Questions about Communism

[CrazyMoron]

I have a few points very quickly:

- Is Communism bad? If not, why does it have such a bad name?
- Is Communism a totalitarian dictatorship?
- Are people freer under Communist rule? Is life better?

Thanks.

I know I'm new here so help would be appreciated.

[Glenn Beck]

- Is Communism bad? If not, why does it have such a bad name?

Communism is bad for people who make money by exploiting the labor of others. For people who work for a living (the majority) its good.

It has a bad name because the first group of people are the ones who own the media and education system.


- Is Communism a totalitarian dictatorship?

No. Communism is a democratic society because in order to be worthy of the name a communistic system must serve the interests of working people as a whole. Capitalism calls itself democratic but is not because its institutions are built to serve the interests of elites with property.


- Are people freer under Communist rule? Is life better?

For most people, yes. For people who used to make a living by exploiting others, no.

[teenagebricks]

Welcome, comrade. In order to understand anything about communism you must first understand that communism takes many forms and that there are many differing opinions as to what communism actually is, and what a communist society actually looks like.

Communism is not totalitarianism, but certain leaders in the past who have called themselves communists have also been called totalitarian, Stalin for example, you have to decide for yourself whether or not Stalin was a communist, and whether or not he was totalitarian. Generally though, no, since communism is statelessness, it cannot be totalitarian, statelessness would naturally be free of oppression. Communism cannot be totalitarian because it is nothing but absolute democracy down to the lowest level.

In addition to being stateless, communism is also classless, and the massive divide between the rich and the poor would be closed completely. Communism is largely based on common ownership and control of private property, the means of production would be controlled by the workers themselves who would organise themselves, without bosses, think workers' cooperatives. Decide for yourself if life would be better.

I have neglected to answer your first question since it is really a matter of opinion and can only be viewed as such but I would have to say no communism is anything but bad, despite what the capitalist media may have told you.

Your best bet would be to read up on the fundamental differences between different communist thoughts. Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/) is probably the most comprehensive source of writings and information for a learner. Also, I wouldn't usually recommend it but Wikipedia is good for absolute beginners, for example if you wanted to know the difference between an anarchist and a Maoist, you might just want to have a quick look on Wikipedia to get the jist of what each one advocates.

[Kassad]

Hi, CrazyMoron. I'm glad you've come to a point in which you hope to see both sides of the debate on communism.

- Is Communism bad? If not, why does it have such a bad name?

Communism is the antithesis of 'bad.' Communism means total equality; a society where basic needs are met for all. Healthcare, a job, education, housing, food, water, utilities and all other necessities are provided by a centrally planned economy. Central planning does not mean government bureaucracy and oppression, as we see in the capitalist economy. It merely means the management of resources for people's needs, not greed and profit. Communism is slandered ruthlessly by the bourgeois media. The media is ruled by the corporate sector and socialism, a system where commodities are produced for need, not profit, is a threat to corporate profit. That's why the media spends so much time painting socialism and communism as evil. It is everything that threatens their system; where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The first step to fighting this corrupt system is through organization of the proletariat, which is the working class. The working class creates all wealth in society, but they are exploited and robbed of the wealth they create. Under socialism, everyone has the ability to live in luxury, as opposed to the oligarchy of capitalism.

- Is Communism a totalitarian dictatorship?

Communism infers that there is no state, therefore there is nothing there to exploit others. The notion that communism is 'authoritarian' is fallacious and propagated by the corporate media. In fact, if you use examples of alleged 'totalitarianism', you see that each developing socialist state that has plunged into authoritarianism has been forced to strictly manage themselves because of imperialist threats. Without exception, capitalist states combat developing socialist ones; sanctioning them, attacking them and threatening them until their economy is devastated. If the media claims that a socialist regime is authoritarian, it is doing so because it has an agenda. Keep that in mind.

- Are people freer under Communist rule? Is life better?

Remember: communism has never existed. Developing socialist states have never reached that point because of threats and imperialism. Contrary to the expectations of Marx and Engels, socialist revolutions did not ignite in industrial powers. They took place in the most exploited and underdeveloped nations. Therefore, these nations cannot properly develop their economies to sustain themselves in the face of imperialist threat. The failure here is not the failure of socialism, but instead, the failure of capitalist exploitation to respect nations right to self-determination. The living standard has been improved in socialist countries, such as China (no longer socialist), Cuba and the former Soviet Union. However, these socialist gains were, are and always will be under attack by capitalist forces.

[CrazyMoron]

Not to be redundant, but what about free speech and the freedom of press.

[Kassad]

Not to be redundant, but what about free speech and the freedom of press.

Well, if you observe Lenin and the Bolshevik Victory in 1917, the Bolsheviks restricted these things initially. This was to prevent counterrevolutionary and bourgeois forces from retaking power and overturning workers control. These were not meant to be permanent, but they were used to sustain workers control and prevent capitalist counterrevolution which would have thrown the nation and the working class back into shackles.

[CrazyMoron]

Another question: What about religion?

I am a man a faith, I heard somewhere that Communists abolished religion.

[Kassad]

Another question: What about religion?

I am a man a faith, I heard somewhere that Communists abolished religion.

Most of us differ on this point. I find organized religion to be an atrocity, but I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to believe whatever they want, so long as it doesn't exploit another human being. However, I believe raising a child to believe in unseen and unattainable deities and forces to be abusive and destructive, therefore I believe that such a thing is incredibly exploitative and unjust, thus I would strongly support regulation of religious institutions.

[JohnnyC]

Another question: What about religion?

I am a man a faith, I heard somewhere that Communists abolished religion.
As materialists, most communists are usually atheists, but that doesn't mean atheism is a necessary part of communism.As long as you support abolition of private property you can believe in what ever you want.

[teenagebricks]

I'm a religious communist, I don't go to church but that's not because I'm a communist, it's just because I don't believe I can get any closer to God by visiting a specific building every week. Communists don't abolish religion, that would be authoritarian and cruel, but most are not religious because they see it as submission and slavery, I think that as long as it is volutary then it's fine, believing in what you want is good, forcing your beliefs on other people is bad.

[More Fire for the People]

- Is Communism bad? If not, why does it have such a bad name?
Nope. I think it's pretty right. It gets a bad name because of it's connotations to most people in the West. But these connotations aren't exactly right.

- Is Communism a totalitarian dictatorship?
No. Definitely no. It's a society where people live pretty much free as they please.

- Are people freer under Communist rule? Is life better?
Depends. Under the Soviet Union? No. But it wasn't communist. But under real communism people are free and life is definitely better.

[robbo203]

I have a few points very quickly:

- Is Communism bad? If not, why does it have such a bad name?
- Is Communism a totalitarian dictatorship?
- Are people freer under Communist rule? Is life better?

Thanks.

I know I'm new here so help would be appreciated.

Communism means common ownership of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth - the farms , factiories , mines, utilities , offices and so on. Because we will own these means in common what logically follows from this is that there will be no money system in communism, no economic exchange, no wage labour, no market economy and no state (because there will be no class divisions). People will simply take what they need from the common stores and voluntarily contribute to the common (and their own) good. Some communists argue that there needs to be a first stage in communism where goods are rationed via a labour voucher scheme but this would still be on the basis of a communist economy.

Communism needs to be sharply distinguished from regimes that have claimed to be communist or socialist. The Soviet union is an example of this. It was actually a capitalist regime from the start operating a system of state run capitalism. Even Lenin argued that this was a good thing and would be a step forward on the way to communism (socialism - same thing). He was proven disastrously wrong. It simply ended in the stalinist nightmare of a one-party state dictatorship over the proletariat. While the Bolshevik Revolution was carried out mainly by workers and mainly in Petrograd this did not make it a workers revolution. It is what the revolution achieved, not the agents who carried it out, that defines the nature of a revolution.

The problem is that most people on the left are not communists in any genuine sense of wanting or even understanding communism. Most people on the left basically want a form of modified reformed capitalism supposedly run in the interests of the workers. It is a vain hope. Communism remains the only viable alternative to capitalism in all its guises and the need to put on the politicial agenda has never been more pressing.

[#FF0000]

Another question: What about religion?

I am a man a faith, I heard somewhere that Communists abolished religion.

Depends on who you talk to. Most of us, I believe, see religion as a very personal thing.

Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between "socialism" and "communism".

Many people will tell you that difference is that "socialism" is a nicer, more democratic form of communism, while China and the USSR are examples of "communism".

That simply isn't true. Communism is a stateless and classless society, which has never existed. A socialist society is a society that is transitioning between Capitalism and Communism. The USSR and China were both socialist, as they had a state, and were in the process of abolishing the class system.

But there are many different kinds of socialists/communists, who have very different ideas on how best to go about achieving communism. They also oftentimes disagree on matters of history, such as whether the Soviet Union were "socialist" or "state-capitalist", whether or not this or that leader (e.g. Stalin, Trotsky) had the right ideas, and so on.

Among the political tendencies are the Marxist-Leninists, the Maoists, the Trotskyists, the Anarchists, the Left Communists...etc. You can find a little about all of them on the Revleft Wiki up at the top of the page.

Hopefully that information answered some questions for you and gives you a little bit of context.

[CrazyMoron]

Does the working class include both white and blue collar workers?

[GPDP]

Does the working class include both white and blue collar workers?

For the most part, yes.

Class is defined in terms of one's relationship to the means of production. That is to say, we do not distinguish classes in terms of wage differences or social status or prestige as is commonly the case. The two main classes, then, are the capitalist class and the working class, the former being the owners of the means of production, and the later being those who operate the means of production but do not in fact own them. So in this sense, if you work for a capitalist, even if you are a white collar worker, it still makes you working class, albeit one who may or may not identify with the capitalist class and its values.

[Jack]

Does the working class include both white and blue collar workers?

Technically the middle class (most white collar workers, though low level ones like in the service industry would fall as working class) are proletarians, but not working class. I personally just don't like the middle class due to their frequent support of bourgeois over proletarian intrests, and also because they're often snobby and are used to a much easier life.

[Code]

I have a few points very quickly:

- Is Communism bad? If not, why does it have such a bad name?
- Is Communism a totalitarian dictatorship?
- Are people freer under Communist rule? Is life better?

Thanks.

I know I'm new here so help would be appreciated.

If you're trying to pin us into a contradiction or corner it's not going to work.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

No,it is good and aims at freeing the working class.It has a bad name because of bourgeoise media propaganda and state capitalist hypocrites that pose as communists such as post-lenin soviet union,Peoples republic of china and North Korea

Communism can not be a totalitarian dictatorship because true commmunism isn't a dictatorship.

Yes people are freeer under TRUE communism.

[#FF0000]

Does the working class include both white and blue collar workers?

It can.

The two main classes in the Marxist view are the Proletariat, and the Bourgeoisie.

The Bourgeoisie are people who own and control capital. That is, vast amounts of wealth, land, industry...etc.

The Proletariat are the people who do not own or control capital. They instead have to sell their time and labor (in common parlance, "get a job"). in order to make ends meet.

That, of course, includes blue collar workers. White collar workers are a different animal. They can be considered members of the proletariat, I suppose, but most white collar workers are what Marx called "petit-bourgeoisie".

The petit-Bourgeoisie are people who might have to sell their time and labor, but have a degree of control over the means of production, since their jobs usually have something to do with administrative or managerial tasks.