Communism is Evil. Here’s Why.

by

Nowadays, we don’t have a healthy fear of evil philosophies. We believe that we can all just get along, and accept our differences. No, it’s okay to have one person believe one thing and another person believe the opposite, and they can live together peacefully.

Unfortunately, the same people that believe this wondered why it was necessary for Reagan to build “Star Wars”, why Reagan shouted, “Tear down this wall!” and why Bush is kicking terrorist butt in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, these are kind and sensitive people who are only looking out for the poor and weak, right?

What you don’t know or believe in can kill you. Just because you don’t believe a snake is poisonous doesn’t mean a snake bite won’t send you to an early grave. Just because you don’t believe cancer is a deadly disease doesn’t mean you won’t die from it.

The same is true for philosophies. Communism, the philosophy, is a poison, a poison that will kill Americans as fast as it has killed millions of people across the world.

Let me spell it out for you in plain English: There are evil men out there, and there are a lot of them. Hitler was one of many. The world is filled with these men. Some are not as extreme as others, but the extreme ones have a certain bloodlust for power, and are willing to kill their own mothers, children, and wives to get it.

Read your history. Study what power does to people. Study about the kind of people drawn to power. Study how the get power, how they keep it, and how they use it. You will come to one conclusion: Your mindset of tolerance and compassion isn’t shared by everyone. And when push comes to shove, those people will try to use it against you.

Take the communist movement. A young idealist, Karl Marx, is simply trying to think about all the poor people around the world, and trying to come up with a fair way to help them be free from economic slavery. Sounds noble and good, right? And it is. This is something everyone should work for, starting with themselves, and then their families, and then their communities.

What wasn’t good was Karl Marx’s plan to make everyone equal by government rule. Rather than build up, he wanted to tear down. Rather than quicken, he wanted to kill. He saw obstacles to his wonderful utopic recipe everywhere he turned. His conclusion, and the conclusions of everyone who tries to follow his path, is that everyone else, every other organization, must be destroyed. The ones that must be destroyed first are those that do the most good. In the ashes, society can be rebuilt in the just and true way.

Communism, as Reagan carefully explained, is not a new idea. It is a very old idea, dressed up in modern clothes and freshened up with modern language. It is the same idea that the Egyptians had when they enslaved the Jews. It is the same idea that the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Mongols had as they sent out murdering armies to torture the earth and enslave free people. It is the same idea as the people who bought and sold men. It is simply man’s quest to conquer everyone else and make themselves king or emperor. They want to eat the food made by others for free, and they will say and do anything to get it.

Under communism, a select group of elites control every aspect of life. They control who gets to grow food, who gets to eat that food, and who gets to starve. Interestingly, it is the people who grow the food who starve. They control what people are allowed to think, say, and do. They control every aspect of society. Or so they wish to do so.

As my friend who actually lived under Communist Russia explained, early into the revolution, it was realized that communism was much more dangerous than any anti-communist had thought. It was a dangerous thing, dangerous not just to the people but to those high up in the power chain. And so the government began to relax the very controls that communism prescribed. That is, Russia only boasted that they were communist, but what kept them alive was the black markets, black markets that moved food, medical supplies, and expertise around the country without any government intervention. And the government did little to stop the black markets, acknowledging, privately, that those markets kept the people alive.

As another friend who lived under communist rule observed, upon arriving in Boston, while the Russians talked about communism, the Americans were actually doing it. He had never felt so little in the eyes of government officials than when he had to interact with the federal and state and city governments. At least the communists could be bribed to make things go smoothly.

We are fast headed down the path where every person must bow to the government to obtain permission to wipe their own bottoms, literally. They have already legislated how much water we can flush with. Just now, a bill is crossing the desk of the governor, asking her to set state-mandated limits on how many miles we can drive. Bit by bit, our freedoms are disappearing.

We know from human experience what lies down this path of increasing government control. We have seen the holocaust. We have seen millions of starving Ukrainians and Chinese. We saw the killing fields in Southeast Asia. We see the mass starvation and complete lack of any freedom in North Korea. We see Canadians and Englishmen caught in a failing medical system, waiting endlessly for simple operations, dying before they can even see a surgeon. We know, without a doubt, where this road leads us.

On the other hand, and friends, this is not “right” versus “left”, this is “up” versus “down”, on the other hand we see another option. Limited government. Government applied sparingly, with extreme caution, and most importantly, in a cold, calculating way, calculated to maximize the freedoms of the individual. We see societies not limited by permits and taxes and regulations on speech. We see them spontaneously organize to address every social need, long before politicians even realize there is a need. As Alexis de Tocqueville commented upon seeing the American people in action, there was no need for government to spend a moment of time thinking about the poor, since the people were already addressing every need at the best of their ability. This is what “up” gets you. This is what limited government gets you. Yes, there are rich, and there are poor, but the rich have no power to imprison, torture, and kill the poor.

“Down” leads to slavery, concentration camps, reeducation camps, poverty, starvation, warfare. “Down” leads to the deepest and darkest moments in human history, human slaughter that the most bloodthirsty mongol conqueror could never even imagine. “Down” is all that communism has to offer.

As Mark Levin commented, “Government gets you concentration camps and the holocaust. Do you want more government?” And as he contrasted, “Exxon may be evil, but who have they falsely imprisoned, or tortured, or killed?”

I would rather live in a society run by evil corporations than good government.

70 Responses to “Communism is Evil. Here’s Why.”

  1. bma Says:

    We see Canadians and Englishmen caught in a failing medical system, waiting endlessly for simple operations, dying before they can even see a surgeon. We know, without a doubt, where this road leads us.

    Funny… I was just about to say the same thing about Americans that can’t get medical treatment. The “failing medical system” is being starved for money as the result of tax cuts in these countries, and not because these insurance systems have endemic organizational flaws.

    And it’s a intellectually questionable leap to go from healthcare reform to “the government will control every aspect of your life”. Am I advocating for wiretapping when promoting government-provided social services? Nope. Do I think that people should be killed or executed if they oppose such things? Nope. Do I think that banks or factories or airlines should be nationalized? Nope.

    Explain to me how talking about providing healthcare leads to concentration camps.

    As Mark Levin commented, “Government gets you concentration camps and the holocaust. Do you want more government?” And as he contrasted, “Exxon may be evil, but who have they falsely imprisoned, or tortured, or killed?”

    That is a callous and evil lie. Ask the family of Ken Saro-Wiwa what the Nigerian government was quite willing to do for Shell, and what Shell was quite willing to overlook to achieve profits.

  2. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    Funny… I was just about to say the same thing about Americans that can’t get medical treatment. The “failing medical system” is being starved for money as the result of tax cuts in these countries, and not because these insurance systems have endemic organizational flaws.

    1. There are numerous free clinics everywhere. 2. No hospital can refuse treatment to anyone that needs it. 3. There are numerous state and federal programs for those of limited means to get health coverage.

    Now, your job is to find one, one person in all of the United States who cannot get medical treatment. Just one. Hint: The media and the democrats have been looking for a very, very long time, and have yet to find one person.

    Meanwhile, newspaper stories are coming out of England and Canada about people who are categorically denied treatment. They have to flee to the US or South Africa or India to get treatment in a timely way.

    The government providing health care, in and of itself, won’t lead to the Jews being rounded up and sent to concentration camps. That comes later when the government tries to blame anything but themselves for the problems in the economy and society. In other words, when the medical system collapses due to government control, and when the government tries to blame someone else for its collapse, they will start unjustly imprisoning, torturing, and killing people.

    But it does lead to, today, people being denied medical coverage they need, coverage they can get for free in the US. It does lead to doctors being forbidden to do what doctors do best. It does lead to people dying waiting to get treatment. It does lead the poor having worse health because there is nowhere for them to turn when they are refused treatment by the government.

    Ask the family of Ken Saro-Wiwa what the Nigerian government was quite willing to do for Shell, and what Shell was quite willing to overlook to achieve profits.

    Why did Shell have to ask the government to do anything, when Shell, according to you, is quite capable of doing it themselves?

    Or, was I right, and the government of Nigeria is to blame? Wasn’t the government’s job to execute justice and maintain property rights and order?

  3. bma Says:

    1. There are numerous free clinics everywhere.

    Free clinics do not constitute health care. Do you have a consistent doctor at a free clinic? Advice for chronic conditions? What are the resources at free clinics as compared to most regular hospitals or doctors’ offices? What if you needed a heart transplant? Some other sort of consultation?

    2. No hospital can refuse treatment to anyone that needs it.

    Again, emergency room visits do not constitute health care, for much the same reasons. In fact, I’d hesitate to consider the use of an emergency room for routine care to be a reasonable use of resources, especially when the best medical care can be provided by consistent long-term care at a single facility. Maintaining health by long-term treatment of chronic medical conditions (such as heart disease) is much less expensive than dealing with the problem when someone shows up uninsured at an ER with a heart attack.

