Was communism a bad thing ? a discussion

[Thomas]

China is doing just fine though

China has problems just like every other country in the world.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Heres a philosopher who has some great stuff to say regarding the Economic Crisis and the role of Capitalism in making that a reality. Professer David Harvey..!!!

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Communism is evil responsible for more death and misery in a 80 year period then any other goverment on earth.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
The Black Book of Communism

Book cover of The Black Book of Communism
Author Robert Laffont (ed.)
Stéphane Courtois
Nicolas Werth
Jean-Louis Panné
Andrzej Paczkowski


The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book which describes a history of repressions, both political and civilian, by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and artificial famines. The book was originally published in 1997 in France under the title, Le Livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression. In the United States it is published by Harvard University Press.[1] The book was authored by several European academics and edited by Stéphane Courtois.[2]

Estimated number of victims
The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, asserts that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". He cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the "excess deaths" (decrease of the population due to lower than-expected birth rates). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union[3]2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam[4]
150,000 in Latin America
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."(p. 4)
Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor.

[edit] Soviet repressions
Repressions and famines occurring in the Soviet Union under the regimes of Lenin and Stalin described in the book include:

the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.(p. 9-10) (See also: Population transfer in the Soviet Union)
[edit] Comparison of Communism and Nazism
Courtois considers Communism and Nazism slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis".[5] Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. As an example, he cites Nazi state official Rudolf Höss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz. According to Höss[5],

"The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples

 

[gambit]

Most religions are have communist ideology, a world free and fair for all. The way communism is practised is what gives it a bad name.

If there ever were a true utopia, communism would be the economic system. All people would be equal. Each person would contribute to their ability, and each person's needs would be met. Excess would be shared as community wealth.

There are only two types of successful communist societies: The monastery and the basic family unit. So yes...One utopian society is called a 'monastery' or 'nunnery'. Take your pick. In that society, every member is a volunteer into the system.

In the family, you have a leader who holds absolute power and allocate resources as he believes to be best for his society. In the family, we have members of that society who genuinely are immature in every way, mentally and physically, and truly require guidance. The family unit type is what has been applied to all major communist countries. It is a paternalistic and condescending society. The Communist Party sees itself as 'the parent', holds absolute power, reserves privileges to itself, and of course suppresses all dissent.

I dare say this for all communist believers here, not one will send himself to a monastery. That leave the paternalistic society and that he would rather sees himself in the elite that holds nothing but contempt for those he violently oppresses to keep himself in power.

 

[gowthamraj]

In communism the state controls every act of people. Like in china where foreign channels are not allowed to see. So where is the rights for humans here.


And also in democratic country like India some people wrongly use their freedoms to affect others rights

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

YES Communism is a bad thing.

Look what happened to China in the 1950's to the 1970's under Chairman Mao.

Luckily, in the late 70's we had "Capitalist reforms" under Deng Xiaoping and managed to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China, due to market reforms.

China is doing well now because of Capitalism. We are now the largest exporter of goods in the world and the second largest economy in the world after America.

Just to clarify what we are now, our political system can be described as "One-party Socialism/Authoritarianism" and our economic system is "State Capitalism".

Chinese leaders refer to our system as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics". (That is probably the easiest way to remember it).

 

[mike05]

Communism & Capitalism both in its purity is a bad thing, but if a good leader is at the helm the nations will prosper.

China started off with Communism at its purest (not surprising since it came from Russia) and is now moving to a hybrid communism/capitalism system. If this is long term sustainable I can't say but at least I'm amazed the China I went to 20 years ago and now has changed 180 degrees, not only infrastructure but the mindsets of the younger generations too.

In regards to freedom it does not always benefit a developing country to have too much freedom, people are inherently greedy and sometimes to get great change done to benefit a nation is hindered by obstacles created by excess freedom (Its like giving a child freedom to do what ever he wants when he has yet to grasp the gravity of his decisions).

But ultimately in either systems good leadership is required and a good supporting system of government is required. If either systems are mired in corruption and bad leadership it won't make a difference which path is taken.

 

[kugga]

who says democracy is about 2 parties only(we can have more than 2 parties in a democracy) that they both want the same thing and eventually people tire up, what a flawed definition.

Yes .. I thought the same after reading this but when we look at real world I don't find successful democracies running with more than two parties like in America there are two parties in India Two parties in Pakistan we have more than two parties registered but the fact is it's always a fight between only the big two parties....

 

[Ahmad]

Yes .. I thought the same after reading this but when we look at real world I don't find successful democracies running with more than two parties like in America there are two parties in India Two parties in Pakistan we have more than two parties registered but the fact is it's always a fight between only the big two parties....

well, even if there is 2 parties, people will have a choice to vote other smaller parties if they dont want the bigger parties. perhaps it is the in capability of smaller parties which has created 2 big parties. but end of the day, it is the people who decide.

 

[kugga]

well, even if there is 2 parties, people will have a choice to vote other smaller parties if they dont want the bigger parties. perhaps it is the in capability of smaller parties which has created 2 big parties. but end of the day, it is the people who decide.

hmmm... It looks like that it is the people who decide... but tell me was it the people of America who decided War on Iraq?? I 've seen so much heavy protests in America to not attack Iraq and Afghanistan but no body listened..... At the end of the day it's the government who decides... people are just used like cards... Is it the decision of people of Pakistan to allow american drones?? NO...

 

[Ahmad]

hmmm... It looks like that it is the people who decide... but tell me was it the people of America who decided War on Iraq?? I 've seen so much heavy protests in America to not attack Iraq and Afghanistan but no body listened..... At the end of the day it's the government who decides... people are just used like cards... Is it the decision of people of Pakistan to allow american drones?? NO...

but people cant throw a gov away everytime they dont like a certain policy or decision from the gov, there is law and it must be followed. perhaps people of america wanted iraq to be invaded, otherwise they could have easily not elected bush the second time.

 

[kugga]

but people cant throw a gov away everytime they dont like a certain policy or decision from the gov, there is law and it must be followed. perhaps people of america wanted iraq to be invaded, otherwise they could have easily not elected bush the second time.

May be you are right...

 

[gambit]

Yes .. I thought the same after reading this but when we look at real world I don't find successful democracies running with more than two parties like in America there are two parties in India Two parties in Pakistan we have more than two parties registered but the fact is it's always a fight between only the big two parties....

Then you did not look very hard and whatever you found you did not think very much about it.

 

[apophenia]

It’s an impossible question to answer. A more interesting would be is how alike, and unlike, Communist and Capitalists states are from each other.

@ gambit

Don’t you think capitalism cashed-in on the backs of slavery or near slavery in past.

 

[gambit]

It’s an impossible question to answer. A more interesting would be is how alike, and unlike, Communist and Capitalists states are from each other.

Communism cannot be compared to Capitalism. The appropriate opposite is Democracy.

@ gambit

Don’t you think capitalism cashed-in on the backs of slavery or near slavery in past.

Are you saying that capitalism cannot succeed unless there is institutionalized slavery?