Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marxism was designed to bring about a better world with the wealth more evenly distributed and the aristocracy eliminated. In ideal terms it was going to be from each according to his means, to each according to his needs. It was a doctrine which had a lot more in common with the ideals of Christianity than may be claimed by capitalism. In practice it turned out to not work as Marx envisioned it, but that does not change the intent.
German fascism was a doctrine which held that the Germans were the planet's natural master race and thus entitled to murder or enslave all those who stood in the way of their global domination. It was to be a world run by the Aryans for the benefit and glorification of Aryans.
You are unable to distinguish between such doctrines?
And that's why Russians ( who had this whole concept of community living within Russian peasantry, so-called "mir," where the commune was responsible for the well-being of its every member long before "Communism,") often claim that they understand Christianity better than the Westerners.
The roughly 6 million Poles who died under the Nazi occupation might have a different take on the whole 'it was far worse under the Russians' take.
This is, of course, not to say that the Soviets didn't kill significant numbers of Poles. Varying estimates hold that between 1939 and 1941, and again from 1944 to 1946, between 150,000 and 500,000 Poles were liquidated by Soviet occupiers. A horrific number... but still less than 1/10th those systematically killed off by the Nazis during a roughly equal period of occupation (mid-1941 to mid-1944/early 1945). Through 1948, millions of Poles were persecuted by the Soviets, with as many as another half a million perishing. After 1948 through the end of the Cold War, the number of Poles executed by the communist regime in Warsaw, which can certainly be seen as an pawn of Soviet communism, probably numbers between 20k and 50k.
Those are absolute atrocities. But the question wasn't "Were the communists bad?" but "Why are the communists seen as worse than the Nazis?". And this pretty much sums it up. In three years, the Nazis killed around 6 million Poles. The number was high because the Nazi intent was genocide. They murdered anyone remotely seen as a threat, and enslaved millions with the intent of extracting as much useful labor from them as possible before the work killed them - a win-win from the Nazi point of view. Conversely, the Soviets in over four decades of opportunity - when they were mostly undistracted by a major war, and thus in a position to undertake genocide had they so chosen to do so - killed less than 1/5th the number of Poles killed by the Nazis in three short years. Poland served a purpose, as a buffer state and as a partner in the effort to spread communism around the globe. This speaks to a fundamental difference between Marxism and Naziism - the latter was about Germans at the expense of everyone else, while the former officially embraced internationalism and held all ethnicities as equals. In reality, of course, there was a healthy dose of Russian chauvinism in the USSR, but that bias was nowhere near the ethnic superiority of Naziism.
At the Nazi's rate of killing 2 million Poles per year, the Polish nation wouldn't have persisted to see 1970. But under communist rule, the population of Poland grew from 24 million in 1946 to 38 million by the end of the Cold War. This is hardly because the Soviet communists were benevolent and nurturing of the Polish nation, but it was certainly because they weren't trying to annihilate the Polish nation in its entirety.
All are good points, and what the "complaining party" is missing from equation, is that long BEFORE any *Communism,* life of Polish people wasn't all that good either, when TZARIST Russia partitioned Poland and annihilated it all together as a state. So there is more to oppression of Poles by Russia than just "Communism." To make the long story short, Russian authorities considered Poland as unwanted rival since the "Times of Trouble" ( i.e. the end of the 1600ies,) when Russian throne almost fell in Polish hands. From that point on, ( and may be even earlier,) Russians were weary of Polish advances, particularly when their country was going through difficult times - like for example during the civil war. It was Poland that immediately tried to claim the lands of the former Russian Empire, using Russia's weakness at that point, and Ukraine was always the core of a problem. Not only that, but Poland ( in its quarrels with Russia) had tendency to bring "big guys" into the conflict, ( such as Great Britain for example during the WWII,) making them work on her behalf. Which Russians, of course, didn't like a bit, particularly if to keep Stalin in mind, who was paranoid as it was.
And that's the basis of Russian policies towards Poland - not genocide of Polish people per se, but making them serve the interest of the Russian state, which at that point was Socialism.
Other than that, I have to note that during Soviet times Poles were actually enjoying more freedoms than Russians; their private sector wasn't completely destroyed as in Russia, and they had more access to Western clothing and Western goods than "Russia proper" from what I remember.
