Communism as a means of violent repression

[Caleb]

Marxism is an offshoot of socialism that advocates a violent, revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Depending on which brand of Marxism - Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Khmerism, to name a few - it may even advocate the complete elimination of entire classes of people from the society at large in an attempt to more expediently bring about a Utopian society, IE: the Liquidation of the Kulaks, Mao's Great Leap, the Killing Fields.

Furthermore, Marxism glorifies the collective over the individual, in effect saying that one man is of no import in the long view, that the rights of the individual should never weigh in consideration against those of the collective. Marxism asserts that what a man earns by the sweat of his own brow is not truly his, but instead the possession of his neighbors.

Marxism is a system of government that has killed more people in a shorter amount of time than any other in recorded history. The vast majority of this killing was democide, the willful destruction of a citizenry by its own government. It is a system which insists that, fundamentally, man is good and that the pressures around him have forced him into evil. It states that if this evil can be expunged from society, then that man shall at last be good.

From the start, it was a naive and dangerous theory. It quickly became a murderous reality. So yes, Marxism is that bad, and I'll thank-you to remember the role of the U.S. in silencing, hopefully forever, one of the gravest threats to liberty that mankind has ever faced.

From the thread on American Presidents. I maintain that Marxism in its many forms is an off-shoot of socialism that advocates and demands violence for efficacy.

"This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor."

Marx, from "La Liberté", given to the Industrial Working Men's Association in 1872.

Also:

“As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist."

Engles, from "letter to A. Bebel of March 18-28, 1875"

However, for the sake of argument, let me make the hypothetical concession that Marxism is not inherently violent. How then is it that every Marxist government has strenuously argued that violence is necessary in an effort to maintain the revolution? Often we're told, "don't use China or Russia for an example of Marxism", but what other example have we been provided? Cuba? North Korea? Cambodia? Vietnam? Are these too simply misrepresentations of the "true" Marxist ideal?

If so, perhaps a more telling question would be why is the misrepresentation consistent? Because the theory is flawed.

 

[Matt]

The idea is for these countries to use whatever types of governing in order to achieve a true communist ideal.

The goal of communism is to create a society where everynone and everything is self sufficient everyone is equal and no one is better then the next man, everyone works hard for the group.

The sad fact is that people use communism as an ideal for there own personal views, no one knows the true way to reach that Utopian society, even Marx himself did not.

Did Stalin, Lenin, and the rest believe what they were doing would help them reach a Utopian society, did they hell.

Communism final goal is a wonderful thing imo but the ways to reach it are often clouded, and manipulated by people for there own gains

 

[PdPstyle]

Dont forget that in a true communist community/society the leaders have to step down and join the people. This has not happened ever on a government level but has happened in small societies.

I would say Communism is no more inherently violent than any other form of government. The Spartans/Greeks participated in a democracy and they loved killing people. The Romans also started as a democracy and they conquered the known world. I would like to see the numbers *or where you got them from* on Communism killing more people faster. Remember almost half the world is communist or socialist. That could be the reason behind the number of people killed *maybe*.

I believe communism/socialism has its place, however that place has not been on a national level.

 

[Sovereign]

Communism is not inherently violent. They are many communist parties out there who are trying to achieve their revolution through democratic means. However, Marx himself advocated a violent revolution. Communism in a non-violent form only appeared after the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[Caleb]

The idea is for these countries to use whatever types of governing in order to achieve a true communist ideal.

Yes, and apparently the application of force was necessary in some cases. Such as the case of the Kulaks?

The goal of communism is to create a society where everynone and everything is self sufficient everyone is equal and no one is better then the next man, everyone works hard for the group.

The goal of Communism is a celebration of mediocrity, a society in which the individual's pursuit of happiness is crushed for the sake of the "collective good". Utilitarianism is at its core.

The sad fact is that people use communism as an ideal for there own personal views, no one knows the true way to reach that Utopian society, even Marx himself did not.

That's not what Marx claimed, and it led to the deaths of millions. The Theory of Communism asserts that man is essentially good and that man can be re-educated to be a singularly perfect creature, ironically, the Practice of Communism proved this to be false. No amount of education could cure the inequalities that exist in man's own nature.

Communism final goal is a wonderful thing imo but the ways to reach it are often clouded, and manipulated by people for there own gains

That Communism's goal is wonderful is debatable - certainly it has desirable aspects - however, it is not the goal that is on trial, but the means. Other theories of power strive to reach the same goal, but they do so without sacrificing millions of lives.

