If the Left is considered liberal, and Communism is from the Left, then is Communism Liberal?

Question

What I do not understand is in certain European countries Communism is considered Anarchist. Well how can it be anarchy if Communism has always been about total control of society. Maybe i'm missing something.

Premiere, I'm currently reading about the political turmoil that went on in Italy during the years of lead in the 70's. They keep inciting about Communist Anarchist. Here is an existing group: Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici - FdCA

Answer 1

John Stolworthy is 100% correct. Nailed it. I get so frustrated when modern liberals compare themselves to the founding fathers. I just got a couple of thumbs down by asking how are big government, quasi-socialist modern liberals, like small government free market classical liberals like Jefferson and Madison. I still don't get it.

But there is a broader spectrum than just left vs. right. You also have to consider statism vs. decentralized government. For example, an anarchist or at least a mini-anarchist would believe in total freedom from government intervention on economic and social issues. A modern liberal would believe in freedom from government intervention on social issues, however large amount of government intervention in economic issues. However, modern liberals are reluctant to admit that economic intervention negates personal freedom, by limiting choices and reducing personal property rights. But communism in the Marxist definition is about eliminating personal property for communal property. And the elimination of government. But the Soviet version was authoritarian. It mandated citizens to share property and was socially repressive to say the least. So definitions can be skewed. And often are. But there is a broader spectrum than just left and right. Because Marxist communism demands communal property it also requires intervention by third party to manage the equity of distribution. And then you return to limited choices, because outside parties are managing your access to property. But in theory it is anarchy, because it supposed to require no government. As far I can determine, Marx never explained how you make the leap from personal property to communal property without government intervention.

In the end, it depends on how you define liberalism and communism. But no matter what Soviet Communism and Modern Liberalism require governmental intervention, and therefore aren't liberal, in the sense of individual freedom.

Answer 2

Marxism = Socialism = Stalinism = Communism = Fascism = Hitlerism = NeoLiberalism.

(That's the new liberalism that is currently funding the Democratic party. George Soros is probably the largest contributer.)

It's all the same. Put the people into groups, tax them to oblivion, take away their individual freedoms and put the government in control of every aspect of their lives.

At the same time use every media propaganda outlet possible to convince the ignorant that you are taking away their freedoms to help the poor or the environment or some other such new cause.

Thank God the US is still fighting it. We're about half liberal right now. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world has been taken over. They won't rest until the whole world is under their control. Education is the key. The more the people know the less they support liberalism.

We've let it get out of hand by ignoring the takeover of our schools and media outlets. It will take a lot of work to get our freedoms back, but it's worth fighting for if we want a good future for the next generations to come.

Answer 3

Anarchism is an ideal "system" in which the majority rules and there is no one ruler, it's the ideal ultimate destination of communism. What everyone has been programmed to define anarchy as is "chaos", because most people (correctly) assume that a system in which the masses rule would turn into chaos. Right wing politics are a more direct route to a literal definition of "chaos" because they don't want government intervention, they think they are sticking true to what the forefathers wanted but in reality they are just standing up for giant corporations who, in manifold, exploit economic "freedoms" to inhale billions of dollars for the few elite for dynasty building and social control, money that mostly would have otherwise gone into middle and lower class pockets.

The problem is definitions. Anarchy is "without a ruler", which is the most extremely left wing ideals and would *end up* in chaos and the right wing ideals of "total chaos" is a system in which nobody is regulating anything and the government has no power (the most extreme are the libertarians).

Communism is not about "total control of society", the idea was that society would gain total control of itself but the idea turned into crap for a great many reasons...But some more conservative aspects of the idea still have a lingering rationality in my opinion.

Answer 4

"Redistribution of wealth" is a canard used by the right. There is, indeed, redistribution of the wealth, and the current tax system makes sure that those at the lower end of the wage scale get less after taxes. Payroll taxes take about 7.5% of a person's salary up to about $85,000. After that only 1.5% is taken out for Medicare.

Now I don't know about you, but I believe that 7.5% payroll tax falls pretty heavily on the shoulders of the poor. Introduce tax procedures which allow people to defer taxes on bonuses, change stock options to less or more than the stock is worth, to have income on certain activities written off as a business expense, etc., and the burden falls even more on the poor's shoulders.

Corporations are the worst wealth distributors. In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.”

However a corporation has more rights than an actual person under the tax laws. For example: Corporations can have an address overseas which protects them from corporate taxes. The Stanley Company & others have done exactly that. They have a P.O. Box number in Bermuda. Can an actual person do that? Not a chance.

Puerto Rico corporate tax allow an 85-100% tax exemption for profits that companies based in the States receive from subsidiaries set up in U.S. territories as "foreign" corporations. This was supposed to expire in 2005, but it has not as of today. Can an actual person do that? Not a chance.

So yes. There is redistribution of wealth. It is being taken from the poor and given to corporations and wealthy people.

Answer 5

The "new left" is falsely associated with liberalism when, in reality, liberalism is based in liberty and freedom from government restrictions. The "new left" is more closely related to socialism, in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community, than communism, which seeks common ownership and government control of industries.

In short, communism is socialism carried to extremes. Neither is in line with true liberalism, which seeks freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), respect for the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.

The "new left" is NOT liberal, it is neo-socialist. The "old left" believes in the principles America was founded on. Thomas Jefferson said it best:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.” Jefferson was a true liberal.

For a good idea of what communism is, look at it's root - commune. They were big in the 60's. A commune is a kind of community where all resources are shared and there is no personal property. Everyone shares in the responsibility and everyone gets an equal share of the results of their labor.

Hope I helped.

Answer 6

If you rob from the poor and the middle class and redistribute it to the rich and the corporate like our government is doing, then you have what is on the path to a fascist state. Yes, fascism is an extreme form of conservativism. Extreme left is considered Communism. And, liberalism is somewhere more toward the center of the spectrum. Socialism is farther left than liberalism. Anarchy and Libertarianism are both off the charts!

Answer 7

it isn't, communism has a government. Although possible pure communism won't. I guess the line isn't so clear. Anarchy is ultra-conservative and communism is ultra-liberal, maybe what you're hearing is the result of more talking points and propoganda than theory, cause I can't see how this works. I hope we get a better answer though. Can you specify where you're drawing the communist anarchist comparison from?

Answer 8

Yes and No. Communism is liberal to the people in power. People in right positions in communist regimes are richer than their counterparts in Capitalist countries. And, the leftists hate the obstacles in their way of controlling the society in their own ways in the name of communism. In a way, they are at loggerheads with the honest people. You know, what I mean?

Answer 9

In true Communism the society becomes so equal and fair Money is not even needed to run it, Police are not needed because there is no crime, check the soviet union's statistics on crime in the 1980's if you doubt me. They all say 0 No crimes occurred in Communist Russia according to the government. In it's final form the very State withers away. So far no communist country has ever achieved this state.

Answer 10

Theyre similar on social issues, like redistribution of wealth. Communism in its truest form isnt about total control of society but more like each individual putting the society above themselves. Like ants in an antfarm.