Why should we hate communism ?

[Bujinkan Leftist]

Hi,
At school, I have to do a special project for my program. For my OBI graduation. I decided to write and essai on Communism. I have to answer to a question in 4000 words. I choose that question : Nowadays, why does peoples oftenly have a tendency to think that communism is dangerous and they juste hate it princiaply in occident ?

I've made a lot of researsh, but i wanted to see opinion of people and not to just read a history book or religious book ( You can trust the communist ). So I would like to know, what do you think about it ?


( Sorry for my bad writing, im french )

[Dr Mindbender]

you could start by analysing the way america and western capitalism has prevented the growth of the communist sphere of influence.

By the way, are you a ninja? Couldnt help noticing your Id... cool :cool:

[Great Helmsman]

Hi Bujinkan Leftist,

My position on the unpopularity of communism in the west is that communism threatens the privileged position of the First World majority. Much of their wealth comes at the expense of the world's majority in the Third World. They have been bought off in large numbers, and thus see no personal benefit in a socialist revolution. I think this helps explain why communist-led mass movements have not been successful in the West, but have been (and continue to be) successful in the rest of the world.

My position diverges significantly from the views of most communists, and it is very unpopular with many. I have kept this short because I don't want to start an argument, rather simply offer an opinion.

[Vendetta]

Because in Soviet Russia, communism hates you!

It's simple, because of propaganda.

[Bujinkan Leftist]

Thx !!!

I forgot the impact of the globalization of the market in the public opinion, and the american propaganda !

[Raúl Duke]

I think it's mostly because of misinformation and propaganda.

See, people equate communism with the "socialist states" (which they erroneously call "communist states"; but any communist would tell you that communism is a state-less class-less society) of USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea.

Also, there's a tendency for history books to simplify what happened in Russia (mostly in Russia, although it also happens with the history of other socialist states) and to exaggerate some of the death tolls (although people, in some cases, really did die) and/or the cause of those deaths (for example, the famine in Ukraine in Russia has much misinformation around it...maybe to the point that it's still arguable what exactly happened.)


Also, communism is always automatically equated with Leninism (and their socialist states, since no one unfortunately has reached a long sustained communist society; maybe only temporary achievements.) and they never show any of the other communist's factions actions, etc. For example, most history books ignore much about the Paris Commune (or puts misinformation), do not mention about the Anarchist side of the Spanish Civil War, those not mention or misinforms about Paris 1968.

[Dros]

Welcome to the board! Always good to have another martial artist for the revolution!:cool::cool:

[lvatt]

This is what I believe...

An important factor is simply selfishness.
Most people who have money, whether or not they work for it, believe that they somehow "deserve" it. Some social programs that are financed with taxes in many countries, such as welfare for people unable to work, are usually met with strong objections from the rich because they feel that their own money is being "stolen" from them for the use of people they see as underserving.

Anothing this is religion. Most christians in north america believe to a certain point in calvinist concepts, some of which make it seem that everyone who suffers poverty does so because of the "will of god." So that so-called "god" makes people poor and sick for reason he/she/it only knows. Thus, it leads to the self-complacent belief that the rich don't need to help the poor, because whether or not their life improves is entirely in the hand of "god." Of course, that is a complete load of bullcrap, but it is a belief firmly held by a number of christians. I believe this is called "predestination."

Another such belief is the fantasy that anyone who works hard can become rich. Of course, they don't really consider factory workers who bleed themselves for 10 hours a day while their bosses are sitting in their offices puffing a cigar. Socialism... hell, even so-called "left-of-center" politics would force them to give their employees social benefits, job security, CBAs, paid leave for health problems, etc. Of course, they don't want that. They want to make as much money as possible and leave as little as possible to the others.
They also make excuses for people who were born into rich families by saying that their parents/grandparents worked hard to make them rich, and so they "deserve" their wealth for blood reasons.

Ignorance and bigotry is another thing. A lot of people refuse to believe that there are people in the world who genuinely need help. Someone who has an accident and is unable to work is seen by many as being simply "damaged goods." That the government would help that person is sometimes being equated to "spending someone else's money."

Of course, there are plenty of people who are not very rich and who still have this senseless "fear" of socialism. In those cases its usually just brainwashing. When someone already has a certain dislike for something (such as religious people feeling uneasy about socialism because they somehow think that "atheism is evil"), its easy for them to unconditionally accept any story they might hear that adds to their "dislikeness." So if someone tells them that socialism equals Stalin, they believe it because they already don't like socialism anyway. In this sense, its a psychological thing.

