Brief History of Communism (and the work of Ronaldus Maximus regarding)

Big D--
Forgive me if I didn't clarify enough, but rather than an empire causing massive death, I've noted that Communism brings death and destruction in its wake everywhere it goes.

FoA--
I'd have to agree, the concepts of Nazism are worse than those of Communism--and given more time, Nazism's destruction probably would have exceeded that of communism. However, whenever communism is put into practice, it brings death.

Communism is more than simply a flawed theory wherein hard work and risk-taking are punished and laziness is rewarded--it's a form of government that inevitably brings destruction, suffering, oppression, and death. Nowhere has communism been implemented without becoming an oppressive regime.

To say that all the previous presidents before Reagan played no role in the downfall of the USSR, or to assume that Reagan singlehandedly toppled the USSR without any help from the work of previous presidents (or anyone else) is a bit myopic. A great many factors contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Reagan did play a large role and served as a final catalyst, but do you really think reagan could have taken the same approach and had the same results in the 1950s or 1970s? The USSR was weakened by many things, including both it's own internal flaws and pressure from outside forces like the space race. Reagan came along and recognized a weakened and disheartened foe and rightly put the pressure on them when they were most vulnerable.

Agreed. Both the Pope and Gorbachev played extremely vital roles as well.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Nowhere has communism been implemented without becoming an oppressive regime.

---

Incorrect. Small communes have operated under this in early human history. Native American tribes lived in a Communist society until the Americans raped their society. In a small tribe it is actually viable, in a larger country it is not.

To say that communism brings death is only half true. In reality, it is not communism, but autocracy that brings death. Communist regimes have brought death because they were autocratic regimes, not because they were communist. I personally feel that "Communism" has become an excuse for governments to rule autocratically.

And there have been decent autocratic communisms.
For example Yugoslavia were doing quite well under the dictatorship of Tito.

Communism creates a power vacuum that is easily filled by an eager autocrat.

Jrgen--
Tito's Yugoslavia survived not because communism was a valid system, but because of massive loans--loans from capitalist nations. And even though it was less repressive than other communist regimes, Tito was by no means kind to dissent.

eestlinc--
Actually, yes. The Soviet Union's economy was a basket-case even in the 50's, and there were indeed plenty of people to bring pressure against the communist government--which is why, for example, they had to send the tanks into Hungary. Yet they managed to limp along, by some strange set of events that isn't quite coincidence, until we had a president who was actually willing to defy them; and there's no reason to believe that without Reagan they couldn't have limped along for decades more.

Captain--
While the Pope's part in the downfall of theSoviet Union is indeed both commendable and considerable, it doesn't equal Reagan's, and at least part of it was done in partnership with Reagan. Gorbechev, on the other hand, continued the Russian invasion of Afghanistan for several years, demanded that Reagan abandon the missile-defense shield, has many times before and since voiced his support of communism... and happened to be there when Reagan tore down his empire. That he surrendered rather than launch a banzai nuclear war is admirable, but it doesn't mean that he aided the downfal of the Soviet Union.

Behold the Void--
Native Americans lived off of slaughtering each other and taking whatever their victims owned. While that is Communism in practice, it doesn't quite match the theory.

communism has actually done a lot of good as well.

remember how russia was in 1917? the population starving? millions dying of hunger, the tsar living happily and fed well, losing thousands each day in a war they were losing and was destroying the country.

stalinst russia fought off the nazi's throughout the second world war supporting britain and america in the push for berlin. chances are we would never have won the war without them.

ho chi minh- liberated cambodia from pol pot, saved the country from complete self destruction and stabilised laos.

there has also never been a democratic country that has not been involved in war.

communism has the potential to work terrifically well if it is properly constructed as is written by marx in his books. this has never been done and so it can never be said to have never actually worked or to be unworkable as it has never been attempted.

Gorbachev also attempted to change the economic system of the USSR from a command economy to one closer to capitalism, which didn't fair to well in the country and thus, greatly aided in the collapse, which is ironic.

