Why does everyone seem to hate communism? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 year ago
#81
(Original post by KratoSilVieres)
Okay so I'm new to Politics and very interested, I know I could look all over the internet but I guess I wanted a direct answer from the people of TSR.

What is so bad about communism?

You could benefit the poor if you split the money ( which i guess is what rich people may disagree with and argue they have earnt it) but it also shows that people are equal.

One thing I'd say it that people may think that Communism would fails as one person would always wanted to take control.

But what are the issues surrounding, doesn't it work in poor country, Chavez improved Venezuela a little bit from what I believe, even if it's a little he still helped those in poverty?
Both socialism and communism have proven themselves far inferior to social democracy or plain capitalism (i.e. government has proven itself inferior to the market at generating prosperity). There is not a single nation which has enriched itself by moving to socialism but plenty which have essentially stalled their development (Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela).

Around 1900 Argentina was becoming so wealthy that it had a Harrod's, it's position made it a focal point of trade at the time.

Until the 1970's Venezeula's oil wealth gave it one of the highest GDP per capita's in the world. Then it threw out all foreign firms and nationalised everything. Chavez was elected in response to the flatline (he blamed the west on all their problems) and bar a totally unrelated rise in the oil price globally (we were ~$150 a barrel a year ago) the country has just gotten ever worse.

Cuba was a similar story but for differing reasons. It was basically the Las Vegas of the Carribean and a millionaire's playground before the revolution at which point it abolished private property rights (restored in 06). It went from having a GDP per capita on par with Italy to one which is below the global average. It's only success is that of all the communist nations, it has managed to stop its people starving or being homeless.
0
sirhappyqueen
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 year ago
#82
They tried Communism in Russia, look what happened.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 year ago
#83
(Original post by Rakas21)
Both socialism and communism have proven themselves far inferior to social democracy or plain capitalism (i.e. government has proven itself inferior to the market at generating prosperity). There is not a single nation which has enriched itself by moving to socialism but plenty which have essentially stalled their development (Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela).

Around 1900 Argentina was becoming so wealthy that it had a Harrod's, it's position made it a focal point of trade at the time.

Until the 1970's Venezeula's oil wealth gave it one of the highest GDP per capita's in the world. Then it threw out all foreign firms and nationalised everything. Chavez was elected in response to the flatline (he blamed the west on all their problems) and bar a totally unrelated rise in the oil price globally (we were ~$150 a barrel a year ago) the country has just gotten ever worse.

Cuba was a similar story but for differing reasons. It was basically the Las Vegas of the Carribean and a millionaire's playground before the revolution at which point it abolished private property rights (restored in 06). It went from having a GDP per capita on par with Italy to one which is below the global average. It's only success is that of all the communist nations, it has managed to stop its people starving or being homeless.
Venezuela before Chavez was not some sort of prosperous country. The vast majority was desperately poor, worse than the current situation today. There were a handful of individuals and firms however who generated enormous wealth for themselves from the oil revenues.

Chavez was voted in because he promised to actually invest the oil money in things like education and healthcare rather than allow it all to go in the pockets of a few. Sure, it's not been a success and a big problem was a failure to diversify the economy, compared to Bolivia. And of course, the situation has gotten out of hand, as the leadership has become increasingly authoritarian. But can we stop pretending that pre-Chavez Venezuela wasn't even worse and even more destitute than how it currently is.

As to your other points, the USA went out of its way to undermine and bring down any left wing administration through boycotts and undemocratic coups. Take Chile for example, which was doing rather well under its Socialist leader before the USA decided to overthrow him and put in place a brutal dictator. Or how about the numerous other left wing, mildly socialist governments that the US overthrew, like Nicaragua?

Put it this way, if Clement Atlee had been the leader of a south/central American country, the US would have overthrown him.

ChaoticButterfly
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 year ago
#84
(Original post by Rinsed)
lolwut

Venezuela was one of the most prosperous countries in South America, with good growth and attracting lots of immigration from nearby countries and even Europe. OK, so there were some oil-price-related crashes shortly before Chavez came to power, but we are talking about a nation on the brink of collapse, where mothers can't afford to feed their children and hospitals can't afford medicines to treat easily preventable diseases. You can't just brush that aside as 'but it was bad before Chavez too', because it was infinitely better than it is today.

The history of the current crisis is one of utter mismanagement by Chavez and his cronies. One by one they nationalised the profitable industries and ran them into the ground, until there was nowhere else to extract wealth from. They were buoyed for a good while by very high oil prices, but even then they were running up huge debts.
Chavez was voted in by quite a margin initially. He didn't usurp the incumbent administration by undemocratic means.

The reason he was voted in was broadly because the majority of the country was really quite poor while a handful were gobbling the oil money for themselves, giving highly unrepresentative GDP figures. Wanting to use the oil money to benefit the entire population rather than a handful of people, was not unreasonable.

For a while they broadly were going in the right direction but of course recent years has seen a complete reverse of that. Economically they didn't diversify. Bolivia for example is a socialist country but was better managed and has done far better.

