Calling on all EU citizens: NO to anti-communist resolution!

Aedh Baclamh

Obviously I was referring to your sweeping generalisation rather than an isolated incident.

bonkey

certain people wrote:

1. In the USSR, everyone had food, free education, free heathcare, a job etc. Okay, Coca-Cola may not have been available and so on but the basics were all there.

If you define "the basics" at a low enough level, then yes.

2. Remember the way the United States

You mean they've improved? Whilst the USSR failed to improve significantly, and instead ceased to exist? Hmm...hard to choose a better system from that. The one that improves rapidly over time, or the one that fails to do so and ceases to exist. Tough one.

And most importantly, remember that the USA is responsible for what is undeniably the most horrific, brutal act in the history of mankind - the dropping of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Your definition of undeniable is completely different to mine, so I'm not sure how to address this. There are plenty of acts which are arguably more horrific and more brutal.

The only thing remotely unique (that I can think of) was that so much suffering was directly caused by the conscious act of a single person, with a single explosive device.

Criticise actions, not ideologies.

Both are open to criticism. Its just important to remember that there is a distinction.

jc

thiscityburns

Condemn the communist atrocities (especially Kronstadt), that's fine, i'm with that all the way.
Then we can move onto condemning "Capitalist" atrocities, like the US intervention in Chile in 1973 or Nicaragua 1981-92.

FireFall01

Originally Posted by certain people
1. In the USSR, everyone had food, free education, free heathcare, a job etc. Okay, Coca-Cola may not have been available and so on but the basics were all there.

If you define "the basics" at a low enough level, then yes.

2. Remember the way the United States

You mean they've improved? Whilst the USSR failed to improve significantly, and instead ceased to exist? Hmm...hard to choose a better system from that. The one that improves rapidly over time, or the one that fails to do so and ceases to exist. Tough one.

Quite intresting then that the US doesnt provide these "basics" isnt it

The Corinthian

FireFall01 wrote:

Quite intresting then that the US doesnt provide these "basics" isnt it

That’s not actually true. Again, not unlike the USSR, it depends on how low you want to define the basics. Social Welfare has been in existence in the USA for decades, it way not be as generous or comprehensive as that which Europeans are accustomed to, but to say it does not exist would not be true either.

Ultimately the proof of the pudding in Communism’s failure lies in the fact that pretty much no communist economy has ever succeeded. One could argue that this was down to foreign intervention (be us Soviet or US) or due to totalitarianism or a myriad of other reasons, but given the sheer absence of any functioning communist economy, the most probable cause is because they were unworkable to begin with.

thiscityburns

what about cuba?

The Corinthian

thiscityburns wrote:

what about cuba?

What about Cuba?

Certainly the US embargo has had its effect on the Cuban Economy, however, so have the decades of subsidies that Cuba got from the USSR. Essentially, up until the early to mid nineties, Cuban communism was being bankrolled by the Soviets. Another major input into the economy was the remittance sent back by many Cuban-Americans (hardly the founding-stone of a strong economy to begin with), which was stopped in the mid 1990’s. When all that ended, we’re seen them turning to other sources of income; especially tourism and medical tourism.

However it’s simply not paying the bills.

Cuba since the fall of the USSR has been increasingly plagued by the same problems that face other communist states - market inefficiency, empty shop shelves and a decline on the quality of social services (the Cuban medical service is not longer what it was once held up to be) as the money runs out. It is questionable that it can continue indefinitely.

Once could blame this on the US trade embargo, but that would be simplistic - Cuba has no problem trading with most of Latin America, or China or the EU for that matter.

Ultimately there exist only five communist countries in the World any more: China is in name only, Cuba I’ve covered above, Laos & Vietnam are Third World Basket case economies and the less said of North Korea’s economy the better. Venezuela, contrary to some opinions, is not communist - at least not yet.

So, with the exception of China (which is no longer running a communist economy) the remnants of the communist experiment are at best third-rate economies and at worst humanitarian disasters. All the rest have gone the way of the Dodo.

randombassist

certain people wrote:

everyone's very quick to slate the USSR etc., but while you're up there on your high horse, consider this.