    3. There are numerous state and federal programs for those of limited means to get health coverage.

    That is true, but to argue that this provides coverage to people that need it for the expenses they need to cover is a pretty tough reach. Similarly, if you fall outside of given groups, good luck finding the coverage that you need to address any kind of medical expense. Assuming that health care is easily accessible simply because there are some programs for the poor is pretty short-sighted.

    Now, your job is to find one, one person in all of the United States who cannot get medical treatment. Just one. Hint: The media and the democrats have been looking for a very, very long time, and have yet to find one person.

    This isn’t about someone being kicked out onto the street, with absolutely no way of getting seen by a doctor at any time for any reason. I’ll concede that even in the worst potential cases, there is some option that people may have, if they are persistent enough to get it. (Even if it might be through a raffle or fundraiser or something, which happens far too often as far as I can see.)

    However, a full 25% of Americans in 2006 didn’t visiting a doctor when sick, 23% didn’t fill a prescription, and another 23% skipped tests, treatments or follow-ups recommended by a doctor. Only 5% of Canadians skipped care, and only 3% of Britons. About 19% of Americans in that same year were also unable to pay medical bills, while no other comparable developed country had rates in the double digits. Furthermore, we report the highest rates of spending more than $500 annually out-of-pocket for prescription drugs (42 percent). Does this meet the definition of “quality medical treatment” for Americans?

    And a good case in point is to read accounts of medical relief in New Orleans after Katrina. Not only were many relief workers attempting to treat conditions related to the flood, but many found chronic conditions that had not been treated sufficiently. While you could argue that these people could simply go to the emergency room, the lack of quality medical care would have likely doomed many of them to a one-way ticket to the emergency room. To not attempt to address that situation, which replicated all throughout the country, is criminal.

    Meanwhile, newspaper stories are coming out of England and Canada about people who are categorically denied treatment. They have to flee to the US or South Africa or India to get treatment in a timely way.

    Yes, but if you’re using that as a barometer, you should be given pause by the fact that medical tourism is rising in the United States as well.

    In addition, you may be decrying the wait times, but one of the benefits to not treating everyone is that the lines will inevitably be shorter!

    The government providing health care, in and of itself, won’t lead to the Jews being rounded up and sent to concentration camps. That comes later when the government tries to blame anything but themselves for the problems in the economy and society. In other words, when the medical system collapses due to government control, and when the government tries to blame someone else for its collapse, they will start unjustly imprisoning, torturing, and killing people.

    You know, you say these things, and I’m still just not buying it. You have not established that there is any kind of slippery slope involved with health care, or other social services for that matter. If you started to talk about efforts by the government to restrict free speech, or ban all methods of self-defense, or restructure itself to consolidate power, I think that I’d lend a more willing ear to what you are saying. But I’m amused that you would think that social services and totalitarian control are causal by any stretch of the imagination.

    In fact, I would argue that addressing gaps in social services, including health care, is a means of staving off totalitarianism. Many notable fascist governments have emerged when large segments of the population have experienced widespread deprivation, and fall sway to those that buy them off with better shares of the wealth of society in exchange for tighter control over their lives. The whole “at least the trains run on time” argument applies here, as does the fall of the Weimar Republic and Imperial Russia.

    In fact, I’d be interested to see how the U.S. political situation would be different if the New Deal wasn’t passed. I’d make the argument that we would probably not have been in very good shape politically, and would have been vulnerable to a coup similar to that uncovered by the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in the 1930s.

    But it does lead to, today, people being denied medical coverage they need, coverage they can get for free in the US. It does lead to doctors being forbidden to do what doctors do best. It does lead to people dying waiting to get treatment. It does lead the poor having worse health because there is nowhere for them to turn when they are refused treatment by the government.

    This is where my mind is just completely boggled. I’m having an extremely hard time trying to figure out why restructuring the system to address gaps in coverage would, in fact, result in people being refused treatment or dying while waiting for it.

    And in the end, when compared to Canada and other countries with similar levels of wealth, we spend the most, there are fewer financial incentives for quality care (aside from insurance rates), our care isn’t convenient, we have lower rates of treatment for chronic conditions, there are higher rates of medical errors, and most people are dissatisfied with the system as it exists now.

    Again, is ours a *better* system to you? How will the meager reforms proposed by Republicans address any of this?

    Why did Shell have to ask the government to do anything, when Shell, according to you, is quite capable of doing it themselves? Or, was I right, and the government of Nigeria is to blame? Wasn’t the government’s job to execute justice and maintain property rights and order?

    The comparison that I made was based on more of a knee-jerk emotional reaction, and not a rational argument, which is true. You’ve got me on that point. However, to be blind to the fact that for many corrupt countries, the job to “execute justice and maintain property rights and order” leads some corrupt governments to kill those that are politically opposed to business interests is to be blind to the real effects that a corporation can have.

    To toss up one’s hands and say that Shell (or other companies in similar situations) has no responsibility because they don’t have the powers of government is a cop-out, but it also proves my earlier point. Corporations are artificial persons created for the express purpose of making money, and have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. Interpretations of what this entails can differ, but to assume that corporations would naturally lead to a system where everyone would benefit, society would be equitable, and rights would be protected is such an unrealistic concept that I can’t even imagine that most free-market economists can say it with a straight face. In fact, I would argue that when the circumstances call for it, corporations have a *duty* to subvert liberal democratic principles in favor of its own interests.

  4. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    Free clinics do not constitute health care.

    What do free clinics provide then? Government cheese?

    Again, emergency room visits do not constitute health care…

    What do the emergency rooms provide then? Whine with that cheese?

    That is true [that states provide health plans for the poor], but to argue that this provides coverage to people that need it for the expenses they need to cover is a pretty tough reach.

    You’ll be voting with me at the next election then. If state-run health systems are so incompetent, then why are we spending billions on them?

    However, a full 25% of Americans in 2006 didn’t visiting a doctor when sick, 23% didn’t fill a prescription, and another 23% skipped tests, treatments or follow-ups recommended by a doctor.

    I am a member of that group! Guess what? I chose not to visit the doctor, fill that prescription, and take the test. within the last year! Do you want to know why? Because I count my doctors as my financial adviser for my health, and nothing more. I am in control of my body, and come hell or high water, there is no one who is ever going to force me to see a doctor, fill a prescription (and take it), or take a test. (Except maybe my wife…)

    Maybe you’d like to live in a society where you have no choice in how to run your body, but I would rather live in liberty.

    This is where my mind is just completely boggled. I’m having an extremely hard time trying to figure out why restructuring the system to address gaps in coverage would, in fact, result in people being refused treatment or dying while waiting for it.

    The feeling you are having is called cognitive dissonance. It occurs when what you observe conflicts with what you believe. You believe that government can do good. In reality, everything government does is a colossal failure if not outright evil. Except, rather than adjust your belief to meet reality (and accept the fact that government is always evil and should only be acceptable in extremely controlled and well-defined conditions and only when it is the least evil option), you choose to continue to believe a lie.

    To toss up one’s hands and say that Shell (or other companies in similar situations) has no responsibility because they don’t have the powers of government is a cop-out, but it also proves my earlier point.

    My point was that only governments hurt people.

    Your point was that Shell convinced the government of Nigeria to hurt people.

    My point was that it was the government who hurt people, and that Shell couldn’t hurt people without government doing it for them. Why else would Shell try to convince the government to hurt people if Shell could’ve done it themselves?

    And your response is that that was a cop-out?

    I’m trying to piece together your response because it makes little sense. You’re arguing that corporations (which are really individuals united for a common goal) have an undue influence in a democracy and so they make it unfair for other people…. I don’t get it. Aren’t democracies supposed to be influenced by people? In fact, isn’t the whole point of democracy to make the people the government? So, when people influence their government in a democracy—that’s bad? Huh. I guess if you could imagine a democracy where people couldn’t influence the government—what would that be?

    Interesting logical maneuvering there.

  5. bma Says:

    What do free clinics provide then? Government cheese?

    Interesting that you would use that argument, as it’s more relevant than you realize.

    There’s a big difference between providing real support for people, and providing them with token assistance that really doesn’t meet their needs. In the case of government cheese, does providing someone with a big block of cheap cheddar really solve hunger and nutrition problems?

    Same deal with free clinics. Not enough to provide the coverage that people need, but just enough to address bigger problems that may come up.

    What do the emergency rooms provide then? Whine with that cheese?

    Same thing, except worse. Now, instead of a clinic where people can go when problems are moderately serious, many people go to emergency rooms only when problems are so severe that they cannot ignore them. (When they’re not going in for piddling things that waste the time of ER staff.) Again, better to treat heart disease consistently than to take a one-way trip to the ER for a fatal heart attack.

    In addition, funding is being cut for services provided by emergency rooms (if they were even provided at all in some cases). Is underfunding these services appropriate when this is the only care that many people get?

