SOS Letter from China

[Snake-Pit]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/06/world/asia/china-labor-camp-halloween-sos/

Found in Oregon Halloween Decorations made at the plant.

The person who write this letter is now out of the prison camp living in Beijing a year later.

He says he wrote 20 letters and was surprised any made it out, and he had to write them secretly.

He was arrested for liking a stretch in the morning.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Snake-Pit

[Ace Nova]

All you so called Marxists out there, take heed - this is what absolute "socialism" eventually turns into.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Estranged Reality]

it's amazing how much freedom we really do take for granted, knowing there's still countries out there where people are arrested for...stretching?

fuck!

[Coma16]

it's amazing how much freedom we really do take for granted, knowing there's still countries out there where people are arrested for...stretching?

fuck!

If they hadn't of done what they government told them not to do they wouldn't have been arrested. They were warned...

[shades]

If you want to have total control over a people,

repopulate and make as many of them as possible dependent on you.

disarm and underemploy the rest,

then slowly restrict all of their freedoms

Edited November 7, 2013 by shades

[downzy]

All you so called Marxists out there, take heed - this is what absolute "socialism" eventually turns into.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

Ugh, you're source is a website dedicated to Ayn Rand?

Reconcile the statement you posted above with the U.S. military. The description you just wrote could be used in many types of bureaucracies and organizations:

"Socialism Militarism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society the military, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society the military, and that society military may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."

China isn't a communist country - it has quickly evolved since the late 1970s since Deng Xiaoping took over from Mao and started the transitioned the country to a dictatorial/market - based economy. If China was "absolutely" socialist, the government would have direct control over every single component of production in every single product. Guess what - it doesn't.

The Western World's demand for cheap products is just as responsible for the repression and enslavement of many Chinese workers (along with workers in other third-world countries). To suggest that such working conditions is the result of communism or "absolute socialism" is to ignore the very tangible fingerprints of corporations who have exploited workers long before the notions of communism or socialism even existed.

Sweden and Norway are considered socialist countries but nobody would argue that Swedes and Norwegians are in any way not free.

Edited November 7, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

All you so called Marxists out there, take heed - this is what absolute "socialism" eventually turns into.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

Ugh, you're source is a website dedicated to Ayn Rand?

"Socialism Militarism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society the military, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society the military, and that society military may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."

Actually, that doesn't even come close to fitting the description of Miltarism.

mil·i·ta·rism

ˈmilətəˌrizəm/

noun

derogatory

noun: militarism

1.

The belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

The two definitions do not work together, not even close.

Just because China follows a "market" doesn't mean that the government isn't still communist. Sure, they may not control everything in people's lives, manufacturing, business, etc but they are still very much so communist. I'm disappointed in you making such a statement because typically you raise valid points.... but you're way off on this one.

Here's an article about the "Myth" of China no longer being communist....

"China Is Communist in Name Only."

Wrong. If Vladimir Lenin were reincarnated in 21st-century Beijing and managed to avert his eyes from the city's glittering skyscrapers and conspicuous consumption, he would instantly recognize in the ruling Chinese Communist Party a replica of the system he designed nearly a century ago for the victors of the Bolshevik Revolution. One need only look at the party's structure to see how communist -- and Leninist -- China's political system remains.

Sure, China long ago dumped the core of the communist economic system, replacing rigid central planning with commercially minded state enterprises that coexist with a vigorous private sector. Yet for all their liberalization of the economy, Chinese leaders have been careful to keep control of the commanding heights of politics through the party's grip on the "three Ps": personnel, propaganda, and the People's Liberation Army.

The PLA is the party's military, not the country's. Unlike in the West, where controversies often arise about the potential politicization of the military, in China the party is on constant guard for the opposite phenomenon, the depoliticization of the military. Their fear is straightforward: the loss of party control over the generals and their troops. In 1989, one senior general refused to march his soldiers into Beijing to clear students out of Tiananmen Square, an incident now seared into the ruling class's collective memory. After all, the army's crackdown on the demonstrations preserved the party's hold on power in 1989, and its leaders have since worked hard to keep the generals on their side, should they be needed to put down protests again.

As in the Soviet Union, the party controls the media through its Propaganda Department, which issues daily directives, both formally on paper and in emails and text messages, and informally over the phone, to the media. The directives set out, often in detail, how news considered sensitive by the party -- such as the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo -- should be handled or whether it should be run at all.

Perhaps most importantly, the party dictates all senior personnel appointments in ministries and companies, universities and the media, through a shadowy and little-known body called the Organization Department. Through the department, the party oversees just about every significant position in every field in the country. Clearly, the Chinese remember Stalin's dictate that the cadres decide everything.

