<p>Harmless? Ask the tens of millions killed in the Soviet Union and China in communism's heyday. Not to go into too many details, haven't you wondered why there's always a long line of people trying to flee communist countries and no line trying to move into all those worker's paradises?</p>
<p>
[quote]
all of this communism hatred is nonsense- it may not work for every country, and it may not be the best choice for our capitalist-condition society, but it's just a harmless little alternative political ideology. chill out!
[/quote]
I'll admit you're right if you can provide one example of a communist state that was even remotely successful. Actually, I'll admit you're right if you can give me one state that was actually communist. Oh wait, there have not been any because every country that has ever called itself marxist has really been authoritative and socialist, hardly even resembling Marx's ideals. If you'd read the Communist Manifesto you would realize that you can't get to communism by launching a revolution and installing what you call a workers state. According to Marx, communism occurs when the workers themselves rise up and take control of the means of production, something that is never going to happen in any country. </p>
<p>A successful communist state on the large scale is impossible. The only way anything resembling the communism described in Communist Manifesto would be possible is at an extremely small scale where a community actually embraces collectivism, rather than an entire nation being told by it's government that they're going to be collectivist now. </p>
<p>Che had the right idea as far as overthrowing Batista, but that's it. His plan was destined to fail from the beginning since Cuban society was never going to support communism.</p>
<p>^Exactly. "Harmless ideology" my foot. Communism in theory is a great idea but is unfortunately destined to fail. Where in the world has a communist government improved the lives of its citizens? The USSR? North Korea? Cuba? China?! None of the above. </p>
<p>And you're deciding that Che is awesome based on "The Motorcycle Diaries"? X_X Hollywood isn't exactly known with presenting an unbiased, realistic version of the truth.</p>
<p>no, wigwam, motorcycle diaries THE BOOK, which guevera wrote as a young med student traveling across south america- it's a bit like kerouac's "on the road", only it centers on how emotionally disturbed guevera was by all the horror and exploitation he came across (prompting his "revolutionary" motives later on). while the book probably does contain a certain amount of bias on che's part, as it is autobiographical, it's certainly not "hollywood-ized" in any way. perhaps you should do your research next time, rather than spewing closed-minded dogma?</p>
<p>anyway, i never advocated communism or said it was effective (quite the opposite, in fact, if you were actually reading my post). and, yes, political leaders have done terrible things using "communism" as a premise, but the idea itself remains a harmless political ideology. the problems arise when delusional political leaders take advantage of the power vacuum that results from the inherent social restructuring by carrying out mass murders and oppression in communism's name. Thus, as i was originally trying to point out, i think communism's reputation as "evil" is completely unwarranted- our society's condemnation should be directed towards these inhumane leaders and not the ideology itself, which is simply just an antithesis to our own capitalist structure. </p>
<p>and what's wrong with that? exposure to an antithesis is crucial for societal progress.</p>
<p>For the record, China today is basically a capitalist country except without the freedom part.</p>
<p>Communism is not a "harmless" ideology. No political ideologies are harmless. History has borne that out quite well.</p>
<p>I guess that depends on how you define harm. Anything that has any impact will generally do some harm to something/someone.</p>
<p>What annoys me even more than the fact that Che was a communist was the fact that people wear his on T-Shirts and * don’t know * he’s a communist.</p>
<p>Communism does not require dictatorship, in fact, doing so violates permanent revolution. Communist leaders just found it more convienient because they were power hungry for the most part (i.e. since Stalin)</p>
<p>TCBH, I’m ashamed for you bumping this thread up.</p>
<p>And now I miss my old account again. :(</p>
<p><em>untz untz untz untz untz untz</em></p>
<p>Nice post count, n00b.</p>
<p>Too bad. I already logged out.</p>
<p>Communism refers to a classless, stateless society. The USSR, DPRK, etc. are not “communist.” Moreover, to say that “communism doesn’t work” is silly, considering we really have never had it. What you can say is that capitalism doesn’t work, when you have the majority of the world’s population living in squalid poverty.</p>
<p>There’s also no such thing as a “harmless ideology,” all ideologies have to do with real-life, and so they affect the world around us. Anything that determines the course of people’s lives is either negative or positive.</p>