Why are socialism and Communism hated? (1 Viewer)

[redohio]

Communism and Socialism are two different animals. However, they are both more susceptible to extreme nationalism than capitalism (Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, the list is too long…). In the end, capitalist states MUST export their goods and services to survive- Translated: You have to be liked (as well as respected) for people buy your stuff. So capitalist nations cannot go to war for very long, they will lose customers.

On the other hand, in a socialist society, emphasis is placed on self sustenance. But you cannot sustain your state, you grab someone else’s stuff. That’s 90% of the reason the 20th Century was plagued with war.

 

[AndrewC23]

They are hated because they fail, period. There has never been one successful communist regime in history

 

[upsideguy]

They are hated because they fail, period. There has never been one successful communist regime in history

First, you used the word "they" implying you were answering the global question, but only offered the assertion that communism failed.

Second, there is no pure socialism, pure communism, nor pure capitalism. But, in the impure world, China is a communist regime that has been successful, and many of the European brands of socialism have delivered much better GDP per capita than the US.

 

[AndrewC23]

The Soviet Union was a socialist regime not a communist one neither one has one example of a successful regime

 

[AndrewC23]

and communist china didn't become successful until it opened itself up to capitalist practices

 

[upsideguy]

The two are not related.

Government must be reduced. That's an absolute that cannot be denied.

That is a bit intellectually weak. You absolutely can deny that assertion. A free society has a right to argue the role of its government in social and economic matters. That is a valid debate (and perhaps the most noble debate of them all). If you are operating under the wrong premise that people can not afford the government, you are not correct. The people can raise taxes and raise expectation of governmental services, if they chose to do so.

Its ok to make assertions, but do not try to suggest something is axiomatic when it is not.

 

[AndrewC23]

Name one successful communist or socialist regime that doesn't have capitalist practices

 

[upsideguy]

The Soviet Union was a socialist regime not a communist one neither one has one example of a successful regime

????? In English please!

 

[katiegrrl0]

The Soviet Union was a socialist regime not a communist one neither one has one example of a successful regime

CCCP was none of the above. The nation was Stalinist.

 

[AndrewC23]

Which is based from Leninism which is based from the political philosphies of Karl Marx

 

[AndrewC23]

????? In English please!

That is English haha I'm not speaking in a foreign language. Okay I'll spell it out for you, can you name one successful communist or socialist regime? That did not later employ capitalist or democratic practices in their government?

 

[upsideguy]

Name one successful communist or socialist regime that doesn't have capitalist practices

Again, there is no such thing as a pure version of any economic system. Moreover, you are blending the political (regime) with the economic. I think you need to be more on point. As a political system, communism has worked in China and Vietnam. Albeit, in each case they allow free markets to work in many respects, yet they are far, far more controlled economies than that of the US.

Most of the Scandinavian countries have far more elements of socialism than the US, yet they consistently deliver the highest GDP per capita in the world. In fact, 7 of the 10 most prosperous countries are "european style socialist" that many on the right want you to fear, yet they have proven to deliver well for their citizens.
Norway at top of prosperity index - CNN

The US is 10th on the list, but given is very poor distribution of wealth, the US economy, without much a socialist component, could be argued to be a reasonably poor system as it does not deliver wealth for his population as a whole.



Then there is Mexico, which may be even more free market than the US.... and what
Mexico is probably even more free market than the US... but what a disaster.

 

[Cameron]

I am curious as to why people despise socialism and Communism so much. I have my own reasons, but I would rather not post them until I hear from others, lest I corrupt their thought process with the power of suggestion.

Because it has never been politically incorrect in this country to despise those ideologies, and it is easier to despise a government structure you've never really known.

 

[AndrewC23]

Yes but the US accounts for 25% of the worlds economy mostly buying stuff from China lol and China is no longer a communist country. Vietnam is dirt poor so I don't see how you can say that they are successful either.

 

[celticwar17]

First, you used the word "they" implying you were answering the global question, but only offered the assertion that communism failed.

Second, there is no pure socialism, pure communism, nor pure capitalism. But, in the impure world, China is a communist regime that has been successful, and many of the European brands of socialism have delivered much better GDP per capita than the US.

:lol: China is not a good example. It's only successful because it basically enslaves it's people and has a lot of dirty economics.

