Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 14 2005, 04:47 PM
I suppose this could be easily countered by suggesting that 'Maoism', 'Stalinism', and 'Leninism' are far cries apart from Karl Marx' version of Communism.
Some socialist systems were certainly in place, but they looked and acted a whole lot more like Dictatorship/Oligarchies than any modern philisophical-political definition of 'Socialism' and 'Communism'. If you think that these are necessary characteristics of socialist systems, many socialist European states experience fairly average amounts genocide/oppression compared to the US or (ugh) Somalia. Canada has huge aspects of socialism in it's health and law enforcement organizations, for example, and we've kept our mass-killings well below the millions.
If you think Stalin's USSR = the Socialist's dream, then you've been wearing your blinders too long. Learn about your beefs, then talk about them. Not vice versa.
|
How do you figure that communism “could work” without tyranny and blood shed? To make it work you have got to strip millions of people off their property. How are you going to do that peacefully? The only way is to do it through aggression – small group of rulers decide what everyone has to do and you have to give in or die. “Inside enemies” are not tolerated, opposition is crushed. The future is bright; nobody is allowed to stand in its way. Tyranny is the natural outcome of communism (full fledged socialism, as explained in the post above). You may want to try to dance around the issue, but really, you can’t.
Stagnation is only short term phenomenon. The society is either moving towards freedom or towards collectivism. The role of the state is either decreasing or growing, and once it crosses the line… So if you think that “huge aspects of socialism” can be kept under control, you are kidding yourself. It is a slippery slope, the oppression is creeping in. The ever growing role of the state is the evidence of that.