1. In the USSR, everyone had food, free education, free heathcare, a job etc. Okay, Coca-Cola may not have been available and so on but the basics were all there.

2. Remember the way the United States treated black people until the 1960s? Remember the record of the USA in Vietnam - burning villages, napalming random bits of the jungle and neighbouring countries? Remember that the USA still treats non-Americans as nonhumans, look at Iraq, especially that prison. Remember the way the USA treated democratically elected communist governments - Allende was elected in Chile, only for the USA to back General Augusto Pinochet in a brutal revolution which led to a horrifying military dictatorship for many years. Go do a bit of research, and you will find that the number of people in prison in the USA today is greater than the number of people ever imprisoned by the USSR. And most importantly, remember that the USA is responsible for what is undeniably the most horrific, brutal act in the history of mankind - the dropping of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

My point is, every side is wrong, and it's too easy to jumo in the USSR bashing bandwagon. There was, is, wrong on all sides, done by people who have claimed all ideologies, and it's unfair to criticise one alone. People commit crimes, not ideologies, and people can claim one ideology and act on another, as Stalin undoubtedly did (as anyone who compares the theory of communism to what Stalin actually did would see).

Criticise actions, not ideologies.

The USSR also liked to crush rebellions with massive force.
They caused millions to die in the Ukraine due to famine, hardly everyone having food there now is it.
They treated the sattelite nations as second class citizens, didn't give them the same rights.
They didn't have as many people in prison, because they killed them, they dissapeared them. Perhaps if we added up everyone who was executed and added that on to the prison figures we could get a more accurate reading...

People can commit crimes based on ideology. There is every reason to criticise ideology based on reolution, violence and murder. Some thoughts are wrong, that's why we have incitement to hatred legislation.

And as for the US bashing: their greatest acts against humanity, the nuclear bombs would save more lives in the long run. When it comes down to it it's not as black and white as you'd like it to seem.

It's not unfair in this case to criticise one on its own, communism has got off lighter than facism in popular concesus even though it was just as bad. If a former SS officer ran for president in Germany there'd be outcry, and yet putin as former KGB, and very authoritarian now, breaking up media etc is fine. Is it wrong for the EU to say it condems the kind of totalitarianism that's got off lighter? I don't think so, in fact it sends the right message, this kind of subjagation is wrong. These actions were wrong. This ideology is wrong.

samb

Could somebody please explain to me why I should not have the right to set up a political party that is democratic peaceful and based on the economic ideology of communism. This is what the discussion is about, it is not about communism in Russia, Cuba or Cambodia or whereever, or about America. There already exists laws against what stalin and co did.

randombassist

samb wrote:

Could somebody please explain to me why I should not have the right to set up a political party that is democratic peaceful and based on the economic ideology of communism. This is what the discussion is about, it is not about communism in Russia, Cuba or Cambodia or whereever, or about America. There already exists laws against what stalin and co did.

There's a difference between a link to communist economic policies, such as land not commanding a value, and being for revolution as the communist manifesto, the guiding text of communism calls for. As an 'ism' communism is clearly defined, unlike facism. It has a few guiding texts, and these lay out the paramaters of what exactly communism is. What you're talking about is not communism, but socialism, or capatalism with derived communist ideas. The act that we're discussing here, even in title discusses 'totalitarian communism'. That's what this discussion is about, hence the references to those kinds of regiemes.

certain people

Well, there's been a few quite amusing posts on this thread since I posted, such as a redefinition of the term "isolated instance" to include protracted periods of government sanctioned mistreatement and torture of prisoners over...how many years has the Guantanamo prison been open? 4 years is it? Then there was the one where the USA provides all the basics, haha, good one. Free Education and Free Healthcare have of course been at the forefront of Democrat and Republican policy for years now. What's that? They haven't? oh. ooops.
Oh and the one where the atomic bombs aren't horrific, that was a good one. Ha ha. (Sure it wasn't black and white...they had nothing to do with beating Japan, dropping the A-bomb was America's way of waving their d*cks at the USSR saying "look what we've got, yah!". Russia was ready to invade Japan, which was already on the point of surrender.) It was unneccessary and horrific - the most horrific unspeakable atrocity ever. I'd love to know what you think was worse, I really would.