Indeed, if you benchmark the Chinese Communist Party against a definitional checklist authored by Robert Service, the veteran historian of the Soviet Union, the similarities are remarkable. As with communism in its heyday elsewhere, the party in China has eradicated or emasculated political rivals, eliminated the autonomy of the courts and media, restricted religion and civil society, denigrated rival versions of nationhood, centralized political power, established extensive networks of security police, and dispatched dissidents to labor camps. There is a good reason why the Chinese system is often described as "market-Leninism."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/5_myths_about_the_chinese_communist_party?page=0,0

As for the issues with corporations, there are plenty, I agree. The difference is that people in "free" countries have a choice (as do their governments) on whether or not to do business with these companies. Like you just admitted, people in communist/socialist countries like China don't.

As for Norway and Sweden, although the countries both lean extremely to the left, they aren't completely "socialist"...not in the sense that I'm referring to, anyway.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

Lately in this forum we've been seeing the terms "communism" and "socialism" thrown around without, I believe, people really understanding the concepts.

At its most basic level, communism is about workers having ownership over the means of production. As opposed to capitalism, which posits that the market (i.e. supply and demand) should shape the means and ownership of production, communism rejects market forces as the determinative factor in how things are made who owns such products.

Communism is not about how a government is organized and how people are ruled. It is about the use of a society's resources; how they are produced and consumed. As one of the comments in the article you posted correctly argues, without communist economic policy it is not communist. China is clearly authoritarian, but it shed its communist ways decades ago.

And no, simply being authoritarian does not make a country communist. They are not mutually agreed upon frameworks.

Show me where in Marxist writings where he advocates that those making decisions get their own army (hint: you won't). A ruling elite having their own military is foreign to any notion of communism in its original form. A highly controlled appointment process and the conducting of a propaganda machine are products of an authoritarian regime and not one necessarily predicated on communism.

I can't speak with utter authority on the subject since it's been a decade since I last studied Marxist philosophy, but any argument that communism is solely a political ideology is completely misplaced. It is far better situated on an economic continuum than a political one.

Edited November 7, 2013 by downzy

[Guest NGOG]

KK, you're blatantly out of your depth on this subject. Don't bother trying to argue with Downzy.

He will school you.

[Ace Nova]

Lately in this forum we've been seeing the terms "communism" and "socialism" thrown around without, I believe, people really understanding the concepts.

At its most basic level, communism is about workers having ownership over the means of production. As opposed to capitalism, which posits that the market (i.e. supply and demand) should shape the means and ownership of production, communism rejects market forces as the determinative factor in how things are made who owns such products.

Communism is not about how a government is organized and how people are ruled. It is about the use of a society's resources; how they are produced and consumed. As one of the comments in the article you posted correctly argues, without communist economic policy it is not communist. China is clearly authoritarian, but it shed its communist ways decades ago.

And no, simply being authoritarian does not make a country communist. They are not mutually agreed upon frameworks.

Show me where in Marxist writings where he advocates that those making decisions get their own army (hint: you won't). A ruling elite having their own military is foreign to any notion of communism in its original form. A highly controlled appointment process and the conducting of a propaganda machine are products of an authoritarian regime and not one necessarily predicated on communism.

I can't speak with utter authority on the subject since it's been a decade since I last studied Marxist philosophy, but any argument that communism is solely a political ideology is completely misplaced. It is far better situated on an economic continuum than a political one.

The reason we see Communist and Socialism inter mixed is because just like Ayn Rand said, ""There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

And I agree with her.

The concepts of both Communism and Socialism sound great on paper - everyone working together for the common good...unfortunately, as dictated by history, these concepts fail miserably on the government level. Part of the problem with Marxism is exactly what you stated - the only way it would (even possibly) work would be without a military, without people having weapons (or ways to create them), etc... and that is impossible this day in age.

And I'll tend to agree with the author (who clearly showed how China is still very much communist) vs. a random person's comment who had no credible evidence backing his statement.

"There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

And I still agree with her.

KK, you're blatantly out of your depth on this subject. Don't bother trying to argue with Downzy.

He will school you.

Actually, he has yet to show any credible evidence stating that China isn't communist...and I've given about a half a dozen points showing otherwise.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[ManetsBR]

That's the most distorted definition of Socialism I've read on this board. And this means a lot.

[Guest NGOG]

I have one piece of evidence which totally invalidates the notion that China is a communist society.

