What really was the Threat of Communism

Communism as explained by Karl Marx doesn't work, and cannot be implemented. Communism as explained by Lenin failed. Communism as explained by Mao needed to adapt capitalist practices to survive. Communism is trying to apply the materialist method to liberate people, which doesn't make sense. Materialism is incompatible with meaning, this makes long term motivation difficult, compassion irrelevant and individuals expendable. These things happen in other systems like capitalism but they are exceptionally more prevalent in "communist" states.

 

[edit]Estimated number of victims
In the introduction, editor Stéphane Courtois states that "...Communist regimes... turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government"[3]. He claims that a death toll totals 94 million[4], not counting the "excess deaths" (decrease of the population due to lower than-expected birth rates). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union[5]
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam[6]
150,000 in Latin America
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."[4]
Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, famine, deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor.
[edit]Soviet repressions
Repressions and famines occurring in the Soviet Union under the regime of Joseph Stalin described in the book include:
the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.[7] (see also Population transfer in the Soviet Union)


Ya, communism was rad.

 

Exactly my point. Most Americans would deny that the US had anything to do with those governments. And of the small percentage of people who will admit that it happened, they fall back on the lame excuse of "we saved them from communism". Would say, the people of Afghanistan would have been any worse under any other system than they were under the ragtag bunch of criminals aka the Taliban that was hoisted upon them by the US government?

 

that's corporatism, a later stage of capitalism as it turns to oligarchy. Writers like Karl Marx have done and excellent job of analyzing capitalism and picking out the problems that develop within a capitalist society, however they have failed to offer valid or logical solutions.

Actually if you don't like capitalism you can live a commune lifestyle in the United states, various religious groups partake in this such as the Amish.

America is certainly guilty of imposing its interest's on other countries under the veil of capitalism, but these actions are actually anti-capitalist because they don't recognize the private property rights of foreigners. Libertarian conservatives like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are against involvement in foreign affairs.

Not trying to justify any aggressive action of the US govt, but the US foreign policy is not much different from any powerful nation throughout history.

Finally, communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, republic all eventually become Oligarchy yet people kick around the same tired short term solutions. It is more reasonable to try newer solutions, like leadership profiling laws, entrepreneur protection laws and proactive health care programs and a public education program designed for the diversity in ways people think.

 

The Soviet Union, China and Laos, had a combined death toll from their policies that exceeds all the deaths in WWI and WWII combined. I don't know, is that a threat? Or do you agree with Marx that it's acceptable for 25% of the world to die, in order to implement Communism?

 

I think you do have a strong point. Materialism can't truly liberate people. But I disagree with the last two sentences. I don't think that an objective appraisal of the last century shows communists being any less motivated, less compassionate or more likely to treat individuals as expendable than capitalists. I've been hearing a lot from capitalists lately how expendable individuals are and how that affects the market value of their labor, especially.

Communists were never evil. They were just "the other guys." So they got called evil, because there were conflicting economic interests and that lead to conflicting military objectives and that lead to the greatest propaganda war in history. It all comes down to, "It's okay to take their land, they're evil," and both sides did it. America somewhat more successfully, it appears, but I don't know if we're done paying for it, yet.

 

communism is a threat to all the people some has fought and died for to prevent it. i am not rich as i have a few bucks in my pocket and none in the bank however i understand the new world order heads , which both the dem and reps. wants to take us in, are communists. if you want to give up your country keep talking like that..it's happening in front of your eyes. in the socialist handbook- split the people into little groups, have them fight amongst themselves and you can do what you want with them. note..;blacks/whites, male/female, kids/parents,whites/spaniards, black/spaniards dem/rep...need any more info keep going..we will be living it soon and noo0ne will be rich

 

Most of that happened during their revolutionary periods; how would that compare to any other nation during a revolutionary or civil war period?

 

You know nothing about communism, do you?

 

Again you claim that Karl Marx said things that he never did. 25%? No. Perhaps you should learn to use links and actual figures.

 

So don't use the term socialism, just call them criminals...

 

Maybe I got the person wrong. Maybe it was Stalin or Lenin that said it. Who cares, the point is that ALL communist countries end up with the body count PILING UP.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

 

for me the threat of communism right now is not communism itself but people who sacrifice liberties and give into big government control in the name of communism. I have read Das Kapital and the communist manifesto and I believe that there may be a day when something close to communism comes however I feel that technology needs to become much more advanced and resources more abundant through the advancement of technology.

 

Communism itself was never a threat. The threat was from idiots who felt that every problem could be solved with a nuke. The "commies are evil and a danger to everything that we stand for" mentality was created to keep the publics' minds off of real issues, like jobs, and the economy.

 

right communism in the USSR was Leninism not Marxism. Lenin believed the process and road to communism could be sped up through force which he was sorely mistaken.

 

right back then communism wast the threat the USSR was the threat communism was what they believed in. Chances were that anyone who was a communist supported the USSR not the USA. The USSR would work to make capitalism of the USA fail and USSR would work agains Communism to make the USSR fail.

 

Every war that the US has EVER fought against communism, vietnam, korea, etc, was a war of choice, against "enemies" that pose no threat to the US. And, the US was just as much to blame for the cold war and every bad thing that happened during it. The only reason the USSR was putting missiles in cuba was because the US had done the same thing in turkey first. The anti-communist movement was simply a witchhunt to find scapegoats for all of america's problem so that the politicians would not have to thing of any actual sollutions.

 

The wars in vietnam and korea were wars against communism because of the domino theory. Take down one communist nation and the rest will fall. It was a screwed up time and wars that we should have never gotten involved in. When the cold war started it was a big egotistical match up against the USA and USSR flexing their muscles one communist nation and one capitalist nation in a match up to who would become the next world power. Communism was more than a scapegoat it was the ideology of the USA's opponent in the cold war so it targeted the structure and back bone of the USSR communism and the USSR did the same to the US and capitalism.

 

The dominoe theory was baseless lie meant only to allow the convince stupid people that war was needed.

 

And it didn't happen once Saigon fell.

 

How the (*)(*)(*)(*) does the domino theory justify anything? You cant just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing wage a war against any peaceful ideology you see.

The USA's disgusting witch hunt against their own people was completely unjustified.

 

Ya guy, communism was a totally peaceful ideology.

 

Have you ever done any research whatsoever on communism?

 

Ummm, about a hundred million people killed by communist during the 20th century speaks for itself. One can look back as far as the Reign of Terror in France, to see that the teachings of Marx attracts blood thirsty thugs.

 

Care to back up your figures?

And you can't say that anything done in the name of xxx makes that ideology evil or violent. I would argue that Christianity is intended to be peaceful, and I'm not going to blame Christians for the crusades.