    You’ll be voting with me at the next election then. If state-run health systems are so incompetent, then why are we spending billions on them?

    You misunderstand me. “Underfunded and unable to meet needs” does not equal “incompetent”. To claim that something doesn’t work when it *can’t* work without the proper resources doesn’t make sense.

    I am a member of that group! Guess what? I chose not to visit the doctor, fill that prescription, and take the test. within the last year! Do you want to know why? Because I count my doctors as my financial adviser for my health, and nothing more. I am in control of my body, and come hell or high water, there is no one who is ever going to force me to see a doctor, fill a prescription (and take it), or take a test. (Except maybe my wife…)

    To assume that each and every single one of these examples is a case where a patient is exerting their rights to decide their own course of treatment is pretty silly. (Especially so when the numbers are so different than other countries with universal healthcare!) Doesn’t it stand to reason that many people who cannot afford medical treatment wouldn’t be keen on shelling out money that they don’t have for an MRI or expensive medication?

    Maybe you’d like to live in a society where you have no choice in how to run your body, but I would rather live in liberty.

    The image of you grumbling, “No doctor’s going to tell ME to take antibiotics!” is a little funny.

    The feeling you are having is called cognitive dissonance. It occurs when what you observe conflicts with what you believe. You believe that government can do good. In reality, everything government does is a colossal failure if not outright evil. Except, rather than adjust your belief to meet reality (and accept the fact that government is always evil and should only be acceptable in extremely controlled and well-defined conditions and only when it is the least evil option), you choose to continue to believe a lie.

    Hey, I don’t argue with the idea that there are times when the government overreaches its power. However, to equate providing social services with an evil plot is so unrealistic that it’s hard to take seriously. This isn’t a case where the government is attempting to interfere in free markets, but an agreement to provide collectively for goods that are, in part, public.

    My point was that it was the government who hurt people, and that Shell couldn’t hurt people without government doing it for them. Why else would Shell try to convince the government to hurt people if Shell could’ve done it themselves?

    True in that they weren’t the ones that pulled the trigger, and this may not have been the best case to exactly prove my point.

    On the other hand, you’ve stated that the role of the government in an ideal situation is purely to provide police, military and courts. If these are the only services provided, I don’t really understand how your version of a government would prevent this from happening. Power corrupts just as easily, even if your idealized version of the police would merely keep people from killing each other.

    And to boot, Shell has all the more reason to encourage this behavior. If their interest is digging in the ground for oil, they have a fiduciary responsibility to encourage governments by any means necessary to make this easier. They have no responsibility to encourage human rights or a fair distribution of royalties or anything. In fact, if they do such a thing, they are actually acting in contravention of their reason to exist as a collective group. How is this moving towards a free and equitable society?

    I’m trying to piece together your response because it makes little sense. You’re arguing that corporations (which are really individuals united for a common goal) have an undue influence in a democracy and so they make it unfair for other people….

    I’m not uniformly against corporations. I just think that it’s extreme to assume that *everything* that governments do is evil and *everything* that corporations do is good. Power of any kind is corrupting, but unlike governments, corporations are only responsible to shareholders, and not to the people they serve.

    I don’t get it. Aren’t democracies supposed to be influenced by people? In fact, isn’t the whole point of democracy to make the people the government? So, when people influence their government in a democracy—that’s bad? Huh. I guess if you could imagine a democracy where people couldn’t influence the government—what would that be?

    But this is the big problem. You’ve outlined a situation where everything that governments do is bad, but you haven’t considered the fact that many people depend on and want certain elements of the services provided by governments. Furthermore, it’s much easier in many cases to hold the government accountable directly for faults and failures than corporations.

  6. Mad Bluebird Says:

    Facts are that the communists killed more then the nazis and JOSEPH STALIN was a bigger mass murderer then hitler

  7. zatokr Says:

    Communism is evil!

  8. America F yeah Says:

    Famous Quotes from liberty prime(all true and awsome):

    “COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE.”

    “COMMUNISM IS A LIE.”

    “DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.”

    “BETTER DEAD THAN RED!!”

    “FREEDOM… IS THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN.”

    “AMERICA WILL NEVER FALL TO COMMUNIST INVASION!”

    “DEMOCRACY IS TRUTH! COMMUNISM IS DEATH!”

  9. Yesman Says:

    Well, look where “Democracy” has gotten us.
    A handfull of richmen controls every decision the so called “world leaders” make.

    War is still being waged and people are still being robbed, raped, poisoned and killed.

    The idea about equal distribution is the only way that could make a world for humans, that would be fair for all.
    Of course there are evil people, and they would get punished, just like in any other form of government or society.
    It is an ideal for a more sophisticated race.
    In todays system there is really no justice. Money talks.
    If there was any justice Bush & co would stand trial for what they have done. There would not be heavy taxes on citizens, that goes straight in to a few mens pockets, or to support agendas that in no way benefit the people.

    Communism in itself is not a bad idea.
    It might not have worked out so well, but that is not very strange, since the people with most power where against it for selfish reasons.

    The reason why it was fought so fiercely by the western states, is because it threatened the position of the men in power, and that is economical power.

    The changes in our laws, that are being made, just proves that the current system is no better, it is actually worse. It strips people of their wealth, and also their rights. They can control all the industries trough their economical dominance, and that includes the distribution of food.

    The economical combined with the “Democracy” aka “The moneymen decides it all” system is basically a death trap that will ruin, kill or enslave most of the people on this planet.

    Just because something sounds good.. does not mean it is good.
    There is nothing worse than a society ruled by corporate buisness men.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      If you put poor people in charge, they will soon become the rich. Any group, given power over any other, will become corrupt.

      Communism failed because communism is a terrible idea. It gave ultimate power to a few. Democracy failed as well. Both systems give one group power over the other.

      The men in power in the United States are the people, not the government. Our officials fear our guns, they fear our vote, they fear our voice, and they fear waking us up from our slumber. Look at congress! The democrats have complete control, and yet they cannot pass a simple takeover of the medical system. Why? Because they fear stirring us up out of our slumber. They are not in power—we, the people, the individual, are.

      I don’t hate communism because some rich guy tells me to. I hate it because I have studied all political philosophies and I can easily penetrate the cloud of lies surrounding communism. It is said that communists read Marx, but anti-communists understand Marx.

      I embrace capitalism because capitalism is freedom. Any other economic system relies on giving power to one person to enslave the other. Only capitalism allows people to participate as much or as little as they’d like, owning the result of whatever choice they make, giving them freedom to live their lives as they wish to live it.

  10. Anonimus Says:

    here’s how a world of communism would have been:there would be no laws for example there wouldn’t be a law that says do not kill do not steal etc.one must set laws to him/her seld because the belong in a community,there would be no religion,it is facism it says you to obey a god and do as he says and the priest say we are all dust to the lord and we don’t deserve his greatness it’s like a slave talking to his master,there would be no money,money=corruption,there would be worldwide peace communism is a deathless ideology,everyone should lear to share,for example your neighbor has no cars and you have two and don’t need one,you give one to your neighbor,you should lear to work hard hard work is happy work and work for the free people not for one who sits on his ass in the big chair in the white house,work without payment if you want(i would be happy to do it if it was for the people)no payment is better than knowing you gave something to this world well this is communism as it was ment to be

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Under communism, would there be spelling and grammar as well?

      Seriously, the sad truth is that there are people stupid enough to believe all those lies and you are one of them. What you are saying is hogwash, pure and simple. We’ve had communism. Communism is DEATH. It is the death of FREEDOM, the death of the human SPIRIT, and the physical death of countless millions.

      In all of Marx’s books, in all of the literature written to support communism, where, where, where is there a shred of evidence that if you remove consequence from action that people behave more responsibly? No, that is not human nature. Humans need to fail to succeed. They need to suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions, whether the consequences are starvation, sickness, loneliness, or even death. If I choose to waste my time smoking pot and listening to rock music, I deserve, no, I MUST suffer the consequences of that choice. On the other hand, if I choose to live a straight life, go to college, work my butt off to get good grades and find a good job, and then keep that job by doing a better job than my co-workers, I, and I ALONE, deserve the consequences of those actions.

      Communism does not deliver what communism promises. It is a lie. It is a lie that is easy to verify as a lie. It is a lie comparable only to the lie that was Nazi-ism.

  11. Heath Norment Says:

    Jonathan,
    Just wanted to say thanks for posting that stuff. Crazy how you’re having to defend yourself (or at least the logic of the wisdom concerning the uneffectiveness and evil of communism) against some people. Keep up the good work.

  12. Confused Says:

    These are two systems at war but with my limited history knowledge, I dont remember a communist China taking people to slavery but guess who did ” the Capitalist America”. Look at what happened to Capitalist South Africa “Apartheid” was not caused by communist but by capitalist and their greed and America and the likes supported the Apartheid Idea!!

