Communist Manifesto

[CheVolution]

why are people so negative about the communist manifesto by Marx and Engels and the words Left, Lefty, Leftist, Leftism, Leftwing, Commie, Red, Marxist and Loony left like any other politics is any better so what is with the derogatory comments? and insults?

[JJM 777]

People have a derogatory and strongly negative opinion about Socialism, because they feel that the (totalitarian) Socialist governments of 20th century were a total disaster in all aspects of life.

The list of "Socialist" totalitarian governments in 20th century is indeed a sad thing to read:
- National Socialist German Workers Party (led by Hitler)
- Communist USSR
- Communist North Korea
- Communist China of the Mao era
- Red Khmer Communist government in Cambodia

This list of totalitarian governments with zero respect to any human rights is a shock to most people of our current generation.

[Christopher Hill]

Although you know the Nazis cannot be called Socialist, they had become far-right long before taking power.

[Joshua Purcell]

As CH mentioned, there is a very important difference between fascism and socialism. It was unfortunate that Hitler chose to name his party something that contained the word socialist... it was far from it. That hasn't stopped some people from making innocent mistakes (as you most likely have), and then others on the right from continually pointing to Hitler as one of many examples of why socialism is Evil in spite of facts and reality. I believe that nobody who is worth debating politics with would claim Hitler as an example of their ideology in practice, be they from the right or left. That being the case, it's not surprising that most right-wingers are offended by being lumped in with Hitler. But looking at the facts of Hitler's regime leaves little doubt it was an ultra right-wing party:

• They knew their country was exceptional when compared to any other country, and this the case for their economy, location, people (excluding the immigrants of course), etc. They had a very strong sense of blind nationalism.
• The only thing holding them back was foreign powers attempting to limit their growth of power combined with the immigrant problem that drained their resources from within.
• They were able to take leadership of a large populist movement from the Left parties for reasons I'm still not completely sure about honestly, but one way or another the promise of a better national living standard and the exclusion of participation in the global worker movement caught on with many people. Some, even within the Leftist parties from what I've read, decided to put a hold on some of these key positions of any true Marxist ideology thinking that their best course of action was to temporarily support (or at least not fight) this up and coming movement. I guess short-term benefits for them as a relatively small group were more important than the long-term benefits for the world community that only a true Marxist approach would bring. They seemed to buy in to the nationalist argument, and while doing so forgot about the globalist/humanist argument. Maybe some of them were actually hostile towards the global socialist movements that were most popular at the time (i.e. Stalinist Russia), since they could rightfully see that those projects weren't living up to standards and ideology they were founded on. (As a side note, I wonder what year Stalin actually disbanded the ComIntern and continued his focus on "Socialism in One Country" even further? It must have been in the early 1930's.)

There are other points to look at that are glaringly right-wing, and we can keep going if others want to continue. One very interesting thing to me though, is that the three points I make above could very easily be descriptions of our current right-wing Tea Party ideology in the US, which has the figureheads of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and others. Look up the term American Exceptionalism if you aren't already familiar with it due to it being brought up by some so-called Libertarian, and see who is arguing for it and what it means. I can't make myself get into the mindset behind American Exceptionalism, but needless to say I see many similarities with how many of the Germans (and of course the Nazis) felt about their perceived situation and the idea of American Exceptionalism. To these people, the US can truly do no wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is by definition unpatriotic and un-American. The people who by into this so-called "populist" movement have a very strong blind nationalism, and that is a very dangerous thing to have in almost all cases. Their blind nationalism is not the only problem I have with the ideology they preach of course, but I think it is a basis for many of the outlandish things they believe in (shutting down borders, using military first to solve any problem with "rogue" nations, privatize damn near everything and severely limit the only social organization that has some hope for democratic control... the government).

Unlike Hitler's movement, our current right-wingers don't need to focus on providing social programs for our society in order to convince Americans they have the right idea for our country's future... the US has been a huge benefactor of the capitalist economic mode for quite some time now at the expense of many other countries, and all the right-wing has to do is say they are for keeping that status quo through whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean becoming like those snooty European countries with their socialist health care and high unemployment and high taxes, that means getting the big bad government bureaucrats out of the damn way so the 'free' market can continue to do what it has always done for us. Never mind the fact that the cost of our success is felt in far off foreign countries by backwards uneducated (and uneducatable) types... as long as we keep making more money and getting more stuff we are on the right track (no need to stop and think about if we really need all that crap or if it is really good for us in the long-term). And never mind the fact that the government bureaucrats are actually the same people calling for smaller government (thus less regulation and more profit)! Many Americans would, I'm afraid, willingly latch on to any movement that promised to do nothing but protect our status quo, because the status quo in the US is pretty good in comparison to most of the rest of the world.

