Talk: Anti-communism
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
I feel this strongly biased! There was a comparision between Nazism and Communism. That is not correct at all. So I am removing it.
Tell me if i'm wrong, but this article is to describe what anti-communism is, not to spread anti-communism bull****. Please, respect other people's principles. --Luis Oliveira
I agree. We should be explaining what anti-communism is, not endorsing it. --Robert Merkel
And it's getting much more balanced, congrats to the wikipedia! --Luis Oliveira
There is no bias in reporting that anti-communists oppose communism or that they feel it is similar to fascism. The article does not state that communism is fascist; rather, that in the opinion of anti-communists there is a similarity.
Although it is "obvious" to me that Communism is the worst evil the world has known, I realize that many if not most people do not share this view. Nonetheless, anti-communism does exist and should be examined by the Wikipedia. Mistakes in anti-communism or critiques of anti-communism should also be included. -- Ed Poor]
Sorry then. Perhaps it is because english is not my first language but the way you said it initially didn't look like a report... -- Luis Oliveira
Ed, Communists usually linked everything they don't like to fascism too. Should that be mentioned in every article? szopen
- No, not every article. But if there are historical instances of Communist exponents, parties, or governments labeling as "fascist" things they merely dislike, perhaps one or two examples may be provided. Sort of as an example of Communist propaganda. But let us carefully distinguish between accurate (if hypocritical) Communist criticism of Hitler and Mussolini's fascism and the use of the label "fascist" merely as a slur.
- If the term "fascist" was indeed used by Communists to mean "any system or person they dislike" we ought to note this. Nonetheless, anti-communists have pointed out similarities between communism and fascism: state socialism, ruthless suppression of opposition, concentration camps . . .
- Of course, if these comparisons are exaggerated or contrived, surely supporters of Communism (or critics of anti-communism) have objected to these comparisons and given reasons for their objections. These objections should be included in the article. Ed Poor
The better issue must be indicating the huge differences between Communism and Stalinism. As it is Stalinism that was the government system in Russia for 70 or so years not Communism.
- Perhaps you mean between ideal communism or ideal Communistic practice and Stalinism -- as it was, Stalinism was Stalin's version of Communism. A major part of anti-communism is its criticism of Communism as practiced by Stalin, Mao and so on. Those leaders (dictators?) showed any signs of ever relinquishing power, which would seem to retard the predicted "withering away" of the socialist state into (true) communisim.
Correction: Stalinism was Stalin's version of Socialism, not Communism. And the socialist state is not supposed to be a dictatorship that withers away when the dictator decides to relinquish power. The socialist state is supposed to be democratic in the first place, and it is supposed to "wither away" as representative democracy slowly turns into direct democracy.
I have removed the following, until they can be reworked:
- Communism's theoretical basis is dialectical materialism, which is predicated on the assumption that there is no God and that spirit is generated by matter. For religious believers, communism's atheism is anathema.
- The other central part of Karl Marx's communist theory is historical materialism, which states that human society is evolving, and that the next step after capitalism is socialism, and in the end communism. Anti-communists reject the entire concept of historical materialism, or at least do not belive that socialism and communism must follow after capitalism.
Here is why I removed them: they were under the section "theoretical criticisms" yet they are neither criticisms nor are they theoretical. The sum effect of these two points is to say that "Some people disagree with claim a, others disagree with claim b." But disagreement is not the same thing as critique -- I mean, simply to say "I do not agree with you" is not very meaningful. Why do you disagree with me? Why do you think I am wrong?
As a matter of fact, there were some "theoretical criticisms" that tried to do this (like, poor people do get richer). I happen to disagree with that criticism because I think it misrepresents communist analysis, but at least it is recognizable as a theoretical critique.
