100th Anniversary

[MigL]

One hundred years ago, on the night of the 7-8 November, Bolsheviks stormed the Tsar's winter palace, and began the Russian revolution, which established the world's first communal socialist regime.
Thhe death toll, over the last century,  that can be directly traced to this event, numbers close to 100 million. More than the two World Wars combined with other major conflicts and murders and genocides of the 20th century. Way more than the deaths attributed to Fascist regimes.
A lot of these deaths occurred under Stalin, with his mass starvation of Ukrainians, purges and executions of ethnic minorities, pacts with Hitler, invasion of Eastern Block countries, etc. But many more were carried out by his imitators, such as Mao during his 'great leap', who murdered and starved close to 45 million, and Pol Pot, who 'disappeared' one fourth of the Cambodian population.
Communist states have also produced some of the worst environmental disasters of the century, such as the Aral Sea, Chernobyl, etc.

Yet there is still a certain reveretion for Communism. You see the hammer and sickle on display, Che Guevera t-shirts, Mao Zedong memorabilia, praising of Castro by my Prime Minister ( and his father before him ).
Not so much for the diametrically opposed ideology of fascism, which is reviled by all. It's actually illegal in a lot of places to display the Nazi swastika.

Now one might argue that the Communism that was practiced was a perversion of that envisaged by Marx and Engels, but then you could also say the same of Hitler's, Mussolini's and Pinochet's versions of fascism; and with a much smaller death toll.

So why is communist ideology still discussed in polite society, but fascism is the 'boogey man' of ideology, and feared by all ?

 

( inspired by an article by Dr Michael Bonner, historian, PhD from Oxford, and a thread on another forum I belong to, Historum.com )

[tuco]

It will probably sound weird or even trivial but it will never cease to amuse me that the October revolution comes in November.

We used to carry lanterns ...

oh they are still being carried, probably for a different reason .. anyway, so cute! 

On a more serious note, what to say?

Generalizations are tricky as always, however, communist ideals are similar to Christian ideals for example in a sense that they (still) look good on paper. Now let's not debate/define what these ideals are

There is probably a good number of closet communists who approve tyranny in the name of <insert cause> but there is probably a similar number of such people on the other side of political spectrum. 

Fascism does not still good look on paper, so that is the difference. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by tuco

[CharonY]

I am not sure that those kind of comparison are a worthwhile exercise as it is easy to resort to whataboutism. However, to contextualize the view of communism in the West i will note that during the cold war there was significant political persecution of communists (most notably the McCarthyism and equivalent). The left scene organized around an anti-establishment, worker's right and civil rights themes which also included parts of the communist movement. As they were politically never dominant they often  acted and/or were seen as a balance to a conservative elite rather than as a truly revolutionary force as in other countries. Obviously, they were closely watched by the respective governments, though.

If we talk about the ideology things are complicated as fascism has not a very well organized system of thought. As such, it is difficult to compare a communist ideal with the fascist ideal. The latter really can only be described in historical manifestations (as Nazism, for example), which were clearly horrible.  Communism on the other hand, may not be practical, but does not necessarily authoritarianism as final principle.

Also, I do not think that the treatment of icons is terribly useful as there are different reasons why certain things become acceptable and not. And it is not always trivial to trace them down to the original ideology (as can be seen in the confederate statues discussion).

 

But while we are at it, I take issue with the 100 mio number as it is not the ideology per se that resulted in the killing, but the political upheaval that came with it, especially when you conflate murder with incredible inaptness resulting in famines. It is the kind of (mostly) useless accounting that one could make to push any kind of argument.  I.e. would you count the Irish potato famine as a failure of constitutional monarchy?  One could directly compare individual autocrats (e.g. Hitler vs Stalin vs Castro vs Mussolini) but what would be the point? The individual death tolls would be the culmination of many factors and not of ideology alone. 

If we talk about ideology in itself, however, it is clear why communism could be seen as more acceptable. After all it calls for an Utopian for of equality, whereas most forms of facism as an ideology calls for a strong autocratic leader, typically mixed with strong elements of nationalism. Together with the overall incoherent body of thought it makes it quite difficult target for positive branding. 

[Phi for All]

The Tea Party is actually analogous to what happened to Soviet Communism, imo. It started out in NY as a legitimate objection to an unfair tax/burden-on-the-workers being imposed, and had a certain popular appeal. Then it got subverted by financial interests that were only partially aligned with the original goals, but had their own agendas and were more than happy to glom on to a popular movement and corrupt it from within to meet their needs. 

Workers started being underpaid in the US (based on productivity and middle class wages) around the time of Nixon/Khrushchev. A heavy emphasis on money as the definition of character was being emphasized in advertisements in the sixties, and in society in general. The movement against communism produced a fixation with wealth here that is all too apparent today. Ruthless wealthy businessmen are held in more esteem than teachers or engineers or scientists. 

I'm not sure any 100% solution can work for humans. I would like to see us put some value on people and the good things they do for our society, and not just base it all on how much money they can accumulate.

[waitforufo]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure that those kind of comparison are a worthwhile exercise as it is easy to resort to whataboutism. However, to contextualize the view of communism in the West i will note that during the cold war there was significant political persecution of communists (most notably the McCarthyism and equivalent). The left scene organized around an anti-establishment, worker's right and civil rights themes which also included parts of the communist movement. As they were politically never dominant they often  acted and/or were seen as a balance to a conservative elite rather than as a truly revolutionary force as in other countries. Obviously, they were closely watched by the respective governments, though.

If we talk about the ideology things are complicated as fascism has not a very well organized system of thought. As such, it is difficult to compare a communist ideal with the fascist ideal. The latter really can only be described in historical manifestations (as Nazism, for example), which were clearly horrible.  Communism on the other hand, may not be practical, but does not necessarily authoritarianism as final principle.

Also, I do not think that the treatment of icons is terribly useful as there are different reasons why certain things become acceptable and not. And it is not always trivial to trace them down to the original ideology (as can be seen in the confederate statues discussion).

 

But while we are at it, I take issue with the 100 mio number as it is not the ideology per se that resulted in the killing, but the political upheaval that came with it, especially when you conflate murder with incredible inaptness resulting in famines. It is the kind of (mostly) useless accounting that one could make to push any kind of argument.  I.e. would you count the Irish potato famine as a failure of constitutional monarchy?  One could directly compare individual autocrats (e.g. Hitler vs Stalin vs Castro vs Mussolini) but what would be the point? The individual death tolls would be the culmination of many factors and not of ideology alone. 

If we talk about ideology in itself, however, it is clear why communism could be seen as more acceptable. After all it calls for an Utopian for of equality, whereas most forms of facism as an ideology calls for a strong autocratic leader, typically mixed with strong elements of nationalism. Together with the overall incoherent body of thought it makes it quite difficult target for positive branding. 

It's never hard to find a communist apologist.

Nazism is clearly horrible but Communism is not?  Nearly 100 million dead but somehow not clearly horrible?  How many millions of deaths, political prisoners, and slave labor camps does it take to be identified as clearly horrible in your mind?  Good intentions and Utopian ideals should only be judged by the results they produce. 

The Ukrainian famine was not accident.  It was caused through intentional acts by communists.  The Irish potato famine was caused by a fungus (Phytophthora infestans).  Both fascism and communism result in a "strong autocratic leader, typically mixed with strong elements of nationalism."  But communism should be let of the hook because it has Utopian ideals about equality?  No rational person would agree with such a statement.  

Edited November 8, 2017 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The Ukrainian famine was not accident.  It was caused through intentional acts by communists.

You missed his point, and he said it quite well. The ideology didn't cause the killing. Shouldn't you blame the ones who couldn't make the concept work, rather than the concept itself? Is charity a bad thing because somebody steals money out of the poor jar? 

[waitforufo]

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You missed his point, and he said it quite well. The ideology didn't cause the killing. Shouldn't you blame the ones who couldn't make the concept work, rather than the concept itself? Is charity a bad thing because somebody steals money out of the poor jar? 

The ideology did cause the killing.  Those that tried and failed to make communism work are to blame.  The concept has only produced suffering and anyone who espouses such an ideology is complicit.   How may people are killed because someone steals money out of the poor jar.  Anywhere close to 100 million?  How many are imprisoned and made into slaves.  This is a science forum.  In science you look at the data to prove a hypothesis.  Communism produces suffering, death, political imprisonment, and slave labor.  It has every time the experiment has been run.   Only the insane do the same thing over and over again expecting different results.  

[Moontanman]

20 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The ideology did cause the killing.  Those that tried and failed to make communism work are to blame.  The concept has only produced suffering and anyone who espouses such an ideology is complicit.   How may people are killed because someone steals money out of the poor jar.  Anywhere close to 100 million?  How many are imprisoned and made into slaves.  This is a science forum.  In science you look at the data to prove a hypothesis.  Communism produces suffering, death, political imprisonment, and slave labor.  It has every time the experiment has been run.   Only the insane do the same thing over and over again expecting different results.  

I'm not so sure you can make that claim with any right of veracity. Early USA, and before were basically capitalist yet they went on the murder millions under the excuse of divine right. 

I am of the Humble opinion that no ideology can be given absolute power without horrific things happening. Pure capitalism results in a tiny oligarchy controlling all the wealth and the common folk becoming totally owned by those with money and power.  The very same thing can be said of Communism, such absolute ideologies tend to transfer wealth and power to a small group while crushing everyone else. 

Any government must have capitalism to grow and socialism to protect the common man from the people who would seek to control everything. A mixture of ideologies that take the good points of both unbridled capitalism and unbridled socialism and discard the parts that allow a small number of people to control everything. 

Arguing about which is better is like arguing that being actively tortured to death is better than being locked in a cell until you die of neglect. In both cases you end up dead...   

[waitforufo]

28 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not so sure you can make that claim with any right of veracity. Early USA, and before were basically capitalist yet they went on the murder millions under the excuse of divine right. 

I am of the Humble opinion that no ideology can be given absolute power without horrific things happening. Pure capitalism results in a tiny oligarchy controlling all the wealth and the common folk becoming totally owned by those with money and power.  The very same thing can be said of Communism, such absolute ideologies tend to transfer wealth and power to a small group while crushing everyone else. 

Any government must have capitalism to grow and socialism to protect the common man from the people who would seek to control everything. A mixture of ideologies that take the good points of both unbridled capitalism and unbridled socialism and discard the parts that allow a small number of people to control everything. 

Arguing about which is better is like arguing that being actively tortured to death is better than being locked in a cell until you die of neglect. In both cases you end up dead...   

I think you should reread the OP.  This topic is about Communism and it's 100 year history.  Condemn capitalism all you want.  That doesn't let communism off the hook nor it does it let fascism.  By the way capitalism is a economic system based on private property and free enterprise.  It is not a political system.  Communism has show it self over and over again to be a failed system that has produced nothing but human suffering.  Why have any romantic notions about it?     The same cannot be said for any democratic system that respects private property.   

Edited November 8, 2017 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Have you no sense of decency?

[waitforufo]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Now one might argue that the Communism that was practiced was a perversion of that envisaged by Marx and Engels, but then you could also say the same of Hitler's, Mussolini's and Pinochet's versions of fascism; and with a much smaller death toll.

Here is an interesting commentary on Pinochet and Chile with comparisons to Castro and Cuba. 

https://www.hoover.org/research/what-pinochet-did-chile

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by waitforufo

[tuco]

History of communism is a broad subject and if we were to examine it closely, we would probably need to start with The Communist Manifesto (1848) if not earlier.

The way I understand OP is that it's curious how come communism, unlike fascism, is still a topic for debate. To me it's not such a mystery for the reasons noted by several posters already. For the very same reason there is still China, Cuba or Venezuela whose administrations aim or aspire to communism or elements of communism, but no country I know of openly endorses fascism.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Marx is spelled out The Communist Menifesto:

Quote

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Allowing for violence.

For this reason, its illegal over here to promote fascism and communism as per manifesto, despite having a political party with a "communist" epithet on our political map. On the other hand, steering bit off topic, the right to bear arms exists so citizens can use violence against those trying to take away their freedom, which is perhaps not all that different from freeing proletariat from the bourgeoisie. Not trying to get this derailed, just thinking aloud about the dilemma of justified violence.

As far as I know, Marx was of the opinion that democracy is condition needed for the existence of communism, a memo the so-called communist regimes failed to read.

[waitforufo]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Have you no sense of decency?

Have you no sense of history?

Edited November 8, 2017 by waitforufo

[Moontanman]

43 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I think you should reread the OP.  This topic is about Communism and it's 100 year history.  Condemn capitalism all you want.  That doesn't let communism off the hook nor it does it let fascism.  By the way capitalism is a economic system based on private property and free enterprise.  It is not a political system.  Communism has show it self over and over again to be a failed system that has produced nothing but human suffering.  Why have any romantic notions about it?     The same cannot be said for any democratic system that respects private property.   

I am trying to see it from your perspective but my head won't go quite that far up my ass.  

Right now, in the USA, a tiny group of people own practically all the wealth, they own our government and regular people are being pitted against each other by the governments owners to distract them from what is happening. Anyone who says that capitalism protects property rights free enterprise must be one of the 1%. Romantic notions about communism are as flawed as romantic notions about capitalism. Neither system will work without checks and balances not to mention that most governments that are successful in the long term are a mixture of both...  You say 

Quote

"By the way capitalism is a economic system based on private property and free enterprise."

In what country has this ever been true? If you think it's the USA you haven't been paying attention. Then you say

Quote

"Communism has show itself over and over again to be a failed system that has produced nothing but human suffering." 

Can you support this assertion? I admit that totalitarianism is a terrible system but such governments can indeed exist as capitalistic, or communistic. Are you asserting that socialism and communism is the same thing? If so we can trivially falsify that because the US has a capitalism/socialism mix.. Human rights and private property can be had under either system but not in a system that has no checks and balances. 

Capitalism in no more deserving of uncritical acceptance than communism. - 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Moontanman

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Have you no sense of history?

Were you trying to be ironic with this reply? I’m genuinely unsure given the context of this thread and your posts about communism, plus the history of that exact sentence I typed. 

In case you missed it: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Have_you_no_sense_of_decency.htm

Edited November 8, 2017 by iNow

[Prometheus]

Is it just the body count that matters? Because if so millions have been killed by democratic nations: tens of millions of Indians are thought to have died under British rule (though very hard to find good statistics on this) - how many native Americans were directly killed during the colonisation of the Americas - similar numbers I imagine. But again i'm struggling to find good data on this. Even as recently as the 1960s a million Indonesian 'communists' (along with a few ethnic Chinese) were killed in the name of 'democracy' (it was a straight up political coup by an autocrat, but done in the name of democracy and the regime was supported by Western democracies). We have reasonably accurate information on deaths on communism because they are relatively recent, but the fact we have vague historical records about peoples Western people don't really care about doesn't mean they didn't happen.

But people still revere democracy. 

I guess the pertinent question is whether communism actively advocates such massacres, and even if it did can (and should) it be allowed to change? Democratic countries started very poorly too but have improved - is the same possible for communism?

[MigL]

Just to be clear ( before the usual squabbles begin ), I did not mean this as a comparison of socialism and capitalism, but rather the general perception that COMMUNISM is still a viable ideology whereas FASCISM is considered an evil ideology to be exterminated wherever it arises.

Both ideologies have proven to be vile in execution ( and have used the same tactics to control people ), I'm certainly not comparing body counts.
But Cuba for example, has often been admired by many in my country, even father and son Prime Ministers ( as well as China ). The feelings would be vastly different if it was a Fascist, military regime just off the coast of Florida.

[CharonY]

Maybe it is necessary to dwell on specifics. In which country is communism relevant? My assumption is that current admiration for China is not because they are communist but because of their current economic power (after discarding communism, if you will). 

Also, to test your hypothesis, which other communist regimes do you think are commonly revered? Is there really s generally acceptance and reverence for those? I am not old enough to remember that much of the cold war, but it really seems at odds wit common experience (happened to see more demos from neonazis than communists, for example).

Edited November 9, 2017 by CharonY

[MigL]

I could go into details, CharonY, but why not just read the link thoughtfully provided by Waitforufo ?

It details the difference in the way Pinochet was treated as compared to Castro.
( one was convicted by foreign heads of state, the other was praised at his death )

And the differences/changes in the living conditions between Chileans and Cubans brought about by the two.
( accomplished with similar body counts ) 

Not saying one is better than the other, but why the difference in the way we treat them ?

[Prometheus]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Just to be clear ( before the usual squabbles begin ), I did not mean this as a comparison of socialism and capitalism, but rather the general perception that COMMUNISM is still a viable ideology whereas FASCISM is considered an evil ideology to be exterminated wherever it arises.

Sorry, didn't realise we were exempting democracy from this analysis. Why is that though? I raised it because if it's OK to celebrate democracy despite it's historical body count then why not communism? It might help us pin down what is different (or perceived to be different) about Fascism if we include democracy as well as communism into the analysis - another datapoint so to speak. Maybe it's as simple as a joint democratic and communist alliance won world war 2 so could set the tone on the historical narrative of the ideologies.