I never denied the fact that the USSR did many many bad things (that's putting it lightly in fact!!). Of course it did. I was sort of figuring that given that's the thread topic, it would be taken as assumed for my post. What I said was that the USA, the Capitalist USA, has done just as bad. There was good and bad on both sides.

In theory Communism has some great ideas in it, but it just doesn't work in practice, it requires either far too strong a central government or else full co-operation with the system which is of course never going to happen. But I don't think it's a good idea to label the entire ideology as wrong, and I think it's a bad idea to attach the label "Communist" to various atrocities. You wouldn't condemn the Capitalist Violations of Human Rights in Guantanamo would you? It's nothing to do with the system, it's just the government abusing their power, whether it's a capitalist government or a communist one. The economic policy has notthing whatsoever to do with the atrocities. So let's get together and condemn atrocities and human rights violations, whoever committed them.

By the way, Yugoslavia worked pretty well until Tito died. Make of that what you will.

The Corinthian

certain people wrote:

Free Education and Free Healthcare have of course been at the forefront of Democrat and Republican policy for years now. What's that? They haven't? oh. ooops.

Actually the US Democratic party has put social policies such as free education and, in particular, healthcare on the forefront of their policy.

Of course, whether they have or not is irrelevant here, because the reality is that basic social welfare does indeed exist in the USA - a point that was denied by some in this thread.

I never denied the fact that the USSR did many many bad things (that's putting it lightly in fact!!). Of course it did. I was sort of figuring that given that's the thread topic, it would be taken as assumed for my post. What I said was that the USA, the Capitalist USA, has done just as bad. There was good and bad on both sides.

I’d certainly agree that both systems have done evil, but it’s rather difficult to equate the gulags, mass purges & expulsions and famine caused by the USSR’s various five-year plans with anything the USA has done over the years. That’s not to say that the US is ‘the good guy’, only that you can’t really say that she was as bad as the USSR.

In theory Communism has some great ideas in it, but it just doesn't work in practice, it requires either far too strong a central government or else full co-operation with the system which is of course never going to happen. But I don't think it's a good idea to label the entire ideology as wrong, and I think it's a bad idea to attach the label "Communist" to various atrocities.

But do you really mean that? For example would you say the same of Fascism (and I don’t mean Nazism)?

By the way, Yugoslavia worked pretty well until Tito died. Make of that what you will.

It was politically stable, which is not the same thing as working pretty well (I know more than a few former Yugoslavs who will attest to this). And stability bought with dictatorship is a poor bargain - not because of lack of freedom, TBH, but because it’s a false and transitory stability. When the dictator dies, there’s rarely a clear line of succession (dictators do not encourage potential rivals, after all) and the system either collapses immediately or limps on as an ineffectual, and typically corrupt, oligarchy.

AFAIK, the only dictator to actually try to engineer an heir was Franco, and ironically while he succeeded, it ideologically backfired on him posthumously.

On which note; any bets on how long Cuba remains communist after Castro?

Wibbs

certain people wrote:

Oh and the one where the atomic bombs aren't horrific, that was a good one. Ha ha. (Sure it wasn't black and white...they had nothing to do with beating Japan, dropping the A-bomb was America's way of waving their d*cks at the USSR saying "look what we've got, yah!". Russia was ready to invade Japan, which was already on the point of surrender.) It was unneccessary and horrific - the most horrific unspeakable atrocity ever. I'd love to know what you think was worse, I really would.

Wrong on many points. Japan would have required a massive land invasion to subdue it. The casualties, both civilian and military would have been far higher. Such an allied fleet was being assembled before the bomb*. Remember, the Japanese gov didn't surrender after the first nuke either. They tried to deny it even happened. It took a second blast to convince them. Even then there were voices calling for fighting to the last man.

