Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 25 Share on Twitter 2 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 11/22/19

To the capitalist ruling class, communism will always be evil

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages) (# of views)   3 comments
Author 510691
Message Rainer Shea
Become a Fan
  (6 fans)
Republished from Rainer Shea blog

Death toll of capitalism
Death toll of capitalism
(Image by photographymontreal)
  Details   DMCA

The capitalist class doesn't hate communism out of concern for mass murder. The accounts of the mass deaths that communism has supposedly caused are exaggerated or fabricated, and capitalist governments have caused hundreds of times more deaths than can be attributed to communist ones. Anti-communism isn't about human rights, at least not human rights as a socialist would define them. Capitalists and imperialists vilify countries like China because they don't like that these countries have challenged the "rights" to exploit and oppress.

This is the essence of the concerns of the rightists who've worked to undermine the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. Their theatrics about the need to protect "human rights" are motivated by the desire to solidify Western imperialist control over the city, which China threatens. China isn't the one responsible for the decline of Hong Kong's living standards, the Western-aligned Hong Kong capitalist class is. And China's policy control over the city is so limited that it's hard to honestly argue China is oppressing Hong Kongers. The Western imperialists have manufactured violent protests in Hong Kong because this helps their geopolitical and corporate interests.

"The 'human rights' advertised by the imperialists are privileges of the rich, privileges to do anything on the strength of money," Kim Jong Il wrote in Socialism is a Science. "The imperialists do not recognize the right of unemployed people to work, or the right of orphans or people without support to eat and survive, for instance, as human rights. As they do not grant working people elementary rights to existence and as they pursue anti-popular policies and policies of racial and national discrimination and colonialism, the imperialists have no right to speak about human rights. The imperialists are the most heinous enemy of human rights. They violate the people's right to independence and interfere in the internal affairs of other countries on the pretext of 'defending human rights.'"

Just as the reactionary capitalists who advance these narratives often view it as a violation of their rights for them to have any of their tax money redistributed to the poor, they view it as an atrocity when a socialist government makes an effort towards taking the capitalist class out of power. This is why when we hear demonizations of the Soviet Union, what often comes up is Stalin's supposed atrocities against the petty bourgeois class of landowners called the kulaks. Yet Stalin's approach for collectivizing the property of the kulaks was done with restraint, and the ensuing class warfare between the landowners and the peasants was essentially out of Stalin's hands. As the historian Bruce Franklin has written:

It was the hour of Russia's peasant masses, who had been degraded and brutalized for centuries and who had countless blood debts to settle with their oppressors. Stalin may have unleashed their fury, but he was not the one who had caused it to build up for centuries.

The staggering selfishness that these petty tyrants showed when Stalin tried to make their resources available to a desperate populace-with many of the kulaks having burned their supplies rather than share it-is also ignored by bourgeois commentators who see the kulaks as victims. From a capitalist perspective, taking away someone's means for exploiting the proletariat is a heinous crime, and the kulaks were only defending themselves.

Such is the nature of how bourgeois society views the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. We're constantly invited to sympathize with the landlords and capitalists who came under attack throughout the campaign to get them out of power, yet bourgeois portrayals of these events always omit their context and what resulted from them. Most of the landlord killings were spontaneous actions from the peasants, who were given the opportunity to gain personal justice after centuries of oppression against their people. Like is the case with the struggle between the kulaks and the Russian peasants, a historical context makes it easy to sympathize with the side of the peasants; China's peasants hated their landlords because they had had the power to rob, rape, and kill peasants with impunity, had taxed peasants into starvation, and had even taken the wives and daughters of peasant families if the families didn't have enough food to give up.

During the Cultural Revolution, when Mao used a paramilitary force to take rightists out of prominent positions, the actions of the communists also couldn't honestly be viewed to be wholly wrong or to have mainly negative consequences. Ann Tompkins, one of the few Americans who's lived through and participated in the Cultural Revolution, wrote in a Reddit post three years ago that "I do not feel remorse for participating in a revolution in which some blood was shed and some suffering occurred. I am still in doubt of the 'official' numbers of the atrocities from either China or other sources."

Tompkins' differing perspective about the Cultural Revolution exists because in addition to the misleading ways in which the Revolution's death count has been typically presented, the Revolution resulted in indisputable gains for Chinese society. When Mao's campaign removed many reactionaries from power and made it so that all members of the social strata were directly participating in the running of society, healthcare and education were expanded while students were made able to openly criticize their schools. Despite the continual bourgeois efforts to paint the Cultural Revolution as a humanitarian disaster wherein some vaguely defined Maoist "dictatorship" was solidified, China would now have lower living standards and be less democratic had the Revolution not happened.

