nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Simple things I don't understand....

Big Mouth

Okay, heres is some simple political stuff I don't get.

First up, "Big Government" I understand that Left-wing parties are in favour of Big Governement but what exactly does it mean? Is it related to freedom of the markets etc?

Next, Communism / Socialism, People of this ideology are hard left and usually bleeding hearts of the average joe. So why did the Soviets become such a hated and hateful regime? Were Uncle Joe, Kruschev et al truly left wing liberals when they were responsible for millions of deaths and hardship?

Where there policies not the exact opposite of their beliefs?

I'll leave it that for now and post some more when these are answered

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bob Z

Left wing and liberal arent exactly the same thing i dont know enough to explain the difference

Commumism believes in the state owning everything and everyone working for them its fine in principle but a lot of communist leaders became as corrupt as capilast leaders

The reasons communism is so unpopular
1) Corruption in Countries like Romania
2) Russias and Chinas own actions became linked with communism so when people hear about tibet being invaded its blamed on COmmunism
3) Communism believe everthing should be owned by the state so naturaly mulitnationals dont want their assets to be nationalised and a lot of cases they control the media
4) The fact that a lof of communists are Athiest also proved unpopular in some quarters

Armin_Tamzarian

They say that no true communism has ever been practiced on the planet.
In theory it's the perfect society but in reality it just results in a two-tier society.
With a ridiculously massive chasm between the haves and have nots.

Big Mouth

Yes but was Stalin a believer in the rights of workers and the equality of all and then be the biggest mass murderer the world has ever seen?

It doesn't add up..

Queen-Mise

One theory says in political philosophy is that communism is only possible on a world wide way, otherwise governments spend too much on defence budgets etc. All these expenses take away from money to look after the population.

Communism in theory is fine, the application of it was faulty. Communism under Stalin or it in spain till 1980 (?) Is not a true reflection of what lenin or trotsky envisaged.

Armin_Tamzarian

Big Mouth wrote: »

Yes but was Stalin a believer in the rights of workers and the equality of all and then be the biggest mass murderer the world has ever seen?

It doesn't add up..

He didn't believe in the rights of workers.
He probably liked the idea of it but that's it.
He was an insane power-crazy maniac who made every decision on the basis of what was best to keep him in power.
Nobody had any rights, not to mind workers' rights.
On the slightest suspicion of someone questioning him he would have them killed or shipped off to die in a labour camp.

Bob Z

Queen-Mise wrote: »

One theory says in political philosophy is that communism is only possible on a world wide way, otherwise governments spend too much on defence budgets etc. All these expenses take away from money to look after the population.

Communism in theory is fine, the application of it was faulty. Communism under Stalin or it in spain till 1980 (?) Is not a true reflection of what lenin or trotsky envisaged.

But doesnt that apply to capitalism too?

dan_d

I think...in theory communism has it's good points but in practice, human nature does not allow it to succeed. If Stalin/Mao etc had been impartial human beings with no prejudices/greed/love of power...the things that make us human...communism may have worked. But human nature simply doesn't allow it to work like that. Sooner or later, the faults of the individual in power come to the fore and they start to warp the system, for their own gains or to improve it as they see fit, which inevitably means it fails.

alastair

Queen-Mise wrote: »

Communism in theory is fine, the application of it was faulty. Communism under Stalin or it in spain till 1980 (?) Is not a true reflection of what lenin or trotsky envisaged.

Spain was run under an anti-communist/socialist military junta, and had Franco as a dictator. Nothing to do with Communism.

Annasopra

Big Mouth wrote: »

First up, "Big Government" I understand that Left-wing parties are in favour of Big Governement but what exactly does it mean? Is it related to freedom of the markets etc?