The Pope led a peaceful revolution against communism, something Reagan cannot claim as some of effects of his way have led to the turmoil in the Middle East, and while I didn't agree with the Pope about a great many things, I can't deny that his influence carried much more weight and power than even Reagan. He reached out to more people, 1.2 billion versus 200 million or how ever many at the time lived in the USA. One needed the other to succeed, they couldn't have done it alone, but together formed a partnership that was able to succeed.

It should also be pointed out, that democracy didn't triumph over communism as the US is not a democracy but a Republic and the USSR was not anywhere near what Communism is supposed to be.

Take care all.

Cloud 9--
[quote]emember how russia was in 1917? the population starving? millions dying of hunger, the tsar living happily and fed well, losing thousands each day in a war they were losing and was destroying the country.[/quote
Actually, it was hundreds of thousands dying of hunger--the millions came after the Bolshevik revolution. And if you think the USSR quit going to war after 1917, then there ain't much I can say....

Quote:

---

stalinst russia fought off the nazi's throughout the second world war supporting britain and america in the push for berlin. chances are we would never have won the war without them.

---

And also murdered about 35 million of its own people and tried to take over the world. Great guys...

Quote:

---

o chi minh- liberated cambodia from pol pot, saved the country from complete self destruction and stabilised laos.

---

Saved the country from complete self-destruction? Somebody shoulda told the Boat People....

Quote:

---

there has also never been a democratic country that has not been involved in war.

---

"Involved in war" and "tried to take over the world" are two rather different things.

Quote:

---

communism has the potential to work terrifically well if it is properly constructed as is written by marx in his books. this has never been done and so it can never be said to have never actually worked or to be unworkable as it has never been attempted.

---

Ahh, so it just fails every time because they didn't do it right?

Captain--
Perestroika was a last-ditch move to stave off the coming collapse. Gorbechev didn't do it to cooperate with the US, he did it to try and save his country--and to save communism, by making the smallest changes possible.

While the Pope certainly represented more people than Reagan did, his work in toppling the USSR wasn't as great--mostly, I admit, due to the simple fact that he couldn't use or threaten force. It wasn't the Pope that started Soviet regimes crumbling, or took one back outright--although, again, the man did a lot. I doubt that Reagan couldn't have done it without the Pope, but I agree whole-heartedly that the Pope's aid was very, very valuable.

Quote:

---

"When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the president's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats."
--Ann Coulter

---

Because Nixon was obviously scheming to support anti-Communists.

Quote:

---

Native Americans lived off of slaughtering each other and taking whatever their victims owned. While that is Communism in practice, it doesn't quite match the theory.

---

Not exactly. There were wars between them, yes, but that wasn't their SOLE method of living. They weren't utterly dependant upon fighting with the other tribes.

Do you suppose it would have been easy to even make rhetorical threats of direct attack or use of military force in the 1950s, directly after World War II? Perhaps world leaders wanted to try less militaristic methods of weakening the USSR because the world had just emerged from a long and grueling war and support, to say nothing of ability or resources, would have been slim.

You also neglect the impact that emerging nuclear arsenals had on the prospects of direct wars between superpowers. The Cold War emerged as a viable alternative because many in the world feared the results of a nuclear war, especially in the infancy of nuclear weapons.

Also, the US had just begun to assert itself as a world power and had not completey embraced its role as a world police (and we still haven't quite come to terms with how exactly to play that role or even if we should). Remember, we only got directly involved in WWII after Pearl Harbor, even if we wanted to get involved before it.

Those are very good points Eest. The years right after WWII until the early 60's were times where no one wanted to fight anymore as the war had caused such terrible losses on all sides.

I think the heart of the trouble with America's new role is that it sets itself up for criticism by seeming to place a double standard on things. We will invade and liberate Iraq, but not the Sudan, we will liberate Bosnia and Kosovo, but not Rwanda or the countries in South America, and the logic which is used gets more and more confusing with every day to the point where a great many people in this country seem to want us to return to a policy of strict isolationism, which isn't practical any longer.

It's a slippery slope to be sure.

Take care all.