Why are people so afraid of Communism?

Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Scroll to see replies

jismith1989

Surely that's also an argument for lawlessness/anarchy?

It's obviously a heavily simplified argument, but Communism would be a step too far in terms of personal control for most people.

Reply 181

marxistboi666

Wow, there's a lot of fallacies presented in this thread; I have only skimmed through, but most of what is said is pure ignorance on the issue. Now, I am going make no bones about it, I am an unashamed Marxist and part of a socialist party and whilst I would never consider myself a Hoxhaist, Stalinist, Maoist etc. (in fact, my party is Trotskyist, so we oppose vehemently the bureaucratic degenerations of said revolutions) some of this utter nonsense that people are typing needs to cleared up.

Firstly, as regards the contention over the amount of deaths due to "Communism", I think it's a somewhat basic view of history that reduces any coherent, concrete analysis simply the amount of people purported to have died directly due to Stalin, Mao etc.; it's not like these men went around their countries hunting down every single person with a shotgun, you know. You have to take into account the immensely complex nature of the tasks with which these leaders were faced: both countries vast in size, backwardness in agriculture, severely underdeveloped industry etc., and as for Russia specifically the Tsarist regime was corrupt, failing and inefficient, the workers and peasantry (who made up the majority of the population) had little or no trade-union rights -- people were shot, tortured or imprisoned for taking part in trade-union activity -- and finally WWI was an abject failure for the country with around 9 mil. deaths (IIRC) and soldiers deserting on the front-line. Don't you think it was just about time for "land, bread and peace"? Furthermore, you have to consider was the country better or worse before the revolution? I think in both cases, despite the authoritarian nature of these regimes, that both countries were better off. Consider the massive improvements made in women's rights, health-care, technology, industry, education, life expectancy, employment etc. etc. Both countries were brought into the modern age; just one example, China's life expectancy in 1949, the year of revolution, was around 35, but when he died in 1976 life expectancy had rocketed up to 73.

Secondly, when we look at the broader picture and realise, if we criticise "Communism" we have to look at the alternatives, capitalism is also a complete failure. Many of the world's problems can be attributed to the vast gaps in wealth between poor and rich. 5% of the world's population control 95% of the wealth; the 3 richest people in the world have more wealth than the 47 most poorest countries; 10 million people die a year of hunger; 2 million a year of diarrhea and lastly 2 million of malaria. And look at this current economic crisis with the UK looking like it's heading into a "double-dip" recession, and places like Japan who have already gone this. If anything, the meltdown of the world financial system has re-affirmed by leftist convictions. Capitalism cannot be reformed; it has failed time and time again to fulfill even the most basic needs of human beings. What do you expect from a system based wholly in competition between thousands of individuals in a dynamic, uncontrolled market with conflicting interests? The internal contradictions of capitalism are what's leading to its downfall. And if we want to play this childish game of the amount of deaths attached to one regime or another, what about the Great Depression in the 30s? This is still one of the biggest crises in capitalism's history (only on par with the current meltdown) and in light of recent research and statistics, it's estimated that some 4 million Americans died due to hunger and related illnesses directly as a result of the depression. Does this make H Hoover an evil murderer? I think not; and at least in Soviet Russia everyone had a safe job and home.

Reply 182

marxistboi666

Oh and also add that the reason I typed communism as follows -- "Communism" -- is because any serious radical leftist today doesn't even consider all these past regimes as communist. Communism is based in abolition of money, wage-labour, exploitation, classes and the state; something that Stalin, Mao etc. quite clearly failed to do. Just because these rulers wrapped themselves up in red flags, and painted pictures of Marx & Engels everywhere doesn't make them communist, despite what you might think.

EDIT: I'll also hasten to add that my username is tongue-in-cheek. Take it with a pinch of salt. :yep:

I also didn't realise how old this thread was; sorry for resurrecting it!

