5 ms·

Communism uses suppression as a means to control the population. I've never considered the converse, using 'promotion' to control the population.

nickbauman 11y ago
Dictatorships use suppression. Communism is a style of collective government. The USSR was never communist, the government merely used the lexicon of communism to suit its needs.
- lexcorvus 11y ago
  The USSR was never communist By this definition, has there ever been a communist country?
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Catalonia from 1936 to 1939. Maybe.
    - nickbauman 11y ago
      Greece shortly after WWII, Maybe.
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    The term Communist Dictatorship is an oxymoron. Even though it's true that Lenin envisioned a dictatorship based on Marx's theories, this is not really anything like communism in the sense that Marx envisioned. The Jewish Kibbutz is a communist organization and notice how democratic it is.
  - sago 11y ago
    It's a no-true-scotsman fallacy at heart. Pretty common though: North Korea is a democratic state (according to its name), but not real democracy. National Socialism wasn't really socialist. The UK isn't a real monarchy. It's a language game compelled by the guilt-by-association level of political sophistication of our culture. When the debate is rarely more sophisticated than 'that's socialist, like Hitler!!!!1!', it's no wonder that the response has to be 'that wasn't true socialism'.
    - mmatants 11y ago
      Every political ideology claims to make things better (if only for some folks). The practical question is - which one is likely to devolve into a pathological state, given a historical and cultural milieu where it is implemented, plus the natural limitations on information transfer between humans and entropy that pushes against our organizational efforts?
    - skissane 11y ago
      The UK is no longer an absolute monarchy, and has not been for many centuries, but the UK is a real constitutional monarchy. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are real constitutional monarchies too, in personal union with the UK.
      - Qwertious 11y ago
        There may be a monarch, but not one with any power.
        skissane 11y ago
        The monarch has real genuine powers, and real discretion in how to exercise them, in the case of a constitutional crisis. Constitutional crises are rare, but they do happen. Consider a case from Australia - the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr. That is an example of a Vice Regal official exercising real, discretionary power. If the same situation had happened in the UK instead of Australia, the discretion would have resided with the Queen personally, as opposed to with her (largely indepedently acting) representative. Even in Australia, it is plausible the Queen could become involved in a 1975-style situation. If Whitlam had suspected Kerr was going to sack him, he could have tried to sack Kerr first. If there was a race to sack each other between the PM and the Governor-General, the Queen would have to personally decide how to react. e.g. if the PM advises the Queen to sack the GG, and immediately after that advice but before the Queen acts on it, the GG sacks the PM, should the Queen act on the request of the just sacked PM to sack the GG, or refuse? What if the GG advises the Queen to not sack him/her after all, or immediately appoints a new PM who conveys the same advice? Ultimately, whatever she did in such a scenario would be her personal decision, and it is unlikely that any court (whether in Australia or the UK) would entertain overturning it.
  - obrero 11y ago
    The phrase communist country is a contradiction, communism means there are no countries. The people drawing cave paintings in Chauvet 30,000 years ago were living in a communist society. 10,000 years ago the entire world was communist. Then slave societies arose in the Middle East and elsewhere.
  - aikah 11y ago
    Read about "la commune de Paris", though it is more anarchism than communism.
- rogerthis 11y ago
  It's nearly impossible to accomplish communist goals without power centralization, i.e., dictatorship.
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    Communism is defined by a desire of common ownership of the means of production, absence of social classes, money, and the state. So it's kinda hard to conceive of this end goal through dictatorship, but you're welcome to try.
- mirimir 11y ago
  The USSR was a dictatorship. Whenever that became impossible to deny, leaders characterized themselves as caretakers. Now Russia pretends to be democratic. But it's still a dictatorship.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cryoshon 11y ago
It's done quite frequently in international geopolitics. Promote the group that is the most sympathetic to you, suppress the opposite. Maybe if you're extra clever you promote two groups, one to be the clean "moderates" that you will ultimately back, and the other being the dirty "radicals" that you will use to brutally suppress your opponents. Wait til the job is done, then dispose of the radicals. I'm sure this has happened before.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Yes, there's even examples that are very recent or still ongoing: Ukraine (Right Sector/Svoboda/Azov being the extremists, Poroshenko the 'moderate'), and Syria - although that one backfired.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    You're probably right, given the CIA fingerprints all over the current Ukrainian administration. If you want a trip, check out how Arseniy Yatsenyuk rose to power. US "Department of State" is even listed as a benefactor to his political group.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      I've been following Ukraine politics for years, from before the 'Orange Revolution'. It's funny, one 'spontaneous' revolution fails due to in-fighting and corruption, so the next time round, they just run the opposition strait out of the country, for all practical purposes ban their party, and there's a string of 'spontaneous' suicides of opposition politicians. Never mind the crackdown against the opposition in the east (when the uprising in the east merely started as a counter-maidan - with about the same level of violence and arms). And of course the media is doing a fine job of covering up the fact that Ukraine's economy has tanked over 10%, and even their western debtors are losing patience over Ukraine's inability to pay back loans. They also omit certain facts, like that from the 1990's up until Yanukovych was overthrown, Russia basically bankrolled Ukraine's economy. They were given cheap gas, their debts were forgiven, their products were imported, and Russia looked the other way when their gas was being siphoned off... And the most pertinent detail, they forget to mention that the bulk of DPR forces are made up of defectors from the Ukrainian armed forces and retired soldiers. Anyhow, the only difference between modern day coups and coups like Iran 1953 or Chile 1973 is that the CIA is much more covert these days. 'Spontaneous' uprisings (that happen to be accompanied by perfect logistics and media coverage) that just happen to put US interests into power. Soft power and cultural/media influence wins minds today. They spread the American dream, convince people it will happen if only they rebel against their own leaders, and chaos and destruction follows. The US convinced Libya, Syria, and Ukraine to rebel, and now all 3 are plunging into failed-state territory.

