Calling on all EU citizens: NO to anti-communist resolution!

FireFall01

http://www.no2anticommunism.org/en/index.php

In the interests of free speech and of fighting ignorance, please sign the petition!

No to a European McCarthyism

Will Europe take the road of McCarthyism as the United States did fifty years ago? Will freedom of expression and of organisation be killed “in the name of democracy”?

On December 14, 2005 in Paris, the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a draft resolution introduced by Göran Lindblad of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and named “Need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes”. This draft resolution will be submitted to the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which will take place from January 23 to 27, 2006.

Among those who have approved the draft are members of parliament of countries that do not hesitate to imprison leaders of parties and popular movements, while closing their eyes to the restoration of Hitlerite symbols and tolerating impunity for former war criminals.

The draft resolution does not aim to condemn the authors of reprehensible acts, but to stigmatise the communist movement and ideology as a whole, which would, “wherever and whenever implemented, be it in Europe or elsewhere, have always resulted in massive terror, crimes and large scale violation of human rights”. This way, the draft negates that the communist movement and ideology are part and parcel of the history of the workers’ movement and of social progress, and it criminalizes progressive ideas inherited from the Enlightenment and aspiring for social, economic and political change.

The draft resolution likewise negates the decisive role of the Soviet Union and the communist movement in the fight against the Nazi horror. Let us remember the words of Albert Einstein when the until then yet unbeaten Nazi machine was stopped in Stalingrad: “Without Russia, those blood dogs (…) would have obtained their goal, or in any case, would have been close to it.”

The resolution, if approved, would lead to an official history of the USSR and of communism that would paralyse historical research and impede an objective debate on the comparative assessment of the capitalist and communist systems. It would open the floodgate to a witch-hunt - similar to the McCarthyism of the 1950s – against researchers who do not subscribe to that official history. We must assure scientists’ freedom of research and of expression against an updated and European version of McCarthyism.

The criminalisation of existing socialist countries and communist parties

The resolution demands that “national interest perceptions should not prevent countries from adequate criticism of present totalitarian communist regimes (…) in certain countries (…) where crimes continue to be committed”. By thus criminalizing existing socialist countries, this draft resolution prepares minds for military aggression against them, something the Bush Administration has threatened them with already several times.

By criticising the fact that “communist parties are legal and active in some countries, even if in some cases they have not distanced themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes in the past”, the draft resolution prepares to outlaw those parties.

A threat to the entire trade union movement
Beyond communism, the draft resolution goes on to criminalize even the concept of class struggle itself, “used to justify crimes”. This way, it threatens the European workers’ and trade union movement as a whole, a movement that opposes today’s neoliberal policies.

The people of Eastern Europe have been plunged in a previously unknown poverty. All over Europe, workers and particularly youth are concerned about their future. Unemployment is on the rise, social achievements are being dismantled, democratic and trade union rights are under threat and wars have reappeared, both within and outside Europe (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq). For the initiators of the draft resolution, “the condemnation of crimes committed plays an important role in the education of young generations. The clear position of the international community on the past may be a reference for their future actions.”

This quote reveals that such strategy is part of the logical framework of a partisan political struggle, and not of a search for justice. At the same time, this quote also recognises the depth of the popular rejection of the policies implemented in Eastern Europe.

Today communists, tomorrow trade unionists and antiglobalists, and the day after tomorrow…?

The official document can be found on the website of the PACE :
http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc05/edoc10765.htm

Statement of the famous Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis on the anticommunist memorandum

http://en.mikis-theodorakis.net/index.php/article/articleview/445/1/69/

On the order of business of the first part of the 2006 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly (23-27 January 2006) of Council of Europe, one finds the following point: Wednesday 25 January Need for international condemnation of the crimes of communism (Doc.). Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee: Mr Göran Lindblad (Sweden, EPP/CD)

Mikis Theodorakis reacts with the following statement:

The Council of Europe has decided to change History. To distort it by equalizing the victims with the aggressors, the heroes with the criminals, the liberators with the conquerors and the Communists with the Nazis.
It considers that the biggest enemies of Nazism, i.e. the Communists, are criminals and indeed equal to the Nazis! And it even worries and protests, because although the Hitlerites were condemned by the international community, nothing as such has happened yet with the Communists.
For this reason it suggests that this condemnation takes place now by the Plenary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the 24-27 of coming January.
Meanwhile, it worries because “public awareness of crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes is very poor”. And also because still “Communist parties are legal and active in some countries, even if in some cases they have not distanced themselves from the crimes”.
In other words, the Council of Europe is announcing in advance the future persecution of European Communists that have not yet made a recantation, such as those demanded in the past by the henchmen of Gestapo and the torturers at the camp of Makronisos.
Perhaps tomorrow they shall decide to outlaw the Communist Parties, half-opening this way the door for the ghosts of Hitler and Himmler to pass, who, as it is well known, begun their career by outlawing the Communist Parties and by locking up the Communists in death camps.
However, in the end, they were drowned in the very blood of their victims, those 20 million dead of the Communist Soviet Union and so many other hundreds of thousands of Communists who gave their lives, as it also happened in Greece, by putting themselves at the front line of national resistance movements all across Europe.
However, those gentlemen of the Council of Europe, in their wish to resurrect methods condemned in the consciousness of History and the Peoples, they come second, since they have already been overrun by their great brother, the USA, that exterminate entire peoples using Hitler-like methods, as in the case of Iraq which they have left in ruins full of American prisons, where thousands of innocent victims are tortured daily in a horrific and obvious manner.
For this great crime against humanity, as well as for the contemporary Hitlerite torture camp at Guantanamo, the Council of Europe has absolutely nothing to say.
So how can anyone believe that they are honestly concerned for human rights, when even within their own home, Europe, they have allowed for CIA planes, filled with people without any rights, drive them in special prisons in order to be tortured?
Such citizens cannot be prosecutors. At the Court of History that one day will pass sentence on the countless crimes committed by their big brother, from Vietnam to Chile and from South America to Iraq, they will be on trial on the count of toleration, if not collaboration to those crimes.
Unfortunately today I am obliged to speak more in the name of the dead than the name of the living. Therefore, in the name of my dead Communist comrades, those who have gone through the Gestapo, the death camps and the execution sites in order to defeat Nazism and celebrate Liberty, I have but one word to address to those “gentlemen”: SHAME!

