Why do people always act like communism is the greatest evil and bans free thought?

[FREEDfromthepast]

I notice people act like communism is the most evil thing that ever existed and bans freedom. But if you read the Communist Manifesto,you will discover that all Communism is is an economic system. It doesn't necessarily ban freedom.

The men who created Communism even believed men should be freed to do they anything they want so long as they don't harm and exploit others!
Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism and communism.

According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom.[6] Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as action with content.According to Marx, Communism's outlook on freedom was based on an agent, obstacle, and goal. The agent is the common/working people; the obstacles are class divisions, economic inequalities, unequal life-chances, and false consciousness; and the goal is the fulfillment of human needs including satisfying work, and fair share of the product.

They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any need to. Whereas for Hegel the unfolding of this ethical life in history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx, communism emerged from material forces, particularly the development of the means of production.

You see communism is an economic system,not an evil philosophy that bans freedom and free thought.In fact most of the so- called Communist nations that existed such as the USSR were never TRULY COMMUNIST BUT MORE LIKE TOTOLATARIAN REGIMES rule by corrupt dicatatorships!

[katiekicksyou]

You seem very educated about this topic. Most people are not. I believe therein is the answer. It is easier for people to agree with the mainstream idea than to venture out and actually learn about something.

[Sasha]

u should b arrested. i am American and proud of it, we believe in freedom and democracy. communists killed frosty the snowman,

[Ann]

So I guess che guevara, castro, chavez...etc...never read that communist manifesto that you mentioned?

[darlk]

Educated person like yourself should know the answer already. Many people are ignorant and have learned the wrong stuff about certain things that they still carry with them today. Also since they have been taught this early on, it is hard to persuade them otherwise.

[Matt]

Short answer: because these people don't know what it is.


The entire objective of Communism is liberation of the masses. By allowing collective ownership of production/distribution, the restriction of freedom - worker oppression, class divisions, exploitation of labour, unequal opportunities - could be overcome. Through a combination of common goals and individual expression, a better society could be achieved.

So I would expand on what you said, "It doesn't necessarily ban freedom", by saying that it actually necessitates freedom. Nowhere in Marx and Engel's original Manifesto does it specify absolute equality, purely for equality's sake. The principle "from every man [sic] according to their ability, to every man [sic] according to his need" was merely a necessary basis to achieve freedom. After all, freedom isn't freedom if only a few people have it, but merely the freedom to choose one's boss.

Contrary to what many people say, Communists do not advocate government control; the truth is quite the opposite. Communism necessitates the dissolution of the state, because a government - like any position of power - inevitably abuses its control and places power in the hands of a select few, it creates class divisions, and power divisions, it doesn't create the egalitarianism the Communism necessitates.

The three goals of Communism can essentially be summarised as equality, freedom, and solidarity.


Where I fall out with Marxist thought is in the idea of achieving Communism through temporary State control of wealth - the transitional stage in which Capitalism is overthrown, known as Socialism. I question whether any government would simply "dissolve" its own power; if the point of freedom is freedom, then, as Orwell said, "the point of power is power alone". But heck, maybe us Anarchists are just more impatient!

Where I do agree with Marx is the idea of social organisation, and the common goals of working people you refer to. Minorities would not have the ability to exploit if the "proletariat" were to free themselves from "false consciousness" and organised themselves together.


Communism has a lot of negative connotations, thanks to the brutal regimes of the USSR, North Korea, and to an extent, the current state of The State in China, and questionable human rights practice.

The Capitalists frequently tell us that "we" fought "communism" for "freedom". However, official documentation of 20th century opposition to these "communist regimes" shows that freedom was not their biggest concern. What really bugged Western leaders was the Soviet Unions economic growth (which was substantial, until it underwent reform to free market Capitalism in 1989). US presidents, including Truman, actually admired the leadership of those like Stalin, and Churchill frequently defended Stalin's leadership in cabinet meetings. The Western world weren't fighting oppressive leadership - hell, let them kill as many as they like - they were fighting economic growth which threatened their own.

But as you rightly say, this wasn't even Communism anyway. The governments of Soviet Russia, China, North Korea etc simply took over business ownership, replacing the old, tyrannous, greedy bosses, with new tyrannous, greedy bosses. Such governments also took control over worker's unions, despite worker control being fundamental to Communism. The government still worked in the interest of capital, so they were/are State-Capitalist.


The apologists always say that it is 'against human nature', in their desperate attempt to sound scientific, but, of course, human nature is the very reason for communism; people will naturally become greedy and corrupt if they have the power to, so don't give them the power.

Human nature is not a constant, definable, set of rules. In evolutionary science, racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, rape and murder are all explainable as survival mechanisms - at least they were in the past. But in modern, 'civilised' society, we view these things as abhorrent (at least, some do) - we have developed our own moral compass. Just as 'human nature' has changed in the past, it will progressively move to favour altruism, as technological advances make resources more abundant (the world has more than enough food and water to feed us, but still people are starving).


There is no reason for Communism no to work. In order for us to achieve equality, freedom, and solidarity, we must first remove Capitalism, The Church, and The State. Communism is just a type of Anarchy.