5 ms·

Saying "Communism is evil" is no different than saying "Capitalism is evil" with nothing to back it up. Contrary to maybe-current opinion, Communism and Democra

Saying "Communism is evil" is no different than saying "Capitalism is evil" with nothing to back it up. Contrary to maybe-current opinion, Communism and Democracy are not diametrically opposed: the former is an economic policy, the latter a system of government. You can have both, one or the other, or neither all at once. Sure, maybe the governments that tried to implement communism failed on the world stage. Some today would say the same thing about the current economic/governmental systems-that-be (the US government of pre-WWII + cold war era was much more socialistic and less democratic than it is today – up to a 90% marginal income tax and no democratic election of US senators, very different than it is today!). This entire article is about how, at least anecdotally, someone who lived under such a regime doesn't remember it being evil – in fact, quite the opposite! Governments, economic systems, and powers-that-be are always changing. In 20 years do we really think everything will be the same as it is now?

longtrousers 5y ago
[flagged]
- bener 5y ago
  Are you saying there have been less executions under other political systems? Communism isn't evil, it's the people doing evil that are evil. Evil doesn't exist without evil people to perpetrate it. The problem with everyone being equal is that nobody really wants to be equal. The guy pushing the communist ideals doesn't want to be the rubbish collecting guy instead of the politician, even if the income was the same. I don't think communism is good, or viable, but if it could ever work the the way it should it would not be evil.
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    So Communism is evil by the transitive property? Your whole argument is just that the idea isn't evil but implementing it, due to human nature, is.
    - justsomehnguy 5y ago
      > by the transitive If you bring such qualifications as a measure of 'evilness' of an economic or a government system then you are surely can explain how would you rate England on your scale of evilness. Hint: Auspicio Regis et Senatus Angliae
anovikov 5y ago
I lived under this regime and i absolutely remember it as evil. Big mistake of 1991 was to let Russia form.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Big mistake of 1991 was to let Russia form. Russia form? Russia already existed, as the Russian socialist federal republic, a part of the Soviet Union. What would have been the alternative to letting Russia inherit the Soviet Union by being the last one remaining?
  - anovikov 5y ago
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Distribution of people, industry, resources, agriculture is very uneven in Russia, so i don't see many potential subdivisions working well. Furthermore: * self-determination of the people - i didn't hear any part of Russia wanted to be separate * Russians in other countries (there since before the fall of the Soviet Union) are often destabilising and problematic - see Transnistria and Ukraine for good examples * as we've seen, new Russia doesn't mind getting dirty to claim back land. A ballkanised Russia would be even worse, with frequent wars between the different entities.
      - justsomehnguy 5y ago
        > A ballkanised Russia Means the total loss of Russian Army, in the most literal sense. In 1990s there were anecdotes how you could buy a tank from a corrupted Russian Army personnel. With balkanised Russia that would be a hard reality.
        sofixa 5y ago
        > Means the total loss of Russian Army, in the most literal sense Not really, every part would retain the troops and armaments located there, like how Ukraine inherited all long range strategic missile bombers ( Tu-160) of the Soviet Union, and how Transnistria inherited an army which was one of the main factors of them claiming independence and thus blocking Moldova's potential future as a part of Romania
anovikov 5y ago
>Communism and Democracy are not diametrically opposed: the former is an economic policy, the latter a system of government. You can have both, one or the other, or neither all at once. There are examples of market economy without democracy (Russia, Saudi Arabia, and to a degree, China too) but i can't think of any, present-day, example of democracy without a market economy. I don't think these can exist, because on one hand, once people have a real say in how they are governed, they will want to enrich themselves and it requires market economy and the rule of law (without rule of law, you can have profit, but can't have capitalisation because ownership is volatile), and on the other hand, people will not want to have a say in how they are governed before they are more or less well-off, because more primary needs will dominate their minds - and without popular pressure, democracy can't form. And without market economy, people are destined to remain poor.
- bradchris 5y ago
  Well of course we live in a dollar-denominated capitalist hegemony today, and with globalization as it is anyone who wants to be a part of the world stage needs to put up or shut up, especially with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 (which itself had market-based reforms toward the end). But that doesn't meet it _has_ to be that way, so much as that's just the current political happenstance. Cuba is perhaps an interesting case study – and maybe it would be a lot more successful than it is today if it weren't so heavily sanctioned and embargoed by the United States – given that it's in a lot of ways still in its Cold War era. But it's hard to deny that for all the resources they've been stripped of (and attempted US-backed coups, and a non-mutually-agreed-US military base / prison on their land), that they've found some modern degree of success for what they have: very high education rates due to universal education, universal healthcare that is ahead of US-aligned peer-countries in the Caribbean, a respected culture of exporting medical professionals around the world, developed their own (effective) covid vaccine because the US sanctioned them from receiving any significant doses and now have the highest vaccination rate in the world, rising per capita gdp and household wealth... and they are, technically/in-name and more-so since the passing of Castro, a democracy (though the US government would say otherwise, but in my opinion if you'd consider modern-day Turkey, Ukraine, Hungary, or Poland a western democracy then so is Cuba), and yet also communist in most facets.
bidivia 5y ago
[flagged]