"Big government" broadly means several things - It means heavy regulation, A large number of people employed by the government and state provision (as opposed to private) of lots of public services

scr123

Its all very simple

Capitalism is man exploiting man and Socialism is vice versa

SeanW

It's quite simple:

Big Government is a catch-all term for a State that taxes too much, spends too much, regulates too much, restricts personal freedom too much (beyond the ideal of "live and let live") and frequently borrows too much and often inflates the currency too much to pay the bills. Most Eurozone countries are only missing the last one (along with the U.K. and unfortunately increasingly the U.S. doing all), and even that, not by a lot, e.g. Greece.

conorhal

Bob Z wrote: »

Left wing and liberal arent exactly the same thing i dont know enough to explain the difference

Commumism believes in the state owning everything and everyone working for them its fine in principle but a lot of communist leaders became as corrupt as capilast leaders

The reasons communism is so unpopular
1) Corruption in Countries like Romania
2) Russias and Chinas own actions became linked with communism so when people hear about tibet being invaded its blamed on COmmunism
3) Communism believe everthing should be owned by the state so naturaly mulitnationals dont want their assets to be nationalised and a lot of cases they control the media
4) The fact that a lof of communists are Athiest also proved unpopular in some quarters

A fundemental tennet of Communisim is the centralization of power, and as the old addage goes, 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Ergo, the absolute centralization of power implies the absolute corruption of that power. It's just human nature.

As to points 2 and 3. Why is that the people who claim that communism is never to blame in such situations are the very same ones that, the second a country Invades Iraq or bails out an institution, capitalism becomes the root of all evil?

I found this somewhat facecious, but highly entertaining article on the basic tennents of communism that speaks to a certian truth about the ideology, that it only works in a world of unlimited resources in which all needs can be met :

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs

This quotation is often bandied about as a soundbite summary of communism. There is, of course, more to communism than this, but since its proponents still tend to recite this quote from time to time, it's worth examining closely. As we'll see, it's like that old quotation about statistics being like a bikini--what it reveals is tantalizing, but what it conceals is vital.
First note that this sentence no verb. Doesn't have a subject, either, and is a bit short on direct objects as well. Let's start by specifying exactly what's coming "from each" and "to each." As best I can figure, we're talking about work (whether physical or mental or a combination of both) and property (whether it's money or food or medicine or whatever). "Property," however, is a term that always provokes debate, so let's leave it aside and just use "stuff," which doesn't necessarily imply ownership. That gives us the following:

From each, work and stuff according to his abilities; to each, work and stuff according to his needs.

That sounds nice enough. Still no verb, though. For the latter half of the sentence, it's easy--we can just use "given," which makes it sound like a pleasantly benign sort of socialism. But the first half of the sentence is more problematic. It'd be nice if we could use "give" here as well, or a similar verb like "contribute." Unfortunately, each of these implies that there's a voluntary aspect to work and stuff, and that just isn't the case in real life. (If you think it is the case, I'll send you the addresses of charitable organizations and my student loan company, and you can put your money where your mouth is and start writing checks. Oh, and the guy huddled in the alley could really use that extra coat you have hanging in your closet.) No, there's nothing voluntary about the contribution of work and stuff, so we need to use a stronger verb, a verb that makes clear that one won't be allowed to hoard it:

From each will be taken work and stuff according to his abilities; to each will be given work and stuff according to his needs.

There, that's more realistic. But we still don't have a subject. Who is doing the taking and giving? Why, the government, of course--who else?
From each, the government will take work and stuff according to his abilities; to each, the government will give work and stuff according to his needs.
We're not done yet. As the Founding Fathers noted a good many years before the invention of communism, it's not at all easy to measure someone's abilities. Even with modern psychological methods, it's an imperfect science:

From each, the government will take work and stuff according to its best estimate of his abilities; to each, the government will give work and stuff according to its best estimate of his needs.

One last little problem. It's nice to think that the government will take care of people's needs, and if they get it a little wrong sometimes, well, that's tolerable enough. Of course, this assumes that there's enough to satisfy everyone's needs, which isn't necessarily the case (as we know from watching communism in action):

From each, the government will take work and stuff according to its best estimate of his abilities; to each, the government will give work and stuff according to its best estimate of his needs. Assuming there's enough work and stuff to satisfy his needs, that is.

