Isn't Communism oppression?

[FalloutBoy]

Well, I have been reading about Communism for awhile. I have come to understand one thing: Communism is about oppression. Look back in history, at every communist government. Tons of people being murdered for speaking against it. Isn't that oppression means? How would you like it if we where hunted down for speaking out against U.S. Democracy?

[Matthew The Great]

I guess I'll say it first...

Those governments weren't/are not Communist. They were/are not socialist.

They are State Capitalists. I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subjects before you jump to conclusions.

[RedStarOverChina]

state capitalism is no where near the correct defination of most of those countries... by defination they are socialist countries but socialist countries gone wrong.

Marx-Leninists dominated the communist world in the last century(and they probably still do...) But their form of communism isnt eactly the thing Marxist such as myself envisioned. We can credit them with overthowing oppressive regimes and bring over progressive ideas to the society but thats about it...much of the rest can be considered failure.

I get tired of explaining what the true Marxist vision looks like but i will leave u with a quote by Marx and u figure out the rest:
Democracy is the road to socialism.

[bezdomni]

Capitalism is oppression, it is a system of wage-slavery where the majority of people (the proletarian workers) must sell their labour as a commodity to those who own and control the means of production (the bourgoise capitalists).

Socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism. Where the workers emancipate themselves from the bourgeoise class and collectively (and democratically share) the means of production. Instead of the owning class deciding on company policy (working hours, wages, benefits..etc) the people who work will vote on their own policy.

Communism is the final stage where there are no longer two competative classes and there is no longer a state. People work together without being any better or worse off than their own fellow man. With this level of equality, there is no one higher than another to oppress and nobody lower than another to be oppressed. The workers still democratically own and control the means of production and anybody who breaks the social contract of equality and peace will be punished by the masses. For example, if a person goes on a killing spree, that person is the enemy of the people and will be taken care of by the people. Theoretically, everybody will get along peacefully, but realistically there is bound to be some bad apples.

[FalloutBoy]

Revolution is all about killing/imprisoning people who are against what you want to acheive. If you have no freedom to speak out against it, lest you be shot/thrown in jail to rot.

Isn't that oppression?

[bezdomni]

Violent revolution is probably necessary. The ruling class will not just step down for us, even though we have the numbers. They get wealth and power from our sweat and blood. They are the minority and we are the majority, they know that and they know we know that. They are prepared to take any means necessary to stop us from gaining power over them (ever wonder why unions usually fail or suck?). If we demonstrate our power and try to take over peacefully, they will react violently. We should try and make the transition as peaceful and smooth as possible, but we will not allow ourselves to be killed. We have spilled enough blood for them as it is!

Commuists do not want to take away a person's freedom to speak against the party. Any regime that silences opposition is a weak regime that is insecure about itself, usually because it lacks true support of the people because it is not truely acting for the people. We would only use violence in revolution to stop the killing of our own people, the primary and most important means would be establishing socialists in the government and gaining support of the people. Civil Disobedience is a much more powerful tool than meaningless bloodshed.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:42 AM
Revolution is all about killing/imprisoning people who are against what you want to acheive. If you have no freedom to speak out against it, lest you be shot/thrown in jail to rot.

Isn't that oppression?
Yes, if you choose to stand in the way of progress and justice then you have to be dealt with somehow. People who oppose the worker's revolution oppose equality and liberty.

You seem to be quite infatuated with the rights you have as a US citizen. You know there was a revolution to establish this country? Ans if you were against that revolution you got killed or thrown in jail.

[NovelGentry]

state capitalism is no where near the correct defination of most of those countries

Sounds fine to me. Either state capitalism or regulated capitalist nations.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:42 PM
Revolution is all about killing/imprisoning people who are against what you want to acheive.
You have it backward: revolution is always about changing social conditions and rebeling against the current system (government).
The violence is a RESPONSE to those that resist the revolutionaries (counter-revolutionaries) with violence and these would be THE SAME poeple using violence in our current societies.
A communist revolution is about emancipating the workers and so not oppression:


op•press (…-prµs“) tr.v. op•pressed, op•press•ing, op•press•es. 1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority. 2. To weigh heavily on. 3. Obsolete. To overwhelm or crush. --op•pres“sor n.


If you have no freedom to speak out against it, lest you be shot/thrown in jail to rot.

Isn't that oppression?

In a communist revolution, people should be free to speak; so long as they are not espousing threatening content (IE hatespeech). Oppression is "severe and unjust use of force or authority," whereas communists are fighting against this and must suppress those that seek to deny others rights. Communists do not seek to deny these people rights but must stop them from enabling a system of oppression that kills many tens of THOUSANDS of people every day...

Here is a statement on the issue I made on another forum to someone that was less than open-minded:


it seems like a lot of people would die in the process. I'm not willing to contribute to that, [etc…]

…I demand to have full power over my own life, because if you don't struggle against murderous governments, people will always die and you will have allowed this to happen. You will not be saving lives from the struggle; you will be sending the people by train to their deaths. If no one had deposed the Nazis they would still be among the great murderous regimes and the USA had the power to stop this at the beginning, for this disgusting example of apathetically allowed murder, they have blood on their hands. How many people must be bombed, shot, executed, tortured, oppressed, exiled and exploited for you to support revolution? Save people… and don't claim revolution will cause so much death. Failure to revolt = infinite death. Maybe you will live and what a legacy you have left. A broken world, full of dead people, the benefit of not acting.

[OleMarxco]

My simple and humble answer is: Only to the oppressors :D