 

[jamesthebond]

China is a communist regime that has been successful

What has the Chinese regime to do with communism??

 

[AndrewC23]

:lol: China is not a good example. It's only successful because it basically enslaves it's people and has a lot of dirty economics.

Once again China is not a communist country anymore...I don't really see how it is if there are people that are starving?

 

[Fish Whale]

I can't name one socialist or communist regime that has succeeded without capitalist elements. However, neither can I name a capitalist regime that has succeeded without socialist elements. The United States definitely would've broken apart in 1930s during the Great Depression had it not been for unemployment benefits, salary insurance, public work projects, and social security. Hell, the United States and Great Britain and several other capitalist countries would've fallen apart in the late 19th and early 20th centuries if there weren't regulation of corporations to prevent monopolies.

I don't understand why people hate socialism and communism, besides the fact that the last generation had to learn to hate communism for the Cold War. People seem to think pure socialism and communism doesn't work, and that's true, but neither does pure capitalism. Pure capitalism means monopoly is acceptable. It favors competition, but that means someone will eventually become powerful enough to stifle the competition, but still, that is capitalism.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

When people think of "communism" they often think of the USSR and the Soviet Bloc under Stalin and past. That was not communism. Communism has worked on several occasions the Paris Commune and Catalonia in Spain.
Socialism has worked as certainly is working in South America. If socialism fails so much and is so bad my question is why does the US at everytime a socialist is elected or is just gained power why do we do everything in our power to overthrow that government even if it is democratically elected?
And no Norway and Sweeden are not socialist. They do have more socialistic aspects in their economy in government i would claisfy them as social democratic states.

 

[AndrewC23]

The U.S. was able to rise from the Great Depression because WWII brought a boost to the economy by creating jobs...and it doesn't matter if the Paris Commune and Catalona in Spain was able to use communism successfully, so did the cavemen. Communism would never work as a successful way to run a country and never has. Monopolies still exist today except they are called trusts. If a company has a quality product and people want to buy that product then people are going to buy it and if that means that other companies that make the same product with less quality go out of business then so be it that should be how it is. Walmart is pretty much a monopoly and yet there are still other superstores, Kmart, Costco, Giant Eagle etc, etc. and if you're saying that FDR helped us to come out of the great depression then you are definitely wrong FDR did more damage to our country then any other president FDR was a complete jackass. Capitalism is the reason why The U.S. is still on top because we have corporations and products that people around the world want to buy. McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Microsoft, Burger King, Subway, KFC...Capitalism is the reason why the U.S. is so great not socialism, socialism is the reason why we are still in a recession.

 

[upsideguy]

The U.S. was able to rise from the Great Depression because WWII brought a boost to the economy by creating jobs.

Funny, I didn't take you for a Keynesian.

..... and if you're saying that FDR helped us to come out of the great depression then you are definitely wrong FDR did more damage to our country then any other president FDR was a complete jackass.

Sorry, you don't get to just say asinine things here without backing them up. If you want to say such things, support your statement. Please explain how FDR did more damage to the country than the countless other yahoos that have held the office.... Buchanan, Hoover, Harding??

http://www.usnews.com/news/history/features/the-10-worst-presidents

I have never seen FDR included on the list of worst Presidents. If you want to enter that assertion, back it up.

Capitalism is the reason why The U.S. is still on top because we have corporations and products that people around the world want to buy. McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Microsoft, Burger King, Subway, KFC...Capitalism is the reason why the U.S. is so great not socialism, socialism is the reason why we are still in a recession.

Other than Apple and Microsoft, this is a laughable list.... The US is great because of fast food restaurants? Nice value added to the world economy. Please.... Surely you can do much better than that.... again, you need to explain and support. You are just throwing out random, unsupported assertions. Please explain how capitalism is moving us out of a recession and socialism holding us back. We already established that your a Keynesian, so clearly you see a role in government in economic stimulus lest you are contradicting yourself...

 

[Fish Whale]

and if you're saying that FDR helped us to come out of the great depression then you are definitely wrong FDR did more damage to our country then any other president FDR was a complete jackass. Capitalism is the reason why The U.S. is still on top because we have corporations and products that people around the world want to buy. McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Microsoft, Burger King, Subway, KFC...Capitalism is the reason why the U.S. is so great not socialism, socialism is the reason why we are still in a recession.

You're right, FDR didn't help us come out of the Great Depression. He just stopped the recession. That's all, no biggie. Stopping an economy that was receding for four years isn't an easy feat, especially when it showed no signs of stopping. There were controversial acts like the Agricultural Adjustment Act, but I don't see how anyone can say putting people into jobs and offering government services DIDN'T save the economy. Veterans were already marching on Washington. The starving were threatening to. How long could America have lasted while its people suffered under Hoover's failed policies? You didn't even back up any of your claims, you just said I'm wrong.
Also, you must not visit other countries often, because American restaurants like those sell overpriced exotic foods. I went into a McDonald's in China and half of the people there weren't Chinese. Also, Walmart, Apple, and Microsoft aren't big in other countries either, only western ones. And the biggest problem with this is that many of these corporations depend on China for products, making China the biggest winner in this race.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

CCCP was none of the above. The nation was Stalinist.

That's a silly caricature, as are any labels you try to slap on it that don't really say anything. Calling it "Stalinist" is about as silly as calling it socialist or communist. Certainly after the Stalin era many things changed and so therefore it would make no sense to call Khrushschevite USSR "Stalinist". Nor would it make sense to call the USSR under Brezhnev, or Gorbachev.

Which is based from Leninism which is based from the political philosphies of Karl Marx

Which is based on German Idealism and Ancient Greek philosophy I think we should all blame Hegel and Epicurus for the USSR. :roll:

As a political system, communism has worked in China and Vietnam. Albeit, in each case they allow free markets to work in many respects, yet they are far, far more controlled economies than that of the US.

Neither Vietnam nor China are "communist". They're simply capitalist dictatorships ruled over by bureaucratic apparatuses.

Also, it is nonsensical to speak of either "pure" systems or countries having "more" or "less" socialism.

China is not a good example. It's only successful because it basically enslaves it's people and has a lot of dirty economics.

It doesn't enslave its people, it simply plays the game really well - labor rights, good working conditions and environmental regulations are all things that, when taken away, make one country's labor force more competitive because it's cheaper and easier to implement.

Communism has worked on several occasions the Paris Commune and Catalonia in Spain.

First, these very obviously are not "communism" because they were living struggles.

Second, they were very obviously not victories because they were both annihilated.

 

[Brady]

^ As a very devoted and passionate communist myself I don't see how you can support China or the Soviet Union post 1924. A socialist society is one where the working class have power and control over production. That's the basis of socialism, then you move onto other things. Across Russia after the initial revolution there were spontaneous workers' councils called soviets (I'm sure you already know what that word means) that had sprung up in factories. These were great instruments of workers control over production. However after the Bolsheviks siezed state power, particularly with Stalin, the power of these democratic workers' councils had been practically deformed with actual power pretty much residing in the communist party. The Paris Commune is the only TRUE socialist government to have ever existed in my mind..... Socialism is supposed to be built from the buttom up, not top down.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

^ As a very devoted and passionate communist myself I don't see how you can support China or the Soviet Union post 1924.

Considering that you put that up arrow, and my post is right above yours, I'm assuming this was a response to me. I don't support China or the Soviet Union post 1924. In fact, I don't oppose them, either. The USSR doesn't exist anymore, it's stupid to say that you support or oppose it. The same can be said with regards to China, as China is a capitalist state.

These were great instruments of workers control over production. However after the Bolsheviks siezed state power, particularly with Stalin, the power of these democratic workers' councils had been practically deformed with actual power pretty much residing in the communist party.

We could argue back and forth about the necessity of the Bolshevik party control of the state and whether or not it was justifiable but I'd rather not waste my time discussing something that doesn't really matter, unless you're one of those silly people that think it was all a conspiracy or due to the actions of a few individuals (i.e. "It was Lenin/Stalin's fault!"), which I would be glad to disprove using a materialist method of analysis (you know, Marxism).

The Paris Commune is the only TRUE socialist government to have ever existed in my mind.....

The Paris Commune could maybe be called a proletarian dictatorship, but given the short time period it lasted and the level of control it actually had, it's a stretch to even call it that.