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      In Communist China, there are plenty of slaves. Anyone who isn’t in the Communist Party leadership is a slave to them.

      In Capitalist America, we’ve known for a long time that slavery was wrong. We worked to end the institution, sacrificing our lives, fortunes, and honors to do so. My religious ancestors worked on part of the underground railroad. They also were kicked out, by lethal force, from the State of Missouri due to their beliefs on the equality of man.

      If you can’t see the difference between the two, then you need to open your eyes.

      By the way, how much are you being paid to propagandize for Communist China? 5 cents?

  13. RepublicTruth Says:

    Communism, as you speak of it, no longer exist, except in North Korea. North Korea can barely maintain their own regime, let alone expanding their power.

    You shouldn’t incite fear. It’s bad for your blood pressure.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Only a totalitarian or a communist would propose being apathetic and at ease when it comes to government. You see, as long as the people are vigilant, watchful, and indeed, fearful, they can never take our freedom away. A freedom-loving person would arm the people, with truth, arms, and energy; a tyrant would disarm them so that they can be ruled. Fear is a powerful motivator for good, as long as we overcome our fears with preparation and useful activity.

      As long as men are imperfect, as long as we need governments to rule wicked men, and as long as imperfect men are in the government, we must be eternally vigilant, in other words, fearful and vigorous, or else our government will fall into the hands of wicked tyrants bent on seizing our rights, property, and happiness.

      “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

  14. AC Says:

    Communism is not bad, it is simply different.

    It’s easy to say communism is bad when the only thing Americans have been taught since the cold war was communism=bad. Sure one can say that communism is a failed system, but that is partially because of the inherent self-interest driven aspect of mankind. Communism technically can’t work when people are always grasping for power, but capitalism is no better. But unlike communism, capitalism runs on this greed, which leads to corrupt business strategies solely used to get ahead of the competition. Survival of the fittest is a saying that is attributed to capitalism, but why is this fair when the majority of the people are not the fittest? Sure there is a chance for people to climb the ladder, but is it really possible for everyone? Can everyone be the fittest? The simple answer is no, in a capitalist system not everyone is wealthy. However, in communism there is no wealthy and no poor, everyone is the same, that is if everyone accepts it and stops trying to get ahead of everyone else. Technically, there still hasn’t been a true communist system according to the philosophy of Marx because in a communist system there is no leader above everyone else and every aspect in economics and politics is voted on, something uncharacteristic of the Soviet Union and “Communist” China.

    I’m not trying to say that capitalism is wrong and that communism is right, but both systems have flaws. A political idea cannot be wrong because it is simply an idea, an opinion. And if you think there is such a thing as a “wrong” opinion it just shows how selfish, arrogant, and intolerant you really are.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      OK, if communism is just “different”, then answer me this:

      Why, oh why, does communism have to be enforced with pain of torture or death? Why don’t people say, “Aha! Here’s a great system! Let’s all join in and have a wonderful life together!” Why do they build walls to keep people in? Why do they need prison camps for perfectly sane people who simply disagree with their government? Why do they starve the Ukraine? Why do North Koreans worship Dear Leader and why aren’t they the richest country in the world? Why are people killing each other over food and land in Zimbabwe? Why did the USSR invade Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Germany, Poland, and countless other countries? Why, why, why is communism so bloody?

      Is it because man is naturally greedy? Is the reason why one hundred foot falls from cliff faces is fatal because of the flaws of the nature of physics, or because it is wrong to jump off of cliffs?

      Only capitalism respects individuals and allows them to do what they want with their life. Capitalism only occurs when you STOP pointing guns at people and say, “I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t hurt me.” That’s why Capitalism is successful at eliminating poverty everywhere it’s tried, while communism and ALL other systems have a rising body count to exceed the hundreds of millions.

      How many people have to die at the hands of totalitarian systems before you realize that totalitarianism is DEATH, and only liberty is LIFE. DEATH IS EVIL, LIFE IS GOOD. Therefore, totalitarianism is EVIL and capitalism is GOOD.

      Sure, under capitalism, you get Bill Gates while there are bums on the street. But you know what? The bums on the street are their out of their own free will, and even though they contribute nothing to our society, they still have free medical care and free food and shelter. They could, if they chose to, get jobs, rent an apartment, buy a car, get a nice education, get a better job, buy a house, raise a family, retire with $50k a year in pensions if they desired as well. And if they really, really wanted to, they could start a business and become billionaires.

      Capitalism feeds the poor, while communism starves everyone equally. Capitalism is liberty, while communism is death.

  15. Federal Way Conservative Says:

    [...] Jonathan Gardner A long time ago, someone wrote: Explain to me how talking about providing healthcare leads to concentration [...]

  16. Tranque Says:

    Here’s a quick comment, as I do not have time to stab at anything else at the moment:
    Asserting that the philosophy of communism is evil because of the evil people that acted in its name or under its guidance is the same as saying Christianity is evil because of the genocide, violence, oppression, and hatred committed under it.
    Not that I would entirely disagree with such a statement.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I can’t disagree. Those who do evil under the name of anything tarnish the name of the thing they do it under. Of course, it’s hard to say that those who were committing gross acts of evil were truly Christian, since Christ did no such thing himself, neither did he advocate any such thing.

      However, I have to ask: Has there ever been a “good” communist leader, one who cherished individual liberties and tolerated differing opinions? If there was, I’d like you to point him out to me. I suppose that any country that has fallen under the spell of communism and thus unleashed the unlimited power of government would universally find the evil consequences thereof.

      Regardless, I’d ask you to take some time to read my thoughts above and address them.

    • terminator3 Says:

      Hey, capitalist nations invade other countries too. Vietnam and Korea are two of the most common example (one ended in a humiliating defeat and another in a stalemate). Hell, some americans still consider Latin America as it’s “backyard”.

      I’m not a proponent of communism. I believe in limited government intervention and I am a strong supporter of the Republican party. But saying that we’re the saviors of the world is just preposterous.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Wait, do you believe South Korea invaded North Korea? And do you believe that the Vietnamese government invaded the territory that the communists overran?

        Wow! Where do you get your information from anyway?

  17. N Says:

    “In fact, I’d be interested to see how the U.S. political situation would be different if the New Deal wasn’t passed. I’d make the argument that we would probably not have been in very good shape politically, and would have been vulnerable to a coup similar to that uncovered by the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in the 1930s.”

    @Bma:

    I’m an eighth grade student.

    I find it interesting that you seem to think the New Deal ended the Depression– the New Deal was a /band-aid/. Unemployment fell after it was passed, and then began climbing again a few years later.

    Mobilization for World War II is what truly ended the depression.

    And who knows? Maybe that coup of yours would have been Communist, and you could have your amazing Communist health care RIGHT NOW. 8D

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Hi Eighth Grade Student,

      Contrary to what you are taught, the New Deal put a lot of people out of work. Economists are now saying that it probably prolonged the recession and turned it into a depression. What pulled us out of the depression wasn’t the New Deal, but the massive industrialization resulting from our entry into World War II.

      I know it’s hard to question what your teacher is spoon-feeding you, but when you realize that they work for the government, not you, and they get pay raises when more people come to believe that the road to education lies through socialization, you’ll see quite clearly why your teacher teaches you up is down and down is up.

      And if you would like to experience, first-hand, what communism would feel like, you can grab a boat to Cuba or walk across the border between China and North Korea. The communist leaders there will give you first-class communist treatment, if you can take it. If not, you’ll probably die like the millions and millions and millions and millions that have died under communism have.

  18. Matt Says:

    I’m sensing a lot of stupidity and propaganda here, clear evidence of America’s failing education system. Why spend money of basic education when it could instead be “invested” into warfare on other peoples land, this warfare of course benefiting the US directly by making the country’s government unstable and corruptible, thus meaning US industry and business can dominate it’s resources.

    The evidence is poor countries today, and the lacking education system – especially in the rural south (I do not refer to higher education as the US boasts some of the best Universities in the world).

  19. CaptDan Says:

    Communism is evil. Here are two fables that illustrate why. Both should be taught to school children with reading, writing and arithmetics, in place of the multicultural nonsense that is the case under the federally controlled, union-teacher infested system extant now in the U.S.
    The Ant and Grasshopper

    THE CLASSIC VERSION:

    The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his House and laying up supplies for the winter.

    The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

    MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

    DEMOCRAT VERSION:

    The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his House and laying up supplies for the winter.

    The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

    CBS, CNN, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

    America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

    Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper,and everybody cries when they sing “It’s Not Easy Being Green.”

    Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing “We shall overcome.” Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

    John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephart,Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean stage an interview with Peter Jennings claiming that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his “fair share.”

    Finally, the EEOC drafts the “Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act,” retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

    Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of Federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

    The ant loses the case.

    As the story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.

    The ant has disappeared in the snow.

    Later, the grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

    MORAL OF THE STORY:

    Vote Republican.