Athens, 22.12.2005
Mikis Theodorakis

Sand

A) Youre expected to give your own slant on things, more than a stirring call to arms anyway.

Communists were just as bad as the Nazis. You have heard of Lenin, Joe Stalin and their cronies right? The East European nations and peoples who were the victims of Nazi and Communist oppression and atrocities have every right to have the crimes against them recognised. Poland for example would remember the old Communist collusion in the invasion and annexation of their country.

meldrew

Communism does'nt work , plain and simple . Its about time it was consigned to history

sceptre

As per the charter, if the original poster knocks in his own opinion on this by tomorrow evening when I come and look I may not delete the thread.

FireFall01

Of course there where crimes and attrocities commited under these falied totalitarian regimes and of course we should never forget them, But these regimes where failed attempts at communism (communism never being achieved)

What this resolution is doing is unfairly and ignorantly blurring the lines between the actual ideology of communism and what it stands for, with the percieved faliures of its falied totalitarian attempts, which will help create and keep alive those stereotypes which blackmarks the ideology itself....i would suggest you read up on the subject, it is far more complicated than many think.

Also to say "communists" are just as bad as "nazis" is fundementally wrong.
The Nazi ideology promoted the crimes it commited.....the communist ideology doesnt. The "purges" and annexation of the eastern block by the USSR were results of the perverted version of socialism that we know as Stalinism and the circumstances created by the second world war. I in no way defend these crimes, but this wasnt communism, it was totalitarianism.

sceptre

FireFall01 wrote:

What this resolution is doing is unfairly and ignorantly blurring the lines between the actual ideology of communism and what it stands for

How? Let's assume I'm too lazy to read the draft resolution, which probably wouldn't be too far from the truth. And how's it going to stigmatise the communist movement and what difference will it make to them, to you, me and the rest of us?

(note that I'm looking for a basic discussion here about the resolution itself, I couldn't give a crap about who argues what or probably who did what in 1924 either)

samb

I agree with firefall01. It is not the ideology that killed people. There is nothing in the basic principles of communism that means killing and opression. It is an economic system. I can't see why people shouldn't have the right to vote for and canvas for a communist party democratically.

Lemming

Whilst I do not believe in the communist ideal, I have to ask why is this draft resolution only aimed at "totalitarian communist regimes"?

Why not "totalitarian regimes"? I mean what's one totalitarian regime against another? They're all the same in the end. Misery for the masses along with mass human rights abuses and despicable acts of wanton persecution.

As pointed out, the ideology of communism does not equate to what happened under the USSR or China or any other such states, but the perversion of that ideology. The same way that we see the likes of the PATRIOT act seeking to pervert democracy. Power for those who want more of it (which will also never be enough). Pure and simple. I would go far as to state that I consider this bill to be a perversion of, and an afront to, democracy.

People have the right to self-determination and freedom of expression. If they decide that they wish to live under a socialist ideal than that is their right, whether anybody agrees with it or not. I may not agree with all of it, most of it, or some of it, dependign on context. But I will stand up for their right to make such a decision.

patzer117

Woah, i'm all for condemning totalitarian communist regimes and banning any parties with links to them. Any party which refuses to distance itself from the USSR style communism shouldn't be allowed, in the same way as neo-nazi parties shouldn't be.

the idea that the crimes happened in 'failed attempts at communism' is ridiculous, for communism in true Marx style is about revolution, violence, murder and overthrowing democracy. That could adequetly describe what happened - the communists revolted, and entered a trotskyte permanant revolution. To say the 'communist ideology doesn't... promote the crimes it commited' is untrue and completely distinct from of any form of communism that existed. The fact is that Marx, Lenin and everyone else all wanted revolution, and VIOLENT revolution. Either distance yourself from violence or you are inciting people to hatred which is a crime.

i ask, why should parties who fail to condemn violence and revolution, but actually encourage it a la USSR stlye (by supporting communism and not condemning Stalinism), not rebrand themselves? why not distance themselves from these obviously evil ideoligies? why not name themselves socialists? why persist in retaining a link to revolution, murder, genocide? If they want to stay in my opinion they must drop the link. Otherwise I welcome the condemnation.

Can I ask samb and Firefall01 what kind of communism they are supporting or advocating. I'm just curious.
patzer

democrates

sceptre wrote:

How? Let's assume I'm too lazy to read the draft resolution, which probably wouldn't be too far from the truth. And how's it going to stigmatise the communist movement and what difference will it make to them, to you, me and the rest of us?

(note that I'm looking for a basic discussion here about the resolution itself, I couldn't give a crap about who argues what or probably who did what in 1924 either)

It looks like panto-politics to me, a predictable tactic attempting to re-engage people with the EU project following the rejection of the constitution. "Questioning the free market are they?"

The Corinthian

FireFall01 wrote:

Of course there where crimes and attrocities commited under these falied totalitarian regimes and of course we should never forget them, But these regimes where failed attempts at communism (communism never being achieved)

Roffle... tell us how it was only State Capitalism, while you’re at it

I’ve always found this type of historical revisionism on the part of communists to be the left wing equivalent of Holocaust denial.

Also to say "communists" are just as bad as "nazis" is fundementally wrong.
The Nazi ideology promoted the crimes it commited.....the communist ideology doesnt.

As I’ve already suggested, the Nazi ideology denies that these crimes took place, while the Communist ideology denies that it had anything to do with them. All sounds like denial to me.

Ajnag

Whilst I do not believe in the communist ideal, I have to ask why is this draft resolution only aimed at "totalitarian communist regimes"?

Why not "totalitarian regimes"? I mean what's one totalitarian regime against another? They're all the same in the end. Misery for the masses along with mass human rights abuses and despicable acts of wanton persecution.

Ill second that, A crime is a crime is a crime. The name and motivation of the criminal is of little consequence.

mike65

Heres some background on the thinking of the chap who proposes the motion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200512%5CFOR20051216a.html

The resolution text was prepared by Swedish lawmaker Goran Lindblad, who argues that because all former communist countries in Europe -- except Belarus -- are members of the Council of Europe, the grouping is an appropriate forum for the debate.

This was also the right time to have it, he said, pointing to the 15th anniversary of the disintegration of communism in Europe.