Far from it being "undeniably the most horrific, brutal act in the history of mankind" or "the most horrific unspeakable atrocity ever"(Just looove the undeniably and ever bits), far worse things happened in that war, by all sides. Dresden, The final solution, Japanese atrocities in China, etc. If you think the systematic clinical extermination of over 6 million people is lesser than dropping two bombs that very likely lessoned the amount of final deaths then fair enough. It would really serve you better to ease up on the histrionics and read your history.

The Corinthian wrote:

AFAIK, the only dictator to actually try to engineer an heir was Franco

The eejit in Nth Korea was another I think. Succeeded too.


* Beyond history books too, as many of my family members were involved.

certain people

You make some good points. But I think you're wrong that the USSR was worse than the USA. Actually i'd compare the torture camp at Guantanamo Bay to the gulags, for example. The USA is not the squeaky clean happy freedom peace and democracy -loving nation they'd like us to believe is it. We just hear about all the bad bits of the USSR and the good bits of the USA because, well, because the USA won the cold war, basically. History is written by the victors, after all. The USSR was not an altogether evil place, and it did have a lot of good things going for it. We just don't hear them. The USA is in the same league as the USSR in terms of atrocities and human rights record, in my opinion. Well, in fact nothing beats for me the a-bombs, so in that sense the USA actually is lower in my opinion. but there's little difference.

As for Yugoslavia...I must admit that I don't know any Yugoslavs, and I really don't know a huge amount about it, but the country was politically stable, and i've heard no reports of state atrocities or any of the other evils normally associated with communist countries. I do find it incredibly interesting that it's always left out of these discussions. The fact that it was stable, given what's happened in the area since, really says something. Take it as a pointer that communism is not always evil, and for that matter, neither is dictatorship. Funny that.

oh and no, i wouldn't attach the label "fascism" to atrocities, for the same reason as i wouldn't say "communist atrocities" or "capitalist atrocities". "Nazi atrocities" is different, as nazism was entirely based around racist social ideology, it's not an economic/political idea.

Wibbs

certain people wrote:

Actually i'd compare the torture camp at Guantanamo Bay to the gulags, for example.

Wtf? How many people died in the gulags?

The USA is in the same league as the USSR in terms of atrocities and human rights record, in my opinion.

Right so, Roosevelt, like Stalin killed millions of his own citizens did he?

Well, in fact nothing beats for me the a-bombs, so in that sense the USA actually is lower in my opinion.

So in all recorded history, in all the atrocities during that time, the A bomb does it for you? Did you even read my last post, or did it and some of the facts run too contrary to your view for comfort?

As for Yugoslavia...I must admit that I don't know any Yugoslavs, and I really don't know a huge amount about it, but the country was politically stable, and i've heard no reports of state atrocities or any of the other evils normally associated with communist countries. I do find it incredibly interesting that it's always left out of these discussions. The fact that it was stable, given what's happened in the area since, really says something. Take it as a pointer that communism is not always evil, and for that matter, neither is dictatorship. Funny that.

Is it just me?

oh and no, i wouldn't attach the label "fascism" to atrocities, for the same reason as i wouldn't say "communist atrocities" or "capitalist atrocities". "Nazi atrocities" is different, as nazism was entirely based around racist social ideology, it's not an economic/political idea.

Of course it was an economic/political idea.:eek: :eek: :eek: Do you even know what the word Nazi stands for? They were national socialists FFS. it was even called the german workers party at the start. They were big into redistribution of wealth from profit sharing, workers collectives etc. They brought free education to Germany as well. Got loads o' votes that stuff. Seriously you should check this stuff out.

certain people

Actually, no, I didn't read your last post, i think you must have posted it while i was replying to the previous one cos i didn't see it till now. Sorry about that.

anyway i'll address some of your comments from both. You do have a fair point about the Holocaust but really it's just a matter of numbers, isn't it? Why are the numbers so important? Would the Holocaust have been less evil if it had been stopped a few years earlier, while the number dead was less than a million? No of course it wouldn't. For me, the indiscriminate murder of the people, the men women and children, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is worse. And the fact that it was done just to stick two fingers up at the USSR only makes it worse. (And I do stick to the view that the bombs were exactly that, I don't believe it would have lowered the ultimate casualty figure etc etc, sure, it shortened the war, but Japan was on it's last legs, down and almost out. It was unnecessary).

