Originally posted by
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:34 AM
Was telling me about the 30's and Farabundo Marti in El Salvador and what happened when communism was strong then. Apparently they'd cut off the heads of anybody who disagreed or didn't work and put them on poles after they paraded around with them.
Are their any examples of communism that didn't use fear and violence once they actually had power to keep control of people??
No.
Its quite simple really- and also complex. Socialists are forever squabbling amongst themselves. They can never agree as to the best way to build socialism. This entire website is a testament to to the fractious nature of socialism (and this forum bans Stalinists who alos have their own view of building socialism).
Communists. who are a subset of socialists, squabble amongst themselves as well (one just has to read the responses so far on this note).
What socialists never seem to understand, even though they mouth it often enough, is that socialism is revolutionary. The entire society has to be overhauled, runs the cant (though there are socialists who would probably be defined derisively by the socialists here as being "reformers" by keeping the capitalist structure, but tightly controled).
So the socialist, when faced with the opportunity to build socialism (or at least starting to build socialism) has to deal not merely with the capitalist or the reactionaries, but also socialists of other parties who will have different ways of building socialism (a problem which socialists rarely address in theory, but is real enough in practice). What to do?
Well, the only rational way forward is to do what Lenin suggested- the "dreaded" vanguard. Such an organization is the only realistic way of dealing with the counter-revolutionaries (remmeber that socialists, erroneously, believe capitalists to have awesome powers. Something must be created to counteract the expected counterstrike). The fractious nature of the socialist movement makes this problem worse, because it divides the socialist movement (ie the workers) at a moment that it needs to be united.
So what happens? The killings start, usually (it is claimed) of just the capitalists and the "reactionaries." Such people are, after all according to many socialists, unreedmable. However, what happens sto the workers of other socilaist parties? Well, they must conform, or they too will be killed off, or shipped off to the camps (the latter is more likely after the revolution has been consolidated). Otherwise, the worker movement is split, and gives an opportunity for the capitalist to sneak back into power.
How communism evolved in the 20th century will be the way it will evolve in the 21st. Not because the same "mistakes" of a Stalin or a Lenin will be remade, but because they were not "mistakes." Socialism evolved as it logically must.
So no, there has never been an example of a communist community which does not commence to mass killings. And there never will be.