A close examination reveals the truth behind this pretty little aphorism. It uncovers the essentially coercive nature of communism; your work and stuff can be seized if the government thinks that someone else needs it. (Moreover, it hints at a good way to beat the system--if you can convince the government that you have few abilities but many needs, you can do quite well for yourself.) Finally, it makes explicit one of the problems with this utopian view--namely, redistribution sounds well and good, but one can't really assume it'll work. Of course, this analysis doesn't cover all the problems with this statement; for one, it implicitly assumes an honest government (which is, of course, an utterly preposterous assumption). But it is, at the very least, a start.

[Deleted User]

I dont think communism ever got a fair go...it was always under attack from the west..literally, and by way of the west just appealing to man's selfish desires..if you ask many Russians who lived through communism and capitalism now, a significant number would go back to it in the morning...yes, you may not have a playstation 3, but everyone had somewhere to live...everyone had something to do(a job)..in this day and age that in itself sounds a bit like some sort of utopia..

Denerick

The fact that the Soviet Union descended into a variation between an elitist oligarchy (Lenin, Khruschev) and a totalitarian dictatorship (Stalin) isn't really a surprise. Put together a society which never had even a trace of liberal values and which until only a generation before had seen most of their population branded as semi-slaves (Serfs)

But its also an indictment on what is a very naive idealogy. When somebody creates a political system with absolutely no oversight - and which requires total dedication to a core value/belief - then tyranny is the end result. There is no freedom in a communist society, because if it is to work, it requires total devotion. Human beings are incapable of total devotion. Which is why it will never work. And which is why dictators and oligarchies will fill the vacuum.

fontanalis

Big Mouth wrote: »

Yes but was Stalin a believer in the rights of workers and the equality of all and then be the biggest mass murderer the world has ever seen?

It doesn't add up..

But the people who disagreed with him played a role in the country, a supporting one with the concrete at teh bottom of dams.
As for big government mentioned in the op it's pretty much a meaningless buzz word, especially when it ocmes to Republicans in the US.

fontanalis

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think communism ever got a fair go...it was always under attack from the west..literally, and by way of the west just appealing to man's selfish desires..if you ask many Russians who lived through communism and capitalism now, a significant number would go back to it in the morning...yes, you may not have a playstation 3, but everyone had somewhere to live...everyone had something to do(a job)..in this day and age that in itself sounds a bit like some sort of utopia..

Yeah, nothing to do with Stalin.

Eliot Rosewater

Big Mouth wrote: »

Next, Communism / Socialism, People of this ideology are hard left and usually bleeding hearts of the average joe. So why did the Soviets become such a hated and hateful regime?

The link between socialism/communism and authoritarianism/totalitarianism is an interesting one. It's worth mentioning that I define "socialists" as being distinctly against private enterprise. Sweden, Barack Obama and most of Sinn Fein still advocate a market based economy and so I would not describe them as socialist. People Before Profit, Eirigi and SWP advocate overthrowing the market economy completely, and so I would describe them as socialist.

Every previous attempt at socialism has ended in totalitarianism, as far as I can see. conorhal is right in saying that the very idea of socialism requires the government to exercise its coercive power on a regular basis, but the tyranny under socialism has always gone way above and beyond the required amount. This tyranny can be seen frequently in the past, with examples such as the 50+ million people killed by the state under Stalin and Lenin, right through to the present day, where citizens of North Korea are forbidden by their government from traveling to support their team in the World Cup in South Africa next week.

I think a good account of this innate tendency for socialism to turn to authoritarianism is George Orwell's descriptions of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, as relayed in his book Homage To Catalonia and his essays, such as Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War. When Orwell first arrives in Barcelona to fight for the socialist movement, he remarks

"It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle ... There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for."

After he returns from a period on the front, this comradery attitude had all but disappeared.