"Whereas another totalitarian regime of the 20th century, namely nazism, has been investigated, internationally condemned and the perpetrators have been brought to trial, similar crimes committed in the name of communism have neither been investigated nor received any international condemnation," he said in an explanatory memo.

Lindblad said this could be partly attributed to a reluctance to upset surviving communist regimes.

China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos fall into that category.

"The wish to maintain good relations with some of them may prevent certain politicians from dealing with this difficult subject," he said.

Lindblad gave several reasons for believing there was an urgent need for public debate on the crimes of communism and their condemnation at an international level.

"It seems that a sort of nostalgia for communism is still alive in some countries. That creates the danger of communists taking over power in one country or another."

It was important that all crimes be condemned, without exception. "This is particularly important for young generations who have no personal experience of communist rules."

Another reason, he said, was the fact that communist regimes still exist and "the crimes committed in the name of communist ideology continue to take place."

"International condemnation will give more credibility and arguments to the internal opposition within these countries and may contribute to some positive developments," he added.

Mike.

Nuttzz

345 signitures for a europe wide petition....

Sand

Whilst I do not believe in the communist ideal, I have to ask why is this draft resolution only aimed at "totalitarian communist regimes"?

Why not "totalitarian regimes"? I mean what's one totalitarian regime against another? They're all the same in the end. Misery for the masses along with mass human rights abuses and despicable acts of wanton persecution.

Id imagine because there already resolutions aimed at totalarian regimes, and because IIRC this resolution originated with East European politicians who wanted to nail specifically the USSR/Russia for the crimes it committed in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, which has caused a sub zero atmosphere in relations between Russia, which tends to deny or ignore that their annexation of Eastern Europe was anything other than wholly benign and wonderful.

As pointed out, the ideology of communism does not equate to what happened under the USSR or China or any other such states, but the perversion of that ideology. The same way that we see the likes of the PATRIOT act seeking to pervert democracy. Power for those who want more of it (which will also never be enough). Pure and simple. I would go far as to state that I consider this bill to be a perversion of, and an afront to, democracy.

To quote the resolution itself,

2. The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in Central and Eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights. The violations have differed depending on the culture, country and the historical period and have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labour and other forms of mass physical terror.

3. The crimes were justified in the name of the class struggle theory and the principle of dictatorship of the proletariat. The interpretation of both principles legitimised the “elimination” of people who were considered harmful to the construction of a new society and, as such, enemies of the totalitarian communist regimes. A vast number of victims in every country concerned were its own nationals. It was the case particularly of peoples of the former USSR who by far outnumbered other peoples in terms of the number of victims.

Hence, the crimes would have everything to do with the idealogy that underpinned them.

What this resolution is doing is unfairly and ignorantly blurring the lines between the actual ideology of communism and what it stands for, with the percieved faliures of its falied totalitarian attempts, which will help create and keep alive those stereotypes which blackmarks the ideology itself....i would suggest you read up on the subject, it is far more complicated than many think.

I suggest you read the document, its far less threatening than you would have the gullible believe.

4. The Assembly recognises that, in spite of the crimes of totalitarian communist regimes, some European communist parties have made contributions to achieving democracy.

The document differentiates between totalarian communist regimes, and the wider political movement (basically the guys who didnt get their chance to line anyone with glasses up against a wall).

The document isnt all that crazy, all it calls for is researching and raising awareness of crimes committed by communist regimes, condemnation for those crimes, raise memorials to victims and forcing countries to open their archives on the period to public scrutiny. Nothing disagreeable there at all really. Unless you feel that crimes carried out by Communist regimes werent really crimes at all.

democrates

I'd be surprised if it were adopted.

Fine the eurocrats get a chance to stimulate debate resulting in some eurosceptics thinking "oh no, we don't want to go back to communism, capitalism is the answer, we really should support the eu project after all".

But it could be a tad embarrassing next time politicians seeking to expand trade fly out to curry favour with Chinese Communist Party leaders.

cil_aine

sorry if this has already been said, but i was always told that true or "pure" communism does not happen overnight, it's a gradual process.
1. primitive communism - ancient times, ie native americans everything shared no money, people had specvific jobs
2.feudalism - a leader/several leaders
3.capitalism - some make huge profits whilst exploiting others
4.socialism - workers take control, rulersd abolished, nothign made for profit. all benifit from free health and education

THEN WE HAVE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
marx said that you HAD to force ideas on people, capitalists would resist, so people had to form a totalitarian state for a while, in order for people to conform with these ideas and see how "brilliant" they were

only then do we have COMMUNISM

war and police no longer needed, utopia etc etc.

however many people would resist communism for whatever reason. so communism does involve a totalitarian state for some time according to marx. so therefore you cant have communism without it. the reason many beleive why cmmunism was such a cock-up in russia was because they went straight from feudalism to communism. they didnt, as many wanted to, take it gradually.

my point is that a totalitarian state does go hand in hand with communism. certainly for some period of time. anyway, although its a great idea and all, i beleive that although socialism can work, communism cant. but maybe thats just cynical old me?

democrates

Yes, Marx like others went through the same process:
1) Define what is wrong with the world today
2) Define your ideal alternative
3) Define a method to get from here to there

When Lenin tried pure communism he caused a famine.
He then moderated his approach and begun the NEP (New economic programme) which allowed private property, shop owners again etc, and things started to improve. The book Borzoi by Igor Schwezoff contains some great first hand accounts of these events.
But Stalin reversed all that so we'll never know what would have happened.

One common area revolutionaries underestimate is the international dimension. If their country was the world they could try anything, but inevitably the success/failure of foregn powers will have an impact on your experiment.

samb

patzer117 wrote:

Woah, i'm all for condemning totalitarian communist regimes and banning any parties with links to them. Any party which refuses to distance itself from the USSR style communism shouldn't be allowed, in the same way as neo-nazi parties shouldn't be.

the idea that the crimes happened in 'failed attempts at communism' is ridiculous, for communism in true Marx style is about revolution, violence, murder and overthrowing democracy. That could adequetly describe what happened - the communists revolted, and entered a trotskyte permanant revolution. To say the 'communist ideology doesn't... promote the crimes it commited' is untrue and completely distinct from of any form of communism that existed. The fact is that Marx, Lenin and everyone else all wanted revolution, and VIOLENT revolution. Either distance yourself from violence or you are inciting people to hatred which is a crime.

i ask, why should parties who fail to condemn violence and revolution, but actually encourage it a la USSR stlye (by supporting communism and not condemning Stalinism), not rebrand themselves? why not distance themselves from these obviously evil ideoligies? why not name themselves socialists? why persist in retaining a link to revolution, murder, genocide? If they want to stay in my opinion they must drop the link. Otherwise I welcome the condemnation.

