Quote: Originally posted by iCad
[...] This may have been the idea that Soviet Russia started out with, but if so it quickly descended into corruption, mostly, I think, because it never really eliminated the class system, which has to happen in order for the philosophy to be applied successfully.
|
I'm sure people would happily give up their classes willingly and nonviolently.
sarcasm It appears to me this philosophy can't possibly be applied successfully
and nonviolently.
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
THAT said, most of the people who advocate communism these days aren't advocating Soviet-style totalitarianism. Mostly, they're anarcho-communists who have a particular beef with capitalism, seeing the capitalist, free-market system as oppressive to wage-earners and unfairly favorable to employers/corporations. So, they're bitter idealists, pretty much
|
Fair enough, the free market has its problems too, but I don't see communism or anarcho-communism as a serious alternative. It is way too extreme and unrealistic for our current society and because of human nature. And the most compelling reason, as I said, is because it's been tried before and it's failed in the worst possible way. Like FranH said:
Quote: Originally posted by FranH
My take on the political systems debate-all political systems come from a pure, idealistic theory, but most of them do become inherently corrupt because power in of itself, does corrupt the system and the people within it.
|
Communism in the past was sprung
from the idealistic theory, but it's just not very applicable to reality on a large scale. So it's very dangerous to want to attempt it again when we have heaps of evidence that it's a bad idea.
Also, if you think about it: How many people have fled from a capitalist society
to a communist society and
not the other way around?
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
Overall, I think the issue here is one of differing definitions. I'm speaking of communism in its ideal form of a classless and purely cooperative/collective society. You're speaking of regimes that developed with that idea, perhaps, in mind but that ultimately became something very different. And usually bad.
|
Yeah you're talking about communism in the dictionary while I'm talking about communism in reality. Examples from reality are more compelling to me.
In my opinion, the best society is capitalist with socialism added in. Such as a social safety net, tax paid health care and education. Kind of like Sweden - although Sweden is an extreme country in that sense, and has tremendous problems right now involving welfare, so I wouldn't call Sweden the ultimate model. It's just that I know more about it since that's where I'm from. So like Sweden, but less extreme. Imo USA is quite extreme on the other end. The richest people get the best health care and education. That has always been wrong to me. Now as I'm writing this I'm realizing that's probably why there's a clash of opinions here. I'm speaking as a person from Sweden, where we already have too much socialism. Some of you are probably from USA, where there's too little. That frustration is likely what causes this counter-reaction from people, the need to counteract capitalism makes some people go too far to the other end. It's over-compensating, really.
Too much capitalism and we get the "every man for himself" scenario, "survival of the fittest" all over again. Too much socialism, and, well...
Quote: Originally posted by TuxxedoCat
I'm not an expert in this field either, but I'm fairly sure the communist star didn't originate in China and it is one of the original communist symbols, as opposed to the hammer and sickle which is a purely Soviet concept. The star also is just a symbol that's been around way before communism even was, so I just don't think it's as offensive as the hammer and sickle.
|
The Nazis weren't the first to use the swastika either. It was a symbol of the sun in some Asian cultures and religions. Would you feel comfortable using the swastika in another context then? To me the swastika, hammer and sickle, and the star all represent some of the most evil parts of humanity. Of course it's all about context though - a star is just a star until it's used in that context. (The debate started over pescado's use of the hammer and the sickle for the business controller. That was an obvious communist symbol. If he'd used a star as an obvious communist symbol, it still would've been offensive to me.)
Quote: Originally posted by TuxxedoCat
The main reason why Nazi Germany's murders are "worse" is that they were selective, they purposefully killed everyone they deemed not fit for society; we all know about the Jews and the Holocaust but the nazis also killed at least around 5 million more people: homosexuals, disabled (both mentally and physically) people, communists, other racially "inferior" people (slavs, primarily Poles; the few black people and muslims there were at the time; the Roma people) and so on
|
Saying Nazi killings were worse than communist killings implies the communist murders were less severe. It implies 6 million Jews are worth more than 70 million Chinese, for example. There are no redeeming qualities when it comes to mass killings and genocide. That's about as evil as it gets, no matter the race, sexuality or religion of the victims. The fact that communists weren't selective in their killings as the Nazis is not a reason that they are less severe, to me. A life is still a life whether it's a gay, black, Jew that is murdered or a straight, white Christian. There is no "at least they didn't..."
Communists killed much more people, which is why they are more severe to me, but it's really different levels of hell we're talking about here. I would like to hear your reasons why it's worse because they were selective. (If I wanted to use a strawman I'd ask you why you think it's worse to kill 6 million Jews than 70 million Chinese, but I'm sure that's not your argument.)
Also, really important, to you and anyone here:
please give your sources whenever needed, so you don't misinform people reading this thread.
For example, where did you read that the Nazis killed Muslims? In fact, many of them were
allied with the Nazis since they shared a hatred of Jews and gays. Most notably
The Mufti of Jerusalem who met with Adolf Hitler in 1941.
Not that it's the main topic of this thread, but I needed to call out this to stop misinformation.
Quote: Originally posted by TuxxedoCat
And when it comes to "it's not real communism" etc, I don't think it's unfair to say that it wasn't, because "real" communism, as in pure Marxism, is never going to be possible since the theory by itself is so utopian and would require every human alive to completely change their mindset, which just isn't going to happen.
|
To me, it's real when it's in reality. Until then it's only an idea. So real communism, as far as I'm concerned, is still represented by the aforementioned dictatorships. But it's good that you recognize it'd be impossible.
Quote: Originally posted by TuxxedoCat
when people argue about "real" communism, it's usually pure Marxism they mean and nothing else
|
Then please do call it Marxism, not freaking communism.
Like I said, you just can't save communism's name when it's been used in the most horrible contexts. Whether or not you agree it was real communism, it was still called that and people are never going to get over that, and history books are never going to change. (Hopefully or we'll find ourselves in Orwell's 1984.) Of course people are still going to have a problem with marxism, but nothing compared to communism as defined by the history books.
Quote: Originally posted by TuxxedoCat
In general on the internet there's two kinds of people who call themselves communist: those who believe in the utopianism of pure Marxism (incl. those who understand it's not entirely possible and thus advocate for something more realistic like democratic socialism instead)
|
Then they need to advocate for socialism, not communism. I promise you that will come across much better, and it's generally a good idea to differentiate yourself from people who would use such a name with so much bad history.