  20. He who does not care. Says:

    When you look at the issues without the bias that has likely been instilled in you since birth, you realise that there are only two political ideologies. Socialism and liberalism are two ends of a political spectrum, each govornment out there fits somewhere between them, I personally dont think that its possible to belong 100% to either side. Canada sits close to the middle, while still sitting on the liberal side, we have socialised heath care (thank god, otherwise my mother would not have had the lung cancer taken out within a month of it being found) while still allowing efficient free-market business practices, look at Alberta’s oil industry if you dont believe me. While the U.S. sits closer to the liberal end of the political spectrum, it does have socialist aspects to its govornment, as the classical liberal idea of 100% freedom and 100% responsibility is near impossible to maintain.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You are mistaken to believe that the Canadian health system cured your mother of lung cancer.

      Who researched and developed the technologies necessary to actually provide the treatment? Or did the state-run Canadian health care system build that all on its own?

  21. SPURWING PLOVER Says:

    Hanoi Jane once told a group of collage students that if they realy understood communism you would hope you would PRAY ON YOUR KNEES we,ll someday become communists And thats why i,ll never watch any of her morthess movies ever again

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      If you truly understand communism, you will arm yourself and maintain a watch over your neighborhood that that mental disease does not enter into your community. You will prepare yourself so that you can successfully argue against any communist idea using the same value system communists claim to follow.

  22. Clark Says:

    I agree with the point made by CaptDan, but he didn’t really get the whole point. True Capitalism has never occurred in the U.S. We have not seen a perfect Capitalistic economy in the History of the U.S. But given the chance to, it can surprise people. True Communism has occurred in the world (Ex. USSR, N. Korea), and we have seen it’s effects. I’m not going to argue what they have done.
    Now to my point.
    Communism makes everyone equal (no arguing that). And the story by CaptDan illustrates that. There is no motivation for improvement. The grasshopper could have gotten an education and bought/built his own house and learned to forage/grow his own food, but under Communism, there is no need to improve yourself because the government provides it for you. If you drive down to you local government housing development, you can see that they aren’t exactly mansions. They’re small 2 bedroom houses with a kitchenet and small living room space.
    Under a capitalistic economy, there is always a drive to improve and excell. It follows a simple formula: (x)work (y)education = (z)money
    The variables change depending how you live your life. The amount of work you put into your life plus the amount of education you get can drastically change how much money you can get, which in turn can change your life.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I don’t know what your definition of “true capitalism” is, but it sounds different than mine.

      Regardless, one nitpick: Communism doesn’t make everyone equal. There are two classes in communist societies: the rulers and the ruled. Communism is simply slavery on a national scale, where the people are the slaves and the government the slavemasters.

      You’re right to point out that communism deprives anyone of any reason to work hard and be successful. But it’s actually worse than that. Communism turns the people into sub-humans. That is, they no longer can be classified as humans, with unalienable, God-given rights, but worse than slaves. (At least in some cases, slaves are considered part of the family.) Animals are treated better by farmers than the people are by their communist overlords. Communism is the ultimate misanthropic idea, the idea that people are powerless and have no attributes or traits worthy of being considered human.

  23. Revolutionary Says:

    Communism is idealistic and for that reason it will never work. It relies on everyone being of the same mind and ethic, it could work if everyone was hard working like me, but unfortunately there are many people who would exploit a stateless society for their own benefit. For that reason it would never work, many actual communists I’ve debated with have stated that it could work without them, but I have to ask; how would that happen? Perhaps they would kill off anyone who doesn’t follow their ideology. Also, since communism is a stateless concept there have never been any communist states in existence ever as of now. They were all state capitalist. I detest many so called communists like Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu as much as I dislike the fascists of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Suharto et al. I appreciate that this paragrpah may give you the impression that I am a “darn commie;” I assure you that I am not.

    Capitlists often spout on about freedom, despite the fact that there are many instances within the political ideology that suggests that it opposes it. Take the exploitation of others for example. Big name businesses exploit lesser developed nations for their own greed. Coca Cola use water from India to use in their own drinks in the west, this takes water out of India leading to water shortages there, also companies like Primark and Umbro use sweatshops in the India region too. McDonalds are found worldwide, Tesco (Britain’s biggest supermarket chain) have stores opening at a rapid rate across the globe. This corrupts the culture in other countries. Many seasoned travellers hate the sight of any big name brands abroad as it lessens the experience of another country. After the recent Japanese earthquake their stock market collapsed, this is due to the capitalists realising that there is no money to be made from exploitation of the locals, so they stop and head elsewhere.

    If capitalism truly stood for freedom America and the west wouldn’t have supported the corrupt, totalitarian regimes in the Islamic world, we would have opposed them. However America and the west supported Mubarak, Ben-Ali and the others because it suited their agenda (they were anti-Al Qaeda). This worked in the short term, America gained allies in the Islamic world, but it risked upsetting the local population which it indeed has done. The revolutionaries across the Islamic world have a dislike for the west, not because they are radical Islamic terrorists, but because we aided regimes they despised, regimes reponsible for the suffering of the people, yet we freedom loving westernised nations couldn’t give a damn about that.

    Right wingers often whinge when they have to supposedly give up their rights when people are pushing for equality for the poor, women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals etc. I find it funny really as that’s not really what happens. The only rights that are being eroded are the perceived rights of bigots which can only be a good thing. Everyone is equal in this world no matter their gender, sexualtiy, skin colour, nationality, class, religion etc is. I will continue to fight for equality for all until that day happens or until the day I die. Everyone deserves the right to equal opportunity.

    Your comment about state led healthcare leading to concentration camps made me laugh. I haven’t heard such a ridiculous statement all year. I’m British and I have never noticed Gulags in this country despite our NHS. Like most Brits I am proud of our health service, it may have its faults like the expense, but I don’t care. Anyone, no matter what their social background is has access to vital healthcare. People’s lives and health are far more important than personal profit. It’s a shame that the heavily capitalist Tories are thinking of cutting back on the NHS which brings me to my next point.

    The UK is facing major cuts to very important services this year. I am aware of Labour’s mishandling of the economy, but that is no excuse to hinder the emergency services, care, education and other such necessities, especially when the fat cats are facing no cuts. Bankers, politicians and councillors all have massive expenses that they are not willing to part while making thousands of others redundant and claim that they have no choice. A local college of mine has a principal who earns more than David Cameron on top of barmy expenses, yet 60 workers at the college face redundancy as the principal says that he has no choice. He is not willing to take a wage cut or remove his expenses. I’m sorry, but the rich have to take the brunt of economic downturns as they can afford it, since the poor can’t. It’s not fair that poorer areas of the UK like Merseyside, East London, Humberside, Lancashire etc have to face cuts worth £250 per familt per month while richer areas like Buckinghamshire, East Dorset, Gloucestershire, Devon etc only have cuts worth £2.50 per family per month. To dismiss the poor as lazy like many have done is completely ignorant, there are some who do sponge off the state, but they are only a minority. Most are hard working, decent individuals who should be entitled to help.

    This is ignoring the fact that the ConDems have condemned a whole generation youngsters to financial oblivion if they go to university with the tuition fee increase. No student from a poorer background will think of going now that they will end up in debt worth £40,000 which is grossly unfair. Universities should be for those capable of going there, not those who are privileged enough to afford it. Even today a disproportionately large number of university students are from private schools (tear them down I say); imagine what it will be like in the near future. It will be like the 1950s when further education was almost reserved for the upper classes.

    I hope you respect my views, because despite what I’ve said I respect yours.

  24. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    I hope you respect my views, because despite what I’ve said I respect yours.

    I will respect your views by reading and explaining why I disagree with you.

    You’re confused about many things. One, “pure” communism is an imaginary concept, because it involves redefining human nature, something we are wholly incapable of doing. Yes, it has been tried, and has always ended in disaster. The only system that resembles communism is the Kibbutz system in Israel, and even there, it is only a shared property agreement that ended up looking like any other corporation in the world.

    Communism doesn’t work even if everyone worked hard for the greater good. Why? Because the direction you apply your efforts is vastly more important than your efforts. That’s why you have rich people who play golf all day and yet make millions, while poor people toil away endlessly in dead-end jobs. If the poor did what the rich did, and applied their efforts towards profitable endeavors, they would find wealth is not as elusive as they were told by their parents and environments. Hence, many people have risen from poverty to the top stratosphere of wealth, all because they did something different than the people around them who never budged an inch.

    I think you have a difficult time understanding capitalism and what it’s all about. First, we accept human nature for what it is. Second, we exploit its weaknesses for our own benefit. Men are selfish? Then let them “selfishly” use their own wealth, invest it in other people, and turn a profit. Men are lazy? Then let us incentivize labor. Men do not like being governed by natural law, but try to shelter themselves from the natural consequences of their actions? Then let us allow them to suffer for their own bad decisions.

