That's another reason some "communism regimes" existed were rightfully hated at some point, yes - but only after they were much corrupted and rotten. It's not communism itself that makes people get aggressive.
"The
cleansing of the Russian land of any harmful insects, swindler-fleas, wealthy bugs and so on and so on. In one place, they should imprison a dozen wealthy people... in a fourth place, one out of every ten people guilty of parasitism should be executed on the spot!" (Lenin, 1918).
That's litteraly a call for the decimation of its own land. What followed was death camps, and about 4 million people killed just to make a point.
Then, there's the civil war, the extermination of the cossacks etc.
As soon as they got into power in 1917, Lenin and Trotsky abolished the right to strike, abolished the free press, abolished the right to emigrate, abolished the right to freedom of religion and abolished workers trade unions (which were a thing under the tsars, surprisingly)
Maybe there's a reason why communist countries were rightfully hated before they even formed a proper government, since any kind of doctrine that calls for the decimation of your own country is fundamentally brutal.
Economic prosperity? Russia applied Marx's centralized economy idea, which made the ruble lose 96% of its value by 1919. He then thought it was a good idea to weaponize starvation to starve out the enemies of the regime. Same thing happened in Cuba. 30 000 makeshift ships left for Florida, led by people who were starving.
Progress? The pseudoscience of Lysenkoism was enforced in schools and universities in the Soviet Union, and scientific dissenters were executed.
Red terror was always only a reaction to hostilities and/or opression made by other parties, not a goal in itself. True communists have no reason whatsoever to attack anybody else as long as nobody attacks them. They don't need it.
"Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" (Lenin, 1918). About what, 4 million people killed?
You can't install a communist government without people resisting, since you are attacking their private properties by the mere existence of the philosophy behind the state. Unless you are bringing an era of peace and prosperity, if you try to nationalize my business, I'll salt the ground it stands on. Try to force me into a philosophy, I'll resist. That's human nature.
The mere existence of communism calls for an opposition, because human nature. We value what we own, wether it's objects, funds, rights, activity or structures.
THEN, you have to make sure resistance doesn't kick in, because if you don't, resistance WILL kick in. So what, democides like in every single communist state ever made?
El Salvador, Somoza, The Sandinistas, the Guatemalan, the Russian, the Cubans, the Chinese... every single communist entity went through democide.
Imperialism is what should be blamed here, instead. Imperialism can manifest itself in both capitalistic and fake-communistic societies when certain power structures of those societies get big and powerful enough. It should be recognised as such. Nowadays corporations keep this sad tradition, seeing whole globe as one huge "colony" of sheeple they aim to exploit for profit.
Agreed, absolutely. But, something else is happening with economic imperialism: We should get to 3% of poverty by 2050, when it was about 80% about a century ago. That's the first real significant, global poverty decline in human history.
Please, give me your sources. I wonder how you get such ideas.
Here's one practical example of actual fully implemented communism on the scale of one single village. It is quite successful. And it is peaceful. It exists for decades. I fail to see any record of any "class warfare" in that village available. And those people certainly do not look any upset about the lack of "hierarchy", to me.
On the scale of one single village, and information can be quite hard to combine when we talk about China.
Also, communism fully understands hierarchy. Just ask Marx about the slavs, or ask Lenin about the kulaks.
Hierarchy does not exist in all animals - only in some. In many animals, there is no hierarchy at all. Most kinds of fish, for example, don't have any hierarchy whatsoever.
Fish don't have sex the way we do.
Fish don't fuck.
That changes everything when it comes to social structure, and therefore, they can't be used as comparison.
Bears, afaict, also don't have any.
Bears are solitary animals, while humans are not.
Even some of most socially advanced and smart animals do not have hierarchies, like
orangutans, who are known to have no hierarchy to talk about. Any conflict they get gets solved "then and there" and the winner is simply one who's stronger at the time.
Not quite. Their structure is based on pure raw strength, and they acknowledge "social classes" based on that. That's why they are the species known for hiring "hitmen" orangutans to kill female rivals. They have a hierarchy, based on who they fuck, and based on how strong they are.
