How could anyone believe that Communism is a desirable system? (salaries, stats)
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.
A Stalinist way? That would be an aggressive fascist dictatorship. What kind of true Communist would kill or jail half the population?
Stalin was not fascist. Though there is certainly some overlap between disparate forms of authoritarianism, several essential hallmarks of fascism are antithetical to Stalinism:
*ultranationalism: communists are, to varying degrees, internationalists, even Stalin (though less than many others, notably Trotsky)
*inherent racial superiority: communists are so vested in the notion that anyone can achieve anything, they embraced Lysenkoism
*regressivism: fascism seeks a return to a mythical glory of the nation's past, whereas communism rejects the past as just another decadent pre-communism era
*intense sexism: fascism ehalts maleness, with femininity subordinate, whereas communism seeks to elevate women (though never to the degree as in the liberal democracies of the West)
*corporate symbiosis: fascism coexists with the corporate world in a mutually beneficial arrangement; communism destroys corporatism and subsumes its infrastructure into the communist state
*elections: fascism generally adheres to the pretense of elections, whereas communism rejects the notion entirely in favor of the supposed 'dictatorship of the proletariat'
*religious symbiosis: fascism also seeks to incorporate the dominant religious faiths into its fold, whereas communism sees religion not as a useful co-conspirator but as an enemy to be obliterated
As to your question What kind of true Communist would kill or jail half the population?, that's a No True Scotsman fallacy. Aside from the fact that Stalin didn't kill/imprison half the population (that would scarcely even be possible), the communist concept of single-party rule wherein everyone who isn't on-board is presumed to be an enemy of the state makes mass imprisonment and/or murder perfectly acceptable (if impractical).
This doesn't mean Stalinism was better or worse than Hitlerian fascism (for example), but it was most definitely distinct.
Stalin was not fascist. Though there is certainly some overlap between disparate forms of authoritarianism, several essential hallmarks of fascism are antithetical to Stalinism:
*ultranationalism: communists are, to varying degrees, internationalists, even Stalin (though less than many others, notably Trotsky) The rhetoric was, under Stalin, internationalist. The reality, not so much.
*inherent racial superiority: communists are so vested in the notion that anyone can achieve anything, they embraced Lysenkoism - Not sure but he embraced persecution of various nationalities, Jews and Ukrainians included
*regressivism: fascism seeks a return to a mythical glory of the nation's past, whereas communism rejects the past as just another decadent pre-communism era Pass on that one
*intense sexism: fascism ehalts maleness, with femininity subordinate, whereas communism seeks to elevate women (though never to the degree as in the liberal democracies of the West) Pass on that one
*corporate symbiosis: fascism coexists with the corporate world in a mutually beneficial arrangement; communism destroys corporatism and subsumes its infrastructure into the communist state The rhetoric was, under Stalin, anti-business. The reality, not so much, especially subordinates.
*elections: fascism generally adheres to the pretense of elections, whereas communism rejects the notion entirely in favor of the supposed 'dictatorship of the proletariat' Plenty of Communists use fake elections
*religious symbiosis: fascism also seeks to incorporate the dominant religious faiths into its fold, whereas communism sees religion not as a useful co-conspirator but as an enemy to be obliterated Pass on that one, even though the Russian Orthodox Church thrived.
As to your question What kind of true Communist would kill or jail half the population?, that's a No True Scotsman fallacy. Aside from the fact that Stalin didn't kill/imprison half the population (that would scarcely even be possible), the communist concept of single-party rule wherein everyone who isn't on-board is presumed to be an enemy of the state makes mass imprisonment and/or murder perfectly acceptable (if impractical). What about the Holodomer
This doesn't mean Stalinism was better or worse than Hitlerian fascism (for example), but it was most definitely distinct.
See responses to each in bold. There's less difference between the two than meets the eye.
North Korea and Cuba still seem to have Stalin-style Communism. How could leaders of those countries--or anyone--still think that Communism is a viable and desirable governmental and economic system?
