Communism was established on the postulate that capitalism was deliberately exploitive, and that the wealthy were malicious enslavers of the proletariat. The Bolsheviks, once 'abolishing' this class (occasionally, by beating the heads of members in with a brick, usually by shooting), formed a party apparatus that would act as the bridge between the revolutionary period and the future dictatorship of the proletariat. The Fascist movement went one better. It 'syndicalized' business, in effect nationalizing it, running it as if they were a large federal worker's union. Nazism added nationalism to the equation. The defining principle here was that, since many Jews were in business, and since business was the definition of evil, then Jews were the deliberate instigators of capitalism. In effect, capitalism was a Jewish 'trick', meant to weaken the Teutonic strength of the German race. They are all extrapolations on the same theme, i.e. that the wealthy are evil, primarilly because they are wealthy, and thus deserveto be robbed and killed. Thus, the term 'totalitarianism', or a system of government that encompasses all aspects of the national life. Thus, we see the Aryan reflected in the New Soviet Man (and his supposed counterpart in Communist China). Thus we see the Hitler Youth copied in the Red Pioneers. Thus we see concentration camps in Germany, and gulags in Soviet Russia (or labor battalions in China). And so forth.Fascism states that struggle is the natural state of man. Communism states that dialectical struggle is the natural state of man. Only by triumph over some final opponent in an apocalyptic event (for the Bolsheviks, world capitalism; for the Nazis, world Jewry; for the Chinese, a cross between 'mandarinism', Western culture, and capitalists) would the revolution finally be safe, and peace reign (for the Bolsheviks, forever - the Nazis were a bit more conservative, and predicted a mere millenium of utopia ...)
What is obvious in many Third World countries, especially upon the advent of a phenomenally successful world arms industry, is the almost insurmountable obstacles toward breaking the cycle of left-right totalitarian regimes. We in the U.S. of A. are doing what we can to help, of course. One might note that, for the few that are actually successful (Costa Rica comes to mind) that capitalist development plays a significant part. thus, the preferable lifestyle of those in the South of Korea, as opposed to the North. And so on.
I suppose reasonable and decent people can disagree on Communism, in the same way they might have differences of opinion on Nazism. Whatever the relevance of this might be, the fact remains that both systems are pretty much both repellant, in an obvious and objective sense - perhaps with Communism getting the nod, by virtue of its acceptability and body count. Although, of course, given the former, the Communists have had more time to excel at the latter, to be fair.
It is strange that Communists seem to be persecuted in virtually every country they appear in. The same seems to be true for serial killers. I wonder if there is a connection of some sort?
A few comments:
On Nicaragua - I'm quite suprised to see you, of all people, defending the massacre of Indians. I suppose they had it coming. And since I am American, I cannot be moved by the issue - although I seem to recall some pretty strident language about genocide and crimes against humanity coming from the Left of the fence, during the Great WWII. Post Pact, of course. Anything for the revolution, by all means.
El Salvador - Hmm. Middle class vigilante mobs hunting down peasants. The peasants seem to be very poor. The middle class don't employ them (they're farmers), hence need not 'keep them in their place'. Nor could theft be a motive; what might they steal? Hmm. Perhaps all the ambushes, exploding gas stations, sabotaged hydroelectric dams, etc. might have had something to do with the issue.
And no, he wasn't the 'appropriate counter-measure'. Although many in El Salvador seemed to think so, staking their lives on the point.
Indonesia - I talked to an impassioned speaker on the subject, one who claimed to have only the welfare of this poor Portuguese minority at heart. I suggested that the Americans might help them emigrate out of this war zone, at least until some settlement might be reached - it seemed the only way to avoid further depredations against these defenseless people. He was quite cool to the idea, and was rather unfriendly afterwards.
So much for 'saving the people'. Pawns are preferable, I suppose. Especially with all that potential oil ...
Peru - Not if the Peruvians have anything to say about it. I think that they might have had less than warm feelings towards said 'bright-eyed youths', and seem even less interested in welcoming helpful gals into the country of the Jennifer Casalo type. Of course, we call such 'bright-eyed' types terrorists in the 'States, but what do we know?
Guatemala - Still no hard data, although the 'genocide'(?) statistics seem similar to those in the Persian Gulf war. Thus, likely why the Guatemalan government won. Enough said.
Communism certainly had a great deal to be ashamed of. Of course, this didn't mean that they were - members could always absolve responsibility (Mao wasn't REALLY a Communist, Stalin REALLY wasn't an associate of Lenin, Pol Pot REALLY wasn't a once friendly associate of the Vietnamese administration, and so forth) or claim that such 'repression' actually was beneficial (thus, the defense of Iraq by local Communists during the Gulf War, or the persistent and insane defence of a Cuban tyrant via 'literacy rates').
Incidentally, no genocide was ever perpetrated in the nam e of 'capitalism'. Capitalism implies the investment of capital, and even in Marxist rhetoric, the exploitation of a workforce. This 'exploitation', which we call employment, is fairly difficult to accomplish with a dead work force. Indeed, until quite late in the war, when the Nazis finally freed businessmen from the severe constraints of Party machinations (as per one Mr. Speer), productivity in this apparently 'capitalist' nation suffered severely. I would suggest you refer to Richard Overy, in his book Why the Allies Won, in regards to this particular instance. Also, I seem to remember something called the NEP, and a resultant boom in Soviet Russia (no corresponding genocide, strangely). Also, the "Communism with a Chinese face" of Deng Xiao Ping, and a similar jump in economic vitality (again, no mass slaughters, as in for example that famous capitalist genocide, the Great Leap Forward). And so on.
A side note. In high school, I defended the British in a mock trial of the American revolutionaries. I won. An Emancipation Proclamation in 1807 might not have been so bad for the 'colonies' either, so no argument here.
At least we agree on something ...