"Everyone who has made two visits, at intervals of months, to Barcelona during the [Spanish Civil War] has remarked upon the extraordinary changes that took place in it. And curiously enough, whether they went there first in August and again in January, or, like myself, first in December and again in April, the thing they said was always the same: that the revolutionary atmosphere had vanished."

The subsequent "Barcelona May Days" fighting could be seen as an attempt by one communist group to gain control over the others; an aim, one would think, that contradicts socialistic ideals.

The usual socialist response to this historical record is a No True Scotsman one. They argue that countries like the USSR, China and North Korea aren't truly socialist. But the question isn't whether these countries accurately resemble the theory to be found in books like Das Kapital, but whether these totalitarian regimes are a natural product of any attempt to put those theories into practice. Reasoning would seem to indicate so. Bringing about socialism requires putting an immense amount of power into the hands of a select few. The theory isn't designed for reality: ask a socialist how a toothbrush is made in socialism and watch him stammer. This question, while seemingly trivial, is very important. Putting your fate in a group of people who have no plan but only angry bitter rhetoric against capitalism is a very dangerous thing.

At the end of the day, a bit of perspective is perhaps the best refutation of socialism. While you may have issues with capitalism, at least under it you are a) still alive and b) free to criticize. The lack of both in previous socialistic attempts is enough to say "it just ain't worth the risk".

reprazant

I might be wrong here but I was under the impression that with true communism, there is no need for any leaders as the system will run by itself, with every worker knowing his/her job, and aiming to do it to the best of their ability. The system would, in theory, be a smoothly running machine.

The politburo was only put in place to manage this and would all resign when the system was running correctly and their requirements became obsolete.

This though never happened, due to any number of reasons.

[Deleted User]

fontanalis wrote: »

Yeah, nothing to do with Stalin.

Well, of course under stalin it became a bastardisation of communism..it is probably true that power corrupts, but thats not really what communism is about..the workers should have the power..

fontanalis

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, of course under stalin it became a bastardisation of communism..it is probably true that power corrupts, but thats not really what communism is about..the workers should have the power..

Sorry that's just a slogan, no better than Alot done,a lot more to do. Don't workers, and non workers, have power already; at elections?

loldog

Big Mouth wrote: »

Were Uncle Joe, Kruschev et al truly left wing liberals when they were responsible for millions of deaths and hardship?

Stalin was an opportunist who would have attempted to claw his way to the top under any political system. The lack of democracy in the USSR meant he succeeded. In other systems such as our own, he probably would not have got as far.

.

stevejazzx

loldog wrote: »

Stalin was an opportunist who would have attempted to claw his way to the top under any political system. The lack of democracy in the USSR meant he succeeded. In other systems such as our own, he probably would not have got as far.

.

Russia has a democracy now; Putins doing well for himself.
BTW how you can imagine a modern day Stalin emerging from the Irish political system but not fully succeeding is quite odd. Stalin (like Hitler) was character born and formed out of the chaos of his time and place. Also democratic regimes currently host some exceptionally questionable leaders. One such was George Bush and that was in the most Democratic of them all. It's always been this way however, research into the circumstances leading to Nixon's election is a good example.
Communism as idea threatened the west, McCarthyism in the 50's proved that. All forms become corrupted easily because governments need power and money. The type of government is simply a name, the degree of corruption differs, that is all.

Bob Z

Why do countries like china? Can communism work with democracy?

Denerick

stevejazzx wrote: »

Russia has a democracy now; Putins doing well for himself.
BTW how you can imagine a modern day Stalin emerging from the Irish political system but not fully succeeding is quite odd. Stalin (like Hitler) was character born and formed out of the chaos of his time and place. Also democratic regimes currently host some exceptionally questionable leaders. One such was George Bush and that was in the most Democratic of them all. It's always been this way however, research into the circumstances leading to Nixon's election is a good example.
Communism as idea threatened the west, McCarthyism in the 50's proved that. All forms become corrupted easily because governments need power and money. The type of government is simply a name, the degree of corruption differs, that is all.

