Communism

Why do people in the U.S. think communism is so horrible?

because everything communsim stands for is everything the US of A, does not.


NOW GO BACK TO WORKING 12 HOURS A DAY OF HARD LABOUR FOR NOTHING!

>>1
I'm in the former soviet union and I think collectivism, planned economy and dictatorship of the masses is horrible. if you think otherwise, you're an ignorant liberty-hating wingnut.

>>1
Because it is associated with totalitarianism. They may not be totally aware of why communism always leads to tyranny, but they are correct. There is no way to implement a communist economic system and keep democracy at the same time.

>>4

I agree with both parts of this statement; that Americans neither understand why it is a bad thing and that they are correct about it.

>>5
your english fails

because people who say they support communism don't really support it.

We hate communism because we hate the idea of being poor.

Because it has been illegal. Other countries where it has not has enjoyed multi party democracy and freedom of speech and a lower level of repression of counter establishment views. It does not matter what you think of communism, the fact that the US hasn't got a real (as in relatively big and respected) socialist party is a democratic failure that is the effect of government oppression. So enjoy your tyranny.

In before "STALIN WASN'T A REAL COMMUNIST".

Stalin might not have actually been a communist, but he certainly wanted his followers to be because communism has no safeguards against tyranny, exactly what he wanted.

>>9
Maybe if you addressed criticism of socialism and made the appropriate changes instead of calling them ni**ers they would vote for you.

>>4

so true, to have a true communist way of life, everyone has to agree on it, and the only way to acheive that is through use of force which leads to totalitarianism.

>>11
Illegal! Political repression! Can you dig it? Look up COINTELPRO or some other acronym of totalitarianism.

Because communism goes against the American Dream of work hard to get through the system. To have a house, a car, and a wife who stays home and matches the kitchen appliances.
In communism everyone is "poor", everyone works "less",nobody has a car.And everyone works and everyone is equal(women work also).

>>14
Well, the goal of communism is actually that people dont work more than they need to. In communism work is seen as something dangerous and alienating. The american illusion is that everybody can be free if they just work hard enough. I think ive seen that somewhere else...

>>13
How is criticising socialism political repression? You people are fucking crazy, no wonder you fuck up everything you take control of.

>>16
COINTELPRO did i little bit more than "criticizing socialism". You are fucking stupid, no wonder you apprehend the written word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

>>4
Correct.

Plus, in communism, there is a lack of understanding of the way the human mind works. Communism's goal is "no one works more than they need to." What actually happens is, no one works more than they aboslutely have to to keep profiting from the system. And because 90% of the population thinks this way, the only way to keep a comunistic state running, is through dictatorship. Not only is the idea of communism tied to totalitarianism, it's inherent in its implementation. That's why communism doesn't work.

Americans hate it because they hated the USSR.

>>18
So if its so stupid and its so bad, why do you fear it so much you are ready to use totalitarian and tyrannical methods (eg COINTELPRO) to suppress it? Surely, if communism is dictatorship then capitalism must be democracy? So how can a democracy be undemocratic? Or is it so that your strawman description of communism is only made to hide the fact that capitalistic systems also have totalitarian and tyrannical tendencies and to ascribe such a broad term to a whole ideology or mode of production is an exercise in stupidity at best?  

Comunisms goal is to have everyone do what they are best at for the good of the people as a whole.  It is a sytem based on the needs of the many and not the desires of individuals.  In an ideal communism people do everything they can and recieve everything they need.  This naturally clashes with the selfish American mindset that revolves around luxury and ease of living.

Surely, if communism is dictatorship then capitalism must be democracy?
only if you are a poorly educated wingnut willing to lump different things together at your convenience

>>19
>>20
same person.

>>19
"So if its so stupid and its so bad, why do you fear it so much you are ready to use totalitarian and tyrannical methods (eg COINTELPRO) to suppress it?"

We fear communism because it causes sufferring and wish to suppress it for the same reason.

>>19
>"why do you fear it so much you are ready to use totalitarian and tyrannical methods to suppress it?"

First of all, you're arguing in the second person. That is to say, "I" don't fear communism.

Not even Americans, or the US Government (from what limited experience I have with it), fears communism enough to resort to such methods of eradication. The ends would not justify the means.

>"Surely, if communism is dictatorship then capitalism must be democracy?"

Wrong - this was never implied. Even if it had been, all one would need to do is look at the most basic emperical evidence to refute it, so what would have been the point?

>"So how can a democracy be undemocratic?"

What the fuck are you talking about? I suppose an answer to your question here wouls be through corruption. However, the question itself makes no since in that context.

>"Or is it so that your strawman description of communism..."

The comment to which you are referring is not a description of communism, nor is it in the least bit fallacious.

>"...capitalistic systems also have totalitarian and tyrannical tendencies..."

Some do, but it's never inherent in the ideology, contrast that with communism.

>"to ascribe such a broad term to a whole ideology or mode of production is an exercise in stupidity at best"

No, it's the exact opposite; because they linked via the nature of humanity itself.

You fail - if you're going to put fourth an argument at least try to be semi-coherent. Don't spew out a serries of questions and expect them to be taken as literal argument.

>>20
Yes, but that is not what happens. When a communistic state is in power the system degenerates into totalitarianism because of what I'd said earlier ("no one works more than they aboslutely have to to keep profiting from the system"). And then, the only way to keep the state itself afloat is through totalitarianism and/or the establishment of a dictatorship.

>>23

good point.  democratic capitalism doesn't produce any suffering... nor will it ever... it's the perfect system

>>24
"Not even Americans, or the US Government (from what limited experience I have with it), fears communism enough to resort to such methods of eradication. The ends would not justify the means."
Read a book. Or at least read about the COINTELPRO. Then come back. You are obviously delusional about US internal policies. Or wait, did you just say that a secret police infiltrating and assassinating arbitrary political groups is not a totalitarian method? Then read moar about the Stasi and KGB.

"The comment to which you are referring is not a description of communism, nor is it in the least bit fallacious. [...] Some do, but it's never inherent in the ideology, contrast that with communism."
"
The description of communism that it has totalitarianism inherent in its ideology is factually wrong, so it is fallacious. This idea is to my experience put forward by people who knows nothing about communistic ideology but who instead uses a couple of countries as proof. Well, if thats enough for communism to be inherently evul then i guess nazi germany should be enough for representative democracy, no? See the absurdity and the fallaciousness yet?

The rest is just rantings and flamebait, and i guess you fail for needing to resort to it. But dont be put of by political debates, just read moar and come back when your penis has a beard.

>>25
democratic capitalism can't stay capitalist forever.

>>25
No. Communism actually causes sufferring by allowing tyrants to get into power.

Capitalism just fails to prevent some sufferring that is inherant to our existence, whilst advancing technology and producing an efficient economic system which stops most sufferring.

>>28
correct, planned economy just doesn't work. compare Cuba, or Belarus (planned economy) to China (moving closer and closer to capitalism)

>>29
or best of all, NK.

  Right now. since they have no power here, they are content with telling you how stupid you are for not accepting their forward thinking ideas for a better world. If they gain any power they will quickly lose patience with your conservative attitude and schedule you for a long train ride. Those of you being called stupid now will be the first to go.
  The proof of the pudding.

>>26
but is it not inherent in communism to have a dictatorship of the proletariat?

>>32
This dictatorship of the proletariat can mean that the power shall be moved from the upper class to the lower class, that is, we are living in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie at present and in the interim between the end of the revolution and the onset of communism we will live in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its not a goal in communism, as little as bombing civilians and building secret illegal concentration camps is inherent in capitalism.

>>33
Illogical. You cannot have a dictatorship of the proletariat as dictators are upper class. You would just get a situation like in George Orwell's animal farm where some of the freed proletariats in charge of the revolutionary army start to act like tyrants.

I live in the former soviet union (the country is part of the EU now, though), and hearing uneducated nincompoops fantasizing about colossal economic planning and a monster state makes me shudder, because I've seen that in my lifetime. please educate yourselves and stop regurgitating stupid propaganda

>>34
No, dictators does not have to be upper class, or as we commies define call it, capitalists or part of the bourgeoisie class. And illogical is not the same as improbable. There is nothing illogical with saying that a dictatorship of the proletariat will follow the dictatorship of the upper class. Dont you have any real arguments? And what you say is that revolutions should only be done by the elite because stupid proles will only start to act as totalitarian pricks? It has been some time since ive last read animal farm but that is a moral that eluded me. 

>>35
Im from poland and im still a commie, esp since its now illegal to be a commie there. The soviet union is not an argument against either socialism, radical social change, progressiveness, communism or state controlled health care. Because if it was, then US genocide and slavery and concentration camps and terror bombings of civilians and torture schools and dictator backing etc would be arguments against liberalism and libertarianism. Its either or, you dumb fucks.

>>36
Wrong. If dictators have that kind of power they either abuse it or lose it. It's human nature. Stalin was a communist, he studied marx and lenin and participated in the fight against evil capitalists and he was a real angel wasn't he, because he had the label "communist".

>>37
the soviet union experience is an argument against state planning as a sustainable economic model (regulated competition has proven itself again and again), and it is an argument against collectivism. the rest of your post is just US bashing, and I fail to see how that is relevant, as it's not the only liberal  democracy in the world. troll better.

>>37
and you being from Poland kind of… I know it is prejudiced, but your arguments fit too well with what I would expect from an uneducated addle brained Polish "communist". sorry.