- NEW!
by Fashionista on May 20th, 2009
Because all the leaders have been completely shitty people and ruined the otherwise nobel, and rather interesting concepts of Communism. It's a shame. That's why most people think it's evil and a bad idea.
by ConservativelyLiberal on June 12th, 2009
Because they see what the Russians and Chineese call their Oligarchies and beieve that's true communism.
.
Also Americans in general have been sold the lie, that they too might be the next Rockafeller, Carnegy, or Gates. It's possible, but so unliekly as to be laughable. But as long as the poor dream that dream, they'll never support something that will make them equals, instead of kings.
by The Wraith of God is Coming on May 20th, 2009
YOu work hard and someone else is rewarded.
So why work hard?
End product is a crappy product that no one wants.
You have money but there is nothing worth buying.
Human slavery in the form of forced labor camps for those unwilling to work.
No real law enforcement.
Poor medical care dr.s aren't as welll trained and there is no insentive to make new medicines.
by ILoveLois on May 20th, 2009
Communism is one of those things that's fine in priciple, but due to the human element in putting it into practice, always goes tits up in the end.
by KingLeonidas on May 20th, 2009
American Propanganda during the 1950's gave it negative stigma.
P.S. im not for/against communism. i understand what it is and understand a bit of history on it
by Sodahead on June 12th, 2009
Because it's opposite of freedom and liberty. I personally prefer to think for myself. I don't need the State to tell me how to think.
by WelbyQuentin on May 20th, 2009
Some of the ideals of communism, in theory, do sound rather lofty and good -- it's just that in actual "communism application attempts" with actual people and governments and leaders, it's had some pretty awful results.
by Thunder_Kiss_65 on May 20th, 2009
Do you read history ? s
by Sodahead on May 20th, 2009
LOL....Are you kidding? Do you read history at all? More people died at the hands of communism then in the last two world wars combined.
by mrbuddhafreak on May 20th, 2009
Are you serious? There were three great(?) mass murderers in the 20th century, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, in that order. The first two were communists and the numbers for Hitler pale to their numbers. Those who scream about George Bush and torture don't even know what torture is. Those worried about their civil rights can't conceive of countries where you have no civil rights.
Why is there a negative stigma about communism? Is mass murder, torture, and state terrorism against its own people not enough for you to have a negative stigma about a political ideology? What would be enough?
by the_englishman on June 22nd, 2009
Because it has resulted in massacres even greater than The Holocaust. Study Pol Pot (Communist) , Mao Ze Tung (Communist) and Stalin (Communist).
And it doesn't work, either.
by Chubbychaser84 on June 12th, 2009
Because people generally tend to think they are higher class than what they actually are and need a feeling of class identity based on having a job, what job they do and how they act. Voting for communisim which makes everyone practically equal would mean they would lose this ego.
The other reason is business has a lot of power now and if it lost this power the world would change radically. Business leaders who now have so much power would of course see this as their worst nightmare.
by MrJosh on May 20th, 2009
Because the US gave communism a negative stigma during the Cold War. It was one way to villify the enemy.
by tapooz on November 10th, 2009
Ever lived in a communist state?
.
Ever drive a volga?
by SalientAlien on August 26th, 2009
Here's the way I see it: My first priority in supporting or opposing an economic system is to make sure I maintain personal freedom. The biggest threat to that freedom is People with Power. They are people whose decisions impact my life, and I firmly believe that the more power they have, the more negatively their decisions will affect me. I believe history has shown that to be the case. The worst case scenario would be a dictator with absolute power, in which the state and economy are inseparable. At that point, whether the People in Power are the State, or one vast Uber-corporation doesn't really matter. At the same time, I know that in every system, there will inevitably be people in power. The solution? A balance of power where the economy and the state are always divided. Big Money (BM) keeps the government from controlling all the money, while Big Government (BG) keeps BM from dirty dealing and stealing via regulation. If BG's and BM's affairs are intrinsically separate, neither can dominate my life. But if some BG buddies and some BM buddies get together, they can really cause problems. That's essentially what's going on with AIG, Goldman-Sachs and others to cause the housing crisis and feed the recession. A few profit enormously while everyone else is screwed. It's sometimes called regulatory capture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
What communism does, regardless of the intentions of motivating parties, is fast-track the marriage of BG and BM, making one super-powerful entity that is both the government and the economy. Under the premise that power corrupts, I'd have to say that communism is no good for folks who love freedom.