I would have no objection to these points being returned to the article, if they were posed not merely as saying "here are things communists claim that some people do not accept" but rather as truly theorized critiques. I would expect an argument that explains and accounts for the logical and empirical problems with the communist claims, and that present real logical or empirical arguments for the counter claims. SR
The two paragraphs are rather "critisisms of communist theory" than "theoretical critisms of communism". (Heh, _almost_ beyond my level of English comprehension here.) The point is, if you disagree with one of these foundations for communism, the whole communist theory falls apart (for you). There should be a place for these paragraphs in the article, with some careful rewording. --Guppie
The details of meaty philosophical objections to communism should go in an appropriately-named article--not in an article titled "anti-communism"--unless we plan to have them in both places. Certainly we shouldn't plan to present the many critiques of communism under this title, because many of them are not part and parcel of the attitude and historical movement, "anti-communism," but are very important critiques nonetheless. --Larry_Sanger, stating the obvious as usual :-(
- Such levels of repression are of course not unique to communist regimes, and western powers have their own record of denial of political or labour rights, racism, colonial oppression and violence, support for governments which presided over mass killings, torture and detention of political opponents, or engagement with regimes (usually on the basis of their shared anti-communism) which practised genocide or racial segregation.
That's bullshit. Such level of represion IS unique to communist regimes. No other regime made such a horrible democides in own countries as Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Corea and other communist countries. Even Nazis, which are often said to be "as bad" as Communists did little killing of own citizens. That was at least an order of magnitude of difference. --User:Taw
- Oh yes, thank you for reminding me about Cambodia, where the west backed the Khmer Rouge after they'd been booted out by the Vietnamese. I'm glad to hear you find the Nazis so preferable. These little clarifications do so jolly things along. User:David Parker.
If you accept the premise that the Jews in Germany were not entitled to German citizenship, Taw may be technicaly correct. Eclecticology
I think that I exorcised the "bullshit" from the paragraph. --maveric149
If you classify democides according to the percentage of deaths out of the total population (as opposed to the raw body counts), then you will be surprised to see that only 2 communist regimes score in the top 25. Namely those of Stalin and Pol Pot (see this article and scroll down to the second statistic: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm). Furthermore, I could point out that the only people who accepted Pol Pot's regime as "communist" were his followers (keep in mind that he was overthrown by the Vietnamese Communists), so his crimes cannot be reasonably attributed to Communism. In the end, we are left with Stalin as the only communist in the top 25. But if we accept Trotskyist objections to Stalinism, then Stalin also flies out the window... In conclusion, be more careful when you blame various crimes on various ideas, principles or ideologies. Unless the person who commited the crimes was also the person who created the ideology (as in the case of Hitler and his Mein Kampf), it is unjust to blame the actions of one madman on a group consisting of millions of people (especially when many of those people actually opposed him). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu
Most of this material belongs into communism, under a heading 'criticsm and objections' (or into a new article "criticism of communism"). If I go to an encyclopedia article about anti-communism, I expect to find McCarthyism, Reagan's political philososphy, the domino theory leading to the Vietnam war, Western support of the Contras in Nicaragua and Savimbi in Angola etc. etc.
"Anti-communism", in common usage, is not a philosophical criticsm of communism. It denotes a special set of policies of the Western countries in the second half of the 20th century directed against socialist countries and the spread of communism in general. AxelBoldt
- I agree. Anti-communists will often go to great lengths to prove that understanding communism is not a pre-requisite to being anti-communist. Eclecticology
- Me, too. Otherwise, there will be too much duplication. My favorite anti-communist textbook, "Communism: Critque and Counterproposal" by Sung Han Lee, devotes nearly half its space to explaining Marxist-Leninist theory. Once a person has a clear understanding of a typical communist point, it's generally pretty easy for them to see what's wrong with it. But criticizing what one does not understand leads nowhere. User:Ed Poor
So, what did Moon say in November 1987, when it became clear that Soviet communism had lasted more than 70 years? (You're giving him credit for a prediction, while glossing over the specifics he got wrong). Vicki Rosenzweig
- Does it help the cause of anti-communists to be associated with the Moonies? Eclecticology
I think that in 1985, 2 years before the precise "deadline" you seem to have poisited, he told Morton Kaplan to declare the End of Communism (which he reluctantly did). And I think that during the three or four year period from Nov 1987 to Dec 1990 (or Dec 1991) Soviet Communism pretty much disintegrated, right on schedule. I myself was a staff member of a workshop teaching Unificationist religious ideas in the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania in June 1992. Give me a break, his prediction was pretty close! Ed Poor 11:32 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
"Many anti-communists also regard the lack of property rights and economic freedom under communism as taking away fundamental human rights": calling it "economic freedom" as if it were a given that everyone would accept that "economic freedom" is part of the capitalist system is hardly NPOV. This should be worked somehow to say that the anti-communists believe that capitalism gives "economic freedom" and one of the reasons the anti-communists oppose communism is that communism represses this economic freedom. --Daniel C. Boyer
" Another one is Stanislaw Lem, who, being once very bored, took book with statistics about Soviet Union, some course about Basic Economy, put correct numbers into few equation and decided that USSR would fall some in late 1980s."
