Talk:Anti-communism

I feel this strongly biased! There was a comparision between Nazism and Communism. That is not correct at all. So I am removing it.

Tell me if i'm wrong, but this article is to describe what anti-communism is, not to spread anti-communism bull****. Please, respect other people's principles. --Luis Oliveira

---

I agree. We should be explaining what anti-communism is, not endorsing it. --Robert Merkel

---

And it's getting much more balanced, congrats to the wikipedia! --Luis Oliveira

---

There is no bias in reporting that anti-communists oppose communism or that they feel it is similar to fascism. The article does not state that communism is fascist; rather, that in the opinion of anti-communists there is a similarity.

Although it is "obvious" to me that Communism is the worst evil the world has known, I realize that many if not most people do not share this view. Nonetheless, anti-communism does exist and should be examined by the Wikipedia. Mistakes in anti-communism or critiques of anti-communism should also be included. -- Ed Poor]

---

Sorry then. Perhaps it is because english is not my first language but the way you said it initially didn't look like a report... -- Luis Oliveira

---

Ed, Communists usually linked everything they don't like to fascism too. Should that be mentioned in every article? szopen

No, not every article. But if there are historical instances of Communist exponents, parties, or governments labeling as "fascist" things they merely dislike, perhaps one or two examples may be provided. Sort of as an example of Communist propaganda. But let us carefully distinguish between accurate (if hypocritical) Communist criticism of Hitler and Mussolini's fascism and the use of the label "fascist" merely as a slur.

If the term "fascist" was indeed used by Communists to mean "any system or person they dislike" we ought to note this. Nonetheless, anti-communists have pointed out similarities between communism and fascism: state socialism, ruthless suppression of opposition, concentration camps . . .

Of course, if these comparisons are exaggerated or contrived, surely supporters of Communism (or critics of anti-communism) have objected to these comparisons and given reasons for their objections. These objections should be included in the article. Ed Poor

---

The better issue must be indicating the huge differences between Communism and Stalinism. As it is Stalinism that was the government system in Russia for 70 or so years not Communism.

Perhaps you mean between ideal communism or ideal Communistic practice and Stalinism -- as it was, Stalinism was Stalin's version of Communism. A major part of anti-communism is its criticism of Communism as practiced by Stalin, Mao and so on. Those leaders (dictators?) showed any signs of ever relinquishing power, which would seem to retard the predicted "withering away" of the socialist state into (true) communisim.

---

I have removed the following, until they can be reworked:

Communism's theoretical basis is dialectical materialism, which is predicated on the assumption that there is no God and that spirit is generated by matter. For religious believers, communism's atheism is anathema.

The other central part of Karl Marx's communist theory is historical materialism, which states that human society is evolving, and that the next step after capitalism is socialism, and in the end communism. Anti-communists reject the entire concept of historical materialism, or at least do not belive that socialism and communism must follow after capitalism.

Here is why I removed them: they were under the section "theoretical criticisms" yet they are neither criticisms nor are they theoretical. The sum effect of these two points is to say that "Some people disagree with claim a, others disagree with claim b." But disagreement is not the same thing as critique -- I mean, simply to say "I do not agree with you" is not very meaningful. Why do you disagree with me? Why do you think I am wrong?

As a matter of fact, there were some "theoretical criticisms" that tried to do this (like, poor people do get richer). I happen to disagree with that criticism because I think it misrepresents communist analysis, but at least it is recognizable as a theoretical critique.

I would have no objection to these points being returned to the article, if they were posed not merely as saying "here are things communists claim that some people do not accept" but rather as truly theorized critiques. I would expect an argument that explains and accounts for the logical and empirical problems with the communist claims, and that present real logical or empirical arguments for the counter claims. SR

---

The details of meaty philosophical objections to communism should go in an appropriately-named article--not in an article titled "anti-communism"--unless we plan to have them in both places. Certainly we shouldn't plan to present the many critiques of communism under this title, because many of them are not part and parcel of the attitude and historical movement, "anti-communism," but are very important critiques nonetheless. --Larry_Sanger, stating the obvious as usual :-(