    Many capitalists, you are correct, do not stand for freedom. However, your definition of freedom is different than mine. Your definition seems to depend on people “having” things, rather than being tied to their inherit natures. My definition depends on people being alive and conscious and allows them to “do” certain things.

    When Britain’s socialist health care system fails, and it is already failing but you are too narrow-minded to see it, but when you wake up one morning and wonder why “rich” Americans get heart transplants and cancer treatment, while you are shoveled off into some dismal home for the soon-to-be-deceased, you will wonder if what the concentration camp I spoke about didn’t encircle the entire British Isles, and that the entire citizenry of that nation were its prisoners. Just like the Jews at Auschwitz, you will find certain freedoms lost and irrecoverable. The difference will not be of type, but of magnitude. The healthy and young will still find the freedom to work and live, to some degree, with only a small portion of their real wages ending up in their pockets. The rest of society, however, will be left to die, unable to do anything to save themselves, for there are no doctors, no nurses, no treatments or medicines, at any price.

    In America, we adapt, we move on. We cut off the fat (public sector unions), and we question whether it makes sense to invest $60k in education, or whether we’d be better off doing something else. We are not stuck in our ways, and we are not shielded from the natural consequences of life. We will, hopefully, wake up and realize that we cannot expect someone else to pay for our retirement or health care, and that if we want anything in life, we either have to create it ourselves or barter for it in free, open exchange. And that will drive us to invent, invest, and profit.

  25. discussionswithdennis Says:

    Just for the message above to sink in, I will repeat it.

    Not to be rude, but you have not idea what you are talking about. Communism is NOT evil. To say that communism is evil is like saying capitalism is evil and that democracy is evil, which is simply not true. Communism like any other type of government cann’t be evil. In fact communism is considered the PERFECT type of govevernment. What makes communism seem evil are the political parties that control it. Communism has never nor will ever kill anyone.

    You are just another American stuck up with the Korean and Veitnam War or as some people say the “Police Action”. I am an American born and raised, and as soon as I receive my commission I am serving in the military.

    Also, I used factual citations (which aparently you have no idea what they are) and you used…your opinions which are opposite of what the facts show. Yes you can blog your opinions, but not when they go against FACTS.

    A blog is about things like who to elect to office or if you like vegetables or what ever else your opinions are, however a in a blog you should NOT say that WW2 ended in 1944 and give your reasons why, because people like myself will be there to tell you it ended in 1945.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      OK, how is a philosophy based on the ideals of murdering and robbing people not evil?

      Capitalism is based on the idea that everyone is equal, and the only acceptable interaction is based on mutual consent.

      Communism requires government to confiscate and redistribute the wealth. If the owners of the wealth are not willing to part with their property, then violence is used to convince them otherwise.

      How is that not evil? How is that a perfect form of government?

      If you are a communist, I pray, DO NOT SERVE IN MY MILITARY. You stand AGAINST every ideal of our country. In fact, just get out, get far, far away from my country and my homeland.

  26. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    I do not stand shaker the ideals of the united states of America. If you were listening is said te POLITICAL PARTIES killed people under communism. If democracts or republicans killed millions of people in ou country I wouldn’t say that capitalism is evil because it can’t be. You are too thick headed to see the facts Communism can’t be evil. Capitalism cannot be evil. Political parties can be good or evil. Again communism is not evil and is the perfect form of government unfortunately it doesn’t work.

  27. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    Communism is not based on murdering and killing people. Communism is based on distributing everything equaly. If the democrats of republicans all of the sudden killed tousands of people I would still say that capitalism is not evil, however based on what you have said you would say that it is evil. Communism like democray and capitalism are just systems that POLITICAL PARTIES use. These political parties do the GOOD or EVIL not the ideas. Communism parties often become greedy, and initally communism works. However soon greed takes over and the people in power kill to get rich. Among many Political Scientist Communism is the Perfect government. And that is a FACT.

    As for “your military” I am just guessing so correct me if I am wrong that you are not the current or former commander-in-chief. You are a civilian that I will still protect. Face the facts you are wrong and you are trying to twist my words. I suggest you try reading my comments all the way though and take there meaning instead of typing a half fast response.

    Communism is not evil. Democracy is not evil. Command economies are not evil. Capitalism is not evil. Political parties can be good or evil. You are wrong, and finally World War 2 ended in 1945 not 1944. So go blog about an OPINION like why you shouldn’t blog about facts(I personally recomend that one, although you probably still aren’t reading)

    If you do chose to respond please don’t say communism is philosophy based on the ideals of murdering and robbing people because I have already proven it isn’t, so please bring up a different reason (which there arn’t many left) or suck up your own pride and agree with me.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Re communism and murder: Let’s say I don’t want to share my winter food supply with the state. What does a communist regime do to me and my family? Look up Holodomor if you’re having a hard time understanding that.

      It is my military because I am a co-owner of this country. We are a sovereign nation of individuals who voluntarily come together in the interests of our rights. Your views, that the government is somehow superior to the people, is a fraud and a lie, and anyone thinking such is anti-American, because they stand against the American ideals that rights, God-given and ever-secure, trump all, even kings and emperors. As I review the history of the British Isles, I am impressed with my political and blood ancestors in establishing the Anglo-Saxon tradition of right to rule by consent of the governed. Did you know the first king in England to ever get an oath of fealty was William the Conqueror? Before then, kings rose to power by consent and agreement, and the people were free to overthrow a king and his government at any time they felt it no longer in their interests to support it.

      Is this a foreign concept to you? Then you are not an American.

      Is the idea that the military exists to protect my rights, and the rights of all the people around me an odd concept? In that sense, it is my military, it being subservient to MY will and MY rights, its purpose being to further MY ends. Ask anyone in the military how they feel about civilian rule, and being ordered around by suits who know nothing but have the consent of the people to rule, and they will explain how much it sucks but how necessary it is to keep their own power in check.

      If communism isn’t a philosophy based on murder and theft, then what is it? How do you plan on redistributing wealth if people are not willing to give it up?

      I would enlighten you with another philosophy you’ve never heard of, called the United Order as established by Joseph Smith in the middle 1800’s. It is based on people voluntarily surrendering their surplus property, which is given to the bishop, who distributes it to the poor not according to want but need. The property so given is only given to those who will work for their food, not those who sit around expecting food to fall in their mouths. Such a system is wholly voluntary. Should those with surplus property decide to keep it, the United Order falls apart. This is a philosophy where there is no theft or murder or violation of anyone’s sovereign rights as given by the Creator himself.

      If you can identify the one or two ways that the United Order is different from Communism, then you can earn a gold star and the right to continue to call yourself an American for another few days.

      If you can’t see the difference, then I encourage you to move to North Korea, and ask Kim Jong Il what he sees the difference is. I can guarantee by the third week in their labor camps, you will finally understand the difference between communism, capitalism, and the United Order, provided you survive that long.

  28. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    All how do you plan on running a government is no one votes of anyone?? Answer you don’t. People vote just like people give up there food. Next time please use a research model and not you opinions.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Dennis,

      I am left to conclude from the above remarks that either you are on drugs or mentally unstable. You have difficulty distinguishing between capitalism and democracy. You are unfamiliar with the fact that capitalism has been practiced in all times in history, even when people had no right to vote.

      I hope that life is treating you well, and you have loved ones who can watch over your mental state.

  29. Lev Says:

    I thought Karl Marx argued that communism is an inevitable evolution of capitalism, and was not the one advocating violent revolution to quickly achieve it?

    Also you seem to have no idea what communism actually is. Perhaps you should get your head out of your ass and read some literature on it that doesn’t use a lot of negative but meaningless adjectives and comparisons?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Yes, Karl Marx thought that the masses would, of their own accord, arrive at communism. When it became apparent that not only did the poor not do this, but instead embraced capitalism, then it became apparent that the poor were too stupid to violently overthrow the bourgeois and had to be manipulated into doing so with external factors.

      I would like to know how I am wrong about capitalism, but since you have done exactly what you have claimed I have done, I remain unenlightened. Please, try to tell me what communism is without negative and meaningless adjectives.

  30. Srinivas Kari Says:

    spot on, amazing article. The best part was where he said that in Russia, the actual communism practiced is not very severe. On the other hand, it exists in all its glory in America.

  31. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    Communism is a form of government therefore it cannot be evil. Saying communism is evil is like saying vanilla ice-cream is evil. Vanilla ice-cream is a form of ice-cream much like communism is a form of government, but they both are not evil. The reason communism appears evil is because of the EVIL polictical parties that have supported communism. China is communist and they are not evil.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      If vanilla ice cream were responsible for killing millions upon millions of people through starvation, warfare, and political persecution, then I would call it evil. If vanilla ice cream threw billions of people into unnecessary poverty, effectively making them slaves to a few in the government, then I would call it evil.

      China is evil, because they suppress the rights of their people, the God-given natural rights that every human being is born with. I can no more lock you in a cell when you are innocent and call myself not evil than you can call China not evil.