The note accompanying the addition of this badly-phrased bit (presumably the person adding it is not a native English speaker) said "one anecdote says" this. -- Jake 04:18, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)
i was researching for an essay and strolled upon this site and i have something to say: all u poor commies out there...GIVE IT UP!!!!!! any commy country that has ever succeeded has done so by scaring its population out of ever disagreeing with the state. the only commy gov'ts alive today are that of brutal dictatorships. does a person living in a commy country enjoy amounting to nothing??? if communism is so good then how come the whole world isnt communist?? oh thats right, because communism is load of sh*t. hell, im from canada and my gov't is too far left for my liking. so as far as this anti-commy stuff goes, i would really like to see it spread and tell the whole world just how bad of an idea it is. now, i should get back to my essay. the topic?? "should gov'ts today play a greater role in the operation of their economies?" my answer?? HELLS NO!
- Do you also believe that the peoples of Europe should have "given up" on the ideals of Democracy after Napoleon perverted the principles of the French Revolution? If not, then why do you believe that the peoples of the world should give up on the ideals of Communism after Stalin perverted the principles of the Russian Revolution? Communism is only an extension of Democracy (or, as Marx would say, "Communism is the logical conclusion of Democracy").
- And the system used in the countries you're talking about is not Communism - no communist leader ever claimed to have actually reached Communism. They claim to be on the way towards Communism, and they claim that their current system is Socialism. But then again, they also claim that their countries are wonderful democratic paradises. So if you believe that the Soviet Union (for example) was truly "communist" or "socialist", then you'd better also believe that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is "democratic".
- -- Mihnea Tudoreanu
"Communism is only an extension of Democracy"? I guess that's why pretty much every Communist revolution has resulted in the complete opposite of a democracy. Just bad luck. Wrong guys in charge. Stalinist, not Communist. Nothin' to do with it. Nada. They all misread Marx. Mmmhmm.
I have noted a double standard in regards to criticism of communism and criticism of religion. When someone says "Christians in the Crusades murdered x number of people", the anticommunist rushes to defend Christianity, saying "but they weren't true Christians! Christianity teaches love!" but when communism comes up as the discussion topic, the anticommunist screams "I don't give a damn about what Marxism teaches, communists have killed x number of people!"
Hmmm. DO'Иeil 08:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
It is true that certain interpretations of religion can lead one to believe that doing fanatical things is OK in the eyes of their god. However, (generally) for Christianity this no longer happens, and most agree that Jesus' messages do not call for bloody conversion.
Contrast that with Communist countries, which have always been dictatorships. In addition, people may conclude that while Marx may have had noble intentions, they are impossible to realistically achieve. So while all the historical Communist states may not have been "truly" communist, there's debate about whether it's even possible to have a classless, peaceful communist democracy (I'm not even sure if Marx wanted a democracy -- he talks about the government eventually losing all form, and I don't really get what he means,) and whether the results of various Communist revolutions are just logical, human outcomes.