"Right so, Roosevelt, like Stalin killed millions of his own citizens did he?"

his own citizens? his own citizens are people. other people are also people. does it matter if the people he killed were "his own citizens" or not? Do you really think it makes a difference? 'Boom, another person dead. Oh well that's okay, it wasn't one of MY citizens.' I happen to think that all humans are equal. Killing a person results in a dead person...not a dead American, not a dead Soviet, not a dead whatever nationality, a dead PERSON. The USSR treated people as sub-human. The USA treated, TREATS, people as sub-human. The difference is only a matter of numbers.


And now on to Nazism. Well, of course the Nazi party had economic and political opinions...although let me say that although they called themselves socialist, there was very little socialist about them!! The fundamental principles of nazism, however, were based around the idea of Aryan racial superiority which is not, however much spin you put on it, an economic or political idea. And it was from that racist principle that the Holocaust resulted. Surely you aren't trying to claim that it was Hitler's economic policy that all Jews should be murdered? Doesn't really sound like an economic policy to me.

Finally Yugoslavia. I was just making a throwaway comment, I said that I don't know much about it, I just think it's interesting that when everyone talks about the evil of communism etc Yugoslavia gets left out of the discussion. And it doesn't seem to have been that bad at all. I really should go read more, but perhaps if someone who knows about the place would like to comment? That was my real intention, to put it into the debate, not to make any judgements based on it. I am open to all corrections, and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

The Corinthian

certain people wrote:

You make some good points. But I think you're wrong that the USSR was worse than the USA. Actually i'd compare the torture camp at Guantanamo Bay to the gulags, for example.

And certainly a comparison can be made, however given that by the early 1950’s the Gulag had 2.5 million prisoners, it is a comparison that falls short. The US has never run such camps on such scales. Not even close.

The USA is not the squeaky clean happy freedom peace and democracy -loving nation they'd like us to believe is it.

No one here has said otherwise.

We just hear about all the bad bits of the USSR and the good bits of the USA because, well, because the USA won the cold war, basically. History is written by the victors, after all. The USSR was not an altogether evil place, and it did have a lot of good things going for it. We just don't hear them.

Would you extend the same logic to the Nazi’s?

The USA is in the same league as the USSR in terms of atrocities and human rights record, in my opinion.

That may be your opinion, but - as I’ve already pointed out - the facts do not bare this out.

Well, in fact nothing beats for me the a-bombs, so in that sense the USA actually is lower in my opinion. but there's little difference.

The A-bomb beats the Nazi death camps?

As for Yugoslavia...I must admit that I don't know any Yugoslavs, and I really don't know a huge amount about it, but the country was politically stable, and i've heard no reports of state atrocities or any of the other evils normally associated with communist countries.

Vis-a-vi stability, it was stable in the same way the USSR was stable under Stalin or Spain was under Franco. It’s easy to have stable government under a dictatorship.

As for atrocities, we can point to Istria, for example - it was annexed after World War II from Italy. The Italian population was ethnically cleansed - numerous mass graves have since been uncovered.

I do find it incredibly interesting that it's always left out of these discussions. The fact that it was stable, given what's happened in the area since, really says something. Take it as a pointer that communism is not always evil, and for that matter, neither is dictatorship. Funny that.

Yet, without dictatorship, it too failed. Just like all the other communist states. Funny that.

oh and no, i wouldn't attach the label "fascism" to atrocities, for the same reason as i wouldn't say "communist atrocities" or "capitalist atrocities".

Fair enough. That’s consistent.

"Nazi atrocities" is different, as nazism was entirely based around racist social ideology, it's not an economic/political idea.

Actually it was very much based around an economic/political idea, of which race was central. Economically, Keynes admired it and many of its concepts were Fascist in origin; although it displaced the State with Race as a core value.

So simply because we find it abhorrent does not mean we can dismiss it as “not an economic/political idea”.

As an aside, I’ve always found tribalism and scapegoatism an interesting motif in political ideologies. Nazism used race to engender support a point to a national enemy - Communism, on the other hand, uses class.