Can I ask samb and Firefall01 what kind of communism they are supporting or advocating. I'm just curious.
patzer

I am not and would not support communism, I never said I would. I do however support people's right to support an economic model based on communism. These people must however accept democracy and non-violence. I think we all condem stalinism and all the different regimes that have been communist in history.

democrates

samb wrote:

I am not and would not support communism, I never said I would. I do however support people's right to support an economic model based on communism. These people must however accept democracy and non-violence. I think we all condem stalinism and all the different regimes that have been communist in history.

Of course you realise this means war!
-Groucho (but what movie, that's going to wreck my head)

mike65

Proberly Duck Soup!

Mike.

sceptre

mike65 wrote:

Proberly Duck Soup!

Daffy Duck soup I suspect.

Hydrosylator

This isn't McCarthyism, it's the application of the law. It isn't anti-communist, it's anti-totalitarian and anti-criminal. It is reserved only for fascistic pseudo-communism and real communism remains exempt.

FireFall01

Hydrosylator wrote:

This isn't McCarthyism, it's the application of the law. It isn't anti-communist, it's anti-totalitarian and anti-criminal. It is reserved only for fascistic pseudo-communism and real communism remains exempt.

I should hope so,
The main problem that im having with this proposition is that it is very vauge and lacking in detail, and by failing to adequetly distinguish the position of the ideology of communism...and its role (however big or small) in the crimes of these totalitarian regimes, it leaves open the doors for the assumption that the ideology itself was purely the reason for these crimes, without taking into account the many many factors for the turbleant history of these states and these crimes.

The article at no time mentions the role of prominant figures who were responsible for many of these crimes such as Stalin or Mao and because of this fails to distribute blame adequetly( which could be argued helps create ignorant generalisations on the issue), also because of its vagueness it fails to distungish them from other figures such as Lenin or Trotsky and their role, allowing for the impression that they where all lumped together in a plot to massacre people. It calls for education and i wholeheartedly agree, but not just into the crimes of these totalitarian regimes, but into the backrounds, the reasons why and the circumstances surrounding them, All are as equally important as not to form biased opinions on the ideology of communism...which clearly DOES NOT advocate such crimes committed under stalin or mao(anyone who disagrees, i would advise you to start reading) The "ideology" should not be punished because of the "methods" of implementation used, These methods where both circumstantial and in the case of Stalins consolidation of power (when he turned the USSR into a totalitarian state) perverted.

Also i find the article is quite anti-communist, i have no doubt the rapporteur is anti-communist himself and its obvious he would have passion for his work , but at times his standing point has allowed for biased views to be expressed, which have no place in an law-making institution.
For example:

It seems that a sort of nostalgia for communism is still alive in some countries. That creates the danger of communists taking over power in one country or another. This report should contribute to the general awareness of the history of this ideology

As Rapporteur I am of the opinion that there should be no further undue delay in condemning the communist ideology and regimes at international level. This should be done both by the Assembly at parliamentary level and by the Committee of Ministers at intergovernmental level. Personally, I do not share the position of some colleaguesthat a clear distinction should be made between ideology and practice. The latter drives from the former and sooner or later the initial good intentions are overtaken by the totalitarian one party system and its abuses.

with such limited experience this is pure generalisation, he presents no case into why this would be so, and fails to consider the circumstantial factors of its practice.

Historic Communist leaders have never hidden their objectives which were the dictatorship of proletariat

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

here i also must bring attention to the earlier reference to this

The crimes were justified in the name of the class struggle theory and the principle of dictatorship of the proletariat. The interpretation of both principles legitimised the “elimination” of people who were considered harmful to the construction of a new society and, as such, enemies of the totalitarian communist regimes.

This appears to be an attempt merely to blacken the terms of both the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and of "class stuggle".
Just because these where "used" to justify the crimes under such regimes and by such people doenst mean these terms are guilty of such crimes, think in the context of the use of as such terms as "freedom" and "democracy" being used to justify the US's foreign policy(which includes the illegal war in Iraq, the torture and illegal detainment of suspected terrorists)


Now i do realise that the main premise of this article is the condemnation of the human rights abuses of such totalitariarn regimes, and i agree with that there is no reason for such crimes to be sheltered.....however as ive said earlier this proposition is very vauge and lacking in detail in many aspects, especially when it comes to the position of the communist ideology...measures should be taken to refine the article, so that it creates a clear seperation which in an informed and educated manner shows the diffirences between the principals of the ideology of communism and its better forms, with that of its totalitarian crimes and those forms which support them so (e.g Stalinism) Only then would i believe it would help to distance the true communist movement from the crimes commited in its past totalitarian failures...such a connection has stiffled and created ignorance on the understanding of what communism tries to do:)

micromegas

Communism is an utter failure. End of discussion.

muesli_offire

Communism is an utter failure. End of discussion.

I beg to differ. The discussion is not about whether or not communism works.
It is about an anti-communist resolution.

FireFall01

micromegas wrote:

Communism is an utter failure. End of discussion.

Care to expand on that my friend?

Victor

patzer117 wrote:

the idea that the crimes happened in 'failed attempts at communism' is ridiculous, for communism in true Marx style is about revolution, violence, murder and overthrowing democracy.

So how many countries have fallen to communism?

certain people

everyone's very quick to slate the USSR etc., but while you're up there on your high horse, consider this.

1. In the USSR, everyone had food, free education, free heathcare, a job etc. Okay, Coca-Cola may not have been available and so on but the basics were all there.