It's proven that Christianity doesn't necessarily lead to war and conflict, but so far we haven't seen the wonderful communist society Marx predicted. Trey Stone 05:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- See Libertarian Socialism. Apparently they want anarchy, or at least want to pretend they want anarchy, or some such. Sam [Spade] 05:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Godless communists
How does dialectical materialism rely on the fact that there isn't a god? If God made the world and humans then gave us free will, couldn't dialectical materialism be slotted in?
Slizor
No responses on the subject so I'm removing the God bit.
SlizorTalk 00:58, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
- You are correct. Dialectical materialism doesn't rely on the idea that God doesn't exist. It relies on the idea that God does not have an active influence in contemporary human history.
- In other words, what Marxism opposes are things like the Divine Right of Kings, which are no longer an issue today but which were still hotly disputed 150 years ago, when Marxism was first invented.
- Marxism is no more "atheist" than any modern secular ideology.
- -- Mihnea Tudoreanu
World Anti-Communist League
Article should probably have some reference to the [1] AndyL 04:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
See also this article AndyL 04:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
anti-communist repression
I have removed the paragraph which outlines Ann Coulter's views on Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Clearly anyone who feels that taking the position of an unhinged, partisan, ultra-right newspaper columnist constitutes NPOV is either ignorant or deluded. They don't belong on this excellent resource.
- I tend to think of Ann Coulter as the equivelent of Michael Moore. They both remind me of Goebbels. ;) Sam [Spade] 21:22, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moved from article
' A useful comparison would be the Catholic Church's Inquisition which is generally seen as a fundamental error in the history of the church. '
- I don't see this sentence fitting in well where its at. Is this ment to suggest that past crimes of the catholic church somehow excuse the perpetual crimes of communism? I don't follow the reasoning. Sam [Spade] 22:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think it's fine to leave that in there as long as it's clear that it's a point that would likely be used on the pro-communist side. Obviously one can find problems with the analogy but I already addressed that when I added the "totalitarian by nature" bit to the anti-communist side of the argument.
Can someone unprotect this page? Trey Stone 05:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I recommend asking elsewhere, I doubt they care enough about the article to read the talk. Sam [Spade] 05:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well I'm a n00b so I don't know where to ask. On a sysop's user page? Trey Stone 04:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Try here looking here, or the talk page, etc... Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Sam [Spade] 05:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Notable Anti-Communists
This section needs some major rearranging. The persons mentioned should be categorized and listed as anti-communist political and military leaders, dissidents, economists etc. Furthermore, what is Fulgencio Batista doing on this list? :-)
I'll probably do some editing on this section in the near future. Ivan Matosevic
Some Additions to the Page
In the sentence:
[C]ommunist governments have been accused of creating a new ruling class (called by Russians the nomenklatura) with privileges parallel to those in the overthrown "capitalist" societies.
I changed "privileges parallel to those in the overthrown 'capitalist' societies" to "powers and privileges far greater than those previously enjoyed by the upper classess in the pre-revolutionary regimes.". I am aware that some might find this claim per se disputable, however it is not stated as a fact, but as a statement of one side in the dispute (to which most, if not all anti-communists will certainly subscribe).
Furthermore, the following very controversial statment was listed as an undisputed fact:
Also, they often point to cases such as Cuba, whose economic performance is actually better than that of similar neighboring countries (Cuba is ahead of most of its Latin American neighbors, but far behind the United States.)
This might have been true in the Cold War years, thanks to the rich Soviet subsidies, but it is definitely not true today (not undisputedly true, at any case). I've changed this statement to a more neutral form and somewhat expanded the anti-communist argument in this case.
Other changes I made are adding some further anti-communist arguments. While some of them are controversial, I was careful to present them only as beliefs held by anti-communists, not as undisputed truth.
I also moved the sentence about the alternative meaning of the term "anti-communism" to the first paragraph in the page. There is not much point in placing such a piece of information after an in-depth article about the primary meaning.
Also, please excuse my accidental submitting of the page in the middle of my work! Ivan Matosevic