I went to East Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1990 and was shocked at how run-down and devoid of modernity those countries were, by comparison to West Germany. Then I went to the Balkans in 1994 and was shocked at how impoverished Romania was (and less so Bulgaria). I've seen the results of Communism first-hand: poverty.
If leaders of North Korea and Cuba want to keep power, that's a separate issue; if they want to maintain an authoritarian dictatorship in each country, they could do that and ditch Communism, in practice or in name.
Yes, China is Communist, but it has allowed private businesses and some type of market economy, and that has played a role in its progress.
So: how could leaders of North Korea and Cuba--or anywhere--still think that Communism, in its Stalinist way, is at all desirable?
It is desirable because many many people have control issues. You see it in school children, teachers, every profession every field just about every group. Control is an addictive disorder. The more you get the more you want.
But at the heart of communism is psychopathy. I call it the religion of psychopathy. No conscience, my way or the highway (actually more like a labor camp or a firing squad--if you're lucky). Total control. Defy me and you die.
China is where they are today because Nixon and Kissinger were either idiots or traitors. Kissinger especially. Their technology is largely stolen from the West, i.e. the United States. They would still be a nation of rice farmers and fishermen if not for the West.
And that's why so many people like communism. Control. That and in our schools today there's anti-West anti-freedom baloney being taught, because commies infiltrated almost all unions long ago. While the nations they run tend to be disaster areas, one of their finest skillsets is infiltrating and gaining control of organizations.
Some think communism is "fair," equal pay for non equal people. How could that be bad? Old Russian joke, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Bitter humor.
How could anyone believe that Communism is a desirable system?
...propaganda and manipulation of the less educated to believe that others are responsible for their position in life, not realizing that the very people they're voting for are creating the conditions that actually result in their inability to achieve upward mobility.
I think any common-sense individual would know this, but the vast majority of people who do "support" communism today that aren't actually from a communist country, are usually young people. They all kind of fit the same narrative... and in every case, it's less about communism, and far more about intentionally just trying to get attention. An example might be in the 90s, you had kids dressing up as Goths (applying white makeup and wearing all black). "Goths" as we called them, said they were trying to be non-conformists, but were ironically all conforming to a specific stereotype. It was less about whatever fundamentals a "goth" believed in (Marilyn Manson, The Crow movies, etc.) and far more about trying to get attention in school. These were kids who often didn't really fit in or were socially awkward.
Realistically, under a failing communist regime, these would be the first people who'd likely face a grim end under that structure.
It is desirable because many many people have control issues. You see it in school children, teachers, every profession every field just about every group. Control is an addictive disorder. The more you get the more you want.
But at the heart of communism is psychopathy. I call it the religion of psychopathy. No conscience, my way or the highway (actually more like a labor camp or a firing squad--if you're lucky). Total control. Defy me and you die.
China is where they are today because Nixon and Kissinger were either idiots or traitors. Kissinger especially. Their technology is largely stolen from the West, i.e. the United States. They would still be a nation of rice farmers and fishermen if not for the West.
And that's why so many people like communism. Control. That and in our schools today there's anti-West anti-freedom baloney being taught, because commies infiltrated almost all unions long ago. While the nations they run tend to be disaster areas, one of their finest skillsets is infiltrating and gaining control of organizations.
Some think communism is "fair," equal pay for non equal people. How could that be bad? Old Russian joke, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Bitter humor.
Your post is truly bizarre. I'll break down parts of it:
1. Nixon and Kissinger were "idiots and traitors".
This is utter nonsense. Nixon got into trouble for his actions during Watergate, but he was a good foreign policy president. He obtained nuclear arms control agreements with the USSR. He got American troops out of Vietnam. He started a process of diplomatic recognition and trade with the most populous nation in the world after a hiatus of more than twenty years. Kissinger presided effectively over most of these negotiations.