2. Remember the way the United States treated black people until the 1960s? Remember the record of the USA in Vietnam - burning villages, napalming random bits of the jungle and neighbouring countries? Remember that the USA still treats non-Americans as nonhumans, look at Iraq, especially that prison. Remember the way the USA treated democratically elected communist governments - Allende was elected in Chile, only for the USA to back General Augusto Pinochet in a brutal revolution which led to a horrifying military dictatorship for many years. Go do a bit of research, and you will find that the number of people in prison in the USA today is greater than the number of people ever imprisoned by the USSR. And most importantly, remember that the USA is responsible for what is undeniably the most horrific, brutal act in the history of mankind - the dropping of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

My point is, every side is wrong, and it's too easy to jumo in the USSR bashing bandwagon. There was, is, wrong on all sides, done by people who have claimed all ideologies, and it's unfair to criticise one alone. People commit crimes, not ideologies, and people can claim one ideology and act on another, as Stalin undoubtedly did (as anyone who compares the theory of communism to what Stalin actually did would see).

Criticise actions, not ideologies.

Aedh Baclamh

Remember that the USA still treats non-Americans as nonhumans, look at Iraq, especially that prison.

Care to back this up?

certain people

Sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4114825.stm
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

Aedh Baclamh

Obviously I was referring to your sweeping generalisation rather than an isolated incident.

bonkey

certain people wrote:

1. In the USSR, everyone had food, free education, free heathcare, a job etc. Okay, Coca-Cola may not have been available and so on but the basics were all there.

If you define "the basics" at a low enough level, then yes.

2. Remember the way the United States

You mean they've improved? Whilst the USSR failed to improve significantly, and instead ceased to exist? Hmm...hard to choose a better system from that. The one that improves rapidly over time, or the one that fails to do so and ceases to exist. Tough one.

And most importantly, remember that the USA is responsible for what is undeniably the most horrific, brutal act in the history of mankind - the dropping of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Your definition of undeniable is completely different to mine, so I'm not sure how to address this. There are plenty of acts which are arguably more horrific and more brutal.

The only thing remotely unique (that I can think of) was that so much suffering was directly caused by the conscious act of a single person, with a single explosive device.

Criticise actions, not ideologies.

Both are open to criticism. Its just important to remember that there is a distinction.

jc

thiscityburns

Condemn the communist atrocities (especially Kronstadt), that's fine, i'm with that all the way.
Then we can move onto condemning "Capitalist" atrocities, like the US intervention in Chile in 1973 or Nicaragua 1981-92.

FireFall01

Originally Posted by certain people
1. In the USSR, everyone had food, free education, free heathcare, a job etc. Okay, Coca-Cola may not have been available and so on but the basics were all there.

If you define "the basics" at a low enough level, then yes.

2. Remember the way the United States

You mean they've improved? Whilst the USSR failed to improve significantly, and instead ceased to exist? Hmm...hard to choose a better system from that. The one that improves rapidly over time, or the one that fails to do so and ceases to exist. Tough one.

Quite intresting then that the US doesnt provide these "basics" isnt it

The Corinthian

FireFall01 wrote:

Quite intresting then that the US doesnt provide these "basics" isnt it

That’s not actually true. Again, not unlike the USSR, it depends on how low you want to define the basics. Social Welfare has been in existence in the USA for decades, it way not be as generous or comprehensive as that which Europeans are accustomed to, but to say it does not exist would not be true either.

Ultimately the proof of the pudding in Communism’s failure lies in the fact that pretty much no communist economy has ever succeeded. One could argue that this was down to foreign intervention (be us Soviet or US) or due to totalitarianism or a myriad of other reasons, but given the sheer absence of any functioning communist economy, the most probable cause is because they were unworkable to begin with.

thiscityburns

what about cuba?

The Corinthian

thiscityburns wrote:

what about cuba?

What about Cuba?

Certainly the US embargo has had its effect on the Cuban Economy, however, so have the decades of subsidies that Cuba got from the USSR. Essentially, up until the early to mid nineties, Cuban communism was being bankrolled by the Soviets. Another major input into the economy was the remittance sent back by many Cuban-Americans (hardly the founding-stone of a strong economy to begin with), which was stopped in the mid 1990’s. When all that ended, we’re seen them turning to other sources of income; especially tourism and medical tourism.

However it’s simply not paying the bills.

Cuba since the fall of the USSR has been increasingly plagued by the same problems that face other communist states - market inefficiency, empty shop shelves and a decline on the quality of social services (the Cuban medical service is not longer what it was once held up to be) as the money runs out. It is questionable that it can continue indefinitely.

Once could blame this on the US trade embargo, but that would be simplistic - Cuba has no problem trading with most of Latin America, or China or the EU for that matter.

Ultimately there exist only five communist countries in the World any more: China is in name only, Cuba I’ve covered above, Laos & Vietnam are Third World Basket case economies and the less said of North Korea’s economy the better. Venezuela, contrary to some opinions, is not communist - at least not yet.

So, with the exception of China (which is no longer running a communist economy) the remnants of the communist experiment are at best third-rate economies and at worst humanitarian disasters. All the rest have gone the way of the Dodo.

randombassist

certain people wrote:

everyone's very quick to slate the USSR etc., but while you're up there on your high horse, consider this.

1. In the USSR, everyone had food, free education, free heathcare, a job etc. Okay, Coca-Cola may not have been available and so on but the basics were all there.

2. Remember the way the United States treated black people until the 1960s? Remember the record of the USA in Vietnam - burning villages, napalming random bits of the jungle and neighbouring countries? Remember that the USA still treats non-Americans as nonhumans, look at Iraq, especially that prison. Remember the way the USA treated democratically elected communist governments - Allende was elected in Chile, only for the USA to back General Augusto Pinochet in a brutal revolution which led to a horrifying military dictatorship for many years. Go do a bit of research, and you will find that the number of people in prison in the USA today is greater than the number of people ever imprisoned by the USSR. And most importantly, remember that the USA is responsible for what is undeniably the most horrific, brutal act in the history of mankind - the dropping of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

My point is, every side is wrong, and it's too easy to jumo in the USSR bashing bandwagon. There was, is, wrong on all sides, done by people who have claimed all ideologies, and it's unfair to criticise one alone. People commit crimes, not ideologies, and people can claim one ideology and act on another, as Stalin undoubtedly did (as anyone who compares the theory of communism to what Stalin actually did would see).

Criticise actions, not ideologies.