Reply 183

Jez RR

I lived in Eastern Europe under communism. You really had to be there to understand just how terrifying it is.

Reply 184

Aphotic Cosmos

Orthodox communism is basically totalitarianism masquerading as people power, and fooling nobody.

There is very much something to be said for broader anarcho-communist principles - I would be open to the idea of a state where everyone could vote on every issue (It'll be some time yet before technology allows this to happen securely), and the only "government" was the civil service, which implemented the decisions of the people, and a symbolic head of state. But communism as it has been implemented in every state to date, and how it is described in most orthodox communist texts, is truly terrifying. Dictatorship of the proletariat? That worked out well.

Reply 185

Don John

russianroullette

People just seem (well, they definitley used to, I don't think so much anymore) to wet their pants at the thought of Communism spreading to a Western country like the US.

I am not necessarily a Communist myself, tbh I'm not sure if I'd choose it over Capitalism if I could.

But I want to know what people's views are on it. I wrote an essay about it a few months ago (PM me if you're interested in reading it, it's not very long but I won't post it on here) about it but I'd like to know.

People talk about the idea of Communism as crap, but it hasn't actually worked yet. It's only had too many power-hungry dicators leading it, but if there was someone civil, I think it wouldn't be too bad.

Communism, whilst ideally a utopia, has many ills thanks to human nature. The idea of everyone being paid the same for different jobs is unnatural yet pleasing to some. If someone is to do work of varying quality and get the same pay, then there's no point in trying harder at your job. Ergo, stagnation in society. Ergo, crime. Ergo, government has to *make* Communism work by *getting rid* of undesirable elements. Ergo, Communism looks bad.

Can't tell I'm a mathematician can you? :rolleyes:

Reply 186

Houdizzle

Because everyone bases their idea of Communism, or Marxism or Socialism etc.. on the USSR and North Korea.

It's like me basing my ideas and opinions of the bible and christianity on the child rape in the catholic church or its enthusiastic support of fascist regimes in the 30's and 40's.

Unsurprisingly most users on here who i come across denouncing communism, marxism etc.. Have never even read any of the literature.

Reply 187

marxistboi666

Ok, a few things that I'll go over briefly (I'll come back to these points in detail as I am a little busy at the moment): as regards Eastern Europe, anecdotal evidence is somewhat of a fallacy. The experiences you had under the extension of Stalinist rule are (as I said) nothing that I would uphold. You say I can't "understand", but on the contrary it is you that doesn't understand at all what modern-day Marxists and communists have as their political and social aims today. Secondly, as regards the old human nature canard, Marx was actually inclined to reject any notion of an inherent, eternal "human nature", as distinct from man's actual, and constantly changing, behaviour. This was how he attacked Feuerbach as he percieved human nature as an abstract notion, sat static at one moment in time and therefore immutable, unchanging. Marxists argue that human nature is in fact multifaceted; we are all just as capable of altruism as we are greed. I see basic human behaviour as a reflection of the social circumstances that we find ourselves in. Finally, as regards, the "dictatorship of the proletariat", in the days of Marx the word dictatorship had a totally different meanings and connotations to how the word is used now in common speech. Bear in mind this was before Mussolini, Hitler etc. and also that the word is "dictatorship"; not a single dictator. As I said I'm busy and have a short amount of time so I'll quote Luxemburg for this, and then come back and tackle each of this issues in better details. Anyway here:

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Reply 188

Lemming69

communism in theory is a very attractive ideal. However it simply does not work in the real world.

Reply 189

Jez RR

Lemming69

communism in theory is a very attractive ideal. However it simply does not work in the real world.

Quite. Plenty of idealistic people have been seduced by the dialectic over the years, only to become disillusioned by the reality. Communism in theory gives left-wing academics some edgy credentials without having to confront the hard realities of existence under it, and students something with which to kick out at Capitalism's many flaws. But outside of abstruse discussions and political posturing, as a system in both reality and practice it has never worked and never will.