2. That and in our schools today there's "anti-West anti-freedom baloney" being taught.
You may believe rubbish like that, but more than your silly opinion is required to prove it. My kids got a great education in the public schools where I live and there never was any "anti-West, anti-freedom baloney" that you claim.
3. "Commies infiltrated almost all unions long ago".
Its not true. This would come as a great surprise to American labor leaders.
I realize that among some rightwing groups today that words like "woke" and "communism" are treated like arguments in and of themselves. However, with the rest of us normal folks that doesn't wash.
Your post is truly bizarre. I'll break down parts of it:
1. Nixon and Kissinger were "idiots and traitors".
This is utter nonsense. Nixon got into trouble for his actions during Watergate, but he was a good foreign policy president. He obtained nuclear arms control agreements with the USSR. He got American troops out of Vietnam. He started a process of diplomatic recognition and trade with the most populous nation in the world after a hiatus of more than twenty years. Kissinger presided effectively over most of these negotiations.
I believe the reference is that Nixon opened up normalized relations with the PRC, and opened the door to demoting Taiwan. In a sense, selling out a Democratic ally for Communist trading partner. Who knew the ramifications of ping pong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
2. That and in our schools today there's "anti-West anti-freedom baloney" being taught.
You may believe rubbish like that, but more than your silly opinion is required to prove it. My kids got a great education in the public schools where I live and there never was any "anti-West, anti-freedom baloney" that you claim.
Certainly there's a lot of hyperbole in both statements, however as a collector of American history books from the early 19th century on, the way history is taught has changed in recent years. Much of what's taught now is taken in fragmented form and out of context....thousands of disjointed fun facts in bright colored boxes not necessarily tied to a greater understanding of the country as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
3. "Commies infiltrated almost all unions long ago".
Its not true. This would come as a great surprise to American labor leaders.
I realize that among some rightwing groups today that words like "woke" and "communism" are treated like arguments in and of themselves. However, with the rest of us normal folks that doesn't wash.
Communists initially found strength with anarchists in labor unions about a century ago. Communism's playbook is for socialism to incite anger and give a sense of power to those that feel powerless. If you read about the early union activities there's a lot of imperfections going on for both sides. Early Communist activity was so terrible, that the party itself was actually banned, and people were forced out of the country as early as the 191Xs (I forget off hand). This was later ratified during McCarthyism and even as recently as the Trump era.
However, labor unions have fallen prey to many different colors of people attracted to cherry picking the winners for the spoils of someone else's labor for a long time. It wasn't just the communists, but the mafia and city political machines. Some people may bemoan the dearth of good union jobs, while tending to miss the fact that unions tend to consume their hosts by pushing them too far to be competitive in the marketplace. Like covid, the union leaders will simply jump to another host. They eat regardless. For the bankrupt entity and now out of work workers...options are starker.
Your post is truly bizarre. I'll break down parts of it:
1. Nixon and Kissinger were "idiots and traitors".
This is utter nonsense. Nixon got into trouble for his actions during Watergate, but he was a good foreign policy president. He obtained nuclear arms control agreements with the USSR. He got American troops out of Vietnam. He started a process of diplomatic recognition and trade with the most populous nation in the world after a hiatus of more than twenty years. Kissinger presided effectively over most of these negotiations.
I believe the reference is that Nixon opened up normalized relations with the PRC, and opened the door to demoting Taiwan. In a sense, selling out a Democratic ally for Communist trading partner. Who knew the ramifications of ping pong?
I have to go with Artillery on this one, despite my overall respect for MarkG.
Nixon was not a great or even good foreign policy President. The countries he was "successful" with, the PRC, USSR and North Vietnam (there are other examples) could scarcely reject "diplomacy" that amounted to giveaways, with nothing to show in return. Nixon threw Taiwan "under the bus" in exchange for photo ops of his dinner with Mao. China really did not have much to offer, even vis a vis the Soviet Union. It could make trouble in some frozen wastelands near the Ussuri River on the China-Russia border and that's about it. As we did with Germany after WW II, we birthed a major economic competitor with will either drown us in exports or unpaid debt, or both.