Pre Chavez Venezuela was destitute. That doesn't justify what Chavez is doing now but let's not pretend it was a country with anything like a high standard of living without huge levels of poverty.
0
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 year ago
#85
people look at North Korea, Venezuala & Albania and say no thank you Jeremy we don't need that here.
1
yourjewishpal
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 year ago
#86
has all the attempts at achieving communism have generally failed. true communism has never been achieved. modern society is consumerist and communism goes against this and could cause society to collapse. humans are selfish and greedy creatures and easily become lazy, thus a communist society will fail because the workers will loose motivation
0
GovernmentEarner
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 year ago
#87
I'm starting to think no-one on TSR knows anything about political theory *sighs*, maybe I'll ignore the threads after this one.

Some common misconceptions I have seen.
1. Communism has NEVER existed.
2. Marx DID NOT invent communism.
3. Communism HASN'T failed, it is meant to be applied to MEDC's which HASN'T happened.

To answer the original question, people hate communism as they conflate it with socialism and/or don't actually understand what it is/isn't. One of the ONLY true communist societies was decentralised Yugoslavia for less than 1 year, and they were extremely successful for that short period, although it was planned to be temporary, so communism has never been shown on a long-term basis.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 year ago
#88
(Original post by Rinsed)
That's the thing though, they weren't. It was a complete fraud, which was always storing up problems for the future.

It's like saying of Bernie Madoff, "Yes, but people forget he did generate good returns for a while".
Any system stores up problems for the future.

The liberalization of the market and the banking sector in particular would have brought the world's economy crashing down, were it not for huge bailouts.
0
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 year ago
#89
Bornblue

(Original post by sirhappyqueen)
They tried Communism in Russia, look what happened.
They got the first human into space? They took a backward feudal society to a full scale industrial society that right into the 1950s that terrified the capitalist countries? Increased literacy? Reduced poverty? It's only until the 1960s and onward that communism being inefficient became a thing. Before then it was a very real threat to taking over the world, the US was ******** itself.


(Original post by the bear)
people look at North Korea, Venezuala & Albania and say no thank you Jeremy we don't need that here.
or New Zealand

To add some more onto the why is communism hated question, there are good socialist leftist reasons to despise the Lenninist governments that became dictatorships (whether or not that is an inevitable outcome), with the original and most culpable being the creation of the Soviet Union. This is what communism became and it was the arguably a massive set back for socialism, which up to the October revolution had strong libertarian currents.

I think on the whole Noam Chomsky was correct when he described the fall of the Soviet Union as a small victory for socialism.

This is a good take of the leftists anti-communist view.

https://newsocialist.org.uk/october-...atest-setback/
0
sirhappyqueen
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 year ago
#90
Ever heard of the Gulag or the Red Terror? People turning to cannibalism because of starvation?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 year ago
#91
(Original post by sirhappyqueen)
Ever heard of the Gulag or the Red Terror? People turning to cannibalism because of starvation?
Prison camps, political violence, and starvation being concepts unique to communism?
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 year ago
#92
(Original post by the bear)
people look at North Korea, Venezuala & Albania and say no thank you Jeremy we don't need that here.
Its a somewhat dubious proposition to say any of those are communist countries..
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 year ago
#93
(Original post by Rinsed)
Well, they're not exactly capitalist.
Venezuela was/is an attempt at Communism, so too was the Soviet Union.

North Korea isn't though. It's fascist, very much believing in the master race.
0
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 year ago
#94
(Original post by Bornblue)
Venezuela was/is an attempt at Communism, so too was the Soviet Union.

North Korea isn't though. It's fascist, very much believing in the master race.
all socialist states end up like these. we must not let it happen here.
0
DaftVader
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 year ago
#95
Because people find it difficult to believe that an ideology that has already claimed in the region of 100 million lives of it's own followers can actually work.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 year ago
#96
(Original post by the bear)
all socialist states end up like these. we must not let it happen here.
North Korea was never a Socialist state to begin with.

Scandanavian socialism has worked rather well.
0
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 year ago
#97
(Original post by Bornblue)
North Korea was never a Socialist state to begin with.

Scandanavian socialism has worked rather well.
an extensive welfare system is not equivalent to socialism. Scandinavian industry is owned by private companies as in other normal countries.

where the country has been tempted to go further the consequences are negative; Sweden is finding this out the hard way.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 year ago
#98
(Original post by the bear)
an extensive welfare system is not equivalent to socialism. Scandinavian industry is owned by private companies as in other normal countries.

where the country has been tempted to go further the consequences are negative; Sweden is finding this out the hard way.
High levels of public ownership and much of the country covered by colllective bargaining agreements certainly point towards Democratic Socialism.
1
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 year ago
#99
(Original post by Rinsed)
Well, they're not exactly capitalist.
That doesn't make them communist. Especially DPRK which is little more than an autocratic fiefdom.
0
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 year ago
#100
Jeremy Corbyn type of democratic socialism is not the same as the Marxist Leninist style scientific socialism implemented in the USSR. The two are worlds apart.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are cats selfish

Yes (144)
61.28%
No (91)
38.72%

Watched Threads

View All