Comparing Bush and Stalin in the one breath is a sentance of epic proportions, and should be admired for its sheer audacity. (Even if it is absolute bollix)

P.S. Why is there no equivilent Godwins Law for Stalin?

Cannibal Ox

Bob Z wrote: »

Can communism work with democracy?

If you were a Marxist, no. The idea is that all societies, throughout all of history, are split between two major antagonistic classes. One class dominates the other through its control over the means of production. The two classes eventually come into conflict and either the system collapses into ruin, or a new set of antagonistic classes arise. So, you have the citizens and slaves in Rome, serfs and lords in medieval times, and the bourgeois and proletariat in industrial societies.

The form of government of each of these societies originate within the base economic structure of society. So modern liberal democracy originates within the capitalist economic base. The government, in communist discourse, functions to keep the bourgeoise in power. The army, police, courts, and laws are all the coercive means by which the bourgeoise maintain their domination over the proletariat.

I don't think it is entirely clear whether a communist society would even need or want a government. Governments tend to make a distinction between those who govern and those who are governed, something that isn't entirely within the spirit of communism. How a communist society would operate after the revolution I'm not entirely sure. Local worker councils which make decisions for local communities seems possible, but not exactly in the spirit of communism either.

RandomName2

Big Mouth wrote: »

Okay, heres is some simple political stuff I don't get.

First up, "Big Government" I understand that Left-wing parties are in favour of Big Governement but what exactly does it mean? Is it related to freedom of the markets etc?

Next, Communism / Socialism, People of this ideology are hard left and usually bleeding hearts of the average joe. So why did the Soviets become such a hated and hateful regime? Were Uncle Joe, Kruschev et al truly left wing liberals when they were responsible for millions of deaths and hardship?

Where there policies not the exact opposite of their beliefs?

I'll leave it that for now and post some more when these are answered

Okay -

Left wingers like big government because they like government interference. They do not believe in laissez faire social policy: they want to lift up the lowest in society and hammer down the elite.

The most absolutist left-wing ideology is that of communism which claims to espouse the equality of all. Nobody should own more property, possessions or capital than anyone else. Everyone should work for the benefit of the whole. Nobody should be allowed to work for self-profit.

Of course think about the logical conclusions of this. A farmer produces 2000 litres of milk in a month. To survive he only needs 1200 litres (for his family and to sell to make enough money to survive). In a Communist society the state will steal the other 800 litres for the benefit of the state. This exact policy led to a massive man-made famine in the Soviet Union in the 1920s.

In order to enforce this equality and make sure nobody rises above their station you need a strong policy force and military. You need a strong government to keep control of this police force and military. In fact, a crazy paranoid dictatorship is the only thing likely to be tough enough. Que Lenin, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, et al.

Liberals (with a capital L) tend to be left wing. However liberalism, per se, says exactly what it says on the tin (espousing freedom as opposed to control and regulation). I am a liberal but would never describe myself as such.:D

stevejazzx

Denerick wrote: »

Comparing Bush and Stalin in the one breath is a sentance of epic proportions, and should be admired for its sheer audacity. (Even if it is absolute bollix)

P.S. Why is there no equivilent Godwins Law for Stalin?

But you missed the point completely. I didn't compare the two leaders, I compared the two systems.

stevejazzx

Bob Z wrote: »

Why do countries like china? Can communism work with democracy?

I was going to add a short caveat about China and North Korea er al but whats the point; everyone understands dictatorships, they're the only ones that are described correctly.

Bob Z

stevejazzx wrote: »

I was going to add a short caveat about China and North Korea er al but whats the point; everyone understands dictatorships, they're the only ones that are described correctly.

Tell us

stevejazzx

Bob Z wrote: »

Tell us

The people do what they're told or else they're jailed or some variant of such. The peoples are, to a large extent, in constant fear of the authority.
The authority invariably loses touch with it's population and ultimately faces revolution on some scale. Occasionally some change is achieved, ultimatley however old ways are restored, more or less.