Corporations which epitomize western capitalism - including McDonald's, Starbucks, Abercombie and Fitch - all function within the country.

[ManetsBR]

Of course China isn't a Communist society, come on

That's not even debatable. It's not even Socialist. Not even lefty lead. It's a capitalist dictatorship, but of course western education and media lead many to believe that's Communism. Because Communism is an evil thing.

Edited November 7, 2013 by ManetsBR

[Ace Nova]

I have one piece of evidence which totally invalidates the notion that China is a communist society.

Corporations which epitomize western capitalism - including McDonald's, Starbucks, Abercombie and Fitch - all function within the country.

And what? Like I have already stated ad nauseum, just because a country functions via "Market-Leninism" doesn't mean it isn't still "Communist".

[Guest NGOG]

It's communist in name only.

[downzy]

Lately in this forum we've been seeing the terms "communism" and "socialism" thrown around without, I believe, people really understanding the concepts.

At its most basic level, communism is about workers having ownership over the means of production. As opposed to capitalism, which posits that the market (i.e. supply and demand) should shape the means and ownership of production, communism rejects market forces as the determinative factor in how things are made who owns such products.

Communism is not about how a government is organized and how people are ruled. It is about the use of a society's resources; how they are produced and consumed. As one of the comments in the article you posted correctly argues, without communist economic policy it is not communist. China is clearly authoritarian, but it shed its communist ways decades ago.

And no, simply being authoritarian does not make a country communist. They are not mutually agreed upon frameworks.

Show me where in Marxist writings where he advocates that those making decisions get their own army (hint: you won't). A ruling elite having their own military is foreign to any notion of communism in its original form. A highly controlled appointment process and the conducting of a propaganda machine are products of an authoritarian regime and not one necessarily predicated on communism.

I can't speak with utter authority on the subject since it's been a decade since I last studied Marxist philosophy, but any argument that communism is solely a political ideology is completely misplaced. It is far better situated on an economic continuum than a political one.

The reason we see Communist and Socialism inter mixed is because just like Ayn Rand said, ""There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

And I agree with her.

The concepts of both Communism and Socialism sound great on paper - everyone working together for the common good...unfortunately, as dictated by history, these concepts fail miserably on the government level. Part of the problem with Marxism is exactly what you stated - the only way it would work would be without a military, without people having weapons (or ways to create them), etc... and that is impossible this day in age.

And I'll tend to agree with the author (who clearly showed how China is still very much communist) vs. a random person's comment who had no credible evidence backing his statement.

KK, you're blatantly out of your depth on this subject. Don't bother trying to argue with Downzy.

He will school you.

Actually, he has yet to show any credible evidence stating that China isn't communist...and I've given about a half a dozen points showing otherwise.

But the author is using the Soviet Union as his baseline for what communism is (when, in reality, it is far removed from anything that Karl Marx would have prescribed). If you want to argue that China is like the U.S.S.R., then fine, but that's a completely different argument. And like I said, communism is not based on political considerations but economic ones. Show me in any communist literature where it proposes enslaving human beings by force.

You're taking Rand's description of something as sacrosanct rather than actually providing real examples. It would be like me saying, "Obamacare is just another means of implementing socialism" because Newt Gingrich said so. A reasonable person would ask that person to provide evidence within the written legislation where it indicates that the ACA advocates for socialism (btw, Shades, let's not start arguing, I'm just using it as an example). Have you even read anything by Marx? Do you have any first hand experience with communist literature? Or are you just satisfied with making up your opinion based on what others have said about it. It would seem like the latter to be the case.

You're simply posting other people's opinion without defending them when they're challenged. Yes, it is accurate to say that without communist economic policies that a state cannot be considered communist. Simply stating, "well, the author of the article doesn't agree" is a weak argument (especially considering the author is use a warped understanding of what communism is - he's confusing communism with Leninism or Stalinism). What do you actually have to say about that challenge?

Bottom line, answer these two question: do the workers of China have control over the means of production? Do they have any ownership over what they produce? If you can't answer those questions in the affirmative, China is not a communist country. China is a country with a long history of highly centralized forms of governing, but that in and of itself, is not enough to suggest it is a communist country.

Edited November 7, 2013 by downzy

[Guest NGOG]

And what? Like I have already stated ad nauseum, just because a country functions via "Market-Leninism" doesn't mean it isn't still "Communist".

KK, if a country was truly communist, it wouldn't permit the growth of some of capitalism's greatest institutions.