Wibbs

certain people wrote:

Actually, no, I didn't read your last post, i think you must have posted it while i was replying to the previous one cos i didn't see it till now. Sorry about that.

Nope, my mistake.

You do have a fair point about the Holocaust but really it's just a matter of numbers, isn't it? Why are the numbers so important? Would the Holocaust have been less evil if it had been stopped a few years earlier, while the number dead was less than a million? No of course it wouldn't.

Of course numbers are inportant. If we only had three dead in Treblinka I don't think we would have too many memorials to the holocaust. In any case it's you who is measuring one bunch against another. If one ideology killed 20 people and the other killed 20 million, who would be "worse". See how the numbers matter?

For me, the indiscriminate murder of the people, the men women and children, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is worse.

What about the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg. Wave after wave of bombers, for day after day. Not two lone bombers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

And the fact that it was done just to stick two fingers up at the USSR only makes it worse. (And I do stick to the view that the bombs were exactly that, I don't believe it would have lowered the ultimate casualty figure etc etc, sure, it shortened the war, but Japan was on it's last legs, down and almost out. It was unnecessary).

What you believe is one thing, history is quite another. Commentators on both sides generally agree that a land invasion of Japan would have been disastrous in terms of the loss of life. My own feeling is that they should have issued a warning first. That said they had to drop a second device as there was still no response to surrender requests.

Google Okinawa. Okinawa is an island off the coast of Japan. More died during the battle for Okinawa than died by the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's right, more dead. I know it's only numbers, but it puts things into perspective. Can you imagine the hell that a land assault on Japan itself would have brought. You said it yourself. It shortened the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_the_decision_to_drop_the_bombs
^ for balance and such.

his own citizens? his own citizens are people. other people are also people. does it matter if the people he killed were "his own citizens" or not?

I would contend that one of the ways to judge a society is how it treats its own citizens first, so yes it does matter.

And now on to Nazism. Well, of course the Nazi party had economic and political opinions...although let me say that although they called themselves socialist, there was very little socialist about them!!

Actually there was, free medical, education, higher pensions etc., but that's for another debate. Granted they were a bunch of aryan spouting, murderous nutbags, but it's not all that black and white.

Surely you aren't trying to claim that it was Hitler's economic policy that all Jews should be murdered? Doesn't really sound like an economic policy to me.

No, Obviously I'm not, but scarily it did have sound economics behind it too. Confiscation of Jewish lands, monies, and business interests alone made the Reich a pretty penny. Millions in fact.

samb

randombassist wrote:

. The act that we're discussing here, even in title discusses 'totalitarian communism'. That's what this discussion is about, hence the references to those kinds of regiemes.

Sorry my mistake. Then I would support the bill. why not just totalitarian regimes full stop. The communism part seems unfair.

There's a difference between a link to communist economic policies, such as land not commanding a value, and being for revolution as the communist manifesto, the guiding text of communism calls for. As an 'ism' communism is clearly defined, unlike facism. It has a few guiding texts, and these lay out the paramaters of what exactly communism is. What you're talking about is not communism, but socialism, or capatalism with derived communist ideas

I disagree here, communism as I know it generally referes to an economic model whereby basically everthing is owned by everybody, hence commune.

from wikipedea; Communism refers to a theory of classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

P.S I'm not a communist

samb

Wibbs wrote:

Of course it was an economic/political idea.:eek: :eek: :eek: Do you even know what the word Nazi stands for? They were national socialists FFS. it was even called the german workers party at the start. They were big into redistribution of wealth from profit sharing, workers collectives etc. They brought free education to Germany as well. Got loads o' votes that stuff. Seriously you should check this stuff out.

.

I don't think I understand you here. Are you saying that the Green party or Sinn fien are actually Nazis. I'm not sure what distinguishes naziism but I'm fairly sure that you are misguided by defining them in terms of a couple of economic policies.

Sand

Sorry my mistake. Then I would support the bill. why not just totalitarian regimes full stop. The communism part seems unfair.