The USSR also liked to crush rebellions with massive force.
They caused millions to die in the Ukraine due to famine, hardly everyone having food there now is it.
They treated the sattelite nations as second class citizens, didn't give them the same rights.
They didn't have as many people in prison, because they killed them, they dissapeared them. Perhaps if we added up everyone who was executed and added that on to the prison figures we could get a more accurate reading...

People can commit crimes based on ideology. There is every reason to criticise ideology based on reolution, violence and murder. Some thoughts are wrong, that's why we have incitement to hatred legislation.

And as for the US bashing: their greatest acts against humanity, the nuclear bombs would save more lives in the long run. When it comes down to it it's not as black and white as you'd like it to seem.

It's not unfair in this case to criticise one on its own, communism has got off lighter than facism in popular concesus even though it was just as bad. If a former SS officer ran for president in Germany there'd be outcry, and yet putin as former KGB, and very authoritarian now, breaking up media etc is fine. Is it wrong for the EU to say it condems the kind of totalitarianism that's got off lighter? I don't think so, in fact it sends the right message, this kind of subjagation is wrong. These actions were wrong. This ideology is wrong.

samb

Could somebody please explain to me why I should not have the right to set up a political party that is democratic peaceful and based on the economic ideology of communism. This is what the discussion is about, it is not about communism in Russia, Cuba or Cambodia or whereever, or about America. There already exists laws against what stalin and co did.

randombassist

samb wrote:

Could somebody please explain to me why I should not have the right to set up a political party that is democratic peaceful and based on the economic ideology of communism. This is what the discussion is about, it is not about communism in Russia, Cuba or Cambodia or whereever, or about America. There already exists laws against what stalin and co did.

There's a difference between a link to communist economic policies, such as land not commanding a value, and being for revolution as the communist manifesto, the guiding text of communism calls for. As an 'ism' communism is clearly defined, unlike facism. It has a few guiding texts, and these lay out the paramaters of what exactly communism is. What you're talking about is not communism, but socialism, or capatalism with derived communist ideas. The act that we're discussing here, even in title discusses 'totalitarian communism'. That's what this discussion is about, hence the references to those kinds of regiemes.

certain people

Well, there's been a few quite amusing posts on this thread since I posted, such as a redefinition of the term "isolated instance" to include protracted periods of government sanctioned mistreatement and torture of prisoners over...how many years has the Guantanamo prison been open? 4 years is it? Then there was the one where the USA provides all the basics, haha, good one. Free Education and Free Healthcare have of course been at the forefront of Democrat and Republican policy for years now. What's that? They haven't? oh. ooops.
Oh and the one where the atomic bombs aren't horrific, that was a good one. Ha ha. (Sure it wasn't black and white...they had nothing to do with beating Japan, dropping the A-bomb was America's way of waving their d*cks at the USSR saying "look what we've got, yah!". Russia was ready to invade Japan, which was already on the point of surrender.) It was unneccessary and horrific - the most horrific unspeakable atrocity ever. I'd love to know what you think was worse, I really would.

I never denied the fact that the USSR did many many bad things (that's putting it lightly in fact!!). Of course it did. I was sort of figuring that given that's the thread topic, it would be taken as assumed for my post. What I said was that the USA, the Capitalist USA, has done just as bad. There was good and bad on both sides.

In theory Communism has some great ideas in it, but it just doesn't work in practice, it requires either far too strong a central government or else full co-operation with the system which is of course never going to happen. But I don't think it's a good idea to label the entire ideology as wrong, and I think it's a bad idea to attach the label "Communist" to various atrocities. You wouldn't condemn the Capitalist Violations of Human Rights in Guantanamo would you? It's nothing to do with the system, it's just the government abusing their power, whether it's a capitalist government or a communist one. The economic policy has notthing whatsoever to do with the atrocities. So let's get together and condemn atrocities and human rights violations, whoever committed them.

By the way, Yugoslavia worked pretty well until Tito died. Make of that what you will.

The Corinthian

certain people wrote:

Free Education and Free Healthcare have of course been at the forefront of Democrat and Republican policy for years now. What's that? They haven't? oh. ooops.

Actually the US Democratic party has put social policies such as free education and, in particular, healthcare on the forefront of their policy.

Of course, whether they have or not is irrelevant here, because the reality is that basic social welfare does indeed exist in the USA - a point that was denied by some in this thread.

I never denied the fact that the USSR did many many bad things (that's putting it lightly in fact!!). Of course it did. I was sort of figuring that given that's the thread topic, it would be taken as assumed for my post. What I said was that the USA, the Capitalist USA, has done just as bad. There was good and bad on both sides.

I’d certainly agree that both systems have done evil, but it’s rather difficult to equate the gulags, mass purges & expulsions and famine caused by the USSR’s various five-year plans with anything the USA has done over the years. That’s not to say that the US is ‘the good guy’, only that you can’t really say that she was as bad as the USSR.

In theory Communism has some great ideas in it, but it just doesn't work in practice, it requires either far too strong a central government or else full co-operation with the system which is of course never going to happen. But I don't think it's a good idea to label the entire ideology as wrong, and I think it's a bad idea to attach the label "Communist" to various atrocities.

But do you really mean that? For example would you say the same of Fascism (and I don’t mean Nazism)?

By the way, Yugoslavia worked pretty well until Tito died. Make of that what you will.

It was politically stable, which is not the same thing as working pretty well (I know more than a few former Yugoslavs who will attest to this). And stability bought with dictatorship is a poor bargain - not because of lack of freedom, TBH, but because it’s a false and transitory stability. When the dictator dies, there’s rarely a clear line of succession (dictators do not encourage potential rivals, after all) and the system either collapses immediately or limps on as an ineffectual, and typically corrupt, oligarchy.

AFAIK, the only dictator to actually try to engineer an heir was Franco, and ironically while he succeeded, it ideologically backfired on him posthumously.

On which note; any bets on how long Cuba remains communist after Castro?

Wibbs

certain people wrote:

Oh and the one where the atomic bombs aren't horrific, that was a good one. Ha ha. (Sure it wasn't black and white...they had nothing to do with beating Japan, dropping the A-bomb was America's way of waving their d*cks at the USSR saying "look what we've got, yah!". Russia was ready to invade Japan, which was already on the point of surrender.) It was unneccessary and horrific - the most horrific unspeakable atrocity ever. I'd love to know what you think was worse, I really would.

