Monday, February 19, 2007


The success of Communism?

One of my regulars asked me to point out the successes of communism. So here goes:
Growing up in the west we were fed the line of Communism being about equal to murder. Being called a Commie was an insult. The mere sign of the sickle and hammer was enough to get any "decent" person frothing at the mouth.
Why is this, I wondered.
Let us first deal with the ills brought about by Communism. Mostly Communism came into power by violent revolution, an uprising of the underdog against the establishment. Power was taken at the point of an AK-47. The simple reason for this is that those rising up were unable to gain power in any other way. Later it began to assert itself through the ballot box.
Any form of violent uprising requires a period of adjustment afterwards of rebuilding and filling in the vaccuum left by the previous power. Often there is a lack of suitable leadership in all areas of government which leads to a number of disasterous decisions. The constant threat of outside powers (and it was constant and very real) brings about a dictatorship mindset, as was seen during Stalin's era, and then in an attempt to protect the gains the leader has made he tightens his grip over the populace to near strangulation. That is not what communism is about, but it is an understandable reaction given the tactics of destabilisation faced during that time.
This element of fear leaves conditions ripe for corruption and abuses of power, and that is exactly what happened.
And each and every time Communists have come to power, whether by revolution or by ballot they have had to face not only reversing the ills of the previous regime but the constant subversion by the capitalists. The struggle which should have ended with the party gaining power continues indefinitely.
So it is against this kind of backdrop that the successes or failures of communism should be measured.
After WWII Europe, China, Korea, Vietnam and Japan were a mess. Japan and Italy teetered on the brink of Communism but were pulled back by America's Marshall plan which basically said "Stay Capitalist or you won't be getting any aid from us." Which is fair, it's their money and they can choose to spend it however they wish.
What this did, however was to boost Europe and Japan undermine those war ravaged countries (i.e. the Communist countries) who had to make it on their own. Russia had just experienced three devastating wars and a plague. It had also experienced a famine which began with a drought and caused a 20% crop failure and the death of millions.
Yet out of this chaos it was still able to develop a nuclear weapon, put the first man into space, and industrialise what had been an agrarian feudal society. The great promises of Lenin which at the time had seemed impossible of Land, Peace and Bread, were eventually fulfilled.
Generally speaking the "peasants" were far better off than they had ever been. The literacy rate had turned within a single generation because of the rapid industrialisation. Tribes that had been nomadic and on the edge of survival benefitted from agrarian techniques and education. Medical attention was in the reach of every man, and huge advances in medicine and nutrition were made, one of my personal favourites was the discovery and use of adoptogens.
So while the populace might not have been able to buy blue jeans or listen to The Beatles, they were, for the most part, fed, clothed, educated, employed, housed and at peace.
Prosperity was a distant dream, but the average man in the street was far better off than he had been under the Tsar.
Something that is often forgotten about the Soviet regime was its effect on women's rights in the Islamic states that fell under its control. Women in these regions were also educated, even attending university, female circumcision died out as did honor killings, women were free to walk around unescorted and unveiled. They were allowed to become doctors and were able to recieve proper medical attention. They could work, dance, enjoy an ice cream on a hot day. All these things were taken from the women of Afghanistan by the direct interference of the capitalist world.
How about South America huh? You left out all of that.
You failed to "Praise Stalin" for his contribution of murdering his own people. Or is that a lapse of memory to communists.
Well, quite simply because that would fall under a failure of communism, not The Success. Bad leaders come and go. It's the ideology that counts.
Over 40, never married, never had kids, flexisexual,(obviously meaning gets no dick), no social life, no friends just a bunch of screwed up bloggers for company ha ha
Are you ever a sorry case.
Actually I lead a very full and rewarding life and wouldn't swap it for anything. However that has nothing to do with the topic.
Inkon, can I ask you a question? On WSAAS you said that people in HK are quite happy without the right to vote. how does this gel with the over 100,000 people that turned out to support the DPHK and oppose Beijing packing the HK Legislative Council with Alliance party candidates? There seems to be a disconnect here. Most people in HK, as confirmed by repeated surveys, would prefer to return to the fully democratic system introduced by Chris Patton just before the handover. Do you work for the so-called Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong or something?!
dudeinwales said...
No, I don't work for any party in HK.
There are 7 million people in Hong Kong. I'm not sure how many of those are the possible "electorate". And every year they hold a march for democracy - which has been hijacked by various religious and gay groups for their own agendas.
However, as the economy has improved, fewer and fewer people have attended these marches. I'm not sure which march you refer to when you mention the figure of 100,000 and whose figures you refer to. But one march a year hardly translates into an urgent need for democracy.
Furthermore with the current selection for Chief Executive where representatives of various sectors who make up the selection committee will decide who gets to be the new Chief of HK, it is blatantly apparent that the vast majority (7-1) people, most of whom are elected, will side with Beijing and thus you can see that Democracy is again, not as pressing an issue as stability and continuity etc etc.
If it were, the selection committee members would be feeling the heat to vote in Alan Leong and send a clear message to Beijing that HK wants its democracy NOW.
dudeinwales: why is it you think that America had to pay lots of monies to keep Yeltsin in the Kremlin? Because the people voted for the communists. Like why the communist was running the Duma.
You look at Chavez and Morales, both is communist voted in and then America pays to make trouble in this countries. The same is with Cuba.
If Hong Kong is want democracy then it must show the rest of the world but it does not. I just is making one march each year. That is nothing. When the people want something very much there is much more happening.
Noiks, why do you not print my answer to this anonymous bastard about you get no dick?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?