As far as Russia goes, what did we gain from Nixon's junket to Moscow in 1972? The ability to sell U.S. grain at subsidized prices, so as to give the USSR's leaders an opportunity for arbitrage profits, and rocketing U.S. inflation once Nixon's politically-motivated Phase II price controls were suddenly lifted on January 11, 1973. Russia was precious little help with Hanoi.
The Vietnam "peace accords" were the prelude to a bloodbath two years and three months after they were inked to great Nixon Administration (remember Haldemann and Erlichman) celebrations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
2. That and in our schools today there's "anti-West anti-freedom baloney" being taught.
You may believe rubbish like that, but more than your silly opinion is required to prove it. My kids got a great education in the public schools where I live and there never was any "anti-West, anti-freedom baloney" that you claim.
Certainly there's a lot of hyperbole in both statements, however as a collector of American history books from the early 19th century on, the way history is taught has changed in recent years. Much of what's taught now is taken in fragmented form and out of context....thousands of disjointed fun facts in bright colored boxes not necessarily tied to a greater understanding of the country as a whole.
Again I have to go with Artillery. History education nowadays amounts to picking at national scabs such as slavery and the mistreatment of the American Indians. Our forefathers were great builders. The downsides can be mentioned but not to the exclusion of teaching about Ben Franklin, Benjamin Rush, John Adams, George Washington and even Thomas Jefferson. They built a great, albeit flawed country, with an emphasis on "great."
Just for the record, my SO is from the former Soviet Union, and if you ever meet someone from there, they will not say that coming from there was like escaping a 'prison'.
I have been told that in general, making a living was much easier by just doing stuff like ... running a store, or doing what would be consider in the States more blue collar or non-degreed type jobs. Home ownership was easier.
What is the situation in the states? You have an engineering degree, and a Masters degree, and you work pretty darn hard and you have trouble buying a starter home.
The actual COLLAPSE of the Soviet Union devalued the ruble and THAT is when it fell apart.
But I suggest finding someone from any of the former countries associated and talking to them.
The countries associated with the Soviet Union I would say have a much different style of living. Life there is generally easier but way more simple I would say. The problem is political instability and lack of freedom of speech.
I'll be honest, I think the States is BRUTAL.
People in the corporate world especially are constantly pushed by execs who keep wasting their time engaging them in meetings and preventing them from getting work done, yet asking them to get more work done.
Homes are ridiculously expensive and the fact that most homes are 'income sources' makes a small studio apartment $1500.
And there's so much inequity. One person slaves away for a 80K salary, another person does absolutely nothing for it.
EVERYBODY is out for themselves when it comes to more salary, less work, real estate, retirement. Need the posts at CD Forum prove my statement?
I think of the situations here and I realize how the Russian Revolution came to be.
People in the corporate world especially are de facto slaves and are often flogged by execs... [snipped]
Please, no hyperbole in the Great Debates forum. If any execs here in the U.S. were flogging* their employees, you can bet it would hit the national news and the execs would be going to court.
If you are stating your personal opinions, then say so. Don't present your opinions as facts. We ask that participants in Great Debates post with maturity and intelligence, rather than with an excess of emotion. Thank you.
*"a punishment in which the victim is hit repeatedly with a whip or stick."
Please, no hyperbole in the Great Debates forum. If any execs here in the U.S. were flogging* their employees, you can bet it would hit the national news and the execs would be going to court.
If you are stating your personal opinions, then say so. Don't present your opinions as facts. We ask that participants in Great Debates post with maturity and intelligence, rather than with an excess of emotion. Thank you.
*"a punishment in which the victim is hit repeatedly with a whip or stick."
Very well, hyperbole removed from post.
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.