nickbauman 11y ago

Dictatorships use suppression. Communism is a style of collective government. The USSR was never communist, the government merely used the lexicon of communism to suit its needs.

lexcorvus 11y ago
The USSR was never communist By this definition, has there ever been a communist country?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Catalonia from 1936 to 1939. Maybe.
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    Greece shortly after WWII, Maybe.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  The term Communist Dictatorship is an oxymoron. Even though it's true that Lenin envisioned a dictatorship based on Marx's theories, this is not really anything like communism in the sense that Marx envisioned. The Jewish Kibbutz is a communist organization and notice how democratic it is.
- sago 11y ago
  It's a no-true-scotsman fallacy at heart. Pretty common though: North Korea is a democratic state (according to its name), but not real democracy. National Socialism wasn't really socialist. The UK isn't a real monarchy. It's a language game compelled by the guilt-by-association level of political sophistication of our culture. When the debate is rarely more sophisticated than 'that's socialist, like Hitler!!!!1!', it's no wonder that the response has to be 'that wasn't true socialism'.
  - mmatants 11y ago
    Every political ideology claims to make things better (if only for some folks). The practical question is - which one is likely to devolve into a pathological state, given a historical and cultural milieu where it is implemented, plus the natural limitations on information transfer between humans and entropy that pushes against our organizational efforts?
  - skissane 11y ago
    The UK is no longer an absolute monarchy, and has not been for many centuries, but the UK is a real constitutional monarchy. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are real constitutional monarchies too, in personal union with the UK.
    - Qwertious 11y ago
      There may be a monarch, but not one with any power.
      - skissane 11y ago
        The monarch has real genuine powers, and real discretion in how to exercise them, in the case of a constitutional crisis. Constitutional crises are rare, but they do happen. Consider a case from Australia - the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr. That is an example of a Vice Regal official exercising real, discretionary power. If the same situation had happened in the UK instead of Australia, the discretion would have resided with the Queen personally, as opposed to with her (largely indepedently acting) representative. Even in Australia, it is plausible the Queen could become involved in a 1975-style situation. If Whitlam had suspected Kerr was going to sack him, he could have tried to sack Kerr first. If there was a race to sack each other between the PM and the Governor-General, the Queen would have to personally decide how to react. e.g. if the PM advises the Queen to sack the GG, and immediately after that advice but before the Queen acts on it, the GG sacks the PM, should the Queen act on the request of the just sacked PM to sack the GG, or refuse? What if the GG advises the Queen to not sack him/her after all, or immediately appoints a new PM who conveys the same advice? Ultimately, whatever she did in such a scenario would be her personal decision, and it is unlikely that any court (whether in Australia or the UK) would entertain overturning it.
- obrero 11y ago
  The phrase communist country is a contradiction, communism means there are no countries. The people drawing cave paintings in Chauvet 30,000 years ago were living in a communist society. 10,000 years ago the entire world was communist. Then slave societies arose in the Middle East and elsewhere.
- aikah 11y ago
  Read about "la commune de Paris", though it is more anarchism than communism.
rogerthis 11y ago
It's nearly impossible to accomplish communist goals without power centralization, i.e., dictatorship.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  Communism is defined by a desire of common ownership of the means of production, absence of social classes, money, and the state. So it's kinda hard to conceive of this end goal through dictatorship, but you're welcome to try.
mirimir 11y ago
The USSR was a dictatorship. Whenever that became impossible to deny, leaders characterized themselves as caretakers. Now Russia pretends to be democratic. But it's still a dictatorship.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cryoshon 11y ago