 

[Sovereign]

The goal of Communism is a celebration of mediocrity a society in which the individual's pursuit of happiness is crushed for the sake of the "collective good". Utilitarianism is at its core.

The "pursuit of happiness" was a concept invented by the bourgeoisie. It is based on the premise that spending money makes you happy. Communism rejects that idea and claims that humans are happier when they work for the collective good.

That is not what Marx claimed, and it led to the deaths of millions.

Ah I see...You think that Communism and Marxism are synonymous right? Well, that is not the case, so I'll just end the argument there.

 

[Caleb]

Communism in its strictest - and academic sense - does not exist outside of the political theories of Marx and Engles. There are other theories of collectivism of course, namely, socialism.

 

[Sovereign]

Communism in its strictest - and academic sense - does not exist outside of the political theories of Marx and Engles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Scroll down to the "Non-Marxist Schools" section.

 

[Caleb]

Again, those are just other forms of collectivism. Communism is unique to Marx and Engles.

 

[Sovereign]

Again, those are just other forms of collectivism. Communism is unique to Marx and Engles.

No.

 

[PdPstyle]

Marx did not even create "communism" he created Dialectic Materialism, which would in turn give way to communism. which like SIN said was pretty much an opposition to capitalism. Socialism *according to Marx* is the lowest form of his theory. *ironically it works the best/has worked the best* If you have not read the Karal Marx's manifesto it is an interesting read. There are some very good ideas in it and also some very silly ideas.

 

[Caleb]

To avoid a spitting match, or at least to stop it from getting worse, let me put it this way: I understand what you are saying and I agree that Anarcho-Communism and Christian Communism draw heavily from the Communism of Marx and Engles and that, semantically, they CAN be called Communism. However, when the historical academia refers to "Communism", it refers to: "the anticapitalist proposals of Karl Marx and his followers that communal ownership of the means of production is preferable; in practice, economic systems in which production facilities are state-owned and production decisions are made by official policy and not directed by market action."

As a history student, when I say "Communism", that's what I mean.

 

[Ru the Boatswain]

To avoid a spitting match, or at least to stop it from getting worse, let me put it this way: I understand what you are saying and I agree that Anarcho-Communism and Christian Communism draw heavily from the Communism of Marx and Engles and that, semantically, they CAN be called Communism. However, when the historical academia refers to "Communism", it refers to: "the anticapitalist proposals of Karl Marx and his followers that communal ownership of the means of production is preferable; in practice, economic systems in which production facilities are state-owned and production decisions are made by official policy and not directed by market action."

As a history student, when I say "Communism", that's what I mean.

Then you've been taught wrong. Communism is much broader than that.

 

[Caleb]

Then you've been taught wrong. Communism is much broader than that.

That's not exactly an exhaustive definition. My point is this, the prevailing historical definition of Communism is that of a theory limited to Marx and Engles. All other forms of collectivism, socialism, and subjective materialism are substantially unique enough that they fall under a different category. If it's that much of a problem, just replace in your mind all the mentions of Communism in my posts with "Marxism". Here, in fact, I might as well do it for you.

 

[Matt]

Yes, and apparently the application of force was necessary in some cases. Such as the case of the Kulaks?


The goal of Communism is a celebration of mediocrity, a society in which the individual's pursuit of happiness is crushed for the sake of the "collective good". Utilitarianism is at its core.


That's not what Marx claimed, and it led to the deaths of millions. The Theory of Communism asserts that man is essentially good and that man can be re-educated to be a singularly perfect creature, ironically, the Practice of Communism proved this to be false. No amount of education could cure the inequalities that exist in man's own nature.


That Communism's goal is wonderful is debatable - certainly it has desirable aspects - however, it is not the goal that is on trial, but the means. Other theories of power strive to reach the same goal, but they do so without sacrificing millions of lives.

I wouldn't use the example of a madman as an excuse to hate a form of government which you clearly do.

Yes and on the other foot Captilism is nothing more then a way for upper classes to trample lower classes, see what I did there.

No it did not led to the death of millions because Marx did not say to slaughter millions, he merely said that uprisings would probbaly be aggressive, it was Stalin and co madness that led to millions not communism.

You seem to be confusing the actions of madmen as communisms goals.

 

[Ru the Boatswain]

Communism =/= Marxism. Each school of Communism houses it's own ideals. Marxism is not the prevailing view of communism. It's one of many.