      • Frequent Flyer Says:

        This is where you’re wrong, Jonathan. Communism is not the sole suppressor of rights. A corrupt democracy is just as bad as corrupt communism (by the way, there is nothing evil about pure communism, but rather the way in which communism is enforced by a political party). Take Sri Lanka for instance, human rights lawyers have been slaughtered, women and children massacred, people starved to death, hideous atrocities and war crimes of all sort were committed by the belligerents. The contrasts between communism and capitalism is not entirely black and white. Yes, communism has resulted in the death of millions of people, but the exploitation of labor in capitalist states have also taken its toll. A seemingly simple mistake of inability to control profit growth and commodities have resulted in a period of economic depression in the 1920’s (and you only got out of it because of WWII) In terms of workers’ rights, communism is the most preferred model, which is why many worker’s unions share a strong connection with left-wing parties. Things aren’t always in black and white and countries do indeed lie somewhere between communism and capitalism on a SIMPLIFIED economical/political spectrum. China, contrary to what you believe, is not a pure communism state, but enforces a complex combination of socialist characteristics and capitalist economic model. From a country of extreme poverty (just picture what North Korea is like today) prior to its economic reform in the late 80’s, to becoming the second largest economy in the world, China has gone through many changes in the last 30 years. The keyboard you’re currently using is probably made in China, just like your iPhone and other electronic gadgets; it is a proof of China’s capitalistic development. See for yourself, go visit China, rather than arguing your points based on facts from cold-war/Stalin period. Pure communism (not real-life communism. Yes, there is a major difference) is a system that enforces equality of rights; which is why civil rights activists were viewed as communists by numerous political organizations in the 1950’s and 60’s. Capitalism, on the other hand, besides the positive points you have stated beforehand, also has an inherent flaw. A system that thrives on consumerism is one that wastes resources. If the supply does not meet the required demand, the price of commodities such as oil and other non-renewable resources will doubtlessly go up; eventually bringing consumerism to a halt, until supply replenishes. Capitalism may seem to be working for now; but what about in 20 years, 50 years or 100 years time? Pure communism fears anti-revolutionists, Pure capitalism fears stock market crashes and unemployment.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Your thoughts are muddled. You aren’t keeping separate things separate.

        The form of government is irrelevant. You could have an absolute monarch who, nevertheless, respects people’s individual liberties, fights to protect them, and creates the condition wherein capitalism can flourish.

        Your thoughts on what capitalism could become are clearly a corrupted form of capitalism. I say again, capitalism is the system whereby people keep what they create and earn. When you deviate from this, then you get the economic collapses and such.

        The USA hasn’t done capitalism, except in pockets, for a very long time. The periods where we had it, we boomed. See, for instance, the 1920s. The periods where we didn’t, we crashed. The recent collapses of our stock market is directly attributable to our violation of our own property rights. On the one hand, banks were forced to issue loans that did not have merit, other banks were allowed to cheat and steal value by lying about their assets, and at the same time, government used its power to suppress anyone who pointed out what was really going on.

        The future of incorruption is always corruption in this world we live in. People will always find a way to deviate from the simple principle of liberty, individual rights, and capitalism, and create a system of corruption and injustice in its stead. That does not mean incorruption is not a noble pursuit, or that we should not attempt to maintain or create it, of course.

        Communism, socialism, crony capitalism, all of these philosophies have at their heart the idea that people are not free or should not be free, and they should not own the products of their own efforts. This is their defining attribute and the key to their demise. Good intentions do not make theft a virtue. The thief who gives money to the poor is still a thief.

  32. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    You are narrow minded, and I never said communism killed millions because it can’t. THE POLITICAL PARTIES did that. In a reply to this post please say something dealing with POLITICAL PARTIES because communism can NOT pull a trigger PEOPLE do certain PEOPLE are EVIL!!!!! Now I have swallowed my pride enough in the past for knowledge. You have not, you will not, PLEASE READ my WORDS! I have answered your debate too many times and have gotten the repost Communism is evil! I WILL tell you that Communism is Evil if you can prove that Communism DIRECTLY ALONE did all the things you said it did, because if not COMMUNISM is not evil, the people in charge are.

    I challege you to STAY on topic.

    I am sorry for you narrow mind,
    you are smart, I know because of other posts. This article tells me you are narrow minded.

    If only we could talk in person, maybe the you will see the world as a whole and not be USA/democracy centralized.

    Regards,
    Dennis

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      OK, let’s pull threads here. Communism, the idea, didn’t kill millions, you are right. In fact, the idea of supporting communism as an ideal form of government didn’t kill millions either. Instead, it was the people who made a conscious decision to follow the ideals of communism that killed millions.

      Does this change anything?

      Communism, the idea, is evil, because if you subscribe to the idea, you do evil things in its name.

      By comparison, if you support the idea of free-market capitalism (not the crony capitalism we suffer under today, but small-government free-market capitalism), then you are contributing to the vast wealth that is now pulling BILLIONS of people out of poverty, and so you are good. So, the idea of free-market capitalism is good.

      Is this that hard to understand?

      I’m afraid that if I met you in person, you’d commit acts of violence against me, the same way communists have done throughout history. I’m also afraid that no promise you make with me not to commit violence would be binding.

  33. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    Communism “the idea” ??? Jonathan communism is only an idea, and nothing more.

    No Communism is not evil. People interpret it differently, much like Cristian Denominations. Communism is a perfect government, because every is the same in theory.

    Nice try on the violence crap never fooled me. As it might have fooled readers. Keep trying to degrade me, but I am not going to go off topic.

    Seriously I think I have more experience on this topic. Exspecially since I have written many papers on it. Communism was missreported back then, and it is misremembered now.

    No government type can be evil, they can be a bad form of government, but not evil.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Your true colors are showing. The perfect government, you say, is communism. Putting a few people in control of every aspect of everyone’s lives doesn’t work, and cannot work. Only allowing people to be what they are, which is sentient and sovereign, can you have a just and equal government. That form of government is representative democracy, the same type that Moses gave the people of Israel and the Saxons practiced long ago.

  34. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    No, communism itself gives every one equality, political parties take over and get greedy not communism

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You can’t name a single instance where communism has done that. All communist systems, you will doubtless say, have failed to reach “true” communism. You do not realize that the failure isn’t the implementation, it’s the idea itself! Human nature is not what you wish it would be, and cannot be changed. You can never have a communist state, and any attempt only murders innocent people by the millions.

  35. LouieLouie Says:

    Hey! To all the people who support communism here.

    How many countries have become communist and failed?

    How many communist countries today are thriving and successful? (China is not considered successful. I’m sure you’re smart enough to know WHY)

    Why love communism so much if it fails so much? The only major communist countries left to this world are North Korea, China, and Cuba….the rest of the communist countries have died off. (Boohoo, how sad…)

    • Neuromancer Says:

      First of all, you’re an idiot. Secondly, neither North Korea or China are communist – both are authoritarian, single-party capitalist states. Yes, capitalist – they are the efficient, totalitarian version of the repression you are currently living in.

      The ‘countries that have become communist and failed’ have all been subject to capitalist intervention or, in the case of nations like Soviet Russia, Stalinism, a take on communism that was criticised and rebuked by communists as early as 1956.

      The ground principle, in an inversion of your own bigoted, stupid, and mass-redelivered bullshit phraseology, is that capitalism doesn’t work. When the revolution occurs, it’s people like you without the slightest morality, let alone the inclination to educate yourselves, who will be first against the wall.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        My idiocy has nothing to do with the facts. I’m letting that stay because I want people to see the enemy for what it is.

        “[N]either North Korea or China are communist – both are authoritarian, single-party capitalist states.”

        And I think we’re done here. There’s no point in continuing.

        I don’t know what definition of capitalism you are using, but I doubt you’d consider an economic system based on private ownership of capital as capitalist under the definition you’re using.

        China has recently been making a transition to a capitalist economic system. What little they have done has already solved their food shortage and made the people quite wealthy.

        North Korea does not allow the people to own or control the resources of the state.

        When the revolution occurs

        When the revolution occurs, it will be me and people like me standing up for individual liberty and rights, and using the barrels of our guns that we produced through our system of private ownership to kill people like you who do not respect the natural rights of man.

        I do not know how you intend to obtain arms and motivate your people to fight against such an army as the one I belong to. I truly doubt that anyone would be stupid enough to start a revolution in our country, with some of the highest private gun ownership rates in the world. I pity the fool that would do so.

        Bottom line: Systems of government that do not respect the rights of man are corrupt and bad. You’re an advocate for such a system. You do the math.

        Now grow up and realize what rights really are and how foolish the entire concept of communism is, and why it will never, ever succeed even if it is given a million years, a million guns, a billion dollars, and all the compassion in the world.