Truly, there are plenty of factors... false beliefs, usually. For example, healthcare. Some people truly believe that without socialized healthcare and insurance, people will pay more attention to their health. So they think "well, if Joe Blow knows that he's going to die as soon as he has a disease because he can't pay for healthcare, he's going to be careful to eat only good food and will exercice well." Of course, when you challenge them to the reality that there are people who are sick regardless of their own fault, they say that its just a small percentage. This is simply having an unfeeling attitude and not giving a crap for the sufferings of others. As long as they've got the money for healthcare, they don't care much if most other people don't. They think they deserve their money and they won't be caught dead sacrificing 1 or 2 hours of waiting time just to get healthcare to more people whom they believe are responsible for their ills anyway. This kind of attitude makes me sick, but I've met so many people who think like that its depressing. When I see elderly people who are sick and need to work at supermakets until 9 PM because they can't pay for medicine, I feel anger boiling in me because I know this work is filled with people who wouldn't lift a finger to help.

And then of course there are people who get railed in by propaganda such as Marvin Olasky's book "compassionate conservatism." Some rich folks give some peanuts to charity, then proudly point at the peanuts saying "oh look at me I'm such a compassionate guy I gave something to charity, take pictures of me! I'm a billionaire who's given a hundred bucks! woo! but don't you dare tax me!"

I apologize for the long rant. Sometimes I need to learn how to be more concise in my posts instead of rambling on and on...

[BIG BROTHER]

Well Ivatt just gave such a good answer, that I only have to add regarthing Ivatt's seccond paragraph that I'm christian and I still support communism and that I have capitalism.

[Psy]

The long boom also allowed capitalist to claim that capitalism can provide the goods, and that the post long boom era is simply capitalism not working (with them using the long boom as an example of capitalism working).

[Spasiba]

Hi Bujinkan Leftist,

My position on the unpopularity of communism in the west is that communism threatens the privileged position of the First World majority. Much of their wealth comes at the expense of the world's majority in the Third World. They have been bought off in large numbers, and thus see no personal benefit in a socialist revolution. I think this helps explain why communist-led mass movements have not been successful in the West, but have been (and continue to be) successful in the rest of the world.

My position diverges significantly from the views of most communists, and it is very unpopular with many. I have kept this short because I don't want to start an argument, rather simply offer an opinion.
While I agree with that, the bolded part is where I must bring up a point. Yes, by comparison the West is much better off than the East, the majority is not privileged, that still lies in the hands of the few. Sure, people have chances at wealth, but the reality is that most will never see that kind of thing come to fruition. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Big Boss]

Yeah, we are taught from the beginning of our existence that the possibilities in a capitalist society are endless. The fact of the matter is much more different since in a supposedly "land of opportunity" there's still poverty, exploitation, homelessness, and racial conflict. These agents make reality different from the dream that the capitalist and the privileged classes feed everyday to the poorer majority.

[lvatt]

Just a point I'd like to add, since Big Boss's post reminded me of something

One aspect of capitalism that truly appeals to many people is the concept of "freedom." However I don't think I need to tell you how misguided people can be with this idea. Yet there are few things that draw people to capitalism and "free market societies" with more intensity than the word "freedom."

In my mind, and I'm sure some of you will agree with me, there are two distintinc types of freedom: political freedom and absolute freedom.

Political freedom means absense of government restriction and absolute freedom means absense of any restriction. "Freedom" is always sought to a certain degree, yet like in human conditions it is always better to have some things decided for you to make your life more simple. Gravity itself is a restriction because it prevents us to fly, yet at the same time we appreciate it. Even some of the earliest societies agreed to exchange the freedom of personal revenge for state protection, and leaving the state to punish the criminals.

Now the "american dream" of freedom, on the compass, refers only to "political freedom." This means that, as far as commerce and business is concerned, the government lets people do as they want within a certain frame. In the early days of the Lochner era, even legislation to protect against child Labor was unconstitutional (refer to the Supreme court cases from the early 20th century for more info on that) because it went against the american concept of freedom.

