Topic: communist and human rights (Read 338 times)

You may not know Marx, you must know that communism is the only place of human civilization. But now because of the early days, there are a lot of incompatibilities. Communist countries must have human rights, but the biggest difference between them and democracies is that their unity and unity are more important than human rights. To know that an ant group is united, it will develop faster and democracy will lose its advantage in the future. You can understand China.

Government control, as that article states, is not necessarily socialist.  21st century leaders replaced the word "workers" with "government" in the definition of socialism and that is how everyone got confused about socialism. 

The scandanavian countries are what should be called a mixed economy.  They use unions as a way to give workers bargaining power over the means of production.  This creates an arm wrestling match between workers and capitalists until agreements are reached.  Union agreements are mandated to apply to the entire sector. 

Yes, I think they do. But it depends on what do you understand when you say "communism". If you mean USSR - I don't think they had a lot of human rights. But if you mean Sweden, for example, then of course they do. Maybe even more than we are.

if they can be happy with a communist central bank controlling their money

There are only 5 more communist countries in the world left. While it is unfortunante, it is hardly a reason to obsess over communism all the time. People missunderstand what socialism is. Wellfare state is not socialism. Universal health care is neither communism nor socialism. Scandinavian countries are not socialist.

https://www.google.si/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/amp/

from my point of view, any kind of government would suffice if every one would only exercise their freedom and responsibility honestly which are practically inclusive. 

Human rights are maximized by the bottom left quadrant.  Everyone is taken care of and has freedom to do as they please.  This would be the polar opposite of facism.

Communism recognizes the identity of each person, although the qualities of the individual manifest themselves in different ways and receive a different social assessment.

The Marxist concept of personality proceeds from the understanding of a person as a carrier, a subject of social relations. It organically combines the view of a person as a product of the social environment with the recognition of its active role in the knowledge and transformation of this environment.
Under socialism, a new relationship arises between the individual and society, based on the growing unity of social and personal interests.
Unfortunately, a person apart from society is not very well perceived under communism.
Ideal if the interests of the individual are fully in agreement with the interests of society. But in reality this is not always the case.

When systems start to fail they always leave behind ruins that cannot be maintained. There are many castle ruins in France and Britain that are evidence of their "failed feudal systems".  Abandoned US bases scattered around the world (evidence of their failed attempt of world domination ?)

When a country has been subject to sanctions - those sanctions are responsible for a lot of the abandoned projects. It is when a country runs out of money because other countries boycott them.





This doesn't look much more appealing to me. But does it mean the whole system failed ?

You cannot compare a flawed system and say it represents the ideology.

As an ideology communism has many appealing features - including basic human rights.

For instance - in a perfect communist ideology:

- A laborer isn't considered less worthy than a investment banker, property speculator, commodities trader or futures trader. All legal occupations that in a capitalist economy are known to rort the system and provide no real "added value". In a perfect communist ideology those occupations shouldn't exist.

- A person who is sick gets treated by a hospital - even though medication and equipment is lacking due to capitalist embargoes.

- A person who is homeless gets housing.

In a capitalist system a laborer would earn substantially less than a "investment banker:.

- Someone would not receive medical care if they could not afford it - even though there are ample resources available to provide the care.

- A homeless person would not get housing. - even though there is a surplus of housing.

The reason a lot of communist states failed is because they are boycotted by the capitalist countries.

Cuba was on track to do extremely well but was embargoed because communist ideology was a threat to America

I would argue that food, shelter and health care are more essential human rights to sustain life than "freedom of speech".

I would also add that without "freedom" - I would rather not be living.

(After the depression and war - Communism stated to look appealing to some people.)

One of the ways to avoid that from happening and threatening the oligarch empires is to have witch communist hunts.

Part of the reason communism doesn't work in practice is because there is no such thing as "perfect communism".

What we are left with is flawed capitalism, flawed communism and flawed socialism.

Which flavor of flawed system you prefer is based on your own flawed idealism or selfishness.  

But are we really "free" under any of those system ?

The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

Capitalism in practice isn't real capitalism. It is "state sponsored oligarchism" paid for by printing more money.

Instead of having dependent beneficiaries of those that have had hard luck. The beneficiaries that get the biggest bailouts are the big corporations and financial institutions.

Freedom - The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

Act - See what happens when you stop paying your taxes, use or sell drugs. (none of which I recommend doing)
There are many laws that prevent us from acting in complete freedom.
Tax audits, traffic stops for alcohol testing, airport searches are example of things that show we don't have complete freedom. Try saying no to them.

