Is communism really evil?

[kankan326]

Westerners say Russia is a fake democratic country. They may never ask themselves another question: Was Soviet Union a real communism country? All the bad labels westerners attached to communism, like cruel dictators, backwardness, no freedom, do these labels belong to communism? Or they are just the outputs of Russian culture? Wasn’t Russia same in Czars age? Or even worse? Soviet Union ruined communism's reputation. For sure.

Other communism countries, like China, Eastern European countries, Vietnam, N.Korea, were unfortunately heavily influenced by Russian style communism. Which led to many disasters. As Chinese I don’t want to blame Mao’s mistakes because Soviet Union was the only communism sample to learn and copy for China at that time. All the “Russia’s model is bad” criticisms are hindsight. In fact at Mao’s time Soviet Union looked like a very successful sample for backward countries.

After getting rid of Russian culture influence, communism in China appears in different manners. Good governance, no persecution, wealthy and innovative society. Many people still mentally stay in cold war age. They believe commies have never changed. I tell you how commies have changed. Before the pandemic, every year there were millions of tourists from mainland China to visit Taiwan. Commie’s haters, out of their stereotype, believe Taiwan to Mainland China is like West Germany to East Germany, South Korea to North Korea. In reality none of millions of tourists defected to Taiwan. Another example, democratic Mongolia's GDP is only 1/20 of commie Inner Mongolia. I believe if there were no technology sanctions and high end products sanctions from west world(Sanctions to China have existed since communism China was established), mainland China has defeated Taiwan, S.Korea, Japan in economy long ago. Maybe even US is not the No.1 economy now. Westerners like to humiliate China by showing the income gap with its neighbours. They never mentioned it's not a fair competition in the first place.

You can’t say communism is evil if it can lead a backward country to such successful path. Even the failed Soviet Union can still be called as a miracle. Communism is more like a bless for China.

What about freedom? For me, I never think western style excessive freedom is a good thing. It brings nothing but chaos. I never understand why every one in a democratic society believes they are smart enough to lecture on politics while most of them could only got “B”s when they were in school. In this matter, China’s communism way is more reasonable: Filtering all nonsense noise, making policies and plans by most intelligent and experienced people. It doesn’t mean the CPC doesn’t care about public opinions. CPC always responses to public opinions as long as they are reasonable and practicable. China’s success is for good reasons.

By the way, I heard US is planning to ban Tiktok. Now, have Americans felt the pain how CPC felt when it decided to set firewall to not friendly US? China has not launched propaganda war yet, like US did to China long before. How many bad labels left for evil commies now?​

 

[Song Hong]

People will start talking about Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge. But a deeper look at Pol Pot, one get a different opinion.

 

[Corruptistan]

Some of the core ideas behind communism are noble. The problem is that the implementation of communism has failed largely everywhere and often turned countries into totalitarian or failed states.

That and the communism ideology being outdated by large and completely unrealistic to implement doctrinally in its full as understood by Marx and Engels.

China kickstarted its development when it left the ideology of planned economy, marxism etc. and opened up to capitalism. In other words when It eased the implementation of communism.

In any case communism was implemented differently than it was in the USSR, Cuba, Albania, Poland, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Vietnam etc. Each country, like every form of governance, is/was distinctive.

Personally I think that people are too hooked up on ideologies and doctrines.

The most important thing is how strong or weak state institutions are in a given state and how the populace benefits from and by the state. If there is a good relationship between both groups, people are usually content irrespective of political system.

The current system of China, while not perfect, have proven to have worked overall and what we might call that system (communism, one-party system, dictatorship etc.) is irrelevant.

The only comparable state to China in many ways, just when we talk about demographics or more recent history, is India, and we all see the difference in development between a "democratic" India and a "authoritarian" China.

The average people, not politically interested, don't care about system of governance, but what services and opportunities they get.

Another great example are wealthy monarchism in the Arab world such as Saudi Arabia for instance. Most locals love their rulers and system because it works for them.

Democracy works, after many hardships and centuries of struggle, in places like Scandinavia etc.

Each to their own.

 

[Song Hong]

Some of the core ideas behind communism are noble. The problem is that the implementation of communism has failed largely everywhere and often turned countries into totalitarian or failed states.

That and the communism ideology being outdated by large and completely unrealistic to implement doctrinally in its full as understood by Marx and Engels.

China kickstarted its development when it left the ideology of planned economy, marxism etc. and opened up to capitalism. In other words when It eased the implementation of communism.

In any case communism was implemented differently than it was in the USSR, Cuba, Albania, Poland, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Vietnam etc. Each country, like every form of governance, is/was distinctive.

It was due to communism that scare the sht out of the rich, that compel the capitalists to initiate socialistic reform.

Now communism is gone for a while.

Capitalism goes sht.

 

[Corruptistan]

It was due to communism that scare the sht out of the rich, that compel the capitalists to initiate socialistic reform.

Now communism is gone for a while.

Capitalism goes sht.