[Ace Nova]

Of course China isn't a Communist society, come on

That's not even debatable. It's not even Socialist. Not even lefty lead. It's a capitalist dictatorship, but of course western education and media lead many to believe that's Communism. Because Communism is an evil thing.

That's exactly what "Socialism" and "Communism" leads to...authoritarian rule. It's always disguised as "socialism" but ends up being authoritarian. History does not tell lies.

[downzy]

Of course China isn't a Communist society, come on

That's not even debatable. It's not even Socialist. Not even lefty lead. It's a capitalist dictatorship, but of course western education and media lead many to believe that's Communism. Because Communism is an evil thing.

That's exactly what "Socialism" and "Communism" leads to...authoritarian rule. It's always disguised as "socialism" but ends up being authoritarian. History does not tell lies.

But does that mean all authoritarian countries are communist?

[Ace Nova]

It's communist in name only.

"China Is Communist in Name Only."

Wrong. If Vladimir Lenin were reincarnated in 21st-century Beijing and managed to avert his eyes from the city's glittering skyscrapers and conspicuous consumption, he would instantly recognize in the ruling Chinese Communist Party a replica of the system he designed nearly a century ago for the victors of the Bolshevik Revolution. One need only look at the party's structure to see how communist -- and Leninist -- China's political system remains.

Sure, China long ago dumped the core of the communist economic system, replacing rigid central planning with commercially minded state enterprises that coexist with a vigorous private sector. Yet for all their liberalization of the economy, Chinese leaders have been careful to keep control of the commanding heights of politics through the party's grip on the "three Ps": personnel, propaganda, and the People's Liberation Army.

The PLA is the party's military, not the country's. Unlike in the West, where controversies often arise about the potential politicization of the military, in China the party is on constant guard for the opposite phenomenon, the depoliticization of the military. Their fear is straightforward: the loss of party control over the generals and their troops. In 1989, one senior general refused to march his soldiers into Beijing to clear students out of Tiananmen Square, an incident now seared into the ruling class's collective memory. After all, the army's crackdown on the demonstrations preserved the party's hold on power in 1989, and its leaders have since worked hard to keep the generals on their side, should they be needed to put down protests again.

As in the Soviet Union, the party controls the media through its Propaganda Department, which issues daily directives, both formally on paper and in emails and text messages, and informally over the phone, to the media. The directives set out, often in detail, how news considered sensitive by the party -- such as the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo -- should be handled or whether it should be run at all.

Perhaps most importantly, the party dictates all senior personnel appointments in ministries and companies, universities and the media, through a shadowy and little-known body called the Organization Department. Through the department, the party oversees just about every significant position in every field in the country. Clearly, the Chinese remember Stalin's dictate that the cadres decide everything.

Indeed, if you benchmark the Chinese Communist Party against a definitional checklist authored by Robert Service, the veteran historian of the Soviet Union, the similarities are remarkable. As with communism in its heyday elsewhere, the party in China has eradicated or emasculated political rivals, eliminated the autonomy of the courts and media, restricted religion and civil society, denigrated rival versions of nationhood, centralized political power, established extensive networks of security police, and dispatched dissidents to labor camps. There is a good reason why the Chinese system is often described as "market-Leninism."

http://www.foreignpo..._party?page=0,0

e.

But the author is using the Soviet Union as his baseline for what communism is (when, in reality, it is far removed from anything that Karl Marx would have prescribed). If you want to argue that China is like the U.S.S.R., then fine, but that's a completely different argument. And like I said, communism is not based on political considerations but economic ones. Show me in any communist literature where it proposes enslaving human beings by forced.

You're taking Rand's description of something as sacrosanct rather than actually providing real examples. It would be like me saying, "Obamacare is just another means of implementing socialism" because Newt Gingrich said so. A reasonable person would ask that person to provide evidence within the written legislation where it indicates that the ACA advocates for socialism (btw, Shades, let's not start arguing of that, I'm just using it as an example). Have you even read anything by Marx? Do you have any first hand experience with communist literature? Or are you just satisfied with making up your opinion based on what others have said about it. It would seem like the latter to be the case.

You're simply posting other people's opinion without defending them when they're challenged. Yes, it is accurate to say that without communist economic policies that a state cannot be considered communist. Simply stating, "well, the author of the article doesn't agree" is a weak argument (especially considering the author is use a warped understanding of what communism is - he's confusing communism with Leninism or Stalinism). What do you actually have to say about that challenge?

Bottom line, answer these two question: do the workers of China have control over the means of production? Do they have any ownership over what they produce? If you can't answer those questions in the affirmative, China is not a communist country. China is a country with a long history of highly centralized forms of governing, but that in and of itself, is not enough to suggest it is a communist country.