Because, as the proposal states a lot of people refuse to accept that communists could ever be evil. Hence its neccessary to be extremely specific to get the criticism to be placed accurately. Everyone is extremely aware of Nazi or Fascist totalarian regimes and their crimes. As this thread demonstrates, some people are ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of Communist totalarian regimes and their crimes. This proposal attempts to rectify that.

Well, of course the Nazi party had economic and political opinions...although let me say that although they called themselves socialist, there was very little socialist about them!!

Actually, they were extremely socialist. But they were also racists/ultra nationalists. They believed the tenets of socialism only extended to Aryans - crossing existing national borders, modern socialism usually stops at a nations border. Its a significant difference, but modern socialism is not all embracing either. Darndale is ranked as more important than Darfur, despite Darfur being far worse off.

They experimented with early enviromental thought (love of the fatherland translated across into it), but no one would point at that and think - see theyre not all bad, just misunderstood.

certain people

"Actually, they were extremely socialist. But they were also racists/ultra nationalists. They believed the tenets of socialism only extended to Aryans"

Well now, that's a massive contradiction. One of the fundamental principles of socialism is that all people are equal. Take that away, and you don't have socialism. Same as capitalism isn't capitalism without business. It just isn't the same thing.

On your other point, I think it's important to say that communists can be evil, just as facists and capitalists can. Their evil has nothing to do with their economic policy. Thanks to motions like this (not to mention some of the more despicable actions of the USSR and China) the word communist is forever blackened, it would seem. Which is very unfair to those who support the economic ideals of the ideology. Nowhere in communist ideology does it say that there should be gulags or the KGB. So why punish innocent followers of an economic ideology for the sins of people who claimed to, but didn't really, folow the ideology?

an analogy. I am an Irish Republican. Should I condemn Republican atrocities? I don't think so. I will gladly and fervently condemn the Omagh bombing, but I don't see why I should attach the word "Republican" to it, just because the people who carried it out claimed to be republican. They certainly weren't. I could claim to be whatever I wanted, and do something atrocious in that name...does that mean the name should be attached to it? No. So why should we attach communist/capitalist/fascist to a particular despicable act? People did it. They may have claimed ideology or whatever in defence of it but that changes and means nothing at all.

Sand

Well now, that's a massive contradiction. One of the fundamental principles of socialism is that all people are equal. Take that away, and you don't have socialism.

Socialists dont recognise all people are equal. People inside their borders deserve wealth transfers. People outside their borders only get scraps, if that. My point is, however they define their society does not invalidate their socialist vision of that society.

Their evil has nothing to do with their economic policy. Thanks to motions like this (not to mention some of the more despicable actions of the USSR and China) the word communist is forever blackened, it would seem. Which is very unfair to those who support the economic ideals of the ideology. Nowhere in communist ideology does it say that there should be gulags or the KGB. So why punish innocent followers of an economic ideology for the sins of people who claimed to, but didn't really, folow the ideology?

Has everything to do with it. Communism removes rights like private property. Most people, myself included will fight tooth and nail to retain our property. The right to hold property is what seperates us from slavery. Communism also attempts to remove class - whatever way you define class this implies again conflict as Communists tend to do so by declaring certain classes to be enemies and siezing their property, suppressing their ideas and imprisoning/liquidating them. Communism must be imposed on people who lose out by having their freedoms, property and even lives taken from them. The imposition implies dictatorship, though as Orwell said you dont establish a dictatorship to protect a revolution, you have a revolution to establish a dictatorship so it could be a case of the chicken and the egg. Either way, I prefer Communists when theyre nowhere near a position of influence. Safer for everyone. You might say thats unfair, but its probably unfair that no one will employ firebugs as Firefighters either.

certain people

You have made a common misconception there. True, communism removes the right to private property, but it also distinguished between private property and personal property. Your TV, your CD collection, your car...that's personal propery. Your land and house, that's private property. Doesn't mean you won't have it either - you sure will, it just won't require you to pay loads of rent etc. Every family would have a house big enough for their needs. Remember, Communism can be summed up in one line: "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs". Are you telling me that's a bad idea?

The Corinthian

certain people wrote:

Well now, that's a massive contradiction. One of the fundamental principles of socialism is that all people are equal. Take that away, and you don't have socialism.