  36. Phil Says:

    I am very thankful I have lived in a country where I exercise my religion. Unlike in communism, you simply can’t. Even the concept of God is controlled. You cannot build your church. I wonder how communist will coexist with Muslims, Catholics and Protestants and a host of other religions.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      It’s important to note that once government gets it in its head that it can control thought, then it will never end where you wish it would end. The Founding Fathers drew the line at our natural rights for a reason. If it’s ok to trample on a few, then it’s ok to trample on all of them.

    • Chris Says:

      That is actually not true.
      As far as i know, China is a communist country, and the goverment allows people to believe in different religions, its not surprising to see a mosque, a buddhist temple and a christian church in one same city, though the religions are kinda been controlled by the goverment because you know, China is overpopulated and the goverment dont want people to use religions as an anti-goverment tool.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        So, you can believe whatever you want as long as the government says it’s ok, and you’re fine with that? What should the government of China do with people who don’t believe pre-approved thoughts: fines, imprisonment, torture, dismemberment, or execution?

        Or can you just admit that no one has the right to control the thoughts of anyone else, not even the government of “over-populated” countries like China?

        China is gradually shifting towards freedom, not because the government doesn’t want to control the people, but because people cannot be controlled.

  37. DiscussionsWithDennis Says:

    Communism is an economic philosophy not a political philosophy that would be socialism. Communism is purely a economic idea that is perfect in theory but just doesn’t seem to work in the world.

  38. SaintCaptainFreakOut Says:

    The problem with communists is simple, they think the government can magically solve the problems that privately owned businesses have not yet solved. Get it straight already. Grow up. Probems simply exist. Problems in life dont exist because of capitalism. The problems simply exist. Monopoly in any industry is and has been a problem. So communism is simply on giant monopoly, and a monopoly on all property and decisions with that property. Giving mortal men the largest monopoly of all times, that being communism, will not automatically solve problems. In fact because people are mortal, it will create problems and those problems will be vast in scale because of the sheer power of people in control in a communist country. And because the are mortal, and not all wise and all knowing, the communist dictators, in charge of property decisions, (like what will be produced, how much and by whom, as well as who gets to run for office) can not possibly know how to build everything as cheaply and efficiently as possible. It takes and entire country’s population, to make efficient decisions with their own private property. Because it is the entire population that are the experts at their business of choice and their local community, economic pricing and supply issues etc. So even if communist had good intentions. They are simply not going to be able to keep up with capitalists, because there are too few people in control of all economic decisions in communist countries. On top of this is the added problems that communist are liars and have no intention of giving power to the masses. Communist know that the way to take away all power from the people, is to take the right to private property away from the people. Then the communist government will be in control of everything and will control the evolution of all of humanity. This is why communism is evil. It begins with a lie. It is alie which says that somehow, magically, the government is smarter than everyone else in existence, and can solve all of the problems that other people have not yet solved. Then they go further with more lies and say that it is capitalist greed with creates the problems. This is simply not true. The problems exist because there are problems in life. Private business, and charities can try to solve the problems, but their are no gaurantees. This is because there are no gaurantees in life. No one can gaurantee that someone can be taken care of for the rest of their lives. With all of the factors involved in life and economics, there will be things that the government cannot provide for. Just like private businesses, the government is subject to all of the factors of nature that private businesses are. The only difference is that the government can force someone to give them money illegally (taxes) and can print money whenever they like (federal reserve bank). The government, even under these circumstances can not gaurantee jobs or income. Even if the government prints money and hands it to people, they cannot gaurantee real income, which is products and services at a reasonable price, because products and services are scarce, unlike a money printing machine. The problem of healthcare simply exist, believing that the government and communism can solve this problem, when no one else has solved it, is to believe something that only a child would believe: That the government can just print money or tax and all healthcare problems will go away. Not so. The government would have to do it cheaply and efficiently because of nature, and scarcity in economics. Private business dont have the advantage of pointing a gun to someones head to make them pay taxes, or to print money. So businesses have to live by all the rules present in nature, which means they have to be able to provide healthcare and stay in business, or they will fail to provide healthcare at all. Governments are also subject to balanced budgets as well, if the print too much then there will be inflation, and consumers wont get their fair share of healthcare, or anything else for that matter. You cant just print money and expect the problem of healthcare to go away. Economics and life doesnt work like that. Untill you can make , extremely good and exceptional healthcare, at a surplus in government budget, then the government will fail at providing healthcare as well. And because we all know that government healthcare has not been nearly as good private healthcare, if you dont think so just look at the examples in real life. Any person, at first has to have good intentions when providing healthcare, meaining that is their real aim and not to till people with toxic chemicals, any person needs to have the knowledge of how to privide healthcare well, any person also has to be able to do it with in the physical budget of nature, not a money printing press. The printing press gives communists the illusion that there are no budgetary restraints on government, when in fact there are. The government must still act withing the time, resource, knowledge, and labor scaricity that exist in the word as well as unpredictability in economics and nature. Because of these facts of life, there is not a single person anywhere who can “gaurantee” anything. The governmet cannot gaurantee jobs that are productive, or income that is valuable, because in order to do that you would need to be a GOD, who knows all things and can do all things. Not only do governments have a horrible track record or warfare, oppression and slavery. But governments and comunism is simply not all wise and all knowing, and this is why they cant gaurantee anything. It is not the fault of capitatlism that there are no gaurantees in life. Nature provides all the obstacles, and neither private businesses or governments can possibly gaurantee that all of the obstacles to progress will be overcome, instantaneously and magically. This is the evil lie of communism. That somehow the government is better than everyone else, and so we should sacrifice our right to private property to the all knowing all wise government. So please, stop living in a pretend world, you will only do yourself harm. The government cannot solve all of your problems, because no one can. And stop blaming capitalism, the most productive framework of economics and freedom yet devised. Communist seem like children who still believe in Santa Clause, and they believe that its the capilatist fault that Santa Clause cant give us all his gifts. This is simply the communist lie. The problems of life exist. And it will take private decsion making with private property, not waiting for goverment “permission” to solve the problems. And yet there will still be problems. so untill we make it to paradise. Please stop believing that communism, with all of its monopolistic beaurocrats standing in the way of progress will solve the problems. All you have to do is stop, take a look at real life communist countries to give you a clue that something is seriously wrong with communist and communism.
    The problem with communist, is that they dont realize that america is already more communist than it should be. At first we had no taxation or central banks, now we pay ridiculous taxes and we have the Federal reserve printing cash to fund the government and they still get it wrong. And the communist want you to believe that if you give them all of your private property, and therefore all of your power, that they will be able to gaurantee all things in life. This is simply the evil lie that communism has always spread. It is a lie devised to fool you, so they can take everything from you, and therefore your future, and the future of humanity.

  39. SaintCaptainFreakOut Says:

    Evil People simply exist. They dont exist because of “capitalism” or “communism”. But the problem of evil, and evil people, is made much worse in communism by the fact that those who control the communist country have control over all property, assets, and resources. After over 5000 years of warfare, slavery, and oppresion caused by evil people, it is simply childish to believe that if you give people a complete monopoly over all property, then there will automatically be hapiness and plenty for all. This is the lie. And is the case with communism. In capitalism you have evil people, in communism you have evil people. One of the major differences, just one, is that in communism the evil people have a complete monopoly on all property, assets, and resources. So this is what gives the government absolute power and allows them to trample human rights.
    So we need to begin with capitalism, where the government, nor anyone else is allowed to have a complete monopoly, because everyone has a right to his own private property. This private property is the only barrier that needs to be knocked down to steal all of your rights. This is why the communist dont want you to have your property. The communist know that if you have your own property, then you can build whatever you want and determine your own evolution, and your family’s evolution. Private property also means you can build your own weapons to defend yourself against a hostile government. This is why communism is evil. Because anyone who gives up his private property rights can no longer defend himself against evil, evil people, and evil governments. Life simply presents problems. The problems dont exist because of capitalism. The problems simply exist. Just because a communist says he is a nice guy, does not mean that he will stay that way, he can change his mind and become evil. This is simply a problem of life. Anyone can change their mind and become evil. So this is why, freedom loving individuals, cling to their private property and weapons. It is simply because one of the problems in life is that people change and life changes, and human behavior changes. A politician can say he is “for the people” and communist. But what if he is lying, and he is really trying to steal your rights? You dont know for certain either way? This is a problem of life, not capitalism. This is one of the main problems, just one of the problems, that private property solves.

  40. Matt Says:

    Communism is evil. Thank you for your article. Take the Chinese Communist Party. They are currently arresting innocent Falun Gong practitioners, fattening them up, murdering them, harvesting their organs, selling them on the black market, and making millions. That’s the CCP today. The CCP will soon collapse and Jiang Zemin & his cohorts will be held accountable. The CCP & its doctrine of lies, hate & struggle thought they would destroy Falun Gong and its teachings of Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance, but instead they are destroying themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117 other followers

%d bloggers like this: