Why do SO many Americans hate communism?

[John Cuthber]

Interesting pedantic discussion, but I don't believe Americans hate a government concept that has never been tried or achieved. I think the OP is referring to the form of government most Americans think of as communism as practiced in countries such as China and the Soviet Union.

 

So, Americans hate (at least some) dictatorships. Big deal, so do the rest of us.

 

I don't see that as much of a reason to start a thread.

I think what the Americans hate is a bogey man that's called Communism and used as a label for "Bad Things" even though, according to the strict definition, it doesn't actually exist.

 

 

I think this bit from the WIKI article on Communism says a lot.

"The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism"

 

The definition they give is "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate."

So, any state that is Communist doesn't exist because it becomes stateless.

It's a bit silly to ask for a list of stateless states and even more silly to ask why nobody has a list of either the "states that are states" or the "states that are not states".

Edited July 18, 2011 by John Cuthber

[doG]

None of those countries has fulfilled the definition of communism!

They've fulfilled someone's definition or sources wouldn't be listing them as communist states ruled by communist parties. Then again, is it really that black and white with no shades of gray. Googling "define: communism" shows variation across sources in the very definition itself. This makes sense with the variety of communists there are: council communists, non-Marxist libertarian communists, anarcho-communists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. Then again, what's the point? You've not backed up any of your claims. I guess you think we're just supposed to take your word for it because you say so.

[JohnB]

DoG, it's like arguing religion. The religious say that their religion is "one of peace" and when you point out all the atrocities done by that religion their defence is "Oh, but they weren't true followers of our religion". All you need do is substitute communism for religion, it's the same nothing argument.

 

Although the idea that "State Socialism" is a stepping stone to communism reminds me of one story about why the old Soviet Union fell.

 

The Russians had built the worlds most powerful computer, a phenomenal thing that took up an entire underground base. They fed it all the possible data they could, Mathematics, populations, economics, the lot. This system was so powerful might have been the one "Deep Thought" was based on. So they had the worlds most powerful computer, linked to every database they had, the sum total of human knowledge at the time. Then they asked it a question "How far are we from true communism?"

 

After about a week it replied "12 miles".

 

Now this made no sense to the scientists involved, so they asked the question again, and got the same reply. "12 miles". Three times they asked and three times the computer gave the same reply.

 

Disappointed, they thought that the computer was an abject failure and were wondering how to report this failure and not finish up in Siberia. So they delayed reporting as long as they could, all the while looking for the fault and worrying about their futures.

 

Pressure was growing and things were looking pretty bleak when one young scientist rushed in declaring that he had solved the problem and the computer was fine, the answer was correct. "How?" They asked "12 miles? It doesn't make sense".

 

The young man replied "Yes it does! Remember comrades, the President told us that every 5 year plan brings us one step closer to true communism."

 

On getting the final report, the Soviets gave up.

[Incendia]

So they were ~3862.4256 years away from communism if you assume that 1 step is 1 metre.

(At least I think I'm correct...might not be.)

Edited July 19, 2011 by Incendia

[doG]

It really doesn't matter. The question remains, why do Americans hate communism. The simple answer is that Americans see countries like Cuba and North Korea as examples of the communist ideology and they're own thirst for freedom and liberty causes the oppression in these countries to repulse them. No matter what degree of communism has been achieved in these nations according to your opinion it is the perception of the Americans view of communism that is the topic here. Believe what you want but the bottom line is question asked, question answered.

[padren]

It really doesn't matter. The question remains, why do Americans hate communism. The simple answer is that Americans see countries like Cuba and North Korea as examples of the communist ideology and they're own thirst for freedom and liberty causes the oppression in these countries to repulse them. No matter what degree of communism has been achieved in these nations according to your opinion it is the perception of the Americans view of communism that is the topic here. Believe what you want but the bottom line is question asked, question answered.

So in short, its pretty much like the question "Why do SO many Engineers hate perpetual-motion based power sources?"

 

IE: The proponents who claim to have achieved it, haven't... and the proponents that haven't claimed to achieve it claim it just gets a bad reputation because only con-artists (or the mechanically challenged) have ever claimed to have achieve it yet.

 

Personally, I think it's a mix of both the history of bad experiences, as well as the fact that the theory is too fundamentally flawed to be useful to anyone but con-artists.

[doG]

So in short, its pretty much like the question "Why do SO many Engineers hate perpetual-motion based power sources?"

That's kind of a bad analogy. True communism by Incendia's definition might actually be possible but perpetual-motion based power sources are not.

[waitforufo]

Okay, imagine this. Let’s say you are taking a political science class on communism. The class is required as part of the core curriculum of the collage you are attending. On the first day of class the professor informs you and your classmates that in the spirit of communism all performance scores will be averaged together and all students will receive a collective grade on all assignments, tests, and at the semester final regardless of their individual contribution. The professor encourages high performing students to help the low performing students so that all students can achieve a higher grade at the semester completion.

 

If you were in such a class, and another professor was teaching the same class but with a standard individual performance based grading system would you switch professors?

 

If you couldn’t switch, would you drop the class and in the hope that in the luck of the draw you would get a different standard grading professor next time?

 

If you couldn’t drop the class, would you strive to be a high achiever or would you kick back and become a freeloader?

 

Would you be surprised at the end of the semester if the collective grade was F?

 

Would you enjoy your short personal experience with communism or hate it?

[padren]

That's kind of a bad analogy. True communism by Incendia's definition might actually be possible but perpetual-motion based power sources are not.

(If this was in the "speculations" section you'd probably have a lot of posters taking issue with that comment. )

 

I made that statement based on these two definitions of communism:

 

I'll give you the definition of communism - as it seems some of you don't actually know what it is:

 

Communism is socio-political system which aims to abolish wage labour and establish a stateless, classless society. It also aims for the abolishment of private property, making everything the common property of everyone.

It is also the final stage of civilisation in Marxian Philosophy.

 

I think this bit from the WIKI article on Communism says a lot.

"The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism"

 

The definition they give is "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate."

 

Both definitions reference a system or structure that aims to abolish wage labor, private property, etc.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the weakness of this style of system - you can't drive 30 miles in the US without finding even gas station prices fluctuating wildly. Some of this is the result of greedy capitalistic price gouging, but the majority is caused by the simple fluctuations in the circumstances between those 30 miles, including the availability of labor, local community issues, etc.

 

Any system conceived on the premise that the system itself can micromanage those fluctuations better than the individuals who actually live with those variant conditions raises the very real prospect that it is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps a better example would be the specific PMM involving Maxwell's Demon, where the demon represents the "abstract component that could maybe work if we found a way" system/structure that simply makes the entropy go away.

[doG]

Both definitions reference a system or structure that aims to abolish wage labor, private property, etc.

That's what they don't seem to get. The definitions describe a system that aims to abolish wage labor, private property, etc., not necessarily one that has accomplished that. They want to claim that there have been no communist countries because none of them have passed the goal post they're aiming for.

[Incendia]

Okay, imagine this. Let's say you are taking a political science class on communism. The class is required as part of the core curriculum of the collage you are attending. On the first day of class the professor informs you and your classmates that in the spirit of communism all performance scores will be averaged together and all students will receive a collective grade on all assignments, tests, and at the semester final regardless of their individual contribution. The professor encourages high performing students to help the low performing students so that all students can achieve a higher grade at the semester completion.

 

If you were in such a class, and another professor was teaching the same class but with a standard individual performance based grading system would you switch professors?

 

If you couldn't switch, would you drop the class and in the hope that in the luck of the draw you would get a different standard grading professor next time?

 

If you couldn't drop the class, would you strive to be a high achiever or would you kick back and become a freeloader?

 

Would you be surprised at the end of the semester if the collective grade was F?

 

Would you enjoy your short personal experience with communism or hate it?

 

That's not communism, that's an extreme form of egalitarianism.

Many communists are follows of egalitarianism but egalitarianism isn't actually a part of communism. I've seen your argument done before.

 

That's what they don't seem to get. The definitions describe a system that aims to abolish wage labor, private property, etc., not necessarily one that has accomplished that. They want to claim that there have been no communist countries because none of them have passed the goal post they're aiming for.

 

Yeah, the 'aim' part isn't part of the ideology. I just phrased it badly.

By aims I meant a communist society requires those goals to be completed.

A better way of saying it would have been:

Communism is socio-political system which requires the abolishment of wage labour and establishment a stateless, classless society. It also requires the abolishment of private property, making everything the common property of everyone.

It is also the final stage of civilisation in Marxian Philosophy.

 

Or:

 

A communist society is one in which private property, wage labour, the state, and class society have been abolished; and where all property is the common property of everyone. Communism is described as the final stage of human civilisation in Marxian Philosophy.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Incendia

[padren]

That's what they don't seem to get. The definitions describe a system that aims to abolish wage labor, private property, etc., not necessarily one that has accomplished that. They want to claim that there have been no communist countries because none of them have passed the goal post they're aiming for.

I see what you are trying to say, and that does make sense - it is a fair way to assess if a country fits the term. It could be argued that a number of those countries never even really had those aims, but just used them to manipulate the population. It's fair to say Stalin never had any interest in a classless society where he would be treated equally to everyone else. As such, you can't really say the stated goals reflected the actual aims of the country.

[Dekan]

This title of this thread seems redolent of the 1950's.

 

In that decade, Americans were rightly opposed to the Communist threat to the Free World. But the Free World has defeated the Commies. The Soviet Union is in the dustbin of history. History has moved on, communism is dead.

 

So how can Americans really hate communism today? That's not credible. The truth is most WASP Americans don't like President Obama and all he represents. But they don't want to admit this openly. So they use "Communism" as a kind of code-word instead.

 

Isn't that true?

[doG]

A better way of saying it would have been:...

That doesn't matter. You can't claim that no communist countries have ever existed because they didn't meet YOUR definition of communism. Your definition is unsupported. Even the Oxford English Dictionary defines communist as an advocate or adherent of the theory of communism. If you want to argue that your definition is THE definition then you need to back it help. Short of that it's just your opinion and just because it's your opinion doesn't make your statement a fact.

[Incendia]

They were communist as in they had aims of establishing a communist nation (if that's even true, and not just lies and propaganda), but not communist as in actual having achieved the establishment of a communist society.

'My' definition is derived entirely from what is said by the Google Dictionary and Wikipedia.

[Ophiolite]

'My' definition is derived entirely from what is said by the Google Dictionary and Wikipedia.

That definition has the merit of matching pretty well to that of Karl Marx who most would concede should have a say in the matter.

[John Cuthber]

That doesn't matter. You can't claim that no communist countries have ever existed because they didn't meet YOUR definition of communism. Your definition is unsupported. Even the Oxford English Dictionary defines communist as an advocate or adherent of the theory of communism. If you want to argue that your definition is THE definition then you need to back it help. Short of that it's just your opinion and just because it's your opinion doesn't make your statement a fact.

That definition isn't much help here since a country can hardly advocate a theory and no country actually adhered to it.

 

It might have been slightly more use if the link worked.

Edited July 22, 2011 by John Cuthber

[CaptainPanic]

If you ask someone from Manchester (UK) what they think of Chelsea (a football club from London), then they might well say that they "hate" it.

 

Does the hate of communism go any further or deeper than this completely silly group-disliking of another group of people?

 

Create two groups of people. Make sure that the two groups start working as a team, and that they have to compete against the other group. Eventually, there will be rivalry. And rivalry can grow into dislike and even hate.

 

In politics, the politicians claim that there are fundamental differences between the different economic systems (which is true)... but sports, and also musical subcultures, show that groups can dislike each other for much less. Also, there is no reason why someone should hate a different economic system - especially if you're not even living in it. But we do.

 

I hereby postulate (without proof) that Americans (and Europeans) hate communism more because they all do, rather than because they actually understand the fundamental differences and came to an objective conclusion that their own system is inherently better.

 

In short: the hatred stems from simple group behavior, influenced by the leaders, through the media.

Edited July 22, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Dekan]

I hereby postulate (without proof) that Americans (and Europeans) hate communism more because they all do, rather than because they actually understand the fundamental differences and came to an objective conclusion that their own system is inherently better.

 

In short: the hatred stems from simple group behavior, influenced by the leaders, through the media.

 

Do you mean, all Americans (and Europeans) hate Communism. They all do. Every one of them. They do it through group behaviour. Because their leaders keep saying "Hate Communism!" And their newspapers and TV keep saying "Hate Communism!"

 

That doesn't seem very likely, does it?

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Do you mean, all Americans (and Europeans) hate Communism. They all do. Every one of them. They do it through group behaviour. Because their leaders keep saying "Hate Communism!" And their newspapers and TV keep saying "Hate Communism!"

 

That doesn't seem very likely, does it?

Compared to the idea that they all, individually, made the decision to hate something that doesn't actually exist, yes it does seem likely.

And, btw, "They all do. Every one of them." doesn't have a lot to do with it, the original postulate was just that " so many" do. The Captain's explanation is reasonable for that case.

[llamapajama]

It's not just Americans. I'm an aussie and I hate the bastards too.

 

Full of high sounding ideas, but if you want to know the truth, just read up on a bit of history. Life in the old Soviet Union, East Germany, Cambodia, pick one.

 

Any reasonable person who values human beings has to be against a system so bad that they had to build a bloody wall around the place to stop people leaving. A wall complete with guard towers and "Shoot to kill" orders. Communism is possibly the only form of government that could manage to make the nazis look good.

For one, they didn't build a wall to keep people in, because that isn't communism, that's an authoritarian society, and two, how is it bad in any way? It doesn't value religion (thankfully, because religion has caused countless problems), it meets EVERY BODIES needs by granting them housing, food, clean water, and any other types of things that are needed, and lastly, it is 100% power to the people. There is absolutely no ruler, not even an elected one. There is a state government, but they hold no power. They only oversee things and have no more authority than the people. I just want to say, you sir, are one of the dumbest people ever to walk this Earth.

[hypervalent_iodine]

For one, they didn't build a wall to keep people in, because that isn't communism, that's an authoritarian society, and two, how is it bad in any way? It doesn't value religion (thankfully, because religion has caused countless problems), it meets EVERY BODIES needs by granting them housing, food, clean water, and any other types of things that are needed, and lastly, it is 100% power to the people. There is absolutely no ruler, not even an elected one. There is a state government, but they hold no power. They only oversee things and have no more authority than the people. I just want to say, you sir, are one of the dumbest people ever to walk this Earth.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

llamapajama,

 

Welcome to the forum. When you signed up, you agreed to abide by a set of rules (see here). The comment in bold is not acceptable (see rule 1) and we ask that you keep such commentary to yourself.

 

Please do not respond to this modnote in-thread.

[John Cuthber]

For one, they didn't build a wall to keep people in, because that isn't communism, that's an authoritarian society, and two, how is it bad in any way? It doesn't value religion (thankfully, because religion has caused countless problems), it meets EVERY BODIES needs by granting them housing, food, clean water, and any other types of things that are needed, and lastly, it is 100% power to the people. There is absolutely no ruler, not even an elected one. There is a state government, but they hold no power. They only oversee things and have no more authority than the people. I just want to say, you sir, are one of the dumbest people ever to walk this Earth.

Indeed, the only problem with communism is that it doesn't exist.

Btw, if you are going to make a spelling mistake while calling dumb, don't put it in CAPITAL LETTERS.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

John Cuthber,

 

When moderators post a mod note trying to stop some flame war, we really do not appreciate it when you just continue to fuel the fire right after the mod note. Stop it.

[SlavicWolf]

Communism is bad because it's extremely ineffective in allocating resources and economy is all about it. There are two main reasons behind it. First - that there is no market competiton in communism (and micromanaging the entire economyy is a horror). Second - that gifted and hard working individuals can't make it up the social ladder. In USSR or even my own country (Poland) even doctors who had to complete 8 years of elementary school, then 4 years of high school and then 6 years of university, earned not much more than a typical factory laborer who barely completed elementary school. The greatness of America is not (or was not...) about being the same... The greatness of America is all about individualism - everyone can earn as much as they please and do whatever they want to as long as they are able and willing. If you wanted to have species well fit for their environment, what would you do? Would you leave it to evolution or maybe you'd micromanage the whole process down to every single mutation? Capitslism is like evolution. Communism is like intelligent design.

Edited March 7, 2014 by SlavicWolf