|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Communism was authoritarian by its very nature, since (a) it was an absolutist ideology and (b) it must inevitably be achieved by class struggle and essentially force.
The end of communism (a utopian society) may not be authoritarian but the means of bringing about the end ostensibly and in practise were (direct class struggle, revolution and the violent suppression of bourgeois capitalism supposedly on behalf of the proletarian class)
| Quote: |
How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.
Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths.
But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.
What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state's instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the family. The result is what we see in Table 1.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Communism was authoritarian by its very nature, since (a) it was an absolutist ideology and (b) it must inevitably be achieved by class struggle and essentially force.
The end of communism (a utopian society) may not be authoritarian but the means of bringing about the end ostensibly and in practise were (direct class struggle, revolution and the violent suppression of bourgeois capitalism supposedly on behalf of the proletarian class)
| Quote: |
How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.
Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths.
But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.
What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state's instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the family. The result is what we see in Table 1.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM |
|
Marx did call for the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, but Leninism is quite different. Lenin was unwilling to wait for the progression of society that Marx called for. Marx would have said that Russia was unready for the revolution because it hadn't reached an advanced level of capitalism. I think that Marx was mostly correct in his analysis of history, but made for a miserable prophet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, Lenin. Marx's greatest disciple...and heretic.
Lenin was not merely a fan of violent overthrow (of a regime, rather than a revolutionary overthrow of an existing order-the prevailing mode of production, if you like)but for Lenin, the violence had to be an ongoing process to "Bolshevize" and "cleanse" Soviet society. The small bourgeois class, insofar as it "resembled" Marx's delirious fantasies of what it was, was only the tip of the iceberg for Vladimir baby. "Rich" peasants(you know, the guy who had TWO cows), workers(at least those who had a "trade union consciousness"), the clergy, members of non-Bolshevik leftist parties, etc., etc., well...they had to go!
Now, how in the wide, wide world of sports can Marx have been "correct'' in his analysis of history AND been a failure as a "prophet''!? After all, Marx's socialism was "scientific"  and thus he could "predict" history via the dialectic.
No dice, Karl. No great prole revolutions in mature, developed Western capitalistic societies.
Great quoted block by Sergio. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mao's original take after reading marx was it was a hyper violent way for elites to seize power and he wasnt interested. Later he became very interested and his orignal analysis was dead on. Of course he added and pruned to make it fit his needs. He threw a few bones to the the peasants until he could put his followers into positions of power. During the faine in 1962/63 when millions were starving and his minions were sitting on piles of grain pushing the prices higher he gloated" We will all be driving Rolls Royces" . I have never been able to find a difference in facism and communism and I am constantly bewildered that seeming sane people could have sympathy for an ideology which promises inequality and authoritarianism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| I have never been able to find a difference in facism and communism and I am constantly bewildered that seeming sane people could have sympathy for an ideology which promises inequality and authoritarianism. |
There are very few differences, mostly in rhetoric. Fascism is more nationalistic and communism is more about the "people". Basically in political theory there is an idea that the political spectrum is a circle instead of a line, and that extremes tend to meet. Fascism is extreme right wing and communism is extreme left wing therefore they meet in the middle of the circle and have very similar results in terms of violence and oppression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| I have never been able to find a difference in facism and communism and I am constantly bewildered that seeming sane people could have sympathy for an ideology which promises inequality and authoritarianism. |
There are very few differences, mostly in rhetoric. Fascism is more nationalistic and communism is more about the "people". Basically in political theory there is an idea that the political spectrum is a circle instead of a line, and that extremes tend to meet. Fascism is extreme right wing and communism is extreme left wing therefore they meet in the middle of the circle and have very similar results in terms of violence and oppression. |
I don't think they meet. They're just both so authoritarian that there's nothing to keep the ideologies honest after so much power has been surrendered to one leader or a small military-backed clique.
A faithful socialist-communist state would look something very different from fascism, despite the similarities in authoritarian control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| I have never been able to find a difference in facism and communism and I am constantly bewildered that seeming sane people could have sympathy for an ideology which promises inequality and authoritarianism. |
There are very few differences, mostly in rhetoric. Fascism is more nationalistic and communism is more about the "people". Basically in political theory there is an idea that the political spectrum is a circle instead of a line, and that extremes tend to meet. Fascism is extreme right wing and communism is extreme left wing therefore they meet in the middle of the circle and have very similar results in terms of violence and oppression. |
I don't think they meet. They're just both so authoritarian that there's nothing to keep the ideologies honest after so much power has been surrendered to one leader or a small military-backed clique.
A faithful socialist-communist state would look something very different from fascism, despite the similarities in authoritarian control. |
Key word being faithful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| A faithful socialist-communist state would look something very different from fascism, despite the similarities in authoritarian control. |
The main difference between communism and fascism is the status of capitalism and traditional elites (including clergy). Communism liquidates them supposedly in favor of the proletariat (regardless of whether or not the proletariat is grateful), whereas fascism relies upon their (and the proletariat's) willing participation. The fascists, as such, tolerated some semblance of a mixed economy and certainly tolerated private property and the aristocracy (albeit on the condition that they served the state first and foremost, which in the case of Naziism meant the race). Whereas communism plunders and kills older sources of power, fascism controls them with their somewhat willing participation (if not active support), mostly, I think, on the basis that fascism was a balwark of stability against what they thought was the very real threat of a communist revolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I ain't be havin' much in the way of edumacation, college boys....
But as a redneck high school dropout, I WILL ask: why is "authoritarian" being used when "totalitarian" is much more appropriate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
I ain't be havin' much in the way of edumacation, college boys....
But as a redneck high school dropout, I WILL ask: why is "authoritarian" being used when "totalitarian" is much more appropriate? |
Authoritarian is more of a catchall, not all communist or fascist governments are totalitarian, but all are authoritarian, the meaning is sufficiently similar in any case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