Yet "political freedom" and "absolute freedom" cannot entirely coexist. [with perhaps an exception in leftist anarchist theories (which has nothing much to do with the darwininan "anarcho-capitalism" idea that some in the far-right have). But since I'm not an anarchist (I believe in a strong socialist state, not dictatorial, but present) I'm going to avoid discussing it since frankly I don't know much about it.]

Now the problem is that, since people are naturally drawn to "freedom," what they seek is a certain degree of "absolute freedom," which they believe can be achieved by this vehicle known as "political freedom." This draws people away from communism because they believe that, a state which controls the economy and fix prices, etc, takes away "political freedom" and thus freedom itself. And what bigger freedom than "private property"!

Yet this is where it all begins to crumble. The reality is that not everyone has equal means of achieving wealth, and some are simply incapable of it. Some people are capable of defending themselves and some are not. The more political freedom is allowed, the less "absolute freedom" is given to the weak and poor. This infringement of freedom is done not by government action, but by the private action of corporate giants such as banks or multinational corporations. The more freedom those Godzillas have, the more merrily they'll crush everything under their feet while giving as little in return as possible. As soon as the government tries to intervene to protect the little people who are getting trampled on, Godzilla whiles and cries and sends an army of lawyer to defend their so-called "freedom."

But, truly... being a slave to a dictatorial state and being a slave to a dictatorial corporation... is it truly different? A slave is a slave. A slave has no freedom, even in a "free" society, which ultimately means "freedom is only for the rich and powerful." Yet this is not what they tell the immigrants who move to america in search of the "American Dream." This is what they learn by themselves once they're here.

Now, the rightists are going to find this to be absolute heresy, but here goes: a socialist state that regulates the economy equals more freedom to the people! Thus, by reducing the so-called "political freedom" that capitalist free-markets societies love so much, the people's "absolute freedom" goes up! Of course, some people are going to lose a bit of their freedom, but that only applies to the CEOs and string-pullers who want everyone to obey their every order as if they were feudal lords (and, in many ways, they are)

So to summarize this agonizingly long post (sorry, guys...)
Many people "hate" communism because they fear the absence of freedom, while in reality they are misguided. By understanding communism in the sense of a classless society (and I'm not talking about Stalin here), you have the highest amount of freedom. And ultimately, that freedom is achieved by the most important thing: protection of the weak FROM the powerful either by society or by the government instead of freedom for the powerful to abuse and exploit the weak (such as, obviously, CEOs profiting from the sweat of his factory workers). The first is true freedom, the second is the harsh reality that await those who believe the biggest lie ever told.

Okay I'm done here :)

[Coggeh]

“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope” -Joseph Stalin"

Isnt that a lenin quote ?

[fmlnleft]

[QUOTE=lvatt;1060016]

Anothing this is religion. Most christians in north america believe to a certain point in calvinist concepts, some of which make it seem that everyone who suffers poverty does so because of the "will of god." So that so-called "god" makes people poor and sick for reason he/she/it only knows. Thus, it leads to the self-complacent belief that the rich don't need to help the poor, because whether or not their life improves is entirely in the hand of "god." Of course, that is a complete load of bullcrap, but it is a belief firmly held by a number of christians. I believe this is called "predestination."

QUOTE]


I know a lot of christians, and they do say that people are poor because God wants it like that. But they say that God wants people who do have a lot, to give to the poor. thats part of practicing christinianity. I do believe that is says in the bible that the rich need to help the poor. I know that there are a lot of people who are selfish and dont care bout other poeple. Those are the fake christians. Just like there are fake Liberals, or Communists, ect. I dont really know poeple who are christians that dont try to help people who need it. Im not saying that i am a christain, neither am i defending them. I dont want to start an argument. Im just saying what i see and know.

[lvatt]

I know a lot of christians, and they do say that people are poor because God wants it like that. But they say that God wants people who do have a lot, to give to the poor. thats part of practicing christinianity. I do believe that is says in the bible that the rich need to help the poor. I know that there are a lot of people who are selfish and dont care bout other poeple. Those are the fake christians. Just like there are fake Liberals, or Communists, ect. I dont really know poeple who are christians that dont try to help people who need it. Im not saying that i am a christain, neither am i defending them. I dont want to start an argument. Im just saying what i see and know.

You bring up a fair point, and I'll give you my answer from a historical persepective. Of course this is going WAY off-topic, but I just thought the point you made deserves an answer.