It's done quite frequently in international geopolitics. Promote the group that is the most sympathetic to you, suppress the opposite. Maybe if you're extra clever you promote two groups, one to be the clean "moderates" that you will ultimately back, and the other being the dirty "radicals" that you will use to brutally suppress your opponents. Wait til the job is done, then dispose of the radicals. I'm sure this has happened before.

Mikeb85 11y ago
Yes, there's even examples that are very recent or still ongoing: Ukraine (Right Sector/Svoboda/Azov being the extremists, Poroshenko the 'moderate'), and Syria - although that one backfired.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  You're probably right, given the CIA fingerprints all over the current Ukrainian administration. If you want a trip, check out how Arseniy Yatsenyuk rose to power. US "Department of State" is even listed as a benefactor to his political group.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    I've been following Ukraine politics for years, from before the 'Orange Revolution'. It's funny, one 'spontaneous' revolution fails due to in-fighting and corruption, so the next time round, they just run the opposition strait out of the country, for all practical purposes ban their party, and there's a string of 'spontaneous' suicides of opposition politicians. Never mind the crackdown against the opposition in the east (when the uprising in the east merely started as a counter-maidan - with about the same level of violence and arms). And of course the media is doing a fine job of covering up the fact that Ukraine's economy has tanked over 10%, and even their western debtors are losing patience over Ukraine's inability to pay back loans. They also omit certain facts, like that from the 1990's up until Yanukovych was overthrown, Russia basically bankrolled Ukraine's economy. They were given cheap gas, their debts were forgiven, their products were imported, and Russia looked the other way when their gas was being siphoned off... And the most pertinent detail, they forget to mention that the bulk of DPR forces are made up of defectors from the Ukrainian armed forces and retired soldiers. Anyhow, the only difference between modern day coups and coups like Iran 1953 or Chile 1973 is that the CIA is much more covert these days. 'Spontaneous' uprisings (that happen to be accompanied by perfect logistics and media coverage) that just happen to put US interests into power. Soft power and cultural/media influence wins minds today. They spread the American dream, convince people it will happen if only they rebel against their own leaders, and chaos and destruction follows. The US convinced Libya, Syria, and Ukraine to rebel, and now all 3 are plunging into failed-state territory.