So here I am revising for my History exam and I'm doing all about Russia, 1896 (The coronation of Tsar Nicolas II) right up to the Cuban Missile Crisis in '62, so naturally you've got Lenin and of course Stalin in there somewhere as well.

Now, we know full well that Stalin was not a nice man - when Nikita Khrushchev finally filled the power vacuum after his death in '53, he gave an eight hour speech dissing Stalin and revealing the evil that had spawned from some 25 or so years of rule in Russia. 9 million people killed in the purges, 10 million imprisoned, more people dying in the Collectivisation famine than the Jewish Holocaust and some damn barbaric fighting during WWII (buzzword: Stalingrad).

But despite all this, is Communism really as evil as a probably hysterical Western world made it out to be? Hitler stood up and yelled 'Communists! Evil!' and blamed them for the crushing defeat of Germany in WWI, and that whipped up some frenzy. Britain too started becoming wary of the Bolsheviks, and saw Hitler as a good buffer against them - this was to start a long period of Appeasement that let Hitler get away with a lot in Europe prior to the outbreak of WWII. Then of course there is the Cold War... the point is, a lot of the problems airsing from Communism seem to have been the results of a lack of understanding or attempt thereof, and, yes, occasionally a nasty bit of work like Stalin. What if the West had been more interested in the East when Bolshevism came about? What if Stalin maybe hadn't come to power, and here's another bit of food for thought - the whole of Europe could have turned Communist: Germany had the Spartacists, Russia of course went, France had an active Communist party and so on and so forth - Permanent Revolution as Trotsky once put it, where the whole world is Communist, someone leads for a while, there's a revolution then it all starts again.

So ignoring people like Stalin and the misfortunes of the past, is Communism, by itself, really as bad as it's made out to be?

Debate!

------------------
We are all dying to live, yet living to die...

Communism can't be evil for there is no real good and evil. They are merely human concepts, just like God.

*HIJACK!!!*
*runs*

------------------
People who get murdered are victims, people who get killed in war are casualties and people who don't get killed at all are just plain boring. -Said by me-

In my dream world people wear trenchcoats and piss on sanity's grave.

Well, the principal behind communism that everyone is equal is a good idea... in theory.. however in practice as history has shown us there is too much corruption. Also, Everyone is not equal, is a doctor equal to a road sweeper? No. That's the problem with communsim. If everyone was equal it could work.

Communism itself is not evil at all, it's the way the communist leaders act which makes it good or evil.



------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!
----@%

What type of Communism are we talking about?

Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist?

Trotsky was right in that the majority of communist states just became "degraded worker-states".

Precisely, its a good idea but it doesn't actually work (maybe making it a bad idea? )

------------------
/fluffle

I don't know, road sweepers around here get payeed $15-$20 an hour to ride around in those damn cool looking vehicles.

At any rate, under the communist doctrine, they would be considered equal. I know that's hard for many people to grasp, but if it wasn't for the road sweeper or the garbage man, the doctor would be flooded with patients. Sometimes even seemingly small insignificant jobs have major unforseen imapacts when left undone.

Now, to the original question at hand:


What's unfortunate is that there have only be Socialist Governments that claimed to be Communist. None of them have actually ever achieved true Communism (they never got past Socialism). It's been further complicated by Propaganda during the wars (WWII, Korean War, Vietname War, ect).

So, to answer you question, "No, it's not deserving of such a bad rap." In all current forms of government, currency is what drives people to get up in the morning and go to work. And, generally speaking, they only meet the min. requirements for their job during the day so they don't get fired (as few buisnesses provide incentives for doing outstanding work on a regualar basis). And since currency is the thing that drives us, some people turn to criminal activity to get that currency. In a true Communist Government, currency is not the drive that motivates people to work. People are driven by the common good of the society as a whole. People push themselves harder at work because they want to A) make sure they don't fail at their job, there by making others job harder or causing suffering in one form or another. And B) because pushing themselves harder at work pushes the society forward as a whole..

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

The Linux users have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

------------------
I check my e-mail.

Communism is great if you don't want ANY personal rights or freedoms. Oh, and poverty.

Communism isn't necessarily evil, it's just not ideal. It destroys the idea of free enterprise and takes away the initiative of people to really work, because hey - they don't actually get to keep what they earn. Everyone gets an equal share.

------------------
Frightening the very small and very old since 1952.

I'm a fascist.

------------------
www.tednation.tk

I am a communist. People say that history showed us all the corruption in communism...

Okay...

I mean, what about capitalism then? What isn't corrupt if not the world we have now!