longtrousers 5y ago

[flagged]

bener 5y ago
Are you saying there have been less executions under other political systems? Communism isn't evil, it's the people doing evil that are evil. Evil doesn't exist without evil people to perpetrate it. The problem with everyone being equal is that nobody really wants to be equal. The guy pushing the communist ideals doesn't want to be the rubbish collecting guy instead of the politician, even if the income was the same. I don't think communism is good, or viable, but if it could ever work the the way it should it would not be evil.
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  So Communism is evil by the transitive property? Your whole argument is just that the idea isn't evil but implementing it, due to human nature, is.
  - justsomehnguy 5y ago
    > by the transitive If you bring such qualifications as a measure of 'evilness' of an economic or a government system then you are surely can explain how would you rate England on your scale of evilness. Hint: Auspicio Regis et Senatus Angliae

anovikov 5y ago

I lived under this regime and i absolutely remember it as evil. Big mistake of 1991 was to let Russia form.

sofixa 5y ago
> Big mistake of 1991 was to let Russia form. Russia form? Russia already existed, as the Russian socialist federal republic, a part of the Soviet Union. What would have been the alternative to letting Russia inherit the Soviet Union by being the last one remaining?
- anovikov 5y ago
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Distribution of people, industry, resources, agriculture is very uneven in Russia, so i don't see many potential subdivisions working well. Furthermore: * self-determination of the people - i didn't hear any part of Russia wanted to be separate * Russians in other countries (there since before the fall of the Soviet Union) are often destabilising and problematic - see Transnistria and Ukraine for good examples * as we've seen, new Russia doesn't mind getting dirty to claim back land. A ballkanised Russia would be even worse, with frequent wars between the different entities.
    - justsomehnguy 5y ago
      > A ballkanised Russia Means the total loss of Russian Army, in the most literal sense. In 1990s there were anecdotes how you could buy a tank from a corrupted Russian Army personnel. With balkanised Russia that would be a hard reality.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        > Means the total loss of Russian Army, in the most literal sense Not really, every part would retain the troops and armaments located there, like how Ukraine inherited all long range strategic missile bombers ( Tu-160) of the Soviet Union, and how Transnistria inherited an army which was one of the main factors of them claiming independence and thus blocking Moldova's potential future as a part of Romania

anovikov 5y ago

>Communism and Democracy are not diametrically opposed: the former is an economic policy, the latter a system of government. You can have both, one or the other, or neither all at once. There are examples of market economy without democracy (Russia, Saudi Arabia, and to a degree, China too) but i can't think of any, present-day, example of democracy without a market economy. I don't think these can exist, because on one hand, once people have a real say in how they are governed, they will want to enrich themselves and it requires market economy and the rule of law (without rule of law, you can have profit, but can't have capitalisation because ownership is volatile), and on the other hand, people will not want to have a say in how they are governed before they are more or less well-off, because more primary needs will dominate their minds - and without popular pressure, democracy can't form. And without market economy, people are destined to remain poor.

bradchris 5y ago
Well of course we live in a dollar-denominated capitalist hegemony today, and with globalization as it is anyone who wants to be a part of the world stage needs to put up or shut up, especially with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 (which itself had market-based reforms toward the end). But that doesn't meet it _has_ to be that way, so much as that's just the current political happenstance. Cuba is perhaps an interesting case study – and maybe it would be a lot more successful than it is today if it weren't so heavily sanctioned and embargoed by the United States – given that it's in a lot of ways still in its Cold War era. But it's hard to deny that for all the resources they've been stripped of (and attempted US-backed coups, and a non-mutually-agreed-US military base / prison on their land), that they've found some modern degree of success for what they have: very high education rates due to universal education, universal healthcare that is ahead of US-aligned peer-countries in the Caribbean, a respected culture of exporting medical professionals around the world, developed their own (effective) covid vaccine because the US sanctioned them from receiving any significant doses and now have the highest vaccination rate in the world, rising per capita gdp and household wealth... and they are, technically/in-name and more-so since the passing of Castro, a democracy (though the US government would say otherwise, but in my opinion if you'd consider modern-day Turkey, Ukraine, Hungary, or Poland a western democracy then so is Cuba), and yet also communist in most facets.

bidivia 5y ago

[flagged]