Collectivism in East Asia replaced feudalism and made everyone equal. At first equally poor. Later this improved.

However you cannot deny that China's economic power kickstarted when doctrinal communism was left aside and aspects of capitalism were implemented.

Extreme capitalism like in much of the modern-day world, where extreme wealth is controlled by a very tiny percentage of the population, where media, entertainment, large cooperations etc. are controlled by the same people (tiny elites), is a big problem. Democratically, economically and in terms of justice and societal cohesion.

I like this saying and most of the time it is proven correct due to the mostly egoistic nature of humans.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely​

 

[Song Hong]

Collectivism in East Asia replaced feudalism and made everyone equal. At first equally poor. Later this improved.

However you cannot deny that China's economic power kickstarted when doctrinal communism was left aside and aspects of capitalism were implemented.

Extreme capitalism like in much of the modern-day world, where extreme wealth is controlled by a very tiny percentage of the population, where media, entertainment, large cooperations etc. are controlled by the same people (tiny elites), is a big problem. Democratically, economically and in terms of justice and societal cohesion.

I like this saying and most of the time it is proven correct due to the mostly egoistic nature of humans.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely​

I guess US is more corrupt than China today. Democratic power corrupts absolutely,

 

[Corruptistan]

I guess US is more corrupt than China today. Democratic power corrupts absolutely,

Why make it about US vs China? The quote is not limited to a specific political ideology but human nature since time immortal.

Do you know the ancient Chinese concept that later other East Asian civilizations adopted (Japanese, Koreans etc.) of the ruler (Emperor) being the Son of Heaven based on the doctrine of "Mandate of Heaven".

Son of Heaven - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mandate of Heaven - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically giving religious authority to the absolute ruler.

Ancient Arabs/ancient civilizations in the Arab world such as ancient Egypt, ancient Arabia and Mesopotamia etc. had similar concepts that emerged at a similar time like the Chinese concept or even before.

See below:

King of the Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

King of Kings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Much later the European rulers copied this during the era of absolutism. French absolute rulers being the most famous exponents of this system.

Ancien régime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This ended with the French Revolution in 1789. Without the French Revolution there is no communism or marxism.

History is interconnected, political ideologies are just human constructs created in a given time under specific circumstances. They are just ideas and thoughts of humans. Implementation in a extremely complex and multifaceted organism like a state, is another thing altogether, which is why ideologies are just that, and ground realities another thing altogether. This is also why stringent ideologies like communism never worked without cohesion or totalitarianism because the whole concept of complete equality only sounds good on paper but is completely unrealistic in practice, because no two humans are identical, hence the idea of identical pay irrespective of work, is complete nonsense.

Anyway if you ask me, the best system is meritocracy, but it will never work in a democracy because no sane person that is the best qualified economist or jurist would prefer to work in politics when he can earn 5-10 times the money in the private sector for the same job without all the pressure, publicity, responsibility etc. that political service usually is.

 

[Song Hong]

The modern economist does not want to discuss the problem that wealth tends to concentrate to few hands -- and what will happen thereafter.

Revolution?

The ancient Jews and Arabs invented debt forgiving and encourage charity -- not entirely for moral reasons but for the sake of community. There must be mechanism to spread wealth.

 

[Corruptistan]

The modern economist does not want to discuss the problem that wealth tends to concentrate to few hands -- and what will happen thereafter.

Revolution?

The ancient Jews and Arabs invented debt forgiving and encourage charity -- not entirely for moral reasons but for the sake of community. There must be mechanism to spread wealth.

Wrong. Many philosophers and economists in the West and elsewhere are discussing this topic. The problem is that it is practically impossible to change this wealth concentration without state interference but that opens up a large pandora box (at least in democratic and capitalistic states) of when and how the state can interfere in private matters of its citizens.

I mean if you open a business tomorrow and it becomes the most successful business in your field and swallows up every competitors business (they cannot compete with you so they either go bankrupt or you buy them out to limit competition), has the state an inherent right to take your business away from you and give it to the people, if you don't have monopoly in your field and some competitors still remain but they are far behind you for whatever reasons?

Why should the state only have monopolies? I am talking about the army, police etc. here. Why can't people govern themselves without a state? There are many philosophical discussions that one could discuss all the time.

Anyway community is always more important than the average individual, this goes for every system of governance. You see this in almost every system of governance, nobody is above the state usually.

 

[kankan326]

Some of the core ideas behind communism are noble. The problem is that the implementation of communism has failed largely everywhere and often turned countries into totalitarian or failed states.

That and the communism ideology being outdated by large and completely unrealistic to implement doctrinally in its full as understood by Marx and Engels.

China kickstarted its development when it left the ideology of planned economy, marxism etc. and opened up to capitalism. In other words when It eased the implementation of communism.

In any case communism was implemented differently than it was in the USSR, Cuba, Albania, Poland, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Vietnam etc. Each country, like every form of governance, is/was distinctive.

Personally I think that people are too hooked up on ideologies and doctrines.

The most important thing is how strong or weak state institutions are in a given state and how the populace benefits from and by the state. If there is a good relationship between both groups, people are usually content irrespective of political system.

The current system of China, while not perfect, have proven to have worked overall and what we might call that system (communism, one-party system, dictatorship etc.) is irrelevant.

The only comparable state to China in many ways, just when we talk about demographics or more recent history, is India, and we all see the difference in development between a "democratic" India and a "authoritarian" China.

The average people, not politically interested, don't care about system of governance, but what services and opportunities they get.

Another great example are wealthy monarchism in the Arab world such as Saudi Arabia for instance. Most locals love their rulers and system because it works for them.

Democracy works, after many hardships and centuries of struggle, in places like Scandinavia etc.

Each to their own.

Both planned economy and market economy exist in China. Both state owned companies and private companies exist in China. Which gives China big big advantage. Private companies can guarantee efficiency. State owned companies can guarantee fairness. Market economy is good for short term competition. Planned economy is good for long term competition.

 

[Corruptistan]

Both planned economy and market economy exist in China. Both state owned companies and private companies exist in China. Which gives China big big advantage

I agree.

Moderation is the best thing. You take good things from each ideology and remove the bad things or the things that don't fit your country or society in a given time period.

The reality is that neither communism nor capitalism are perfect systems, no political system is perfect. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Personally I like the systems of Scandinavia and GCC states. They both tend to have universal free healthcare, free education, in the case of GCC states close to no taxation (no personal taxation other than zakat, however taxation for firms), liberal, conservative etc. elements, collectivism as the main theme (creates social cohesion) and other good things.

Personally I am not a huge fan of Western democracy because it often turns into a popularity context based on personality traits rather than politics. It requires a very educated populace and strong democratic institutions to work.

In GCC states many citizens would just vote not based on competence (meritocracy) but for other reasons.

One could also discuss republics vs monarchies - democracies elect random people who are elected for a select period, difficult to plan long-term, meanwhile monarchies, if you are lucky with a good ruler, can plan long-term and if the ruler ****'s up, he has much more at risk (his entire family rule and dynasty), than if some random new president that just has 4-8 years to rule, would, if he did the same thing.

China also has a very effective system IMO. I don't know China well enough to conclude whether a one-party system is the best idea but looking at it from the outside, given China's huge population, multi-party systems, before China is fully developed, would create a lot of chaos. India is a good example of why multi-party democracy is not as effective as the Chinese model or as good to look at projects and visions from a long-term base.

The US system also have good elements albeit many poor/bad ones too.

 

[Song Hong]

Wrong. Many philosophers and economists in the West and elsewhere are discussing this topic. The problem is that it is practically impossible to change this wealth concentration without state interference but that opens up a large pandora box (at least in democratic and capitalistic states) of when and how the state can interfere in private matters of its citizens.

I mean if you open a business tomorrow and it becomes the most successful business in your field and swallows up every competitors business (they cannot compete with you so they either go bankrupt or you buy them out to limit competition), has the state an inherent right to take your business away from you and give it to the people, if you don't have monopoly in your field and some competitors still remain but they are far behind you for whatever reasons?

Why should the state only have monopolies? I am talking about the army, police etc. here. Why can't people govern themselves without a state? There are many philosophical discussions that one could discuss all the time.

Anyway community is always more important than the average individual, this goes for every system of governance. You see this in almost every system of governance, nobody is above the state usually.

Natural monopolies should be left to states -- such as water, utilities, telecom, healtcare, education, military.

You can a shthole if these are privatized.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Communism is pure evil.

Thankfully China is not communist.

 

[Song Hong]

In addition, Chinese states control large farm, central banks. US fed is private.

So Chinese get cheap food.

Look at food price in Japan and Korea.

Still want to complain about government ownership?

 

[Corruptistan]

Natural monopolies should be left to states -- such as water, utilities, telecom, healtcare, education, military.

You can a shthole if these are privatized.

I agree but you don't want to leave every field to the state either, it would become a bureaucratic and ineffective nightmare with no competition. Without competition there is no evolution or improvement. Things tend to stagnate. Who is going to raise the level if there is no competitor?

Say you are a restaurant and you have complete monopoly and always customers, what is your initiative to raise the level of your food if you know, that you will never have a competitor? It is zero.

I strongly disagree with state monopolies other than army, police and basic utilities. Even the utility part I find redundant.

Why would you prefer state monopoly in for instance healthcare or education?

Let us say that you are sick with cancer, in such a case, your only option is the public hospitals. What if they are in a bad shape or you have to wait a long time? Would a private alternative, often better and more effective (if you have the money of course) not be much more preferred?

Similar logic when it comes to private education (private schools).

There should always (ideally) be at least 2 alternatives. I believe that wealthy states should subsidy people who cannot afford private healthcare for instance if waiting lists are long in public hospitals etc. like in many countries.