Wrong on many points. Japan would have required a massive land invasion to subdue it. The casualties, both civilian and military would have been far higher. Such an allied fleet was being assembled before the bomb*. Remember, the Japanese gov didn't surrender after the first nuke either. They tried to deny it even happened. It took a second blast to convince them. Even then there were voices calling for fighting to the last man.

Far from it being "undeniably the most horrific, brutal act in the history of mankind" or "the most horrific unspeakable atrocity ever"(Just looove the undeniably and ever bits), far worse things happened in that war, by all sides. Dresden, The final solution, Japanese atrocities in China, etc. If you think the systematic clinical extermination of over 6 million people is lesser than dropping two bombs that very likely lessoned the amount of final deaths then fair enough. It would really serve you better to ease up on the histrionics and read your history.

The Corinthian wrote:

AFAIK, the only dictator to actually try to engineer an heir was Franco

The eejit in Nth Korea was another I think. Succeeded too.


* Beyond history books too, as many of my family members were involved.

certain people

You make some good points. But I think you're wrong that the USSR was worse than the USA. Actually i'd compare the torture camp at Guantanamo Bay to the gulags, for example. The USA is not the squeaky clean happy freedom peace and democracy -loving nation they'd like us to believe is it. We just hear about all the bad bits of the USSR and the good bits of the USA because, well, because the USA won the cold war, basically. History is written by the victors, after all. The USSR was not an altogether evil place, and it did have a lot of good things going for it. We just don't hear them. The USA is in the same league as the USSR in terms of atrocities and human rights record, in my opinion. Well, in fact nothing beats for me the a-bombs, so in that sense the USA actually is lower in my opinion. but there's little difference.

As for Yugoslavia...I must admit that I don't know any Yugoslavs, and I really don't know a huge amount about it, but the country was politically stable, and i've heard no reports of state atrocities or any of the other evils normally associated with communist countries. I do find it incredibly interesting that it's always left out of these discussions. The fact that it was stable, given what's happened in the area since, really says something. Take it as a pointer that communism is not always evil, and for that matter, neither is dictatorship. Funny that.

oh and no, i wouldn't attach the label "fascism" to atrocities, for the same reason as i wouldn't say "communist atrocities" or "capitalist atrocities". "Nazi atrocities" is different, as nazism was entirely based around racist social ideology, it's not an economic/political idea.

Wibbs

certain people wrote:

Actually i'd compare the torture camp at Guantanamo Bay to the gulags, for example.

Wtf? How many people died in the gulags?

The USA is in the same league as the USSR in terms of atrocities and human rights record, in my opinion.

Right so, Roosevelt, like Stalin killed millions of his own citizens did he?

Well, in fact nothing beats for me the a-bombs, so in that sense the USA actually is lower in my opinion.

So in all recorded history, in all the atrocities during that time, the A bomb does it for you? Did you even read my last post, or did it and some of the facts run too contrary to your view for comfort?

As for Yugoslavia...I must admit that I don't know any Yugoslavs, and I really don't know a huge amount about it, but the country was politically stable, and i've heard no reports of state atrocities or any of the other evils normally associated with communist countries. I do find it incredibly interesting that it's always left out of these discussions. The fact that it was stable, given what's happened in the area since, really says something. Take it as a pointer that communism is not always evil, and for that matter, neither is dictatorship. Funny that.

Is it just me?

oh and no, i wouldn't attach the label "fascism" to atrocities, for the same reason as i wouldn't say "communist atrocities" or "capitalist atrocities". "Nazi atrocities" is different, as nazism was entirely based around racist social ideology, it's not an economic/political idea.

Of course it was an economic/political idea.:eek: :eek: :eek: Do you even know what the word Nazi stands for? They were national socialists FFS. it was even called the german workers party at the start. They were big into redistribution of wealth from profit sharing, workers collectives etc. They brought free education to Germany as well. Got loads o' votes that stuff. Seriously you should check this stuff out.

certain people

Actually, no, I didn't read your last post, i think you must have posted it while i was replying to the previous one cos i didn't see it till now. Sorry about that.

anyway i'll address some of your comments from both. You do have a fair point about the Holocaust but really it's just a matter of numbers, isn't it? Why are the numbers so important? Would the Holocaust have been less evil if it had been stopped a few years earlier, while the number dead was less than a million? No of course it wouldn't. For me, the indiscriminate murder of the people, the men women and children, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is worse. And the fact that it was done just to stick two fingers up at the USSR only makes it worse. (And I do stick to the view that the bombs were exactly that, I don't believe it would have lowered the ultimate casualty figure etc etc, sure, it shortened the war, but Japan was on it's last legs, down and almost out. It was unnecessary).

"Right so, Roosevelt, like Stalin killed millions of his own citizens did he?"

his own citizens? his own citizens are people. other people are also people. does it matter if the people he killed were "his own citizens" or not? Do you really think it makes a difference? 'Boom, another person dead. Oh well that's okay, it wasn't one of MY citizens.' I happen to think that all humans are equal. Killing a person results in a dead person...not a dead American, not a dead Soviet, not a dead whatever nationality, a dead PERSON. The USSR treated people as sub-human. The USA treated, TREATS, people as sub-human. The difference is only a matter of numbers.


And now on to Nazism. Well, of course the Nazi party had economic and political opinions...although let me say that although they called themselves socialist, there was very little socialist about them!! The fundamental principles of nazism, however, were based around the idea of Aryan racial superiority which is not, however much spin you put on it, an economic or political idea. And it was from that racist principle that the Holocaust resulted. Surely you aren't trying to claim that it was Hitler's economic policy that all Jews should be murdered? Doesn't really sound like an economic policy to me.

Finally Yugoslavia. I was just making a throwaway comment, I said that I don't know much about it, I just think it's interesting that when everyone talks about the evil of communism etc Yugoslavia gets left out of the discussion. And it doesn't seem to have been that bad at all. I really should go read more, but perhaps if someone who knows about the place would like to comment? That was my real intention, to put it into the debate, not to make any judgements based on it. I am open to all corrections, and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

The Corinthian

certain people wrote:

You make some good points. But I think you're wrong that the USSR was worse than the USA. Actually i'd compare the torture camp at Guantanamo Bay to the gulags, for example.

