The Communism Thread

[Midnyte_Sun]

Can someone define and/or distinguish the following for me:

1. Communism

2. Socialism

3. Marxism

4. Maoism

5. Stalinism

 

[StorminNorman]

I smell homework

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I smell homework

Just lazy curiousity. Its the kind where you know you can probably just type them in Yahoo and find the answer but you'd rather someone break it down for you.

 

[Addendum]

http://www.googleguide.com/category/query-input/

 

[A&W]

I just thought it was interesting and decided to share that Einstein was "one of them." LOL

Anyways something has rescently occured to me and I wanted to hear the thoughts of others. I have rescently run into a problem with trying to create a completely socialist economy. I've been imagining in my head how it would work, assuming it could work, and I ran into a problem.

CBS, NBC, FOx, ect. Who is going to run these? The government? If they are run by the government than it's not a free press, and no free press = no democracy. No democracy = a non completely communist country. You can't a completely communist country without democracy. You can't have a democracy without a free press either. But the free press is part of the free market.

Based on this it might be impossible to have a 100% completely communist society where everybody has equal wealth and or money doesn't exist.

However there might simply be something I haven't thought of. Somebody else might have figured something out that would work. Perhaps you guys would like to share some ideas for how a communist country could get around this? Keep in mind that the whole reason a free press is important is so that elected officials can't control the flow of information to keep themselves in power.

darn. I was really hoping to hear some thoughts here. I guess it's off to argue with everyone political forums where left and right conservatives refer to Obama as Barack Osama, Obozo, Obamaboo, and that you know what N word in the white house.

 

[A&W]

like seriously conservatives make that place kind of trashy. There aren't many restrictions on posting outside of spamming and the majority of the conservatives there are very open about their prejudices towards jews, blacks, muslims and gays. They literally don't even deny their racism and prejudice. I was actually surprised how many American conservatives hated jews over there. I expected them to all hate muslims, but really about half hate Muslims, and the other half hate jews and they justify it by the way Israel acts towards muslim nations.

 

[dnno1]

Can someone define and/or distinguish the following for me:

1. Communism

2. Socialism

3. Marxism

4. Maoism

5. Stalinism

You could have looked it up yourself. I am sure this is a trick question so you can deduce that they are all the same, but they are not exactly. Here are the definitions:

Communism: A system in which there is no private property. Goods are owned by all and are available to all as needed.

Socialism: A system where the means of production is owned and controlled by the state. There is no private property here as well.

Marxism: The political, economic, and social policies advocated by Karl Marx (this includes the theory and practice of socialism, the labor theory of value and the establishment of a classless society).

Maoism: The Chinese version of Marxist-Leninism as established by Mao Zedong.

Stalinism: The theory and practice of communism developed by Joseph Stalin. this style was derived from Marxist-Leninism and is marked by the use of rigid athoritarianism, wide spread terror and the emphasis on (Russian) nationalism.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

You could have looked it up yourself. I am sure this is a trick question so you can deduce that they are all the same, but they are not exactly. Here are the definitions:

Communism: A system in which there is no private property. Goods are owned by all and are available to all as needed.

Socialism: A system where the means of production is owned and controlled by the state. There is no private property here as well.

Marxism: The political, economic, and social policies advocated by Karl Marx (this includes the theory and practice of socialism, the labor theory of value and the establishment of a classless society).

Maoism: The Chinese version of Marxist-Leninism as established by Mao Zedong.

Stalinism: The theory and practice of communism developed by Joseph Stalin. this style was derived from Marxist-Leninism and is marked by the use of rigid athoritarianism, wide spread terror and the emphasis on (Russian) nationalism.

The reason I ask (it's not because of homework), but because I can't seem to find one good thing about communism and each time I make a critical comment towards communism, a defender will claim that XYZ's regime was not really communist.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

What do you mean by "good" though? As in efficient or effective? Or like morally justified?

 

[dnno1]

The reason I ask (it's not because of homework), but because I can't seem to find one good thing about communism and each time I make a critical comment towards communism, a defender will claim that XYZ's regime was not really communist.

Your original post just asked to define/distinguish amonst the four systems. You did not say anything outside of that until now. How do you expect sombody to see that unless you clarify yourself? If you want some examples of communism working look up the Plymouth colony, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and China.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I thought he wanted to know the definition of each of those because of the usage of most of those words to describe out President, all at once.

Because, some say that our President is all of those things.

Which is impossible, but **** it. Who am I to get in the way of someones imagination?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Your original post just asked to define/distinguish amonst the four systems. You did not say anything outside of that until now. How do you expect sombody to see that unless you clarify yourself?

My whole problem with Communism in general stems from the fact of all the atrocities they have committed to achieve their states. Mao and Stalin alone have killed more people than Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined.

 

[StorminNorman]

I thought he wanted to know the definition of each of those because of the usage of most of those words to describe out President, all at once.

Because, some say that our President is all of those things.

Which is impossible, but **** it. Who am I to get in the way of someones imagination?

Our President does believe in statism, which is where communism, fascism and socialism come from.

America is trending more towards fascism than communism or socialism right now.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Your original post just asked to define/distinguish amonst the four systems. You did not say anything outside of that until now. How do you expect sombody to see that unless you clarify yourself? If you want some examples of communism working look up the Plymouth colony, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and China.

China is a poor example of Communism working. The country went down the hol badly when it actually implemented Communist policies with the 5 Year Plans and are now an economic superpower because of their adoption of capitalist policies and letting all sorts of Western corporations come in and invest. Especially since they didn't want to collapse like the Soviet Union did and would have if they did nothing.

The only thing really "Communist" about China is its authoritarian government.

 

[dnno1]

My whole problem with Communism in general stems from the fact of all the atrocities they have committed to achieve their states. Mao and Stalin alone have killed more people than Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined.

That's Mao and Stalin's policies, not necessarily concept of communism. That's partly why they call them specifically Maoism and Stalinism. They are unique in the aspect that they combine some level of tyranny in them. I wouldn't call the Plymouth colony or the LDS guilty of attrocities, but yet they have used some levels of comunism within their institutions. Furthermore, as far as attrocities, you don't think that the United States hasn't had their share of attrocities in its 244 year history? What about slavery? What about the attrocities commited during the the American Indian wars? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[StorminNorman]

That's Mao and Stalin's policies, not necessarily concept of communism. That's partly why they call them specifically Maoism and Stalinism. They are unique in the aspect that they combine some level of tyranny in them. I wouldn't call the Plymouth colony or the LDS guilty of attrocities, but yet they have used some levels of comunism within their institutions. Furthermore, as far as attrocities, you don't think that the United States hasn't had their share of attrocities in its 244 year history? What about slavery? What about the attrocities commited during the the American Indian wars? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Slaughter is a consequence of communism - it's the inevitable result of telling people that they are slaves. In a communist country, the individual is irrelevant - everyone is enslaved to the state. The people that see themselves as individuals will always be slaughtered in the name of the state.

 

[StorminNorman]

Plus Plymouth colony is about the worst example you can use for successful communism. While it is true, for the few few years of existence, Plymouth was communal - splitting resources evenly - this practice led to STARVATION.

Plymouth Colony then decided to give INDIVIDUALS private land to plant. The result was an increase in production of corn.

 

[dnno1]

Slaughter is a consequence of communism - it's the inevitable result of telling people that they are slaves. In a communist country, the individual is irrelevant - everyone is enslaved to the state. The people that see themselves as individuals will always be slaughtered in the name of the state.

That's not true. The slaughter you are talking about only occured because of the desire to elimate opposition, not because of the philosophies of communism or capitalism or imperialism mandated it. If there is no opposition there is no slaughter. The individual being irrelevant is a misconspetion as well. If there are no people, then there is no state so there is a relevance for people in, for that matter, any society. I think you are taking a pajorative point of view here. If you really look at it, in the society that we live in now we are a slave to corporations. Even if you worked for yourself, you are dependant on a corporation to supply you with the goods you need to get by and are beholden to their pricing structure. You can look at it that way. On the flip side you can look at it as a wonderful thing that people have the ability reach their maximum potential (which not very many actually do). Just as you can do that you can look at communism as a system where everybody is treated equal and everything belongs to the people. It is all a matter of how you look at it. I know that most of us would not prefer to live in a communist society, but we all have to understand that there are billions of people that are living like that and, althoug some are, the majority of them are not complaining.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

That's Mao and Stalin's policies, not necessarily concept of communism. That's partly why they call them specifically Maoism and Stalinism. They are unique in the aspect that they combine some level of tyranny in them. I wouldn't call the Plymouth colony or the LDS guilty of attrocities, but yet they have used some levels of comunism within their institutions. Furthermore, as far as attrocities, you don't think that the United States hasn't had their share of attrocities in its 244 year history? What about slavery? What about the attrocities commited during the the American Indian wars? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Well even if you total all the wars the US has partaken in, it still pales to comparison to the numbers of dead caused by the likes of the Bolsheviks, Stalin, and Mao.

 

[hippie_hunter]

That's not true. The slaughter you are talking about only occured because of the desire to elimate opposition, not because of the philosophies of communism or capitalism or imperialism mandated it. If there is no opposition there is no slaughter. The individual being irrelevant is a misconspetion as well. If there are no people, then there is no state so there is a relevance for people in, for that matter, any society. I think you are taking a pajorative point of view here. If you really look at it, in the society that we live in now we are a slave to corporations. Even if you worked for yourself, you are dependant on a corporation to supply you with the goods you need to get by and are beholden to their pricing structure. You can look at it that way. On the flip side you can look at it as a wonderful thing that people have the ability reach their maximum potential (which not very many actually do). Just as you can do that you can look at communism as a system where everybody is treated equal and everything belongs to the people. It is all a matter of how you look at it. I know that most of us would not prefer to live in a communist society, but we all have to understand that there are billions of people that are living like that and, althoug some are, the majority of them are not complaining.

That's because in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos you don't have the freedom to do so.

Frankly the only Communist country that I could think where people actually genuinely content is Cuba.

 

[dnno1]

Well even if you total all the wars the US has partaken in, it still pales to comparison to the numbers of dead caused by the likes of the Bolsheviks, Stalin, and Mao.

You've got to be careful how you count those numbers. A lot of the people that supposedly died under Mao actually starved to death or committed suicide. As for Stalin, although 17 million deaths are attributed to him, he only ordered 500,000 to be executed. Regardless of the number, it is not the philosophy that mandates the killing of people, it is the policies of the leaders. America can be tagged with millions of deaths, but that doesn't mean that a constitutional government mandates that we kill people. That is a misconception.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Well even if you total all the wars the US has partaken in, it still pales to comparison to the numbers of dead caused by the likes of the Bolsheviks, Stalin, and Mao.

Don't forget that Pol Pot killed 21% of his own country's population.

 

[dnno1]

That's because in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos you don't have the freedom to do so.

Frankly the only Communist country that I could think where people actually genuinely content is Cuba.

No if a large number of people were unhappy, the would overthrow the government. There is no way that they could stop more than a billion people. Thus, obviously there is a majority that are content with the way things are.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You've got to be careful how you count those numbers. A lot of the people that supposedly died under Mao actually starved to death or committed suicide. As for Stalin, although 17 million deaths are attributed to him, he only ordered 500,000 to be executed. Regardless of the number, it is not the philosophy that mandates the killing of people, it is the policies of the leaders. America can be tagged with millions of deaths, but that doesn't mean that a constitutional government mandates that we kill people. That is a misconception.

Official records have Stalin ordering the execution of 800,000 people + 1.7 million people dying in his gulags + 390,000 deaths during his forced resettlements. These records are said to be inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable with the death toll being much higher in all categories. One Russian historian estimates that the true numbers are 1.5 million executed + 5 million in the gulags + 1.7 million out of those who were forced to relocate.

Official records do not include deaths of his government killing POWs, German civilians, 22,000 at the Katyn massacre, tens of thousands of prisoners in Eastern Europe, deserting Red Army personnel, etc.

And this does not include the famine numbers. Stalin and his government are attributed to 10 million deaths. If you include the famine, which you can account to Stalin and his governments' policies as directly responsible, another 10 million can be added. Other estimates have put him up to 60 million (including the famines).

 

[hippie_hunter]

No if a large number of people were unhappy, the would overthrow the government. There is no way that they could stop more than a billion people. Thus, obviously there is a majority that are content with the way things are.

Sorry, but even when you have a large number of people unhappy, they aren't going to rise up out of fear of the government crushing them, just like what happened at Tianamen Square. Most people don't rise up against extremely oppressive regimes. Look at North Korea, Iraq, etc.

Sure there are people who are content in China. But that's because of China's current economic state. Once the economy goes sour (which will happen), it is expected that these people are going to be extremely pissed.

But there are also large numbers of people unhappy with unemployment, government repression, distribution of wealth, the lack of democracy, etc.