You have completely validated my argument. If China isn't communist by definition that's exactly the problem! Leaders throughout history have given people this fairy tail that "Communism" or "Socialism" is the answer and it always leads to an authoritarian form of government under the guise of socialism. It's almost comical. Like I have stated, history does not tell lies and whenever "Socialism" has been attempted on the government level (or under it's guise) it has always failed.

Of course China isn't a Communist society, come on

That's not even debatable. It's not even Socialist. Not even lefty lead. It's a capitalist dictatorship, but of course western education and media lead many to believe that's Communism. Because Communism is an evil thing.

That's exactly what "Socialism" and "Communism" leads to...authoritarian rule. It's always disguised as "socialism" but ends up being authoritarian. History does not tell lies.

But does that mean all authoritarian countries are communist?

Of course not. My argument is that communism/socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government. And everything you have stated so far validates that.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Guest NGOG]

My argument is that communism/socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government.

What you have been taught by the capitalist system is that communism always leads to genocide. Do you know why they peddle that line? So that workers accept it as reality rather than discussing ways to organize without inadvertently creating tyranny.

[Ace Nova]

My argument is that communism/socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government.

What you have been taught by the capitalist system is that communism always leads to genocide. Do you know why they peddle that line? So that workers accept it as reality rather than discussing ways to organize without inadvertently creating tyranny.

Personally, I think a democratic form of socialism (similar to what Sweden and Norway have) isn't bad at all...as long as a strong system of checks and balances remains law.

My main point from the beginning - go back and look at my initial posts in the thread - is that total/absolute socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government. Whether or not that's what Marx intended is irrelevant. Marx had a theory and when it was implemented, it failed. Did it fail because it was implemented poorly and because the people implementing it were corrupt? Maybe - but that's the problem with it!

It has a fatal flaw - it does not have a system of checks and balances preventing it from becoming authoritarian (because of either poor implementation or corruption.)

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

My argument is that communism/socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government.

What you have been taught by the capitalist system is that communism always leads to genocide. Do you know why they peddle that line? So that workers accept it as reality rather than discussing ways to organize without inadvertently creating tyranny.

Personally, I think a democratic form of socialism (similar to what Sweden and Norway have) isn't bad at all...as long as a strong system of checks and balances remains law.

It is pretty sweet, especially when we have more oil money than we know what to do with.

[ManetsBR]

My argument is that communism/socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government.

What you have been taught by the capitalist system is that communism always leads to genocide. Do you know why they peddle that line? So that workers accept it as reality rather than discussing ways to organize without inadvertently creating tyranny.

This. Oh my god... China is not Communist. Soviet Union was not Communist. Cuba is not Communist. Do yourself a gigantic favor and read some Marx.

Edited November 7, 2013 by ManetsBR

[downzy]

@ KK

LOL, if you think that anything I wrote validates your argument then either I am a terrible communicator or you're having problems understanding what I'm saying.

In your original post you quoted Rand, suggesting that communism calls for the enslavement of mankind. But that's a very different argument than the one you're making now, that communism leads to authoritarianism (i.e. enslavement). That's a rather large distinction, don't you think? If communism, as it was envisioned by Marx, does not call for authoritarian rule, it is invalid to argue that authoritarian rule is implicit within the tenets of communism.

Now if you want to argue that socialism, and later communism, leads to authoritarian rule that's another argument altogether.

If socialism leads to communism, and communism leads to authoritarianism (despite the fact that Marxist philosophy is antithetical to dictatorial or authoritarian rule), then how have socialist leaning countries escaped from the clutches of tyranny? If the introduction of socialism into state's governance will ultimately lead to that nation becoming governed by authoritarian rule, how have nations like Sweden and Norway remained relatively free for the last 65 years?

You can look at it two ways. You could argue that communism does indeed lend itself to the eventual rise of a authoritarian form of governance. I think there are many fine examples of this being the case.

But it could also be argued that those who carried the mantled of communism did so not to truly implement the system as it was envisioned by Marx but to control absolutely. Like I said, no where in Marx's literature does he call for dictatorial rule whereby workers are enslaved (since this was the very thing he was writing against with respect to bourgeois control over production). So one could argue that people like Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh did not actually implement a truly communist system since they betrayed such a vision by creating a centralized form of governance that simply replaced one form of repression with another. Coincidentally enough, none of those leaders ever claimed that communism was the sole driving force behind their measures.

Edited November 7, 2013 by downzy