But the original poster wanted to know why Marxism has such a negative connotation, and the second poster gave nothing but good reasons despite the fact that all of the reasons given have nothing to do with Marxism. That's the point: many people don't know what it is they are so fearful and derogatory towards. They only know what they've been told and haven't bothered to take a look around and read some things for themselves. They've been told that we live in a democracy, the worst (if not all) totalitarian regimes are examples of where Socialism inevitably leads, and that Capitalism is the best economic model obtainable (among other things). Here's the reality though:

• We don't live in a functional democracy. Wealth matters more than actual votes by an extremely high margin which is constantly increasing in the US. At the same time, the gap between the rich and the poor also continues to grow. Less and less extremely wealthy people have more and more of the power and control over our society. The funny thing about this is that most everyone agrees this is reality regardless of political leaning. But those on the left see this as a major roadblock to democracy, while those on the right think otherwise.
• The US had a major hand in creating many of the worst totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen, including many of the regimes listed by the second poster.
• You can't have a government based on Marxist principles (Socialism, Communism, etc.) without a highly functioning democracy.
• A planned economy of some type is not only feasible, but even Stalinist Russia managed to prove that it could function very well, and did so under an extremely poor situation. No, Stalinist Russia wasn't based on Marxist principles. Yes, Stalinist Russia was a totalitarian regime that in many ways was the exact opposite of what you would expect in a democracy. The point is that in spite of these problems (not because of them), Stalinist Russia successfully implemented a planned economy that performed very well under the circumstances that it faced.

[CheVolution]

Uh excuse me I have been reading about Che Guevara and his marxism  not that other thing you have mentioned so don't dare say I am following him again  >:(

[Joshua Purcell]

I assume you think I called you a right-winger, sorry for your confusion. I was mainly replying to CH in most of my post... you can feel free to skip down to the very last paragraph for my comment related to your post. Basically I was saying that Marxism has a negative connotation because they believe it is as evil and bad as they have been told it is, and they haven't cared to take a look for themselves to prove otherwise.

[CheVolution]

No problem sorry for the confusion here too have a good day :) and yes I am left wing marxist

[Christopher Hill]

As CH mentioned, there is a very important difference between fascism and socialism. It was unfortunate that Hitler chose to name his party something that contained the word socialist... it was far from it. That hasn't stopped some people from making innocent mistakes (as you most likely have), and then others on the right from continually pointing to Hitler as one of many examples of why socialism is Evil in spite of facts and reality. I believe that nobody who is worth debating politics with would claim Hitler as an example of their ideology in practice, be they from the right or left. That being the case, it's not surprising that most right-wingers are offended by being lumped in with Hitler. But looking at the facts of Hitler's regime leaves little doubt it was an ultra right-wing party:

Exactly, the only fault that I can see is that Hitler did not name the party, it was founded as a Socialist party (I believe it was a reformist party) which "Lost it's way" much like how Mussolini was a self-professed Socialist before he essentially codified Fascism, but unlike Mussolini, the party had ceased to be Socialist at all long before Hitler came to power.

There are other points to look at that are glaringly right-wing, and we can keep going if others want to continue. One very interesting thing to me though, is that the three points I make above could very easily be descriptions of our current right-wing Tea Party ideology in the US, which has the figureheads of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and others. Look up the term American Exceptionalism if you aren't already familiar with it due to it being brought up by some so-called Libertarian, and see who is arguing for it and what it means. I can't make myself get into the mindset behind American Exceptionalism, but needless to say I see many similarities with how many of the Germans (and of course the Nazis) felt about their perceived situation and the idea of American Exceptionalism. To these people, the US can truly do no wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is by definition unpatriotic and un-American. The people who by into this so-called "populist" movement have a very strong blind nationalism, and that is a very dangerous thing to have in almost all cases. Their blind nationalism is not the only problem I have with the ideology they preach of course, but I think it is a basis for many of the outlandish things they believe in (shutting down borders, using military first to solve any problem with "rogue" nations, privatize damn near everything and severely limit the only social organization that has some hope for democratic control... the government).

