What are your thoughts on communism -negative and positive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you familiar with the phrase ‘opening to the left’?

Do you still hold that people are sinning by reading books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?
 
I have a question. When talking about Tito’s Yugoslavia and the various ethnic/religious groups getting along better, did they really get along better or were they just forced to behave?
No they weren’t, those who were friends were friends, who didn’t - they didn’t!
It was, I believe, part of communistic propaganda which was using motto “bratstvo i jedinstvo” (brotherhood and unity), like we are all brothers and sisters in one spirit (of course in communistic spirit) and we share everything, we are all the same. It was lie because anyone who was opposing communism was sent to labor camp “to change his mental settings”.

We still have different nations and ethnicity groups who live in all countries of ex-Yugoslavia. Some can live together and some not. Communism didn’t bring any unity, it was just illusion.

It reminded me for sec when someone like UN came to visit Treblinka (Nazi concentration camp for children and their mothers) and saw beautiful terms in which those people live. It looked like every opponent of Nazism was lying, everyone smiled, got food before so they cannot accuse anyone for misbehaviour and abusing, they even build new things just to make it look “so good”. It was in newspapers then.
Later the truth came out and it was very scary.

Well Hitler… I know that he was even talented painter but his ideology is evil and awful, I cannot say anything good about Nazis, nor for communism and Karl Marx…
 
Last edited:
No need to pick a side, they aren’t in conflict. Pope Francis words are simply from a sermon giving some personal thoughts about how he thinks Christianity is the true reflection of care for the poor and as such he says we can tell Communists who cite care for the poor as a reason for their Communism that they’re really Christians. He didn’t actually praise Communism or give it any approval.
Pope Leo’s Encyclical, on the other hand, is a magisterial document, and only one example of the Catholic Church’s unchanging position on Communism and Socialism.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that many very popular music bands were formed that had members- Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians.
(by Bosnians meaning Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosniak muslims).

The most famous of them Bijelo Dugme (member Goran Bregović himself was born to a Croat father and a Serbian mother.)
There were many pop festivals held that featured popular Croat, Serb, and Bosnian singers together.

And then there was the electrifying 1984 Olympics held in Sarajevo (then Yugoslavia) - a very unifying event.

As usual, music and the arts was the beauty and the glue that unified people together.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Communism is always thought of as very anti religious, but under Tito rule, Bosnian Muslims actually gained recognition and status on the same footing as Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, and Macedonians.
Also, the government implemented law which required all children to attend elementary schools which had positive effects on literacy rates of Muslim children in Yugoslavia, especially girls, who had historically been deprived of formal education.

Communism in Yugoslavia theoretically welcomed “inclusiveness” different religions, but in practice it curbed influence of religious institutions, believing them as serving nationalist agendas more than spiritual needs. For example, in the 40’s they banned the face veil wearing of muslims. Sharia courts were abolished, etc.

“religion was contained to the private and spiritual moral norms, taught at the level of individual responsibility to live up to the Islamic principles while fully participating in public life as dictated by the secular state.”

And with the support of the Grand Mufti of the Yugoslav Islamic community, there was focus placed on women’s rights, particularly outlawing of face veil previously mentioned and improving female education.
I will say something controversial here - if it wasn’t for Tito’s communist Yugoslavia it is very possible that Bosnian muslim women today could be like we see many women in middle eastern countries wearing niqab/feredža.

But, ultimately no. You are right in the sense that ethnic tensions existed for people that are “this way inclined” even before Tito came into power, which some extreme horrors committed.
And while the communist government may have believed they were curtailing full religious expression for the good of the people, the region, and cohesive brotherhood, ironically they ultimately committed their own horrors.

I guess Inbonum is right that is was ultimately an illusion, it did not last, but I don’t think the good parts cannot be dismissed so readily either.

It is interesting what you said about Lebanon.
 
Last edited:
I’m thinking of starting a thread called “Positive Aspects of Nazi Germany”.
  • They had wonderful, euphoric rallies
  • Great organisers
  • Hitler was nice to his dogs.
  • Built great roads
  • Low unemployment
  • Low crime
  • Pro-family policies
P.S. I’m being extremely sarcastic, in case anyone thinks I’m being in any way serious…
 
Last edited:
I see your point but I didn’t create the thread in that spirit;)

There are democratic countries that have also done horrid things/wars.
 
Last edited:
I guess Inbonum is right that is was ultimately an illusion, it did not last, but I don’t think the good parts cannot be dismissed so readily either.
If we cut these “good” things out from whole picture then they are good… But since it was by-product of great evil then, from Christian stand point, it has no true value since every good work has to be motivated by love for God, not love for yourself or only other people (and God intentionally excluded).
 
Last edited:
The story the kid presents in the question isn’t quite accurate.

It was actually taken from a law suit filed by the Attorney Gerry Spence and the parents of a girl who was burned to death in a Ford Pinto, after it burst into flames from a minor rear end collision.

Spence outlined the lawsuit in his book, “With Justice for None.” Spence had the accounting records from Ford where they in fact knew that not adding a $15 part into the Pinto, which would protected it from bursting into flames in a minor crash, would be more expensive than the settlement claims from lawsuits filed when the cars burst into flames.

So in other words, Ford did in fact put money before lives.

Freedman makes the error in arguing about cost verses lives principle. For Ford, the cost of adding the $15 was extraordinary as Freedman tried to justify. The reality is, Ford shouldn’t have marketed the Pinto knowing it was a dangerous vehicle in the first place.

As far as this taking place in a free society verses a Communist one, here in the US they were able to sue Ford. In Communist Russia or China, they would not have and the deaths from faulty engineering would’ve been for the good of the state.
 