That’s not actually true. Socialism does not consider all people to be equal - it considers all proletariat to be equal and demonizes the Bourgeoisie, just as much as Nazism demonizes the Jews.

Same as capitalism isn't capitalism without business. It just isn't the same thing.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political ideology. It is most commonly found alongside liberal democracies, but is not limited to them - China being a case in point.

On your other point, I think it's important to say that communists can be evil, just as facists and capitalists can. Their evil has nothing to do with their economic policy.

That’s a fair point - while the economic policies may have resulted in great evil, it was not the intention of those policies.

So why punish innocent followers of an economic ideology for the sins of people who claimed to, but didn't really, folow the ideology?

My understanding of the resolution specifically cites “totalitarian communist regimes” - so your point is moot. If it simply cited communist regimes, then I’d agree.

The reality is that a lot of evil was committed in the name of Communism and, unlike Fascism, has never been acknowledged. So, it is understandable, in particular for those EU member states who were forced to live in Communist distopias, that they would want the Gulag and the repression recognised as much as the Jews would want the Nazi Concentration camps recognised.

Remember, Communism can be summed up in one line: "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs". Are you telling me that's a bad idea?

Given that Communism has consistently failed to deliver on that promise, that one line has become little more than a cliché.

pwd

"It strongly condemns human rights violations and calls on all communist or post-communist parties in its member states which have so far not done so, to reassess the history of communism and their own past, clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes and condemn them without any ambiguity."

It's not outlawing communism.

Wibbs

samb wrote:

. I don't think I understand you here. Are you saying that the Green party or Sinn fien are actually Nazis.

Yes. Yes I am. Especially them greens parading the streets in their (plastic) jackboots.

I'm not sure what distinguishes naziism but I'm fairly sure that you are misguided by defining them in terms of a couple of economic policies.

I didn't. Read again. The "aryan spouting, murderous nutbags" line might give the game away.

certain people wrote:

You have made a common misconception there. True, communism removes the right to private property.../...Remember, Communism can be summed up in one line: "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs". Are you telling me that's a bad idea?

Nope, but who decides the level of need for a start? Don't get me wrong it is a laudable idea, even more so if you're a hippy or a callow youth fired with the world changing enthusiasm of the breed, but I have often observed, like wearing an excessive amount of black cothing and bad poetry, that its appeal and logic often pales with age.

Cork

Sand wrote:

Communists were just as bad as the Nazis.

Many had to live under these tyrants for years.

Just talking about it last week to a number of poles.

Good Riddence to the Commies. Their downfall did not come a moment too soon.

certain people

pwd wrote:

"It strongly condemns human rights violations and calls on all communist or post-communist parties in its member states which have so far not done so, to reassess the history of communism and their own past, clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes and condemn them without any ambiguity."

It's not outlawing communism.

It doesn't matter what it says, it's a proximity issue. It's putting the word "communist" in the same vicinity as human rights violations etc. And this only adds to the "commie bad, capitalist good" impression that Western governments want us to have. Which is wrong. This is what i'm trying to say, that while evil has been done in the name of communism, evil has also been done in the name of capitalism, freedom, and democracy. Will there be a follow-up motion calling on all democratic and capitalist parties to reassess the history of democracy and capitalism, and to clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by capitalist nations and condemn them without any ambiguity? No of course not. Instead the European governments will continue to allow the CIA to torture suspects on European soil, and be complicit with all sorts of human rights violations.

If the world would maybe stop treating communism as the root of all evil, and stop trying to overthrow and undermine every country that attempts to be some form of communist economy, maybe, just maybe, the next one might actually just turn out alright.



by the by, I think it's really ironic that Poland was mentioned above. Sure, the Poles did suffer a lot under the dictatorship. But now they're allowing secret CIA torture camps on their territory, and therefore assisting in human rights violations. Oh, how history can turn in full circles.

Victor

Cork wrote:

Many had to live under these tyrants for years. Just talking about it last week to a number of poles. Good Riddence to the Commies. Their downfall did not come a moment too soon.

Isn't Bertie a scoailist? :v: :v: :v: