Is Communism still a threat? Was it ever?

[RandomKoolzip]

I've been re-reading books and articles recently about the immediate post-WWII period, and about the early twentieth century too, and I've noticed that, for example, Howard Zinn realtes that there was once a strong Communist movement in this country. People were proud to be Communists...this is of course, before the hard lessons of Stalin and Mao.

Ann Coulter, whose books I refuse to read, but whose interviews I read while wearing latex gloves, seems to think that McCarthy was right, that there really WAS a Communist threat to the American way of life in the post-war era. Why? Zinn explains that the movement was all but neutralized by the War, or even before that.

It seems immediately obvious to anyone with a brain that there is no longer any kind of organized movement to overthrow our capatalist system and replace it with Communism. If there still is, it's a tiny little group with no real power. And the days when internatioanl Communism supposedly was our biggest bogeyman are long gone as well, except for China (which isn't Communist in any way but name; it is fascist) and Cuba (which also poses little threat to us.) So why do I still hear RW pundits bringin this up time after time when excoriating leftwingers and Democrats?

So what are your thoughts: is Communism (REAL Communism, not Stalinism or Maoism) any kind of threat to the American capatalist way of life? Do RW talking heads only resurrect the spector of Communism to smear any kind of liberal social policy, or do you think they really suspect that there's any life left in the corpse?

I'm posting this because I got into an argument with a RW coworker who brought up Communism and derailed our conversation when I proposed the idea of a Living Wage to him.....

[Stabidak]

1. Information Wars

Communism in its purest form may very well be the best form of govt.

http://pub63.ezboard.com/binformationwars

[brainwashed_youth]

2. It'd be great...

if it could ever get past the tyrannical socialist dictator part:eyes:

[wuushew]

8. Not true there have been many small scale successes of communism

from communes to hunter gatherer societies.

[IrateCitizen]

10. That's a pretty apt username you've got there, bud.

For the record, "socialist" is not the same as "tyrannical". In fact, true socialism actually embraces democracy and openness a helluva lot more than capitalism does.

I'd advise you to check out http://www.dsausa.org for a view that probably runs quite counter to the one you've been conditioned to believe. That is, if you're willing to consider things with an open mind and not just make knee-jerk generalizations.

[brainshrub]

5. Maybe for groups of under 200 people or so,

but not for a vast civilization.

[RandomKoolzip]

Well, I'm a Democratic small-"c" capatalist.

I believe the best system is a well-regulated capatalist framework, with a governemnt that is ethical, un-bought, and willing to step in and bust monoploies when they begin to discourage competition, ala Halliburton, Microsoft, Standard Oil, etc. I believe in captalism, but the system we have right now is a perversion of capatalism, with CEO's of gigantic multinationals making amounts of monbey all out of porportion to their efforts and needs, and the corporations themselves hiring their own regulators and writing legislation.

There are good points to Communism in its Marxist form, but in execution it's the most repressive form of government next to fascism. Why is it impossible to implement a truly Communist form of government?

[RandomKoolzip]

9. dupe, sorry!

Posted twice

[IrateCitizen]

12. Why is it impossible?

Why is it impossible to implement a truly Communist form of government?

Because of the repression that is required to maintain an absolute equality of wealth. But while absolute equality of wealth can foment discontent and even outright rebellion, so can vast disparity of wealth.

The best model (in practice, at least) seems to be the social democracy or even democratic socialist model that allows for some disparities in wealth commensurate with the value of the job a person performs, but still eliminates vast disparities that sow discontent.

[formernaderite]

54. only in a non-cocercive state...

...the use of force has killed communism and it's adherents. However, I am not one of those naieve people who believe the Soviets did not have international/imperialistic goals for the world. I also had relatives who lived and died in some of their concentration camps. It was a very sad period in history.

[IrateCitizen]

3. In response to your full question...

Is Communism (REAL Communism, not Stalinism or Maoism) any kind of threat to the American capatalist way of life?

Without a doubt it is. Communism runs directly counter to the current system of exploitative capitalism.

Do RW talking heads only resurrect the spector of Communism to smear any kind of liberal social policy?

Most certainly. I heard an interview with former Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau in which he described Reagan as "convinced that there were Communists sleeping under his bed at night." Most RWer see anything that even approaches social democracy as "communist" -- and do not hesitate in portraying it as such in order to discredit it through the Pavlovian conditioning of the general population to equate communism with evil.

Or do you think they really suspect that there's any life left in the corpse?

THEY suspect that there is life left in the corpse, and that's all that matters. Then again, they see anything to the left of Atilla the Hun as communist (see answer to #2, above).

I'm posting this because I got into an argument with a RW coworker who brought up Communism and derailed our conversation when I proposed the idea of a Living Wage to him.....

Of course he did, that's standard practice for them. The RW outlook on the world is a decidedly Hobbesian one -- one in which enemies lurk and must be flushed out. Your coworker views everything in the strict terms in which he has been conditioned to see them as ally (anything about unbridled capitalism or the righteousness of US militarism) or enemy (everything else).

In short, you're attempting reason against emotion. Don't. You'll only drive yourself nuts in the end.

[0007]

60. Excellent!

Ever view the Charlie Chapin story on film or read the book?

The natural resource in Vietnam was tungsten, when the country protested we fought the resistors in the name of communist. East vs. West - North vs. South = good against bad.

The natural resource in Iraq and the Middle East is about oil not terrorist. And not democracy.

[Honesthumanbeing]

4. from my experience

with conservatives, many of them genuinely believe that communism once was a threat in the US, and that elements from that movement still exist and do damage to society. The more extreme of them virtually equate liberalism with those remenants. They don't actually fear that communists will overthrow the capitalist system, but rather that American society is being undermined by certain sentiments that can be identified with socialist policy. In particular, they believe that communism targeted 3 main institutions to gain power over society: marriage, private property, and religion. They argue that liberalism also targets these institutions, and hence is related to communism. Opinions seem to differ about the origin of this relationship.

[Warpy]

6. Communism represented a serious threat

...to the rich and powerful, since it represented a more egaligarian economic system combined with a total regime change. The moneyed classes regarded it with horror, and set us on the self destructive path we're following right now.

FDR, a member of this class, enacted just enough reform during the Depression to forestall a revolution which would likely have been socialist in nature, if not downright Marxist.

I've long felt it's by their enemies shall you know them, not by their friends. Since communism's enemies are demonstrably also the enemies of anyone who works for a living, I've refused to develop the common knee-jerk aversion to much of it that our culture demands.

However, the red of my youth has been diluted to a pleasant pink in my old age, as I recognize that only a mixed system will be both competitive and humane, and only a mixed system can deal with both the lazy and the greedy.

Interestingly enough, it has never, ever been illegal to join the Communist Party in the US. They HUAC hearings were predicated on the mistaken idea that all communists were necessarily foreign agents of the USSR, so far from the truth as to be ludicrous.

[11 Bravo]

7. No ... and Yes.

n/t

[stopthegop]

11. kinda convenient to exclude Stalin and Mao..

since they each killed more people than Hitler..can't let them be considered communists...although I agree there are many shades of any philosophy, it makes no sense (IMO) to say they weren't communists

[RandomKoolzip]

14. Well, I don't think Marx could have predicted Mao or Stalin....

I believe his intentions were good; I doubt that he really could have forseen genocide committed on such a massive scale when he was living in the Paris Commune.....I know the "dictator" stage of the revolution was built in to the framework, but Stalin really blew it off the scale.

Stalin and Mao aren't TRUE commies just like Falwell and Bush aren't TRUE christians; they are using philosophy with pure intentions to implement a program with impure intentions...What Stalin and Mao did was fascist, once the facade of "The People's Struggle" has been stipped away. Just like Bush uses Christs name to implement programs that Christ would have abhorred. I'm definitely NOT defending them or "modern" Communism in any way.....

[stopthegop]

16. is there a country that has been 'communist' that

has not killed lots and lots of people?

[wuushew]

17. Albania

n/t

[stopthegop]

18. may be a good point on Albania

but not a bastion of freedom really...from what I recall

[IrateCitizen]

20. Most countries that are more "free" these days...

... tend toward the middle part of the scale -- either social democracies (like in France and Germany) or even tending toward democratic socialism (like in Scandinavia).

I'd hardly call unabashedly capitalist countries "free" in too many senses. What we have in the US is really Potemkin freedom these days, IMHO.

[RandomKoolzip]

21. Hey, thanks for your insights, IrateCitizen....

Ironically enough, I have to go to work now.....

[el_gato]

27. I have to say this about IrateCitizen

IC is probably one of the sharpest DUers we have.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Thanks, el_gato -- but you highly overestimate me

I just pay attention, and try to connect the dots. That's all.

[stopthegop]

23. Potemkin freedom

IMO that's silly or dishonest...unless you define freedom as having certain things (ie: govt supplied healthcare)...freedom, as in being left alone, the US still has quite a bit...although freedom can be scary and messy...

[el_gato]

29. the government is spying on your every move

i don't call that being left alone

[IrateCitizen]

32. Not at all silly or dishonest -- here's why

IMO, there is no group of the modern era who championed "freedom" more than the anarchists around the turn of the 20th century. But in their eyes (and I completely agree), there could be no other freedoms without one freedom in particular.

That freedom was the freedom from exploitation.

To be certain, the anarchists had their many faults. They DID resort to violence in order to achieve their aims (a HUGE fault, IMO). But after having read the autobiography of Emma Goldman, I saw the way that she came to reject violence as she matured. Of course, this didn't make her any more palatable to the power structures of her day, as their system was one that was wholly based on exploitation.

As for the "freedom to be left alone", can you explain to me how any of the following help reinforce that freedom in the United States
- return of "black bag" operations (i.e. wiretaps) under the PATRIOT Act
- virtual elimination of the 4th amendment under the "war on drugs"
- criminalization of certain drugs while others are legal
- government intimidation (both direct and indirect) to those who openly criticize it
- "first amendment" zones
- total information awareness
- "TIPS" programs that encourage neighbors to spy on each other
- lack of any privacy rights in the workplace

This is just the beginning of a list. I would be more than happy to add to it, should you complete this one.

Going back to the "freedom from exploitation", a person really doesn't have freedom if they are constantly worried about whether or not they will be able to meet rent and their grocery bill for the month. The unbridled capitalist system supports this kind of exploitation, by placing everything first and foremost under the profit motive. Democratic socialism helps address this because its true aim is a society in which people are valued before profits, and the wealth of the commons is truly shared by all rather than hoarded by a few.

[blurp]

50. Wrong in so many ways

But in their eyes (and I completely agree), there could be no other freedoms without one freedom in particular.

That freedom was the freedom from exploitation.

Going back to the "freedom from exploitation", a person really doesn't have freedom if they are constantly worried about whether or not they will be able to meet rent and their grocery bill for the month.

How about a farmer that grows his own food? Does the fact that he worries about growing enough to eat mean he's not free also?

Suppose someone builds a house for the farmer in exchange for food. Is the builder being exploited because he is hungry?

Suppose the farmer needs shelter to survive and the builder demands food. Is the builder exploiting the farmer?

Suppose the farmer trades some of his food to a doctor in exchange for removing his appendix? Is the doctor exploiting the farmer?

Suppose the farmer withholds food from the doctor unless the doctor gives him an appendectomy. Is the farmer exploiting the doctor?

Should we prevent these people from exploiting each other? They'd be free then, by your definition. Oh, they'd soon all die, but they'd die free, right?

Equating political freedom with freedom from want is silly. We don't come with chlorophyll. We can't just sit in the sun. We have to do thinks we don't like, we have to worry about things we don't want to worry about. It's not capitalism that causes this, it's the human condition. The system most successful in addressing these problems has been capitalism. Not some mythical never-never land always just around the corner called communism.

The unbridled capitalist system supports this kind of exploitation, by placing everything first and foremost under the profit motive.

Profit can signal that you're giving people what they want. That's a good thing.

Democratic socialism helps address this because its true aim is a society in which people are valued before profits, and the wealth of the commons is truly shared by all rather than hoarded by a few.

The trouble is that people don't often want to create wealth if it means other people are going to take it from them. Why do all that work in the first place? Why build a factory, for example, if it's just going to be "shared by all"? Why grow food if it's just going to be incorporated in the commons?

It just doesn't work that way.

[IrateCitizen]

65. What's it like walking through life with blinders on?

Your blind adherence to the "capitalist model" is an admiring display of loyalty, but it inhibits you from any ability to think "outside of the box".

The biggest point you attempted to make that I take issue with is involving "the commons". You obviously have no idea what that term means. I'll try and define it for you.

The "commons" refers basically to anything that is effectively owned by society as a whole. We have many "commons" here in the US. For example, the airwaves are intended to be a "commons". Not that they have turned out as such in practice, having been effectively taken over by about 10 major corporations, but that was how they were originally intended. Nobody is suppose to "own" them, they are there for the benefit of ALL of society.

Ditto with our National Parks and open spaces. But, once again, this system has been turned on its ear through the selling of "oil rights" or "mineral rights" on these common lands to large corporate interests for paltry sums. Hell, they've been practically GIVEN away.

Going a step further, I would consider the air and clean water to be the "commons". In fact, I would consider them to be "commons" to the population of the entire earth -- not just one country in particular. And see, when somebody in the pursuit of profit pollutes these "commons", it affects EVERYONE. But under the current "profit motive", such actions are encouraged, because they make money. And after all, making money is the most important thing, right?

Sadly, the most effective thing that capitalism has done is place our planet on the brink of destruction -- at least as far as human life is concerned. It is not a system that has worked to encourage man's better inner nature, but rather has only harnessed his worse qualities. For example, you say, "Profit can signal that you're giving people what they want. That's a good thing." Would you then say that profits resulting from the sales of Hummer H2's -- vehicles that cause massive amounts of pollution and increase our dependence on fossil fuels which in turn increases the need for maintaining a military "footprint" around the globe which in turn inflames anger within radical elements of those under that "footprint" which in turn results in terrorist attacks on the US which in turn results in the upswing of militarism and our "footprint" and so on -- is a GOOD thing? I certainly wouldn't.

And for the record, I'm not a big fan of communism. I don't think it could ever be successful. But I do consider myself a democratic socialist, because I honestly believes that capitalism tends to crush democracy (as it has done in the US, leaving only an empty husk in its wake) while an economy and political system that works best is one in which people are valued above profits, and that political and economic decisions are made for the long-term well being rather than simply for the next quarter's stock returns.

[GringoTex]

25. more freedom?

What freedoms, specifically, do the citizens of France and Germany have that we in the USA don't?

[wuushew]

28. Most European countries do not have draconian drug laws

or capital punishment.

[GringoTex]

31. I'll give you that

You're right about the drug laws. I'm not sure how capital punishment pertains to freedom.

Of course, here in the US we have more economic freedom. Just try to get a small business loan in Europe.

We also don't censor as many works of art as they do in Europe.

I guess my point is there's no appreciable difference in the amount of freedom between the U.S. and democracies in Europe.

[leesa]

45. You're not sure how capital punishment relates to freedom?

How about the many people released from death row (or sadly after their deaths) after exonerating evidence was found.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

58. "We also don't censor as many works of art as they do in Europe."

absolutely untrue.

[el_gato]

30. America is looking more like a prison everyday

government spy cameras on every corner
secret government databases on citizens
"free speech zones" instead of Free Speech
look around you

[GringoTex]

33. Europe, too

All European nations use spy cameras on street corners and keep more comprehensive databases on their citizens. In fact, Euro citizens willingly give up much more of their civil liberties than U.S. citizens.

[IrateCitizen]

36. Europeans have a much greater trust in their government

They also have a much better press, as compared to our corporate-controlled media here, which lends itself to greater openness in government.

But you're right on the camera thing. Last I heard, there was scarcely a place you could go in a city in the UK w/o having your picture taken by a security camera.

[el_gato]

37. we're headed towards global fascism

and it's bad for everybody
except for the elite who are putting it in place

[el_gato]

39. the last time I actually felt free was when I went to Costa Rica

there was basically no police presence whatsoever in the places I stayed and everything was about as peaceful as it could get

[GringoTex]

41. I lived in El Salvador

which is Costa Rica's evil twin brother. It's amazing how CR escaped the Central American curse. It's a wonder what no standing army will do for you.

[rman]

53. you have obviously not been to all European countries

Euro citizens are nearly as gullible as US citizens, and many Eu governments seem eager to follow the example set by the US.
But as of yet Europeans certainly are not worse off then Americans.

[RandomKoolzip]

19. Not to my knowledge, no....

See my above posts.

[Solomon]

26. is there a country that has been capitalist that

has not killed lots and lots of people?

[Doctor_J]

24. Herein is the problem

Unfortunately, most or even all systems work in textbook form. Otherwise people wouldn't try them in the first place. But at some point humans and human imperfection enter into the equation, and things start to go wrong. With Communism, it looks pretty good, but Stalin and Mao and Castro are what it comes to at the end.

I am hoping that the evil that now inhabits our government in the form of Rove, Delay, Scalia, and Lott will not initiate the demise of capitalism. But I don't think that signing billions of dollars over to Kellogg/Brown and Haliburton can survive for very long, so if someone doesn't rein them in soon....

[blurp]

48. In Theory, Theory works in Practice, but never in Practice.

In Theory, Theory works in Practice, but never in Practice.

I had a professor from Russia once tell me that.

He had first hand experience of communism.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Mao was more of a communist than Stalin, IMHO

Stalin was an authoritarian first and foremost. Everything else was a distant second.

Mao, OTOH, did initially represent many communist ideals in an economic sense. But he did enforce those ideals with some pretty brutal repression.

The thing that is interesting in BOTH of these cases is that they were both societies that had little resemblance to the societies that were the subject of Marx's work. What I mean here is that Marx applied his theories to industrialized societies, seeking to rein in the excess greed of the industrialists that resulted in the exploitation of the working classes. Both Russia circa 1917 and China circa 1948 were largely agrarian societies, with very little modernization. And while the methods employed by Lenin and Stalin in Russia, along with Mao in China, were undeniably brutal -- the speed with which both of these countries achieved industrialization vastly outpaced any of the Western market economies.

[rman]

52. it's like excluding Bush and Hitler from democracy

Both Hitler and Bush came to power during democracy, does that make democracy a bad thing?
Stalin came to power during communism, and he had *very different* ideas about communism then Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin ended up being a tyrant, a despote, acting opposite to communist ideals.

[Cleita]

13. Having lived through the whole propaganda era of

"the evils of communism", and on the other side, "the evils of capitalism", I can honestly say, the communism of the cold war was another form of facism. There was nothing communistic or socialistic about it, anymore than the Nazis stood for workers and socialism. These were meaningless words and the actions are what you have to look at to put truthful labels on any political system. Capitalism can also be fascist as our own government is proving to us.

[blurp]

51. The difference is

Fascism is putting the nation above the individual.

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

With capitalism, I can go my own way. I don't have to answer to the nation. I don't have to answer to a "centralized autocratic government".

The philosophy of capitalism seems just the opposite of what you are talking about. Private property means private control without state interference. That's freedom, isn't it?

Communism and fascism and socialism share the idea that the nation/society comes before the individual. With capitalism it's the other way around, isn't it?

[JHB]

55. No, it isn't.

Private property means private control without state interference.
In practice, it means the state constructs, administers, and enforces a system that defines just what "private property" is in the first place.

Communism and fascism and socialism share the idea that the nation/society comes before the individual. With capitalism it's the other way around, isn't it?

Communism and fascism both exploit the altruism of many individuals by using fear to warp it to the benefit of a few (who have taken control of the powers of the state).

Socialism & capitalism both have too many forms to be accurately described by such a simple dichotomy. However, history has shown that when not constrained by some countervailing force (i.e., regulation by the state, threat of revolution, etc.) the resultant forms of capitalism do their level best to not treat individuals as "individuals" at all, but as resources to be used and discarded when no longer sufficiently useful, no different from a cog,lump of coal, or other inanimate object.

Hell, when was the last time your car insurance company treated you as an "individual"?

[Cleita]

68. When I used the terms communism and capitalism, I

used them as they were being used in that era by both nations, the USA and Russia, when they were deadlocked in a power struggle. I had the opportunity once to read some English language propaganda magazines from Russia and their accusations of the evils of capitalisim were no different than the propaganda accusations of the evils of communism being spread in the USA.