Speak - See what happens when you shout "Allahu Akbar  !" in the middle of a shopping mall, greeting a police officer with "Hi Wayne Kerr"  or defame someone rich. (none of which I recommend doing)
There are many social norms and public nuisance laws that prevent us from speaking.

Think - See what happens if you hold some unpopular or taboo perverted beliefs.(none of which I recommend doing)
There are many social norms, expectations and even spy agencies that keep track of "dangerous" beliefs.

In the past - in capitalist countries - journalist, communists, homosexuals, Jews, Catholics were all kept an eye on for their "dangerous" beliefs.

How "free" you are is how free you feel and how well you have adapted to and adopted the system you live in.

Communist regimes were same as dictatorships it mean human rights are on minimum level and that dictatorship discourages innovation or the creation of new ideas.In a culture of fear, standing out is a dangerous choice and it is easier and safer to avoid notice and not to perform exceptionally. Thinking outside the box and questioning the status quo would involve putting your life at an enormous risk and independent thinking was squashed and discouraged. You cannot build a successful economic model if you insist on executing independent thinkers and imprisoning creative minds. The enormous totalitarian apparatus is a monolith that will crush the rest of the economy. The military industrial complex prospers at the expense of the rest of the economy. A repressive environment breeds a resentful population that is only too willing to get their own back at a government they despise. Original thinking is discouraged and the economy stagnates.That is mainly reason why communism failed.

I highly reccomend everyone reading "Road to serfdom" by Friedrich A. Hayek. There he breaks down very clearly why any form of collectivism inevitably results in a totalitarian society which suppresses personal freedom.

Communism is a system of government that have authorities in great power and limits its people from having human rights due to its nature of the prevalence of an idea of "collectiveness" rather than "individuality." The idea here is that, authorities in power are afraid of the power of an individual. Hence, they tend to limit it. Communist government is mainly concern on the needs pf the people to survive but not to live in a free society. Yes, in every types of government, freedom is not absolute and has its own limits. Yet, differs in range. And in communism, freedom is very limited. Thus, making human rights limited in communism.

Of course people in communist countries have some rights, but they don't have a many freedoms as capitalist countries. In reality all human right have some limits. For example, freedom of speech is only allowed to go so far. Every country seems to draw it's own lines. At some point almost all government will put a stop to terrorist books or publications, for example. The thing is that there are very few people in populations that would want to stand up for terrorists. Therefore, even in capitalist countries the freedom of speech isn't really complete freedom. Communist values are so absolute that they can be more sensitive to publications that contradict them, so I think communists limit "freedoms" even more than in other societies.

Communist ideology says that the collective is important, not an individual. Proceeding from this, there are no human rights in communism at all. If you have to live, work, talk, even think like everyone else ...  The totalitarian regime is afraid of the freedom of the individual. Therefore, all spheres of life must be under the control of the authorities. There are no human rights in communism, there is only an opportunity to survive, but not live.

they don't . they  leave in an oppressed community where the government controls every single aspect of their life. Sadly in some post communist countries the older generation says that it was better when communism was around

there are reasons for that, you should check how the people lived there before socialism, then you would talk differently.

there were christian nobility farming wasnt mechanised, the nobility constantly had wars against each other, for power might or their social personal dramas, same was in china, the period that developed to current urban infrastructure was purely communist made.

secondly you have no ide yet how pure capitalism works, but as soon as crypto will kick in you will know pure capitalism doesnt exist.

regards

thats not true only for a certain part of humans, if to many desire power and money like we have today with crypto, communism wont work, it mainly protects the population from the abusers

The new trend on limit freespeech is "fake news", fast turning into "convenient" news.
Like at Malaysia, now they have "anti-fake news" laws... well, it is nothing but yet another way to prevent criticism on Islam and their government. Ironically saying something like "Allah is real" is what should be considered fake news, because you've no way to prove your statement.

The funny thing is, human rights vary between country, for example in one country freedom is speech is an absolute necessity, whereas in other countries (particularly communist ones), it is a privilege. I would say, when a democratic country looks at a communist one, they would tend to feel that they have fewer rights. Slaves have less rights than free men.

Depends on what you mean, whether communists are also human beings and therefore have human rights OR whether communists support human rights. I think the former is definitely yes and the latter, I am not sure.. I guess they would support the values enshrined in human rights, for the most part, but consider an ideal society to be one in which these human rights are simply protected without need for law to do so..