I think because one is inherently evil. Nazism. A regime that has within it's precepts the idea that some human beings are superior to others, and because of that they should be incarcerated, starved, tortured, and annihilated - can never be good or acceptable.
Communism does not need to involved these precepts, and totalitarianism is not a part of the ideology. Nor are gulags, kangaroo courts, or mass executions. There is nothing in Communism that stresses racial superiority.
However, as practiced by the likes of Stalin, it certainly was oppressive and evil.
Pure communism is a sharing of resources and government ownership of the means of production. While you may disagree vehemently with that idea, there is nothing inherently evil involved with that.
Anyway. There is nothing evil or immoral about communism. There isn't anything evil or immoral about socialism, per se, either.
Stalin, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.
I left out the part where you said capitalism is basically awful and unethical. However, the capitalist system rewards innovation, and supply is determined by demand. In a communist system, and even a socialist system, supply is dictated by those in power, no matter what that power structure might be... massive or passive. It's also worth noting that even in the USA, it's perfectly legal to start a commune and live as communists. You have that freedom. However, in communist or socialist societies, that isn't so.
In the first place, there has never been a truly communist government. The USSR was not communist - sure membership in the communist party was required, but communism literally means every thing is held in common by everyone. In the USSR, everything was owned by the state. That's more socialism in some senses, but in reality the USSR teetered along for over 100 years under a weird mixture of oligarchy, dictatorship, and fascism depending on who was currently in power.
Remember, USSR stands for United Soviet Socialist Republic. Communism didn't really enter into it. Communism is an economic system, not a system of government. Early Xtian communities were communistic in nature.
Communism in its strictest form is IMNSHO THE best economic system - if only human beings weren't so greedy, rapacious, and selfish. And all of that is what makes capitalism such a terrible economic system. There doesn't seem to be a good economic system that doesn't end up benefiting the least ethical and moral among us more than the rest of us.
Anyway. There is nothing evil or immoral about communism. There isn't anything evil or immoral about socialism, per se, either.
Stalin, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.
The true Communism you refer to reminds me of a hippy commune.
( and we all know how successful that turned out..........SARC )
I left out the part where you said capitalism is basically awful and unethical. However, the capitalist system rewards innovation, and supply is determined by demand. In a communist system, and even a socialist system, supply is dictated by those in power, no matter what that power structure might be... massive or passive. It's also worth noting that even in the USA, it's perfectly legal to start a commune and live as communists. You have that freedom. However, in communist or socialist societies, that isn't so.
That's not just "capitalism," but specifically capitalism in the Western world.
But if you will look at capitalism somewhere in Africa, India, China, or in Russia for this matter, it presents a different picture.
Likewise, "Communism" ( or Socialism) is determined by the cultural specifics of each and every nation that hosts it.
Socialism in Germany ( if it would have prevailed back in 1919) wouldn't have been anything like Russian version of it.
And that's why Russians ( who had this whole concept of community living within Russian peasantry, so-called "mir," where the commune was responsible for the well-being of its every member long before "Communism,") often claim that they understand Christianity better than the Westerners.
And that's why the Russkies are idologically, economically and politically inferior to us Westerners.
the modern versions that are left in Vietnam and China, adapting mixed economies, are relatively benign.
Relative to what ?
Stalinism?
People in China are not free, no-one is free in communism, it cannot work unless force is used at some level.
Same with socialism ,it requires force to reduce freedom.
In the end it doesn't work unless people are happy having less freedom. There are people like that.
Pure communism is a sharing of resources and government ownership of the means of production. While you may disagree vehemently with that idea, there is nothing inherently evil involved with that.
And the result of what appears harmless is the greatest evil the world has experienced, murdering more people in 75 yrs than all humanity has done for millions of yrs total.
No, its "merely" a sharing of resources, sure it is.
Sharing by force is not sharing.
And that's why the Russkies are idologically, economically and politically inferior to us Westerners.
I'll talk about *you Westerners* in a different thread "Eastern Europe" and so on.
Quote:
Dostoyevsky would cry looking at today's Russia.
Dostoyevsky was all about morals from what I remember, and interestingly enough he was in disagreement with Tolstoy on a matter of that very "peasant commune" that Tolstoy was supporting so much.
(Yes, that's the author of "War and Peace" - right there for you)))
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