And besides, if a state is corrupt they can't call themselves communist either way...

" Also, Everyone is not equal, is a doctor equal to a road sweeper?"

Actually, they are. That's the point with communism. Why are a doctor better than a road sweeper? I don't get it... They are good in different ways, but absolutely not better...

^^ Thanks for making that point. It's not always clear in a debate like this.

Which is really funny, actually, because Russia was controlled by the Tsars before the Bolshivek revolution of 1918 (17?), and then when they revolted Russia pulled out of the war. Hell, Germany even smuggled Lenin back into Russia after he was abandoned. So the withdraw of Russia actually helped Germany...

And no, it's not as bad as Western society made it out to be. We were enemies, so poofage! Propaganda portrays, and probably exagerates, all the evils of communism, and never mentions the good things.

------------------
[19:59] Happy "Liar liar" dud: This is arguably one of the lowest points in my life.
[20:00] Happy "Liar liar" dud: I'm sitting here infront of my two computers wearing shorts and with no shirt, eating potato salad and orange juice, debating the existance of pants.

Ok, that was a bad example. My point was that everyone is clearly not equal. Think about society today. There are those who want to work and try their hardest to do their job the best they can and there are people who do the bare minimum or even those who don't work.

Also, under communism, what if I want a new car? Do I get one? No. Because having a new car would make me unequal to people who don't have a new car. Communism is a good idea in principal but I cannot see how it can work in practice.

------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!
----@%

You're taking the pessimistic route. It could be that nobody ever gets a new car, or it could be that everyone gets a new car.


------------------
Death awaits you with a pancake on its head.

Ok, what if I want a ferrari? Does everyone get a ferrari?

------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!
----@%

Yes.

------------------
Death awaits you with a pancake on its head.

Nobody needs a ferrari.

------------------
I check my e-mail.

But, There are not enough ferrari's for everyone and they are not produced quickly enough for everyone to have one.

The problem is, that if everyone has everything they want they have to incentive to work.

------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!
----@%

Mystic brings up a good point. They're not given everything they want, they're given everything they need. There's a difference.



------------------
Death awaits you with a pancake on its head.

Yes. But what if I want one? I can't have one? Where is the freedom there?

------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!
----@%

See my above post. As you say, it gives people things they need. Which makes it impossible to get my ferrari. At least under capitalism I can work my way to buying one.

------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!
----@%

Bah, just discount everything I've said here. I can't tell where I was joking and where I was being serious.

------------------
Death awaits you with a pancake on its head.

Watch Equilibrium.

------------------
There are two asses in Massassi... and I'm one of them.
The Matrix Unplugged|My Portfolio|My Levels

wait, didn't Stalin kill 25 million of his own people during his rein?

Friend14: the communisms weren't socialist either. They have all been way too authoritarian to be considered socialisms.

Communism is not evil, but it is a bad idea. Even Lenin realized that (NEP anyone?). For example, lets use a track race to show this. In laissez faire capitalism, it is every man for himself. The racers are off and whoever wins, wins and it doesn't matter how they win. The problem with this is some people start farther back than others and some cheat and that isn't fair. In communism, everyone starts running but they are made so they all cross the finish line at the same time. That means everyone has to pace with the slowest guy. Both extremes are horrible so you try to find a middle ground which is where socialisms and restricted capitalisms come in. In a socialism, everyone isn't made to run with the last guy, but the lead guy is given metal shoes to make the race more competitive that way. And in restricted capitalisms, instead of giving the lead guy metal shoes, they give the last guy a bunch of adrenaline to try to get him up with the leaders.

In short: laissez faire doesn't care about anything but who is the winner, communism only cares about equality of outcome, and socialism/restricted capitalism care about equality of opportunity.

I hope that makes sense.

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 08, 2004).]

Or so you think, there are a lot more factors in capitalism that determine whether or not you get that ferrari...
I.E. Are you mentally retarded, legally insane, born in a very poor family, an immigrant... It's a pretty long list. Also included is what job you intend to work in, how do you get to that job, does it pay enough money for the lifestyle that includes a ferrari or, if not the lifestyle, what part of your life now are you going to have to go without in order to get that ferrari.


------------------
Daddy, why doesn't this magnet pick up this floppy disk?

Kieran: In a communist system, everyone gets to run as fast as they want. Everybody just wins equally.

But some people can only run so fast. And because of that, the people who run faster are held back. Everyone finishes equally, at the same time. No more, no less.

I think I know where you are coming from though. When I talk about how fast someone can run, I'm not talking about their ability, I'm talking about the reward they get for what ability they have. The racer in the communist system can pump his legs as hard as he wants, but he still won't go any faster.

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 08, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 08, 2004).]

Your analogy implies that people aren't allowed to fully use their abilities, like you said, but it also makes no sense. Some people can only run so fast ~= some people can only earn so much, which is patently false in a free market. You never know when high demand for manual labor combined with a short supply might make high school dropouts six figures. Furthermore, an ideal communist government has everyone making the total amount made in a capitalist system divided by the number of people, not minimum wage. In your terms, everyone runs as fast as all the times averaged together, not the slowest runner.

"We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem,
agree what's in the best interest of all the people,and then do it."

"That's exactly what we do,the trouble is that people don't always agree."

"Well then they should be made too."

"By whom,who's going to make them?"

"Someone wise."

"Sounds often alot like a dictatorship to me."

".......Well if it works"

------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

.....wait, what is "~="? For some reason "does not equal" comes to mind. I'll assume that's what it means for now. In a free market (capitalism) a person without the proper education or training will not get hired for a certain job. If the racer in a capitalist race doesn't have the strength, he won't get to point A before everyone else. And a six figure steel worker has never happened and it never will. Manual labor is the very bottom rung on the job ladder so there will always be people to fill it. If this scenario would have ever happened, it would have happened during the Industrial Revolution when the demand for factory and blue collar employees were at their highest. But the exact opposite happened because the poor were exploitable. And if some how everyone starts getting into college and getting degrees, they will still be going to those factory jobs. There are a lot less jobs that require college degrees then those that don't. The employers know that those unemployed college graduates desperately need money so they will offer a low wage, but it will be better than starving. And this is putting aside the significant deprectiation of the college degree should the mass wave of college graduates happen.

That will has never happen and it never will. Manual labor is the very bottom rung on the job ladder so there will always be people to fill it.

ahhhh, the magic word "ideal". An ideal communism won't come around until robots decide to found a nation based on communism. I can go into a description on how it works with humans in terms of the track race if you want.

Gandalf, I am so dragging you down to hell with me.

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 08, 2004).]

"Yes. But what if I want one? I can't have one? Where is the freedom there?"

Why the need of freedom?

The communism system is the ultimate system. But to make it work, all must help eachother in it.

Don't you understand?

There are no race at all in the communism! Everyone does what they are good at and are a team!

A good example is a boat. A big ferry...

One alone can't drive it, they need eachoters skill to finish the "race"...

------------------
<landfish> FastGamerr > Satan

From everyone according to their capacity; to everyone according to their needs.

------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
-Robert Jastrow

No.

This is absolutely absurd.

I can live two lives. I have the capability, I know I do. This year, I took on 3 AP courses in my final senior year. Most of my classmates did nothing all year and took "junk classes".

I could have done this, it would have been alot easier.

Now that all of my AP classes are done, I know how they have felt all year. This is glorious. But I still know that I will be REWARDED for all of my hard works, and therefore, I would do it again.

If I were not rewarded, if, in the end, I received a job paying the exact same as Bob who didn't try hard or go to college, then why the hell would I try hard and go to college? Do you think it's FUN or PLEASURABLE to work to my potential? To work to my capacity? NO.

And that is why the road sweeper is NOT equal to the doctor. The road sweeper picks up a broom and does manual labor. Anyone could do that. There is no prerequisite for prior knowledge or prior hard work.

The problem with all of your equality arguments is this: the doctor has worked to his capacity, has worked hard, has worked long, has worked laboriously to get where he is.

The road sweeper most likely didn't. If he did, then hey, he's part of a minority of people that got screwed with disabilities. Life sucks.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are not both doing the same calibur of work, or the fact that each type of work requires different levels of expertise, training, and actual effort. This is the difference, and this is what keeps us from being equal: you're never going to get "From everyone according to their capacity" when all that you're offering in return is "to everyone according to their needs".

------------------
Ω of 14

[This message has been edited by oSiRiS (edited May 09, 2004).]

Okay, let's start with the premise that people are naturally greedy, evil, scumbags and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Giving the government complete control of resources is NOT a good thing.

In the same vein, giving corporations free reign is ALSO not a good thing.

Mixed Economies rule! Go Checks and Balances! Go Montesqui (sic).


Edit: And dangit, Osiris, I DID try hard to work to go to College!

[This message has been edited by Janitor Bob (edited May 09, 2004).]

Oh come on Bob, that is so negative. I like to refer to human nature as competitive, ambitious, and wanting the best they can get. But your definition is probably more accurate.

Mort....I'm still confused by your analogy.

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 09, 2004).]