But these are all mere details for those who have a vested interest in demonizing class liberation efforts. The same narrative-the one of tyrannical communists victimizing innocent businesspeople and rightist political leaders-is also the default for how we're told to view the events of Cuba's revolution. Che Guevara is presented as a heartless murderer for having fought in battles against the torturers, executioners, and other war criminals who served the regime of capitalist dictator Batista. And as the anti-imperialist Peter Bolton assessed in an article this year, the bourgeois narrative about the supposed injustices of Castro's land reforms also come from the position that capitalists have a right to do what they wish with people and land:

According to this belief system, the tyrannical Fidel Castro seized for himself everything from everyone so that all but he might be equal. The reality is far more nuanced than this picture suggests. For one thing, the Cuban exiles who left in the early days of the revolution abandoned their properties as they fled for Yankee shores. (And many of them did so long before the country officially embraced communism in late 1965 almost six years after Castro seized power from Batista.) So they could not have reasonably expected to have them returned to them no matter what political and economic system Cuba eventually adopted. Furthermore, Fidel Castro made clear that expropriation would apply to everyone, including him and his cadre of revolutionaries themselves. Indeed, one of the very first things that his government nationalized after the revolution was his own family farm in the island's Oriente province.

In their response to these actions from communist governments, the capitalist class and its supporters have revealed the real reason why they demonize these governments: because they've challenged bourgeois rule. For people who believe that it's a right to accumulate as much money as possible while depriving others of a comfortable life, the actions of leaders who believe in equality and egalitarianism will always look like atrocities. This is simply how the capitalist philosophy leads one to view socialism. And as long as we allow people with the capitalist philosophy to hold power, their warped definition of "rights" will continue to be the rule in our society.

 

Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Rainer Shea Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Rainer Shea is writing articles that counter the propaganda of the capitalist/imperialist power establishment, and that help move us towards a socialist revolution.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Do Americans Know How Close They Are To Dictatorship?

China is Saving the Uighurs From Jihadist Indoctrination

The coming U.S. regime change attempt in Bolivia

As the American Empire Collapses, It Could Launch WW 3

Counting down to civilization's collapse

The Fall of the Neoliberal Order is Drastically Accelerating

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments


David William Pear

Become a Fan Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Nov 29, 2014), 51 fans, 80 articles, 394 quicklinks, 3927 comments (View Extended Stats)
Facebook Page Twitter Page Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Rainer's second sentence ("deaths that communism has supposedly caused are exaggerated or fabricated") caused me to pause. Exploring that would make an interesting article in itself. The link makes an interesting argument.

But even if the "100 million" from Stalin, Mao, etc. is true, then it has to be put in context: "How many deaths has capitalism caused?" The numbers add up very quickly.

One calculation put the death toll from the US wars just since WW2 as high as 30 million. What's more is that deaths from capitalism continues to mount. When all causes are considered, the death toll probably far exceeds Stalin, Mao, etc. Just from the lack of medical care a Harvard study estimated that 45,000 people die every year.

Submitted on Friday, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:23:02 PM

  Recommend  (2+)
Help

Lee Beacham

Become a Fan
Author 502584
(Member since May 30, 2015), 1 fan, 669 comments (View Extended Stats)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

"

or the right of orphans or people without support to eat and survive".......No one has starved in America the last 200 years.


Rob, is this writer confusing Socialism with Communism ? You're the resident expert on this.


Submitted on Friday, Nov 22, 2019 at 9:47:03 PM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help

Starbuck

Become a Fan
Author 24974
(Member since Oct 24, 2008), 1 fan, 193 comments (View Extended Stats)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

So the question to all the pro-communists or socialists or whatever is two-fold:

1. If communism and socialism are so great and capitalism is so awful, why are so many people flooding our borders from communist/socialist countries to come to our decidedly capitalist country?

2. Please explain why the largest "communist" country in the world has seemed to adopt capitalism on such a grand scale? Tons of products sold in our capitalist country come from..you guessed it..China! Seems suspiciously Capitalistic to me. Sounds like nothing has changed. Capitalism is what is keeping Communism alive.

Tangent question: Within the US itself, why are people running away from the states that are trying their best to become more socialist (California, New York).

And why not the most obvious question...if you love socialism so much and hate capitalism so vehemently, why not hop on a plane and head for socialist land? The last poster I saw that touted China and Communism so much, to his credit, apparently DID move to China. So I do applaud him for actually taking an effective action to experience what he claims to be the ideal.

Submitted on Saturday, Nov 23, 2019 at 5:57:34 AM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help