Communism

Post Reply New Topic

this is a lesson to all

never vote for a republican

Well in the US most of the poor are ethnic minorities so by being right wing, pro-corporations and against welfare, little help for the poor and disabled to vote and many other things like this it could be argued that he was against blacks and minorities. He's probably not facist though, (as far as i can tell that is) I just think he likes rich and influential people because they are the guys who put him where he is and will keep him there.

Perhaps that is true but moral weaknesses have arisen in even the most moralistic of societies. Corruption has existed from the dawn of man and a communist society might simply place corruption in the hands of the higher levels of society. We have seen the horrible corruption that occurs in religious institutions, institutions devoted to a higher moral standard so I tend to doubt that the institutions of communism will be cured of the corruption that has existed in other ideal minded groups. Especially considering how much centralization of power a communist government would require. Maybe some individuals can handle power but the majority would break.

I can understand the attraction that Communism has had for many people, and still has. One of the main attractions of Communism is that is has been an expression of moral outrage against social injustice. It has also provided a philosophy of history, almost an eschatology (People love to know where the world is going). Also, Communism has its own system of rationality. However, it is an awful system for the following reasons:

-- It has been tried, and it has failed. It has failed to reform human behavior in countries that came under its sway. It is highly economically dysfunctional. It has not resulted in economic or social justice. Instead of economic scarcity being handled by the market, it was handled by an elitist state bureaucracy.

-- More people have been murdered under Communist rule than under any other political system, including fascism and Nazism. According to various estimates, over 100 million people have died at the hand of Communist governments during the 20th century. Communism is still claiming political and religious victims in countries where it still holds sway.

-- It holds to an excessively optimistic view of human nature. It rejects God and religion entirely. The system is based on the wrong philosophical and spiritual premises. It is not even good in theory, let alone in practice.

In order to really consider how awful Communism is, let us reflect on those who have perished under Communist rule, under such people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, Tito, Fidel Castro (yes, also Che Guevara), Enver Hoxha, etc., etc. Even Khrushchev and Brezhnev had bloody hands. Just ask a typical Eastern European who became an adult before 1989 what Communism was like. If anyone has any doubts, read "The Black Book of Communism" put out by Harvard University Press.

It has been tried, but it was corrupted. The Soviet Union and Stalin (who killed very many people) was not a proper Socialist/Communist. Everyone else was corrupted.

When you speak of Communism rejecting religion, you are refering to the Communist Manifesto. However, more modern communists (such as myself) take into account that freedom of religion is necessary in society. People are allowed to worship (or don't) as they please.

Bush is definitely a fascist. In fact, the whole red state phenomenon has become fascist.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red ... scism.html

Or a democrat.

"Let's begin with its difference from Communism. First, where Communism seeks to substitute the state for private ownership, fascism seeks to incorporate or co-opt private ownership into the state apparatus through public-private partnership. Thus fascism tends to be more tempting than Communism to wealthy interests who may see it as a way to insulate their economic power from competition through forced cartelization and other corporatist stratagems.

"Second, where Communist ideology tends to be cosmopolitan and internationalist, fascist ideology tends to be chauvinistically nationalist, stressing a particularist allegiance to one's country, culture, or ethnicity; along with this goes a suspicion of rationalism, a preference for economic autarky, and a view of life as one of inevitable but glorious struggle. Fascism also tends to cultivate a "folksy" or völkisch "man of the people," "pragmatism over principles," "heart over head," "pay no attention to those pointy-headed intellectuals" rhetorical style."

Sound familiar?

Recent article on fascism:

http://www.mises.org/story/1957

Although many of Bush's supporters are Fascist, Bush himself is Neo-Jacobian or Straussian. The ideology of Bush and his neos is more closely related to Trotskyism. It has more to do with nationalism and loyalty with his click than anything traditionally considered right-wing. Heck, the Neoconservatives used to be leftists (or at least ally themselves with the left).

The only way communism can ever come about is eether throogh democratic election, or throogh revolt against the capitalist leadership. Therefore its impossible for communism - or any other new form of goverment - to be forced on a people.

Is there reelly any dout that anything put out by an American university, particularly during the Cold War, wood be anti-Communist?

Yes. Fundamentalism, and the idia of a spiteful god, is contradictory to communist ideals. Religion in and of itself, however, is not, and while it exists, then it MUST coexist with any real communism, becos anyone arrogant enouff to tell peeple NOT to worship is just as anti-communist as peeple who tell peeple WHO or WHAT to worship.

The problem with Marxism as a theory is that it looks good on paper, but I believe the whole problem with Communism or even socialism for that matter is its excessively optimistic view of human nature. I happen to believe that human nature is depraved and that life, in the view of Hobbes, is "nasty, brutish, and short." Even Lenin spouted political freedoms before he took power, and then he turned into a ruthless monster. The archives coming out of the former Soviet Union do not lie. I can see why people who believe that human nature is good would believe in Communism/socialism. The problem is that Communism/socialism was bound to be corrupted no matter what because of human nature. Even Stalin was a true believer in Marxism-Leninism, just the political opponents of his that he brutally murdered.

Is there any doubt that a Communist would engage in an ad homonym attack?

I find the opposite to be true.

Marxism doesn't look good on paper. It fails on a theoretical basis and is inconsistent with itself. Of course, Marx wouldn't even care what I have to say due to polylogism...

Ad for being optimistic of human nature, I would say Marxism is the opposite here as well. Surely someone optimistic about human nature would not seek to restrict it through draconian social rules.



Him and every other politician. Communists have no monopoly here.

A wise man called politics "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."



Communism didn't fail because it became corrupted. Communism necessarily fails because its impossible to perform economic calculation without prices.

I fear your attack of Communism only serves to strengthen the resolve of Communists to get it right the next time around.

What's the matter? Not happy because some people can see through your propaganda. The state you stay explains a lot. With it's shameful history of Native American land clearences, troubled history of social imbattlement and crazy law and no sales tax, i can see you havent expereinced what it's like to have any decent sense of community,wefare or even have the freedom to fill up your own set of wheels for instance. I think you could be right about a lack of religion not being too healthy, certainly in the case of the US anyway as Oregon has the least percentage of church-goers there.

American imperialism was unwarranted, but it cannot permanently be fixed. It's just like the issue with Palestine and Israel. Israel should never have existed, but it forced its way in, and is now totally unremovable.

how soon do we all forget that imperialism didnt begin in the united states. It began in otherplaces. Russia, Japan, Portigal, France, Spain, oh and lets not for get England. The united States was late in the game. The US didnt do all the "evil" in the world by getting out there and trying to make Americans out of every village in the world. I think other nations beat us to it.....