|
...consolidation of all state power by the Nazis. BushCons now own the presidency, the Congress, the courts, the military, the intelligence apparatus, the media AND the election system. And they are fascists, not communists.
I don't think you mean "communist'; I think you mean totalitarian.
Communism in China and Russia was totalitarian. Fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain was also totalitarian. Tight central control of all facets of life and government; brutal repression of dissent, in all five cases with an all-powerful leader.
The difference is that the government in China and Soviet Russia benefited most of the poor--financially anyway--while the government in Germany, Italy and Spain benefited the rich. (Note: And for all Soviet Russia's repression of dissent, they never did have the death penalty--just exile to Siberia.)
The BushCons do not benefit the poor. They are very much a super-rich elite, in league with global corporations, intent on removing all benefit to the poor. = Fascists.
There have been examples of communist governments that were not so enamoured of tight central control and worship of brutal leaders. Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua.
I don't care what anyone says, Castro is not a brutal leader. He would have been overthrown long ago if he was. He is not terribly nice toward dissenters, but he is not bloodthirsty and power mad, like Stalin became, for instance. And he has had widespread support, all these years.
Ho Chi Minh was something like a "communist democrat" or a "democratic communist." He believed in democracy. He was freely elected! But the U.S. didn't approve of free elections in Vietnam--if it meant the election of a communist--that's why the Vietnam war.
The same with Daniel Noriega in Nicaragua--a very mild man, who led the revolution there, and would have governed with quite a lot of democratic features, if the U.S. hadn't started the Contra war against him. What a terrible thing we did there--and in Vietnam!
I can't think of any fascist government that could be called democratic or that has any semblance of democracy (like the democratic features evident in Cuba, Vietnam and Nicaragua). Fascism always seems to be totalitarian. There may be some in which the upper class has more of a say than in others, but never the poor.
There have been many questions about this: Can a sharing of the wealth government--communist or socialist--be democratic? In fact, there are many democratic governments in the world with strong socialist features (Scandinavia, the UK and some UK commonwealth countries, much of Europe, and some South American countries). Socialism and democracy seem to go well together, in fact--because they combine poliical equality with some kind of financial parity, through taxation of the rich, government aid programs, and strong worker protections. The rich and poor don't get so far apart--in financial power--as they are in fascist countries, and in our country right now.
But communism (complete confiscation of the property of the rich, and distribution via communes to the poor) is generally not possible without bloodshed and repression--with the exceptions I've mentioned.
In the case of Vietnam and Nicaragua, the bloodshed was minimal, until the U.S. got involved. The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence--first against the Chinese, then against the French. They won in both cases--very similar to the American Revolutionary war. Bloodshed, yes--but understandable. Then the U.S. jumped in, created the "south Vietnamese" government, and pitted the south against the north, resulting in over a million dead.
There was also very little bloodshed in Nicaragua, compared to some revolutionary situations, and certainly compared to most wars. The real bloodshed came with the U.S.-backed opposition.
The communist revolutions in the big countries (China and Russia) were very bloody, by comparison. Also, neither of these big countries had any democratic tradition whatsoever--so, eventually, they just replicated what they already knew: totalitarianism by another name.
But--and here is my point, the lo-o-o-ng way round--there is nothing about communism that is inherently totalitarian, bloody or repressive. It's just an economic system. A country could freely choose to distribute all property and wealth more or less evenly, just like a monastery does, or any other voluntary commune. Theoretically.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(899 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