And certainly a comparison can be made, however given that by the early 1950’s the Gulag had 2.5 million prisoners, it is a comparison that falls short. The US has never run such camps on such scales. Not even close.

The USA is not the squeaky clean happy freedom peace and democracy -loving nation they'd like us to believe is it.

No one here has said otherwise.

We just hear about all the bad bits of the USSR and the good bits of the USA because, well, because the USA won the cold war, basically. History is written by the victors, after all. The USSR was not an altogether evil place, and it did have a lot of good things going for it. We just don't hear them.

Would you extend the same logic to the Nazi’s?

The USA is in the same league as the USSR in terms of atrocities and human rights record, in my opinion.

That may be your opinion, but - as I’ve already pointed out - the facts do not bare this out.

Well, in fact nothing beats for me the a-bombs, so in that sense the USA actually is lower in my opinion. but there's little difference.

The A-bomb beats the Nazi death camps?

As for Yugoslavia...I must admit that I don't know any Yugoslavs, and I really don't know a huge amount about it, but the country was politically stable, and i've heard no reports of state atrocities or any of the other evils normally associated with communist countries.

Vis-a-vi stability, it was stable in the same way the USSR was stable under Stalin or Spain was under Franco. It’s easy to have stable government under a dictatorship.

As for atrocities, we can point to Istria, for example - it was annexed after World War II from Italy. The Italian population was ethnically cleansed - numerous mass graves have since been uncovered.

I do find it incredibly interesting that it's always left out of these discussions. The fact that it was stable, given what's happened in the area since, really says something. Take it as a pointer that communism is not always evil, and for that matter, neither is dictatorship. Funny that.

Yet, without dictatorship, it too failed. Just like all the other communist states. Funny that.

oh and no, i wouldn't attach the label "fascism" to atrocities, for the same reason as i wouldn't say "communist atrocities" or "capitalist atrocities".

Fair enough. That’s consistent.

"Nazi atrocities" is different, as nazism was entirely based around racist social ideology, it's not an economic/political idea.

Actually it was very much based around an economic/political idea, of which race was central. Economically, Keynes admired it and many of its concepts were Fascist in origin; although it displaced the State with Race as a core value.

So simply because we find it abhorrent does not mean we can dismiss it as “not an economic/political idea”.

As an aside, I’ve always found tribalism and scapegoatism an interesting motif in political ideologies. Nazism used race to engender support a point to a national enemy - Communism, on the other hand, uses class.

Wibbs

certain people wrote:

Actually, no, I didn't read your last post, i think you must have posted it while i was replying to the previous one cos i didn't see it till now. Sorry about that.

Nope, my mistake.

You do have a fair point about the Holocaust but really it's just a matter of numbers, isn't it? Why are the numbers so important? Would the Holocaust have been less evil if it had been stopped a few years earlier, while the number dead was less than a million? No of course it wouldn't.

Of course numbers are inportant. If we only had three dead in Treblinka I don't think we would have too many memorials to the holocaust. In any case it's you who is measuring one bunch against another. If one ideology killed 20 people and the other killed 20 million, who would be "worse". See how the numbers matter?

For me, the indiscriminate murder of the people, the men women and children, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is worse.

What about the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg. Wave after wave of bombers, for day after day. Not two lone bombers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

And the fact that it was done just to stick two fingers up at the USSR only makes it worse. (And I do stick to the view that the bombs were exactly that, I don't believe it would have lowered the ultimate casualty figure etc etc, sure, it shortened the war, but Japan was on it's last legs, down and almost out. It was unnecessary).

What you believe is one thing, history is quite another. Commentators on both sides generally agree that a land invasion of Japan would have been disastrous in terms of the loss of life. My own feeling is that they should have issued a warning first. That said they had to drop a second device as there was still no response to surrender requests.

Google Okinawa. Okinawa is an island off the coast of Japan. More died during the battle for Okinawa than died by the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's right, more dead. I know it's only numbers, but it puts things into perspective. Can you imagine the hell that a land assault on Japan itself would have brought. You said it yourself. It shortened the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_the_decision_to_drop_the_bombs
^ for balance and such.

his own citizens? his own citizens are people. other people are also people. does it matter if the people he killed were "his own citizens" or not?

I would contend that one of the ways to judge a society is how it treats its own citizens first, so yes it does matter.

And now on to Nazism. Well, of course the Nazi party had economic and political opinions...although let me say that although they called themselves socialist, there was very little socialist about them!!

Actually there was, free medical, education, higher pensions etc., but that's for another debate. Granted they were a bunch of aryan spouting, murderous nutbags, but it's not all that black and white.

Surely you aren't trying to claim that it was Hitler's economic policy that all Jews should be murdered? Doesn't really sound like an economic policy to me.

No, Obviously I'm not, but scarily it did have sound economics behind it too. Confiscation of Jewish lands, monies, and business interests alone made the Reich a pretty penny. Millions in fact.

samb

randombassist wrote:

. The act that we're discussing here, even in title discusses 'totalitarian communism'. That's what this discussion is about, hence the references to those kinds of regiemes.

Sorry my mistake. Then I would support the bill. why not just totalitarian regimes full stop. The communism part seems unfair.

There's a difference between a link to communist economic policies, such as land not commanding a value, and being for revolution as the communist manifesto, the guiding text of communism calls for. As an 'ism' communism is clearly defined, unlike facism. It has a few guiding texts, and these lay out the paramaters of what exactly communism is. What you're talking about is not communism, but socialism, or capatalism with derived communist ideas

I disagree here, communism as I know it generally referes to an economic model whereby basically everthing is owned by everybody, hence commune.

from wikipedea; Communism refers to a theory of classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

P.S I'm not a communist

samb

Wibbs wrote:

Of course it was an economic/political idea.:eek: :eek: :eek: Do you even know what the word Nazi stands for? They were national socialists FFS. it was even called the german workers party at the start. They were big into redistribution of wealth from profit sharing, workers collectives etc. They brought free education to Germany as well. Got loads o' votes that stuff. Seriously you should check this stuff out.

.

I don't think I understand you here. Are you saying that the Green party or Sinn fien are actually Nazis. I'm not sure what distinguishes naziism but I'm fairly sure that you are misguided by defining them in terms of a couple of economic policies.