Communist Perception

Alright, here is where all debating about communism should be held.


Here is my two cents on communism:


Marx, if you read his book, bases communism on the idea that man can perfect itself, and be progressive all ways. Which, in modern day politics, means ultimate liberalism.

What many political analysts of communism say is a huge reason for why it doesn't work, is because it is an economic policy along with a governmental style. It's economic because it basically abolishes anyone from having more than another. It's political because there is no government.

And while Anarchy is where a country has no government, true communism, in the method that Marx believed it could be accomplished, people are SO liberal and SO progressive, that there is no need for government.

But it is after a prolonged and indefinite period of socialism. Basically, here are the MAJOR steps Marx believed were needed for communism to be established.


1) An industrialized nation, with the working class as the intelligentsia(smart and knowledgeable) of the country.

2) After years of oppression from the wealthy, and the "factory owners" as he put it in his book, the Working class revolt and take over the government.

3) With a successful establishment of a revolutionary government, there will be an indefinite period of socialism in the country, in which modernization and industrialization continues.

4) A dictatorship of the people is established in order to keep the wealthy from taking power again.

5) After years and years of socialism, and the people are almost completely equal, a communist society is able to be established. For with the greatest of equality, and it having been drilled into the people's minds, no one would WANT to take power.

And that pretty much sums it up as fast as I can without boring you all to death.


Don't worry, I'm going to post a separate message for further explanation of modern "communism"

So "communism" in today's world is what the US and the west made it out to look like after WW2.


If you guys didn't notice, the Soviet Union was called the USSR, The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics... Not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics...


Vladimir Lenin had never actually thought communism could be established over night. Which is why it was called the USSR. Even Stalin didn't think so. He fought with a man called Leon Trotsky over power in the Communist Party. Trotsky was the Field Marshall of the Red Army in the Russian Civil war, and everyone loved him for winning the war. But he wanted a world wide revolution, and you can look this up, Stalin said, "Perfect socialism in one country."

It's a very famous quote, because if he hadn't focused on the USSR, it is possible the entire world WOULD be Socialist and we would be on our way to true communism.

So a slight power struggle occurred, and Stalin won. Duh.


But the US tried to "contain" "communism" by any means necessary. Which is why most of the world hates us. We would/still do, go into countries, say that communism is bad, anything else but... We would basically help fascist-style rebels overthrow a democratically elected communist governments.

The evidence is everywhere. Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, are very commonly known. While some that you probably don't even realize are Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

There is significant evidence that almost every single weapon the Taliban/Al Queda have, was given to them when the US stopped the Soviet Union from invading Afghanistan. Almost every problem in that region, is because of the US.


The PRC, People's Republic of China, is not communist at all. And the USSR and the PRC broke off ties in the early 60's because they disagreed on basic communist principals. Mao Zedong, founder of the Chinese Communist Party, and the PRC, had/has been ridiculed for his version of "communism." Which had the peasants as the working class. Which outraged communists everywhere. Marx had stated communism must be achieved with an already industrialized nation, and when the PRC was established only about 2% of the country was actually industrialized. Mao wanted to use the peasants as his revolutionary force. Which also violated true marxist communist ideals. For the workers needed to be intelligent, and while it is a generalization, peasants were NOT intelligent generally. So the PRC isn't considered a communist country for that reason. And now, it is a completely capitalist society. It is now known as a "dictatorship by majority," as the CCP is the only political party of China. Not a communist state.


In history, NO COUNTRY that has established a version of "communism" has been industrialized. Not Russia, not China, not the Indochina countries, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia, not cuba. None of the them have been truly communist in the Marxist sense. Which is why communism has never been achieved, and likely, never will.


The closest the world ever got to communism, was the French Revolution, with the workers rising against the royalty. While today, the closest things we have to communism are the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Somalia. Each for different reasons. And technically speaking North Korea, but they are more of a Stalinist State, rather than communist.

Vietnam because of it's continued economic policies of a set economy and because of it's equality, which is kind of a load of BS considering they only measure the equality by those who are members of the communist party.

Somalia because it has no government, which is about it, but hard core Marxists say that that's a main aspect of communism so what the hell?


Phew... That took a while. Any questions?

None, it would seem that you summed it up pretty well. But how does communism look compared to extream rightist? (I lied i did have a question )

Well, I'm a liberal. So I'm going to say that they're just as bad AS THE COMMUNISM WE'VE SEEN IN THE WORLD. They would not be just as bad, they'd be worse I'd be willing to bet if we ever get to see a real communist country.


Also, for anyone who had no idea I knew so much about the subject, when I was 14-16 my parents we're divorcing my dad was/is a hardcore alcoholic but he had taught me everything I'd known about politics at that point. And so I ventured off into the world to get my own understanding, my father was also a communist in his youth, funny I know, and because of that I became very sturdy anti-communist. Mainly because I wanted to say FUCK YOU to my dad, but my mother was tired of hearing me rant on about the evils of communism a topic I knew nothing about. So she bought me Marx and that is in a nutshell how I really came to understand what true communism is.

Well communism is good on paper, and I would support it if it worked in our time, however I doubt it will truly reach it's potential until the human species has evolved passed the point of our petty and greedy ways, which is far off. Until this time, I happily embrace conservatism

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:Well communism is good on paper, and I would support it if it worked in our time, however I doubt it will truly reach it's potential until the human species has evolved passed the point of our petty and greedy ways, which is far off. Until this time, I happily embrace conservatism

Laughs. No worries. But I completely agree with you on the fact that man is greedy. And I'm pretty sure that won't change. But that was something the soviets/chinese/vietnamese etc..... all tried to fix with those reeducation camps they had you know?

You know I'd probably be a communist if it weren't for what its been in the world. What I mean is that I'm scared if a new large-scale revolution occurred it would yield the same results as previous attempts...

But for now I'm just a hardcore LIBERAL!!!

Meh, yeah. I'm not a real staunch supporter of anything left anyway, simply because of what it turns into.

Better than what the right turns into. *cough*Hitler*cough*

Extreme Right, I personally don't call that being on the right, I call it being fricking snapped.

But then again, can one really say that, I mean after all, both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people, and one can't really say that one is 'worse than the other'

No I think Stalin is worse as a left supporter as he killed more people plus he wasn't really a Marxist, he was a Stalinist. Stalinism is basically everyone apart from the leader is equal in the fact that they have nothing and the leader has everything. Maoism is similar except that the leader is a God. In my opinion we have yet to have a truly Marxist country.

Yeah, I agree. I think NR mentioned that above. But Marx really believed that Man could perfect itself so there would be no need for greed, no need for one person to have more than another. And I think that mankind is a long ways off from being able to accomplish that...

But in order to evolve towards that i believe we have to start in that direction rather than becoming more and more greedy.

Yeah, but the world is still reeling from the collapse of the USSR. I regret to say it, but the world is moving backwards or it is not moving at all at this point. Hopefully Obama can change that to a degree, but as I've said multiple times, at the end of the day he is a moderate with a few socially liberal ideals.

I don't get how 'conservatism' is always moving backwards, how having more freedom, smaller government, more money, the unalienable right to take responsibility for one's actions and lower taxes is moving backwards?

And don't try that 'well conservatives hate freedom!' argument, because no we don't, the one's who do are not conservatives, they're like Stalin, dictators pretending to be something they're not.

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:I don't get how 'conservatism' is always moving backwards, how having more freedom, smaller government, more money, the unalienable right to take responsibility for one's actions and lower taxes is moving backwards?

And don't try that 'well conservatives hate freedom!' argument, because no we don't, the one's who do are not conservatives, they're like Stalin, dictators pretending to be something they're not.

Well, I have to say either you're getting mixed up, or you don't understand the political spectrum. Stalin was a dictator, but he ran a liberal country economically speaking. So the government was conservative, while the economy was liberal. :/ Hope that makes sense. But rightism is not moving forward, reactionary conservatives, dictators ARE conservative. It is by definition. You can check, Mussolini, Franco and Hitler were fascists which is as far right as you can go. Loyalty to the state, no political freedoms. Stalin was a fascist dictator in a "communist" country.


You have mixed up where you stand on the political spectrum I think. Because check it out, those dictators didn't allow freedoms, and by definition, they were conservatives...

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy."
- Benito Mussolini

Done and Done.

The Horseshoe theory of the political spectrum is the best. It theorises that as you go to the left and the right, the go towards the same version of extremism.

Stalin and Hitler were practically the same, just one had a better Moustache, while the other was horrible racist and nationalist.

Oh, and NR, most of the world is moving forwards, the US is just stuck in the forties.

Phenosia wrote:

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:I don't get how 'conservatism' is always moving backwards, how having more freedom, smaller government, more money, the unalienable right to take responsibility for one's actions and lower taxes is moving backwards?

And don't try that 'well conservatives hate freedom!' argument, because no we don't, the one's who do are not conservatives, they're like Stalin, dictators pretending to be something they're not.

Well, I have to say either you're getting mixed up, or you don't understand the political spectrum. Stalin was a dictator, but he ran a liberal country economically speaking. So the government was conservative, while the economy was liberal. :/ Hope that makes sense. But rightism is not moving forward, reactionary conservatives, dictators ARE conservative. It is by definition. You can check, Mussolini, Franco and Hitler were fascists which is as far right as you can go. Loyalty to the state, no political freedoms. Stalin was a fascist dictator in a "communist" country.


You have mixed up where you stand on the political spectrum I think. Because check it out, those dictators didn't allow freedoms, and by definition, they were conservatives...

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy."
- Benito Mussolini

Done and Done.

Again, I highly disagree, the political spectrum calls for extreme right being fascism, not conservatism (believe me, I've done my homework when it comes to government types and styles). Stalin allowed, for no economic freedoms, no political freedoms and no civil freedoms, by definition that would not make him conservative or liberal. Conservatism is not a 'freedom hater' as everyone suggests. Now, Stalin by definition was a totalitarian, a left wing totalitarian actually. Because he strongly emphasized Marxist ideals, with his own twist, basically turning his form of Marxism into a left wing dictatorship. Conservatism is around the thought of preserving traditional values, fiscal and personal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, more business and freer markets. As far as the political spectrum is concerned, there are two types of political spectrum; the 'line' political spectrum, and the 'grid' political spectrum (most commonly associated with the political compose). As far as Stalin on a 'grid' political spectrum is concerned, he is in the middle left, far authorial area. Bush, was in the middle right and in the middle between authoritarian and libertarian.

As far as the 'line' political spectrum goes, Stalin was on the far left (not as far as Marx or Lenin is though), and he was in the exact area in which large amounts of totalitarianism is associated with.

So anyway, back to the original argument, Conservatism is not a freedom hater by definition, everyone who here thinks it is, should do more research. Also, you said that I need to understand the political spectrum more, no, I think you do, you stated that Stalin's government was conservative, dead wrong, you sere right about it being largely fascist, however conservatism and fascism, while being on the same side of the political spectrum are extremely different. Conservatism, is slightly right and sometimes center-right, whereas Fascism is far far right, in fact it's the furthest you can currently go. By definition, Conservatism is not Fascism, they are two totally different beasts.

Also, for those of you who are questioning where I stand, please read some of the articles attached to this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-Libertarianism