Anttech said:
What I do find humerous tho are the "pro" communists here that live in the west. Its a failed govermental model. If they like communism so much, why don't they pack up a bag and move to a communist country, I suggest North Korea! Communism = totaliterism with an Iron fist.
If you dissagree I beg you to come to east Europe. For my work I am often in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and now Russia. I have seen the damage it has done. Take Hungary as an example, once apon a time Hungary was a super power, after WWII it was eaten by the USSR and they destroyed that country. In the reveloution in the 70's they had, the Soviets went extremely cruel and setup death camps.. People had no freedom of expression, and if they did express anything outwith the "Communist" idea they were playing with there life...
In another thread dooga you stated that communism was a Democratic model.. Freedom of expression is built into the fabric of democracy.. Communism is not democractic (at least every implemented version) it is totaliterism..
Anttech, I agree with you that 'implemented versions' of what is
falsely called 'socialism' or 'communism' are badly flawed. However, it is not odd that there should be people who are pro-communist despite their ability to critically analyse these 'implemented versions' and recognise that these systems were not actually communist and needed to be rejected. Just because a government
claims to be socialist/communist/democratic, it does not mean that it is. It is important to acknowledge this fact.
Any so-called 'communist' who defends what is better termed Stalinism (rather than socialism/communism) is either stupid, or is a fraud or wilfully blind to reality. There is, however, a large group of people who consistently, even from the early days, critiqued Stalinism from a socialist perspective - the Left Opposition led by Trotsky, for instance. Another true socialist who questioned and rejected Stalinism and the USSR version of what is called 'socialism' or 'communism' was Che Guevara (read Jon Lee Anderson's biography,
Che Guevara for details). There are, admittedly, other so-called 'socialists' who defended everything Stalin and other Communist Party leaderships did, irrespective of how unsocialistic and totalitarian these governments were; I consider these 'socialists' to either not know what they are talking about or to be blind unquestioning followers of dogma and therefore dangerous.
It is possible to be a socialist despite the fact that socialism has not yet been implemented, just as there are many people on this board who support the ideal of 'liberal democratic capitalism' despite their ability to see its flaws as 'currently implemented' (often the flaw is described as 'corporatism'). I personally see corporatism as an inevitable part of capitalism given that those with the economic power (the corporations) have the political power to pass laws that legalise, entrench and extend their thuggery.
alex