Exactly, those who term those who term right-wingers far left.. The "Libertarians" They claim to be for small government and all that it entails without the realization that Anarchism is unrealizable under corporate capitalism, even more ridiculous is the fact that they support Statist politicians which completely contradicts the idea of "Anarchism" and "Libertarianism".

Unlike Hitler's movement, our current right-wingers don't need to focus on providing social programs for our society in order to convince Americans they have the right idea for our country's future... the US has been a huge benefactor of the capitalist economic mode for quite some time now at the expense of many other countries, and all the right-wing has to do is say they are for keeping that status quo through whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean becoming like those snooty European countries with their socialist health care and high unemployment and high taxes, that means getting the big bad government bureaucrats out of the damn way so the 'free' market can continue to do what it has always done for us. Never mind the fact that the cost of our success is felt in far off foreign countries by backwards uneducated (and uneducatable) types... as long as we keep making more money and getting more stuff we are on the right track (no need to stop and think about if we really need all that crap or if it is really good for us in the long-term). And never mind the fact that the government bureaucrats are actually the same people calling for smaller government (thus less regulation and more profit)! Many Americans would, I'm afraid, willingly latch on to any movement that promised to do nothing but protect our status quo, because the status quo in the US is pretty good in comparison to most of the rest of the world.

Of course, god forbid that "Little Brown Children" who "Hate Jesus, America, our way of life, and want to hurt our Children" be given the right to live with food, parents, and without cancer from depleted uranium weapon shells we fired at their houses, and screw our grandparents as well, they can get a job to pay for their medication, oh and the poor want to be poor, or else they would work for 5cents an hour!! If you disagree you are a "Communist, Anti-American, Liberal, Socialist, Fascist, Racist, Muslim, French, Hippie", So go to Cuba and worship "Communist" Barrack HUSSEIN OBAMA!!, I have the right to say whatever I want because we are a "CHRISTIAN NATION"! But you don't because my rights trump yours!! YOU JUST HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!! oh boy Glenn Beck is on.. oh yeah..Communists suck...Jesus Rocks and loved Capitalism.. and Totally did not want people to help each other out. So keep your Socialist non-white, lazy, anti-Christian, Anti-American, Welfare bums out of my check since I know Socialism is about welfare even though you say it isn't and have many verified sources to back it up which I choose to disregard because you are a Leftist!

[CheVolution]

is this in reply to vuldin?

[Christopher Hill]

is this in reply to vuldin?

Yes it was.

[Joshua Purcell]

You forgot to add that "They hate us for our Freedom".

[Christopher Hill]

You forgot to add that "They hate us for our Freedom".

Thanks :) Fixed it.

[Paula Marx]

People have a derogatory and strongly negative opinion about Socialism, because they feel that the (totalitarian) Socialist governments of 20th century were a total disaster in all aspects of life.

The list of "Socialist" totalitarian governments in 20th century is indeed a sad thing to read:
- National Socialist German Workers Party (led by Hitler)
- Communist USSR
- Communist North Korea
- Communist China of the Mao era
- Red Khmer Communist government in Cambodia

This list of totalitarian governments with zero respect to any human rights is a shock to most people of our current generation.

You forgot Communist Party of Yugoslavia.
I don't like those totalitarian "communists".

[JJM 777]

I forgot many others too.

But forgetting the past and looking into future... if Leftists preach a militant revolution, whose purpose is to give political monopoly power to a few people on the top, whose enlightened ideas are the law rather than any opinions of the reactionary population, it is easy to see why majority masses don't get enthusiastic about it.

[Christopher Hill]

I forgot many others too.

But forgetting the past and looking into future... if Leftists preach a militant revolution, whose purpose is to give political monopoly power to a few people on the top, whose enlightened ideas are the law rather than any opinions of the reactionary population, it is easy to see why majority masses don't get enthusiastic about it.

Which is why many would argue that the job of the Vangard and the Cadre should be not to rule in the people's stead but to educate all or most of the people to the level of "Cadres" or professional revolutionaries.