My experience has been different to the premise of the OP. My grandmother lived through the Spanish civil war and wouldn't hear a bad word about Franco. When i applied to the join the auxiliary fleet of the Royal Navy i was asked questions about any links to communism but none about fascism. Had an uncle who lived in West Germany while his brother lived in East Germany - they both tore into Communism frequently.

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I could go into details, CharonY, but why not just read the link thoughtfully provided by Waitforufo ?

It details the difference in the way Pinochet was treated as compared to Castro.
( one was convicted by foreign heads of state, the other was praised at his death )

And the differences/changes in the living conditions between Chileans and Cubans brought about by the two.
( accomplished with similar body counts ) 

Not saying one is better than the other, but why the difference in the way we treat them ?

Seems like a relative statement. Fidel Castro died a year ago and had been out of power for several years before his death yet relations between the U.S. and Cuba still haven't been normalized; new restrictions just week.

" The U.S. government made it tougher on Wednesday for Americans to visit Cuba and do business in the country, making good on a pledge by President Donald Trump to roll back his Democratic predecessor’s move toward warmer ties with Havana. "

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba/new-u-s-government-rules-restrict-travel-and-trade-with-cuba-idUSKBN1D81XN

 

The U.S. engaged in an anti communism cold war for a generation with anti communism positions dominating our (USA) foriegn policy around the world. Anti Communism policies played a role in the Korean and Vietnam wars. AntI Communism efforts are also what led the U.S. to arming/training the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Joseph McCarthy used Communism hatred to attack countless public figures. The difference between the way Facism and Communism is treated is totally relative to which time period and individual(s) we are using as the baseline. Neither have been treated good by western society at large in my opinion. 

[MigL]

Sure Ten oz, the cold war was all about the US resistance to the spread of Communism.
But the WORLD WAR that preceded it was all about the eradication of Fascism.
No one is addressing the double standard in the way these two murderous ideologies are perceived.

( and what the US government does in the past year has little to do with what most sensible people think )

And Prometheus, I, like Phi, tend to think Democracy is the best mix of Capitalism and Socialism. Certainly not a good system, but it's the best we have.

[Ten oz]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sure Ten oz, the cold war was all about the US resistance to the spread of Communism.
But the WORLD WAR that preceded it was all about the eradication of Fascism.
No one is addressing the double standard in the way these two murderous ideologies are perceived.
.

The World War which preceded it? The U.S. actually attempted to stay out of it till Pearl Harbor. It literally took the bombing of out Pacific Fleet to get us fully committed. At that point I don't think it would have mattered if it was Communists, Fascists, or anything else. Failure to fight and win would have meant the destruction of the Western World.  

[Phi for All]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

And Prometheus, I, like Phi, tend to think Democracy is the best mix of Capitalism and Socialism. Certainly not a good system, but it's the best we have.

If we're back to talking about ownership, I can see reasons to allow state ownership into the mix of public and private ownership. Our current power grid is a good example. Private ownership of solar power requires government subsidization, but we're at the point now where we could power the whole country on solar panels alone, and electricity would be dirt cheap. So cheap it doesn't attract private investors. So either the public or the state could run a solar grid providing what capitalism can't. 

Communism has always seemed like an ideal that's constantly corrupted. Where they fail is not because of state ownership, but because inevitably a group can't hold to the ideal and they mess it up. Tragedy of the commons, really. I think ultimately where too much state ownership becomes detrimental is that centrally planned economies reduce the very efficiency you're looking for in building dense cities with lots of surplus potential. 

[MigL]

One could regard Communism as an extreme form of Socialism, where everything is not simply state controlled, but actually state owned.
As such, it is prone to abuse and just as totalitarian as Fascism, where the state supersedes individual rights.
One could make the argument that Fascism is the more 'natural' way, as many animal populations seem to value the fate of the herd/colony over their own lives. We are animals, but like to think we have evolved beyond basic instinct; Still, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".

The US reaction to Cuban Communism is not indicative of US reaction to Communism in general. There are no embargoes or travel bans to Venezuela, for instance. It is more of a 'revenge' reaction.
But the governments of Chile, since the 70s, and the government of Cuba,, since the 60s, can be compared. Their economics, standard of living, and immigration ( not just cheap vacations ) can be compared. It seems Chile has become one of the best places to live in South America, and people are actively immigrating. What can we say about the Cuba experiment ? How many people want to live there ?

This doesn't excuse the murderous acts by the Pinochet regime, as the ends certainly don't justify the means, but all the Communist regimes have at least as much blood on their hands, with no results to show for it.