Communism, is it really that bad?

Question

Is it only the ideas that corrupt the human rights that give communism the bad name? i.e. China (forced abortions)

Or the biased attitudes that has developed over the ages due to the cold and vietnam wars?

Is it too do with greed of power of our dictatorships?

I just don't know what to believe

Answer 1

Communism is not bad! - What is bad! - is how its implemented within society!. Politically speaking communism is a much fairer system which should benefit all citizens of the state!. Socially speaking for the good of all!. However like capitalism it suffers from corruption which in turn dilutes the its beneficial aspects to society!.

Maybe True communism is little more than an utopian pipe dream!..

There never has been a proper communistic state, Russia China, North Korea and others may have used the term (communism) but in effect have not really been true to the doctrine, - leaders of these countries have bent the system to suit their own needs and views often allowing the system to be corrupted by officials who are surrounded by sycophants and cronies, which isn't that different from capitalism.

States like Russia and China, used collective farms and factory systems - The wealth generated by these systems should have been used for the common good of the whole nation but was siphoned off for government use often leaving the farmers/workers as little more than peasants while the political class prospered. which is where things went wrong. Ideally wealth generated should be spread equally (socially) between everyone and not just a few! - I can think of only one system where the true meaning of communism has come anywhere near to being socially valid, and that's the kibbutz system of collective farms used in Israel, were collective wealth of the kibbutz is earned and shared by everyone within the kibbutz equally.

Answer 2

Communism means the state imposing its values and making the decisions, picking the winners and losers economically (rather than the consumers, who do it in the market).

It means an ideal coordinated by the state.

Unless all individuals share the same ideals, which they never will, that means many have to be coerced for communism or any form of collectivism to take form.

That coercion means the brutal dictatorships you mention.

The one can't be had without the other.

The one is the ends, the other the means.

Read F.A. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom"

Answer 3

That's a good question and one I've asked myself many times. The answer depends on who you talk to. It would never work in the US because people here are gluttons and would never give up their possessions to help anyone else. I think it would work in any third world nation such as Venezuela. Why? Because the level of corruption is so high that a few rich people own everything while a majority of the people are starving. If you ever have a chance to visit Cuba, you will notice that there are no homeless people on the streets and no one starves. On the other hand, nobody owns huge mansions or gas wasting SUVs which, to me, is a good thing. Gluttony is mankind's biggest sin.......

Answer 4

No, but it is an oxymoron!

Sadly it assumes everyone is good and honest and thats not human nature. Communism theory is a beautiful theory and would remove the need for money. But what makes humans thrive is the competition and greed and self achievement. Natures basic work is all war right down from the amoeba up to the human its all conflict. So it cannot work.

Answer 5

The problem Communist parties have had has been the fundamental belief in the one party state. We have a Communist party in England, always have and it does no harm. Were they to come to power though we would have voted them in on the understanding that other parties no longer have a place in the system, they don't believe in inter-party competition. However bad our systems, the one thing we do have is the ability to vote out those in power, that is the one thing that keeps governments from becoming absolutely corrupt through absolute power. In all one party government States (Communist or other) the government assumes the role of the super rich or royalty and pursues it's own agenda separately w. little regard for the masses.

Answer 6

There's nothing about capitalism that says that individuals can't group together, redistribute wealth, share resources, and live in a commune. Free market means just that - individuals should be able to enter into whatever economic interaction they wish, as long as that economic interaction is based on voluntary and mutual consent. If you and ten of your friends choose to live that way, be my guest. Just don't force that on me and we'll be okay.

That being said, communism in its purest, most utopian and idealistic form is completely compatible with the free market.

What often happens, though, is that communism only takes hold in a country by force. Whenever the principles of communism are instituted by force of fraud, then they're unjust. I don't think communism is intrinsically evil, but communism almost always manifests that way because it's difficult to get people to agree to give up their ways of life to join a commune. That's why the history of communism is littered with totalitarianism, brutality, and oppression.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is free and accommodating to individual needs and desires. Capitalism doesn't promise to make you rich or happy, but leaves you alone to pursue your own happiness. There are no guarantees - you rise or fall based on your own talents and some degree of luck. Nobody will hold you down, but nobody will pick you up, either. Then again, you only need to look at the history of capitalism versus communism to know that capitalism, practically speaking, is the freest and most efficient way of distributing resources to the most people.

Answer 7

"In the socialist society the distinction between rich and poor would fall away; no one would any longer possess more than another, but every individual would be poorer than even the poorest today, since the communistic system would work to impede production and progress. It may indeed be true that the liberal economic order permits great differences in income, but that in no way involves exploitation of the poor by richer people. What the rich have they have not taken away from the poor; their surplus could not be more or less redistributed to the poor in the socialist society, since in that society it would not be produced at all." Von Mises, "Nation, State and Economy"

Answer 8

Every system has an inherent corruption. As for forced abortions, compare that with our smoking ban. There will be wardens patrolling the pubs and places to flush out and fine the smokers. Don't get pregnant is what I say because they already have 1.5 billion to feed and that is a lot.

Answer 9

There is nothing such as "good" or "bad" here when you talk about capitalism and communism. It is only the theory about social development. Maybe it is true, maybe not. In my opinion, the analysis of Marx about capitalism in his time is totally right, but now there is a lot of change. Capitalism has evolutioned. But as Marx's analysis showed that : it will go to communism whether it bad or not, it is a period of social development. The problem is how will it work and when will it happen ?

Answer 10

The reality is that Communism is a beautiful and heavenly idea of brotherly love and helping each other but the real thing is way worse. In the Soviet Union they repressed people's freedoms we take for granted here. This also happens in China and other "Communist" countries. The idea is nice on paper but the real thing is inhumane and unethical. It violated human rights and it is very dangerous.