Last edited:
There are democratic countries that have also done horrid things/wars.
Overall, I think that you are confusing side effects with features.

Yes, “free” nations have from time to time done terrible things. The difference is that in a free nation we are allowed to come to our senses and change direction.

In the US, we interned people of Japanese descent during WW2.

However, we did not kill them as Hitler did, nor was this policy an on-going enterprise like the gulags of the USSR.

When we get involved in unjust wars, the people are 1) permitted to protest, and 2) do protest so that our course is changed.

The difference between the US and the Taliban? The US prosecuted those who killed civilians unnecessarily; the Taliban supported those who wanted to do so.

In a free nation, the people are allowed to disagree with the bad actions of their governments, and changes occur. This is utterly impossible in a totalitarian nation because the dissent itself begets bad acts by the government.
 
I worked with heaps of Chinese people who came to work or study from China without any retribution to their family.
Yes, China will let people leave, but China wants those people to come back when called.

Why do you think there is a thing called birth tourism mostly from China? Pregnant mothers come from China towards the end of their pregnancy and give birth in the US so the child will be a US citizen. If it is so great in China, why woud they do that?
 
Last edited:
Given the murderous and bloody history of Commmunism in the 20th century, I’m surprised this thread even exists. Repeating old mistakes is dangerous.
 
Communism didn’t bring any unity, it was just illusion.
Before Tito were Serbian Orthodox in Croatia forced to convert to Catholicism? Was there an extermination camp called Jasenovac where the Croatians sent Serbs who did not convert to Catholicism?
 
Last edited:
1.Question: No.
2.Question : there was camp Jasenovac but nobody converted anybody, it was place of hate and human suffering made by Ustase, it was place of suffering 2 times.
First time it was during WW2 - there didn’t die only Serbians but homosexuals, Jews, Croatians, Orthodox, Romani people and Catholic (Yes there were Catholics too, Ustase did no good. It’s ideology like any other - as far as I remember we already discussed it on one other thread couple months ago.)
Second time Jasenovac was place where Serbians killed Croats and those who supported Croatian army in fight for freedom from Serbian agression in our Homeland war 1990.-1995.
 
Last edited:
1.Question: No.
What happened at the Church at Glina?
I thought that Serbs were the majority of victims at Jasenovac as the Jasenovac Memorial Area list of victims is more than 56% Serbs, 45,923 out of 80,914. And according to a book by Edmund Paris, p. 157, there were posters saying that any Serb who did not convert to Catholicism would be deported to a concentration camp.
 
Last edited:
Ima gunna keep that list! 😂. Brilliant! And very good sarcasm as well!
 
I have another question. I know that communism is basically an economic system. Looking at how various countries implemented it, all were authoritarian or dictatorships and doomed to failure because of how it was implemented.

Is it possible to implement a communist economic system yet also be democratic? Could a communist system also allow religious freedom? We have no examples of this so I’m thinking the answer must be no. They are incompatible. Why? Is the common ownership of property and production the area where it will always fail? Is it government ownership that causes it?

Thanks to anyone that can explain this and show how the communist ideal couldn’t be accommodating to other political ideals. Obviously,I need a Communism 101 lesson. To be clear…I’m not in favor of communism at all. I’m just trying to figure out the difference between the ideal and the actual implementation.
 
Is it possible to implement a communist economic system yet also be democratic?
The intrinsic problem is that it was/is all supposed to happen in a crisis of capitalism in advanced industrial economies - what actually happened was that it took place in societies like Russia and China which were part industrialised but largely peasant. Capitalist accumulation had yet to take place. So, when it was exported, it wasn’t exported as part of a worldwide (advanced world) proletarian revolution as workers of the world united against the common enemy, it was imposed by conquest.

Leninism was the dictatorship of the “vanguard of the proletariat” (ie the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party) whose, initially precarious, rule was based on force and terror (Stalin was much better at it). All potential reactionary forces (like other political parties, including ones that, largely agreed with them, like religions, like nationalist feelings in places like the Ukraine) had to be forced to submit.

I remember ploughing through things like Lenin’s ‘State and the Revolution’, ‘What is to be done?’ and ‘Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder’, in my teens. If you wanted to row with Marxists, it was the thing to do, most of them only read their ‘newspapers’ and ‘periodicals’.
 
Last edited:
Communism in the forms that we’ve seen it was destroyed, ultimately, by the most dynamic revolutionary force in human history - capitalism - which creates and destroys and recreates the world as we experience it at an astounding rate.

While everybody argues about the threat of ‘socialism,’ ‘liberalism,’ ‘secularism,’ or whatever, they tend to ignore the fact that they’re symptoms rather than anything else.
 
Is it possible to implement a communist economic system yet also be democratic? Could a communist system also allow religious freedom?
I think you’d run into the problem of ‘tyranny of the majority’, which would quickly slide into loss of true religious freedom. Majorities have historically proven to be appallingly bad at protecting minorities, especially in categories where it’s inherent to the category that a majority thinks it’s in the minority’s best interests to change, e.g. religion.

And honestly I think it would be nothing short of miraculous for a true democracy to continue to meaningfully exist under the centralized, totalizing economic structure of communism, a certain number of years after the state monopolizes both the media and education systems. Even accidentally, such centralized and totalizing power would seem inevitably inclined toward corruption. Even if the corrupted actors believe they’re doing [XYZ] in the ‘best interests’ of the majority – even, as voted by the majority (who are educated in state-run schools and informed by state-run media, and communicate with each other by state-run and state-monitored technology).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top