to prevent the abuses we've seen over the last five years from happening again.

How to fix and update this set of checks and balances so that they are more functional and true to our founder's dreams in the 21st century is the big challenge we face now. Hope we can find some decent leaders that will make the right choices and do the right things for us. The system does need repair in many places now, but repair must be done with extreme caution and thoughtfulness!

[julianer]

aaarghh

Socialists don't look backwards. The idea that socialism is 'outdated' comes from where exactly?....Oh, yes, the people who have most to fear from socialism.

Check out Venezuela for a new approach to reaching socialism...it's bang up to date.

[leftstreet]

164. Good point. But by "looking backward" the first thing we see

is NOT the theory itself, but the propaganda that's gone into convincing us of the evils/merits of the theory.

A certain amount of repackaging seems inevitable.

Sure, let's call it Venezuelaism.
(Bonus - this would give O'Reilly something to do.)

[julianer]

181. But if we adopt a new word

for our aspirations that will quickly also become demonised.

If you are a socialist you should be proud and loud. The reason the very word socialism is demonised is because the ideas of socialism are such a potent threat to the ruling class.

[Walt Starr]

20. Stalin killed more people than Hitler

I'd rather live in a Democratic-Republic, myself.

[ck4829]

23. We'd all want to live in a Democracy

But, there are people who do think that Communism/Socialism is the worst thing that the human mind came up with.

Just look at the Contras, Pinochet, Operation Condor, etc.

[Walt Starr]

25. I wouldn't want to live in a Democracy

I said I would rather live in a Democratic-Republic.

Democracy and a Democratic-Republic are two completely different forms of government.

California has aptly demonstrated the folly of rule by referendum.

[BL611]

30. Referendums are not bad for some things

There are some issues I would favor for direct democracy, obviously most people believe that a Representative Democracy is for the most part the only workable Democratic system.

[Walt Starr]

27. BTW, I am amongst those who think Communism is the worst form

of social organization ever devised.

[ck4829]

29. Communism is bad. I said I won't defend it.

A Plutocracy, a Theocracy, or a Fascist Empire is no better though.

[BL611]

31. Would you characterize our society as such?

Remember every time a lefty uses hyperbole a Republican gets their wings

[ck4829]

32. Our society is fine. On the verge of being in trouble. But still fine.

I'm not talking about America in particular.

I'm talking about Ideologies in General.

[Walt Starr]

34. Not much better, anyway

But still, of the four, I'd pick Communism as the worst.

[ck4829]

35. What element(s) would make Communism the worst?

What would make the other 3 better than Communism?

[Walt Starr]

39. Communism is responsible for more murders than any of the other 3 n/t

[ck4829]

42. That would be a reason

I'm interested in this debate BTW.

Communism is bad, we have that settled.

Here's why I think the other 3 are worse than Communism.

1. The other 3 are also responsible for a comparable amount of murders. I'm not sure how many people Communism has murdered, the 100 Million dead is a statistic straight out of the John Birch Society (I am pretty sure you know that though).

As far as I know.

Fascism - 10's of millions dead
Theocracy - 10's of millions dead

They're all mass murderers as far as I'm concerned. As a teacher who was a master of Holocaust History once said to us "It doesn't matter whether 6 people or 6 million people died, it's still one of the biggest crimes in human history".

2. The menace of Theocracy and Fascism are out and about

Communism is diminished. The Far Right still has the potential to strike and hurt many people.

3. Rights are zilch in all of them.

Oppose a Communist, you die.

But, preach Christianity in Saudi Arabia. Try being Gay in Iran and see what happens. (This is being written by a Muslim BTW)

I want to close this post, but not this debate with this...

Whether it's Communism, Fascism, or a Theocracy. None are good to live in.

[BL611]

45. How do you figure

Facism is alive, but Communism's dead?

BTW: Would it spice things up if I told you that I think Communism & Facism are actually the same system???

[ck4829]

48. I didn't say it's dead, just diminished

And, yes that would spice things up.

[BL611]

50. Well...

You'll be happy to hear then, that I do. Both use different ideological premises, but both wind up completely concentrating power within a small group of government officials all the same and proceed to keep power by authoritarian, and when fully developed totalitarian control, again yes one is ostensibly a dictatorship of the people, and one is ostensibly a dictatorship of the state , but in actual practice, do you see any difference? IMO Totalitarianism is Totalitarianism, regardless of its supposed ideological underpinnings..

[ck4829]

51. One of my sayings is that...

"The State owns the Factory under Communism and the Factory owns the State under Fascism".

Neither are good for the common man.

[leftstreet]

47. Can we measure the success of an ism by body counts?

The jury's still out on the US slow-death toll. Examples like Hanford Downwinders, contaminants in our air and water, drugged up dairy products.

Unfettered corporate orgies in our "democracy" are just killing us slowly.

[killbotfactory]

86. Or the brutal dictatorships we supported

Or the death-squads we funded
Or the wars we started
Or the people we enslaved
Or the natives we drove off the land
Or the poor who starve or go without medicine

[The Magistrate]

89. One Point Worth Making, Mr. Starr

Communism is a revolutionary ideal, and of necessity is in conflict with capitalism. Thus the Bolshevik government was embroiled in war from its outset, and that war continued in various forms for three quarters of a century. Warfare requires at the least a certain style of action, and all social systems under its strain become more authoritarian and cruel than they are in peaceable circumstances. In analyzing the history of Communist governments in the twentieth century this is something it seems to me is worth bearing in mind. Certainly things of the "Year Zero" style displayed in Cambodia by the Khymer Rouge are atrocious exercises in cruelty of their own volition, and can hardly appeal to analysis on this line. But it seems to me quite possible that, in peaceable conditions, either the Bolsheviks or Mao might well have done somewhat other than they did in the actual circumstances pertaining. It is certainly very difficult to argue that, viewed on a large scale, both Russia and China did not derive great benefits by the revolutions that took place in those countries under the banner of Communism.

[xchrom]

33. i find the charms of democracy highly over rated.

[MarsThe Cat]

92. the only blood on the hands of our democratic-republic...

would be that of the native american nations, and perhaps the african populations that were decimated to provide slaves to help build our industrial might.

[killbotfactory]

104. Or the democracies we overthrew in Latin America

and the death squads we supported in order to "stop the spread of communism".

[julianer]

124. Two points

Stalin does not equate to communism, and

How many have died under capitalism? 30,000 per week at latest count, I believe. That's not to mention the war or the bulk of humanity that has to survive in grinding poverty with short, unhappy lives.

I suppose you'd rather this system because you are not one of its victims, like a Soviet citizen who, no doubt, preferred it because it wasn't him who was in the gulag.

[MarsThe Cat]

140. can't a communist state still be a democratic-republic?

communism is supposed to be an economic system...politically, the people would still be electing their representatives to the governing body.

[Joe Chi Minh]

169. The figures given for that have been rebutted as spurious by

independent, official or quasi-official figures, notably, in relation to the "gulag archipelago".

No-one, however, disputes that 26 million Russian military and civilians were killed in WWII. In fact, in the two-week Battle of Kursk, alone, many more Russian military were killed than Allied military throughout the whole war.

[LWolf]

216. Is there anything that

precludes a democracy, or a democratic/republic, from also being communist or socialist instead of capitalist?

Or, asking another way, are particular economic systems inevitably welded to particular political systems?

[DavidBowman]

43. Walt is right

Communism is possibly the dumbest form of society thought of in a long while.

[maximovich]

149. Please Explain Why...(nt)

[triguy46]

46. Why do they confuse socialism and communism?

That right out of the box is a non-starter for an intelligent discussion. We have socialism right now, try medicare, medicaid, WIC, any number of federal programs in which the government takes money and provides a social service. We are at the minimal end, Norway, eg, is at the other end of the spectrum and it works fine there.

[BL611]

54. Semantics

To some the welfare state is "socialist", to some "social democratic", and to some "welfare state capitalism", I prefer to define it by the latter two as socialism hold such a bad connotation in this country.

[julianer]

126. You ask why people confuse terms

and then do it yourself!

Though I don't blame you particularly - most Americans seem to be utterly confused about politcal terms. Not surprising really, since there has been a deliberate and sustained attempt to confuse you.

What you call socialism is called 'social democracy' in the rest of the world. Before Reagan and Thatcher this was usually termed a 'mixed economy', something we still have, though it is no longer mentioned.

Socialism is a preparatory stage of communism where the means of production are in common ownership but the nature of economic relations is still supported by parts of bourgeois law, police, armies and property and such like.

Communism is the happy state where the government and its branches have 'withered away' and production and distribution is entirely in the hands of individual 'associated producers'.

[Yupster]

204. Julianer

this is what I learned in college too, but I think our traditional classical definitions of communism and socialism are now so unknown that it's difficult to have a discussion when people don't understand the terms being discussed.

[Cats Against Frist]

49. I really have no problem with communism,

because, in its pure form, it can be the same thing as libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism, both of which I'm in favor. What I don't like is state socialism, which means that there's a central authority that basically forces socialism/communism on everyone.

Another pet peeve of mine is people dressed in black, at rallies, with the hammer and sickle on their clothes. How much of an asshole do you have to be? I get the meaning behind it, and that's all well and good, but the death toll count, between Mao and Stalin, if you include famine, is well over 100 million. That isn't pretty.

[dennisnyc]

52. What was happening in the USSR for most of the 20th C. was STATE

CAPITALISM. The state itself sought advantage against other states and "accumulated" political and industrial "capital" --essentially capitalist maneuvers--over and against lessor, antagonizing players. Stalin had nothing to do with either socialism or communism. Let's get real here, and maybe this could become an interesting discussion... NO Name Calling!

for some interesting newer theoretics of communism read Hardt and Negri, _Empire_ and the followup volume, _Multitude_.

[ck4829]

53. The actual Communism of the USSR can be brought into question

Stalin for example broke several rules of the Marxist doctrine.

He gave special titles and privileges to people who were his lackeys, a big no-no under Communism.

[dennisnyc]

55. and Marx is studied on Wall Street. He was a smart guy. n/t

[BL611]

57. The main question is do you believe in human nature

If so then marxist doctrine falls by the waist-side, if not, well I thats probably a long thread of its own that I don't have the time for now, but would be happy to discuss in the future....

[tinfoilinfor2005]

56. My family is of Latvian ancestry, but there are only two of us left.

The rest were murdered by the communists just prior to world war two. They were tortured before they were murdered. I'm not really open to a lot of arguments that are pro-communism, although I do understand that the definition of communism differs from the reality.

[killbotfactory]

60. State sanctioned murder is evil

Whether it comes from right-wing or left-wing thugs.