Were Communist countries really communist?

It seems like every communist government that ever existed took it's basic principles and twisted them for their own gains, for example:

• USSR = Stalin mass murdered millions of his own people, political opponents, etc. and refused to share power
• Cuba = Fidel Castro had held on to power for over 50 years
• China = Mao took power right after WWII (It seems like these guys couldn't stop the bloodlust, going right back to their Civil War)

Communism is suppose to be about a stateless society and equal distribution of wealth, right? But how is it possible when you have rulers in power like Stalin and Castro who build monuments, statues, etc. of themselves.

It seems to me that these nations modeled themselves more like Fascist Dictatorships than Social Communist States. If a truly noble government took control, would those nations have been better off than what happened to them historically?

Plus, why does it seem like most people that live in Capitalist societies are happier than the people who live under Communist ones?


PS: By no means do I claim to be a political expert, so feel free to correct my viewpoints on what communism exactly is here if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Were Communist countries really communist?

Not a single one.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Communism is suppose to be about a stateless society and equal distribution of wealth, right?

Not really - not any more than capitalism is supposed to be stateless, or autocratic or if capitalism needs a monarchy. Communism and capitalism are both economic systems - they have nothing to say about government.

China is still a dictatorship, but now it's a pretty much fully capitalist dictatorship.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Plus, why does it seem like most people that live in Capitalist societies are happier than the people who live under Communist ones?

I dunno I'd agree with that. More people take anti depressants now than ever under the USSR. Part of that is people didn't have Paxil under Stalin, but a huge part of it is people in the capitalist world need Paxil. We're overwhelmingly depressed as a people. Which makes "happier than" comparisons hard.

From the surveys I've read, people in the northern European countries are happier. They have more taxes but don't have to stress out about basic necessities such as health care.

A lot of people realize not everyone can make it rich.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Not a single one.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Not really - not any more than capitalism is supposed to be stateless, or autocratic or if capitalism needs a monarchy. Communism and capitalism are both economic systems - they have nothing to say about government.

So it's just a coincidence that they happened to all be basically dictatorships then?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

China is still a dictatorship, but now it's a pretty much fully capitalist dictatorship.

Then why do they still use the "Label of Communism" to describe their gov't, despite the fact of all the capitalist economic policies they're implementing?

Originally Posted by joder

From the surveys I've read, people in the northern European countries are happier. They have more taxes but don't have to stress out about basic necessities such as health care.

I've thought I read somewhere that they were happier too, can't remember the source right off-hand though.

Also, are those European nations Socialist countries?

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Communism is suppose to be about a stateless society and equal distribution of wealth, right?

Yes. It is. Each works according to their ability, each receives according to their need. The reason all the examples you cite are failed dictatorships with unhappy people is because communism relies on blind idealism. It relies on the idea that the people distributing wealth will do it even handedly(not dipping into the pot for themselves). It relies on the idea that each will truly work according to their ability, when in reality, the pay is the same no matter how hard you work.

I just noted China made the top 10 list for worst dictatorships on the planet, yet there is no question they are the largest emerging powerhouse capitalism based economy on the planet. I'm fairly certain they got that rating for their lack of free speech (Youtube just got banned in China). I suppose China and Singapore might be shining examples that a benign dictatorship with a capitalist economic system might be the most efficient form of government on the planet.

As far as Europe having a "more content" population, I'd say that is very debatable. Socialism yields some very nice benefits for those who are unwilling or unable to work hard to get ahead. You could probably look at the statistics for medical facilities (private vs public, US vs Europe) and see where people are going for their medical treatment to see what the preference is. Same for education. Same for location of residence. I think you will find the U.S. rates higher than most European nations on pretty much every scale.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

So it's just a coincidence that they happened to all be basically dictatorships then?

You could make an argument either way. It wasn't the word communist that turned them into dictatorships, so you could say it's a coincidence. On the other hand, when we look at a lot of the countries that are associated with this artificial notion of what communism is, they have other things in common. Capitalism is only possible in a world of haves and have nots. China and Russia and every other country we call communist turned to the idea after spending a good portion of history with 90 or more % of the people being have nots. Otherwise, a people's revolution would never have taken heart. This type of extreme slant in social economic power can't help but create lots and lots of corruption, which topples a good idea into a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Then why do they still use the "Label of Communism" to describe their gov't, despite the fact of all the capitalist economic policies they're implementing?

Things are very slow to change in China. Things can change, as long as people pretend they aren't. Even if Mao would be rolling in his grave, they still pay him lip service. More than anything, China is afraid of social unrest. So it's kind of like 1984, when Ignsoc made peace with one power and war with the other - in the middle of a rally, they tore down all the posters, put up new ones, and the people acted like they had always been at war with Oceana.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Also, are those European nations Socialist countries?

The borders are so blurred. America is a socialist country, in the sense that any school age child gets a free primary and secondary education.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Yes. It is. Each works according to their ability, each receives according to their need. The reason all the examples you cite are failed dictatorships with unhappy people is because communism relies on blind idealism. It relies on the idea that the people distributing wealth will do it even handedly(not dipping into the pot for themselves). It relies on the idea that each will truly work according to their ability, when in reality, the pay is the same no matter how hard you work.

Perhaps this is why the U.S. has been so successful, because it seems to be the hardest form of government to manipulate (by any group of people).

Originally Posted by cbwm

I suppose China and Singapore might be shining examples that a benign dictatorship with a capitalist economic system might be the most efficient form of government on the planet.

Isn't China's economy predicted to pass ours around 2025 or so (when their total GDP surpasses the US's). I'm not exactly sure here, but since China's economy growing at an exponential rate, has it been growing faster than the USA's ever has? And is there a prediction of when their economic bubble might burst?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

You could make an argument either way. It wasn't the word communist that turned them into dictatorships, so you could say it's a coincidence. On the other hand, when we look at a lot of the countries that are associated with this artificial notion of what communism is, they have other things in common. Capitalism is only possible in a world of haves and have nots. China and Russia and every other country we call communist turned to the idea after spending a good portion of history with 90 or more % of the people being have nots. Otherwise, a people's revolution would never have taken heart. This type of extreme slant in social economic power can't help but create lots and lots of corruption, which topples a good idea into a dictatorship.

So will it be very unlike that we'll see a true communist state sometime in the future? (Without all the corruption of power, dictatorships, uneven wealth distribution, etc.)

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

The borders are so blurred. America is a socialist country, in the sense that any school age child gets a free primary and secondary education.

I do understand that its impossible for any country to be "completely" socialist, capitalist, etc. I guess I meant to ask if those countries leaned mostly socialist, compared to the rest of the countries.