[el_gato]

22. all "isms" in general

are, in my opinion, simply tools used to manipulate people.

If you take what is supposed to be capitalism in this country
and look at it without the conceptual baggage
that it is wrapped in you will see we have nothing of the sort.

The same can be said for the manifestations of communism.

These constructs are, like religion, a form of authoritarian control.

[Zuni]

35. I do not think that

any party in this country was ever a real threat on a large scale (except as spies for the Soviets)---underground right and left wing militias could do some damage like Oklahoma City, but none could have any hope of challenging the military, or national guard or even the State Police.
Now the Soviet Union and it's allies were a potential great threat, luckily the balance of power and MAD kept both sides in check, as well as back channels and the UN to debate issues.

[Viking12]

38. ...and who

decided that the "American Way" is inherently capitalist? Isn't the American Way better defined by our system of constitutional democracy? As Justice Oliver Wendal Holmes said the "constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory."

[IrateCitizen]

40. Constitutional democracy is just so... passe

True freedom lies in the freedom to consume.

More, more more! Big, bigger, BIGGEST! THAT is the American way of life -- a way of life that will ultimately destroy the earth!

All that "democracy" stuff is just too complicated and hard -- especially when there's plenty of "reality" to be had on TV tonight!

[RandomKoolzip]

43. Just ask the typical conservative what the "American Dream" means

to him and I'm sure the words "get rich" will appear. Most conservatives believe it is not just their right, but their DUTY as Americans to become fantastically wealthy.

There's nothing wrong with making money off of providing a service. What IS wrong is exploiting others to make that money, to pursue that goal unethically, and to put the interests of corporations above those of people....which is why, to reply to your post, I believe that rampant capatalism has usurped constitutional democracy by making corporations exempt from those same constitutional rules simply because they are so wealthy they can buy their way out from under them.

[thebigidea]

42. COMMUNISM is nothing but TERRORISM with a FALSE NOSE!

[RandomKoolzip]

44. "Crack's No Worse Than the Fascist Threat"

I forget who it was, but some band from the 80's had a song by that title.

[leesa]

46. Just a way for people like the Bushes to sell arms and steal resources

Bogus. Just like the bogus war on "terrorism"

[blurp]

47. Absolutely was a threat AND did economic damage in US

Nova had a great program concerning the level to which the American nuclear weapons programs and government itself were compromised. The short answer is that they had us by the balls.

There is some stuff here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/

So, do you consider the USSR stealing nuclear weapons tech a threat?

The problem with McCarthy is that he was looking in the wrong place. He should have looked into the federal government itself, instead of Hollywood. He would have found tons O' spies. Seriously. The Soviets had and easy time getting people to spy at all levels until about the 80's. They didn't even have to ask. Americans were actually seeking them out. Scare stuff.

<wild speculation on>

I think the communist movement also had negative economic consequences in the West and even contributed to the great depression. How? The point of communism was to put the means of production into the hands of the workers.

Now, suppose you're a capitalist in the west. You see the Russian revolution. You see workers constantly striking and arguing for nationalization of industries and more worker control. It looks like society is turning upside down. There is a strong socialist movement in the USA. There were large numbers of new workers openly giving speeches about overthrowing capitalism. (Read about the history of Tampa cigar workers, for an example. There were constant strikes, assinations, and violence.)

Now, as a capitalist, what should you do? Do you hire more people? Do you build a new factory? Start an enterprise or business?

No way. You pull back and wait it out. You don't want to spend all that money just in time for the proletariat to nationalize it all away.

The communist movement was an open threat to capitalists. A big part of society essentially said they weren't going to respect private property. This threat hurt economic activity.

Two things saved us. FDR set up a kind of social truce, and the second world war forced the classes to work together again.

[leftofthedial]

49. about like terrorism is a threat

if it was a threat to anything, it was a threat to capitalism and the exploitation of cheap labor.

Now that it's "gone," the unions are dying and labor law is rolling back to the middle ages. Soon we'll all be serfs again.

But were the "commies" set to conquer the US?

Never.

[dolgoruky]

56. The threat of a good example

What really frightened the ruling classes of the US and Europe was not Communism, per se, but the threat that communism might actually work. Just as they are frightened of any alternative to their rule. If it's a system which threatens to redistribute wealth in favour of the underprivileged, they label it communist and try to crush it. Why? So they can say, "Look, communism doesn't work".

And as far as the old chestnut about, "can anyone name a communist country that hasn't killed lots of people?" I ask the question, "can anyone name a communist country that has been allowed to develop freely without being bombed, or blockaded, or invaded, or subverted, or maligned?"

[Lone_Wolf]

57. Briefly...

I think you are right. I would say that true communism isn't a threat. Communism was/is feared most by the wealthy capitalist Elite. True communism is a threat to their wealth and power. This is why the Elites have waged (and continue to wage) a huge propaganda campaign to demonize communism.

They did not want the world to realize that communist methods might be better and quicker than capitalist methods.

[JHB]

61. Communism had no problem demonizing itself, thanks

"True" Communism (i.e., the versions (or perversions, if you insist) which were actually implemented in the real world) were threats to everyone, especially those who lived (or still do) under them. They were(are), in effect, the world's largest and most complete monopolies, and have all the faults you would expect from that sort of concentration of power.

"Theoretical" Communism, by whatever name you might use for it (I'm partial to "opiate of the radicals"), has never been successful in any experiment, and is obsolete simply because it doesn't acknowledge any other way toward its intended goal except revolution (which has the bad habit of developing other goals than the theoretical ones).

That said, I do agree that the threat of Communism made the capitalists "play nice" for most of the 20th Century. A quip I remember: "Communism is the best thing that ever happened to the working man, as long as he didn't live under it."

[KG]

59. 'communism' = USSR

the 'threat' came from the competition the USSR presented to the west in the race to exploit the worlds natural resources.

[9215]

62. With a sound political democracy

in place the economic system (Capitalism, Socialism, Communism) doesn't really matter, IMO.

Ironically it was two communist countries: The Soviet Union and China which were key allies in WWII against the capitalist dictatorships of the Axis powers.

PS. Don't even try to tell me that Nazism is "socialist". It was in name only.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

63. I don't think we have much to worry about

in the present time - the world has seen the fatal flaw in collectivisms of any flavor. It's kinda funny but our democratic republic is actually based on a pretty pessimistic view of human nature: that people cannot be trusted with power over others - they must be restrained and regularly replaced. Communism had the more optimistic view, that wise people would administer an idealistic system fairly. I believe history has shown the lower view of man to be, alas, correct.

[TyroneStryker]

64. Communism was a huge threat

as evidenced by the thousands of nukes pointed at us by the USSR. Real Communism isn't a real threat because it is completely unworkable. It takes away all incentive to work.

[IrateCitizen]

66. Huh?

as evidenced by the thousands of nukes pointed at us by the USSR.

I fail to see the correlation. Especially since it was the Soviets, under Gorbachev, who advanced the idea of eliminating ALL nuclear weapons -- and it was Reagan who outright refused this proposal.

Would this scenario make us the aggressors then, somehow? Or were we simply being good, distrustful Americans advancing the cause of peace through willingness to wipe out the entire planet?

[TyroneStryker]

69. What was proposed makes no difference.

To the fact that thousands of warheads pointed at you are a threat. The post speaks only to the Nukes, it is narrowly tailored to the threat posed by Red Nukes.

[IrateCitizen]

70. I'm still not following you

To the fact that thousands of warheads pointed at you are a threat.

Of which side do you speak, US or USSR? Because if it's from an absolute standpoint, the US always had far more pointed at the USSR than vice-versa.

The post speaks only to the Nukes, it is narrowly tailored to the threat posed by Red Nukes.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

[NashVegas]

67. In a Weird Way ...

As much as you see us talk about fascism/corporatism in this forum, I believe our current Masters of the Universe are following Soviet-style communism more closely than most people realize.

The current "new world order" goal is to have specialized everything; specialized economies, specialized agriculture, specialized labor forces, etc etc.

It's a very productive system, but it kills the human spirit.