The medieval corporation (city, guild, etc) had the main function of organizing the business of their members, and thus had internal legislative and judiciary power. Very often, they had a monopoly on a sector of activty on a territory. For the crown, they were an administrative organ, and for its members they were a form of auto-government that allowed them to escape from feudal control.

Now the important point is that the catholic church had a dominant influence on society in the middle ages, and as such the will to make profit was seen as "suspect" and even "anti-christian," opposed to the so-called ideals of poverty. The catholic church considered that the corporations (not meant in the modern sense) existed to serve public interests. Guilds thus were made to take care of their sick members, and even set up a certain form of work insurance. Some tried to help educating the poor, contributed to build orphanages, etc.

So, as far as the idea of "justice" was interpreted in the middle ages, the corporation was considered by some to be not simply driven by profits but also defenders of a certain kind of social justice. Thus, the middle-age corporatio was an essentially "social" organization.

The church didn't outlaw commerce, but they forbade christians from certain practices, such as lending money with an interest. This is meant in the sense of lending money to someone for personal subsistance, food, etc (not like borrowing money from a bank to start a commerce or something like that). This attitude by the chirch lasted until (by some accounts), the 18th century. So even nearly 300 years after the midddle ages there were many commercial restrictions set up by the catholic church in the name of "morality."

But protestants took a completely different approach. Jean Calvin made a distinction between lending money for consommation and for production, and argued in favor of lending money with interest in a commercial context. The "calvinist countries" (england, germany, switzerland and holland) thus had more ease in financing commercial enteprises than countries such as france or italy who remained, at the moment, attached to the catholic attitude on lending money.

One of the main protestant tenets was the elimination of the authority of the church by a strict interpretation of the bible. Another concept was Luther's famous idea of "sin as much as you want, as long as you have faith!"

The writer George Clune had this to say about the ideals of the protestant revolution in this book "The medieval guild system":

"The Reformers and their followers had little sympathy for the poor. The monasteries, which assisted those who were in need, were suppressed, and nothing was set up to carry on their charitable work. Not merely that, but poverty was considered a vice. ‘Convinced that character is all and circumstances nothing’ says Tawney, ‘(the Puritan) sees in the poverty of those who fall by the way not a misfortune to be pitied and relieved, but a moral failing to be condemned; and in riches, not an object of suspicion – though, like all other gifts, they may be abused – but the blessing which rewards the triumph of energy and will.’ Calvin glorified wordly success as an indication of divine favour. Thus, the well-to-do came to believe that they were saved and that the poor were damned.”

Now, I don't mean to defend catholics. I am strongly against any form of religion.

Yet the particular point I made about considering "poverty" to be a vice can only apply to certain christians.

Of course, the catholic church, for all their big talk of helping the poor, didn't really do much themselves. Just imagine the enormous stone cathedrals right next to wooden shacks falling apart. Religious hypocrisy, truly.

[Nakidana]

I know a lot of christians, and they do say that people are poor because God wants it like that. But they say that God wants people who do have a lot, to give to the poor. thats part of practicing christinianity. I do believe that is says in the bible that the rich need to help the poor. I know that there are a lot of people who are selfish and dont care bout other poeple. Those are the fake christians. Just like there are fake Liberals, or Communists, ect. I dont really know poeple who are christians that dont try to help people who need it. Im not saying that i am a christain, neither am i defending them. I dont want to start an argument. Im just saying what i see and know.

Yeah, this would be a great thing to include in your essay Bujinkan Leftist. Communism has always been shown as an ultra atheist movement in western propaganda, and this has certainly had a major impact on many people’s attitudes towards communism.

You can use this issue to discuss the many wrong stereotypes people today have of communism. If you take a quick look at the debates taking place on this forum you see tons of differing views on religion. You have everything from the rabid church burning atheist who labels all religious people reactionaries, to the tolerant comrade, maybe a believer himself, who supports secularism but otherwise sees religion as a personal issue.

Western propaganda has successfully painted communism as a homogeneous godless movement sweeping over the world with death and destruction in its wake, but we all know that every country had its own way of implementing communism and dealing with the problems that arised.

An interesting example is Afghanistan where the communists had to deal with the issue of families selling their daughters into marriage for great deals of money. Now the people of Afghanistan are mostly Muslim, and supposedly very religious. The communists knew this and suddenly had a great case. The thing is, in Islam you're not allowed to sell your daughters for money. It's strictly forbidden. So what did the communists do? They implemented a law against the selling of daughters for marriage and argued that it was un-Islamic. :D Apparently a win-win situation. The people of Afghanistan, being very strong believers, would realise the errors in their understanding of Islam, and change their ways. At the same time, the communists would get a very progressive change implemented without being accused of being kafir. (Unbelievers)

Right?

Wrong. The people of Afghanistan didn't give two shits about the law. The people were poor as hell, and this age old tradition was a substantial piece of income.

As one poor woman said; "I didn't give birth to my daughter to give her to the communists". :D

EDIT: Oh and by the way, a lot of people actually don't "hate" communism. I've read and heard more than one person say "it's a good system in theory, it just doesn't work in practice" which, IMHO, isn't as bad a statement as it could be.

[Purple]

I believe that there has been a deliberate method by the American government to fear the "communist threat" since the cold war and the mccarthyist era and much of todays anti-communism in north america is based on the successful accomplishment of such a program. playing on people's paranoia is an effective thing to do and when you incorporate anti-communist messages into your everyday life and alter your routines for it, for example bomb alarms instead of fire alerts at school and baseless accusations for pro-communist tendencies could cost you a job, an association with communism as a negative factor and an abstract and unseen enemy is very efficient and it manifests itself in people's irrational nature. I believe that much of this tendency has preservered as it has been passed down on generations.

And naturally no capitalist government would like to be overthrown!

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Cos commies have the best sex, and all others feel left out and envious

[Psy]

I believe that there has been a deliberate method by the American government to fear the "communist threat" since the cold war and the mccarthyist era and much of todays anti-communism in north america is based on the successful accomplishment of such a program. playing on people's paranoia is an effective thing to do and when you incorporate anti-communist messages into your everyday life and alter your routines for it, for example bomb alarms instead of fire alerts at school and baseless accusations for pro-communist tendencies could cost you a job, an association with communism as a negative factor and an abstract and unseen enemy is very efficient and it manifests itself in people's irrational nature. I believe that much of this tendency has preservered as it has been passed down on generations.

And naturally no capitalist government would like to be overthrown!

This is true, the American rule class as equated communism with totalitarianism. Notice even with the French Revolution the American media makes the view sympathize with the aristocracy showing the revolutionaries as blood thirsty savages. The media always makes the violence of the oppressed as proof of the inhumanity of the oppressed while the violence of oppressor is down played.

While the Iraqi resistance are in no way communist you can see the same thing happening, the media is horrified at any violence of a resistance to US occupation while acting like atrocities of US forces are simply mistakes or never mentioned. Notice how the photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq simply went away without anything changing, notice how the media downplayed the fire bombing of Fallujah where the US committed a war crime (not that it matters in bourgeois international politics).

[Bujinkan Leftist]

I just wanted to thanks you all. I have finished my essay not long time ago and it will be rewied again in the next month. I just have one other question, i would be interrest to may be try to plublish my essay on the net, but i dont no how to do it, if some one is interrest, may be revleft admin or idn plz tell me ill be glad to post my essay, but it's in french so if anyone is interest to translate it on english or idn

contact me :P

[( R )evolution]

I know that you have already finished your essay but I am putting this out there anyway just in case someone uses this post as a ref.

It is rather simply why people would naturally be against communist. Especially in Western and strong bourgeoisie nations. Communism is the direct foe of the capitalist machine. The bourgeoisie have so much money invested in the system and it benefits them greatly as the workers are oppressed but in America and other nations there exist something called a Labor Aristorcity. In which the workers are practically paid better in order for them to be quiet and enjoy what they have. They do this so the workers do not become enraged by the horrible conditions they live in. While most workers in America still work shitty jobs and in horrible conditions with shit pay, it is still much better then eastern and other 3rd world nations. This ability to pay the workers along with the ability to control media and the school system allows for the bourgeoisie who run the American/Western government and control such venues to fill the head of the average joe with propaganda and lies to distort the bullshit of capitalism along with communism. Because I highly doubt Bill Gates or Warren Buffet would be jumping for joy to a communist cause. It just simply isnt what the capitalist are gonna do. They are greedy and they have built a society based on greed and expolition. And they control all the info which thus means that they control the heads and minds of a majority of the population and they distorted the true wonderful ideas of communism