Another argument is a thought experiment: Suppose I want to implement a small-scale communist system for my town of 5,000 people. My belief is that if everyone gets the money they need, there will be no need for major regulations or a central authority. So I open a special account that anyone can sign up for and collective deposit or withdraw any amount of money. When somebody gets a paycheck, they deposit it in the account, where everyone has access to the money. I open the account by depositing all of my money. People in the town are enthusiastic about the system and begin signing up in droves. The next day, I find that somebody has withdrawn all the money. It turns out to be Mrs. Smith who is unemployed and has seven children who need basic food and clothing. Thus the account is bankrupt without anyone having cheated the idea of the account. Fortunately, some kind-hearted folks sign up and deposit all of their money the following day. But before the day is through, all of the money is again missing. Before long Mrs. Smith's children will be hungry again. It turns out that out of my 5,000 people, one or two are not communists at heart and have taken the opportunity to withdraw all of the money out of the account. The townsfolk beg and plead with the 'thief', Mr. Dunkel, but he argues he has done nothing wrong. His priority is his comfort, not Mrs. Smith's well-being. Obviously the town has a problem. They gather a town meeting and draft a series of regulations regarding the account. Among many things the townsfolk think to regulate, they give a priority to the needy, and order anyone who is going to withdraw a large amount to show that they have due need by way of an official request. Soon there are hundreds of requests, far too many for the town meetings to handle. They decide that a few townsfolk will quit their regular jobs and process the request forms. Mr. Williams, one of the more ardent and vocal supporters of the account system, is set up as an overseer to ensure that the requests are processed properly. The system works well enough after the regulations are put in place. But after a time a new problem arises: nobody new is enrolling in the local nursing school. Some people ask around, and it turns out that some young people who were thinking of going into nursing decided not to because they feel nursing is a difficult and laborious career. They instead decide to enroll at the university to study more fulfilling pursuits such as art and literature. Soon the local hospital is critically understaffed. Overworked, many of the existing nurses quit and take different jobs. The issue is debated extensively in the next town meeting. Eventually a new program is put in place. A nursing aptitude test will be given to all people graduating from high school. Those with the best schools would be required to enter nursing school. Many people are uneasy about the requirement, but as people begin to die at the hospital from inadequate care, these concerns are put aside. As time goes on, other aptitude tests are used to induce young people to follow career paths. Meanwhile, more regulations are put in place when local businesses begin to request lavish renovations and costly expansions as part of the regular withdrawals needed to operate. More and more people are taken out of the town's workforce to process requests as the regulation list grows. Mr. Williams heads up this large and growing bureaucracy. He allocates more and more of the town's money to run the bureaucracy. One day, a rumor circulates that Mr. Williams is giving preferential treatment to some of his friends, and even that his friends were giving Mr. Williams part of the extra money as kickbacks. The police have no legal grounds to confront Mr. Williams as there are no regulations regarding the kickbacks. The townspeople attempt to draft new regulations, but now the new regulations must be ratified by the central bureaucracy. (This was a response to Mr. Dunkel's attempt to net himself more money by drafting an unscrupulous regulation.) Many of the bureaucrats are uneasy with ratifying the anti-kickback regulation, as this conflicts with Mr. Williams' interests. The regulation is looked over extensively, modified, modified again, then re-written altogether. It will never become fully clear that Mr. Williams has included loopholes that allow the kickback system to continue. With the considerable amounts of money Mr. Williams is making, he launches programs to steer the town's economy in ways that seem correct to Mr. Williams. Accompanying these are information campaigns supporting the steering programs. Public opinion follows these information campaigns. Because of this, nobody realizes when the steering programs perform poorly. But because Mr. Williams is in charge of the money and the information, and no authority exists to challenge him, the programs continue.
The thought experiment becomes more speculative as you go on, but it's pretty clear that there must be some central authority in any application of communism beyond a small number of people. Just remember that my thought experiment assumed a vast majority of the people to support the system to begin with, and also assumed a relatively low level of corruption, historically speaking.
by josie III on August 5th, 2009
Because it is state sanctioned, organized slavery. This country fought a tragic and bloody war in no small part over the morality of slavery. I am a little surprised that anybody even says the word communism without feeling as creepy as most people do these days when you talk about slavery.
by mrbuddhafreak on June 12th, 2009
They have an unreasonable prejudice against oppressive murderous regimes.
by Legend In Your Own Mind on May 31st, 2009
In the west we've been taught only the bad things about communism for the most part and in communist countries the people who do get the power tend to be power mad killers, but the US, UK and Australia were also founded on similar ideas. Ask any native American or Aboriginal tribesmen about that. Genocide has been widely practiced by both systems.
The true communist state never really got a chance to grow because the power madmen ceased power, Stalin, Mao, etc.
It's far to easy to blame an ideology on a few power mad people when the true ideas of communism have never been allowed to take root anywhere. For that matter neither has true democracy. Both sides liked to tout high lofty ideas and cram those notions down childrens throats and those children grow up to be narrowly focused adults who have completely misguided ideas of how power actually works within either state system.
by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on May 20th, 2009
because of the two age old pox's on human kind...greed and power!, if those two things were taken out of the equation then it would work and work well
by Anonymous on May 20th, 2009
The presentation of past propagandha.
by Mr. Knowitall- The Poli Sci Guy on May 20th, 2009
we faught a 40 year war against it, and red alone is a bad color, doesn't match my eyes
by adult101 on May 20th, 2009
Because everyone knows someone more willing to sit on their butt and watch TV than to fill out the paperwork for food stamps.
by Factotum on May 20th, 2009
It's a Utopian dream that quickly devolves into atrocity.
by Idolator on November 19th, 2009
Because it is severely non democratic and it totally failed in practice.
by MininimMCXCVII on November 6th, 2009
Ask Lenin or Stalin.
by fred flintstone on August 26th, 2009
Because communism is anethema to capitalists and the capitalists manage all the mind control mechanisms - religion, education, politics, newspapers, films, books, television, advertising etc.
by Moongrim on June 12th, 2009
Because it's the favorite boogyman.
When some folks hate something, they ascribe to it everything in the world they don't like- to it.
and Communism is a nice idea, but every time it starts- ends up screwing things up.
by Redrum on June 12th, 2009
because only the ones in power succeed the poor usually stay poor
by philosopher-saint on May 31st, 2009
Unfamiliarity/ignorance, imho.
;-)
by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on May 27th, 2009
Because of the history of negative dictators attached to it.
It was an indirect method of controlling the world by proxy starting with the Germans and the russians.
Such small countries and such sneaky countries... Have no other means by which to do so...so they went the long way round the problem one person at a time.
It is propaganda at best and has corrupted more people than it ever helped!
by subtlesledgehammer on May 27th, 2009
Because any & all attempts to achieve it have ended in utter, complete and unequivocal FAILURE.
by 23Skidoo on May 27th, 2009
Communism has never been tried. The stigma in the US is mostly due to a pathological fear and hatred of it that's was created and has been continuously encouraged by the time's equivalent of today's neo-cons.
Having said that - and before the lynch mob comes after me - the system is almost certainly unworkable on any large (maybe any) scale. Socialism - the closest the world's ever gotten to commie - failed for economic reasons as well as purely human ones. Also, the guys who got it rolling at the beginning of the 20th century had an unfortunate Fascist streak and probably went in for the system out of simple, human lust for absolute power (which has nothing to do with communism per se)
But I'm glad you asked. There are very smart and good reasons to be against communism. But those require asking questions, studying some basic economic theory, human nature, history, even Marx... and mainly thinking.
+5
by PrairieWind on May 24th, 2009
Communism does not allow any other political system to co-exist with it. Capitalism is its enemy.
and vice versa
by morrisonhimself on May 24th, 2009
Any philosophy responsible for the murders of scores of millions of human beings deserves all the negativity it can get.
Any philosophy that has as its basic premise coercion, force, is evil and deserves all the negativity it can get.
Any philosophy that has proven itself to be such a total failure, resulting in the institutionalizing of death and destruction and slavery, deserves all the negativity it can get.
by olan black on May 21st, 2009
It was taught. Americans have been taught since the 1950's that communism was evil. and since that time until the breakup of the soviet Union, it was blamed for all the bad things that have happened. the same was taught in the Soviet Union about capitalism, they were taught that capitalist would do anything for money, and didn't care about human rights if it interfered with making a profit. one of the biggest lies told to Americans was the Vietnam war. we were told it was to "stop the spread of communism" and it was in fact a fight over a bunch of rubber plantations that France didn't want to give up, they didn't want Vietnam to become and independent country (it was a colony of France) because they were making lots of money from the rubber plantations. the US and France blocked Vietnam from asking for independence at the UN, so they went to the Soviet Union for help. after they kicked France ass, France asked the US for help, and the US told the people they were fighting "to stop the spread of communism, when in fact, they were trying to restore a colony back to France.
by Gene H on May 20th, 2009
The culture, of course. We all know now that we were being silly, but the effects linger on.
How is world economics NOT becoming tyrannical socialism, as depicted by business and their formats and layouts of business?
by wiseacre on September 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Tea Partiers have been fined for rallies in the same areas which are now "Occupied", yet why havn't those protesters been fined?
by crubs83 on October 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Does anyone still deny a mainstream media bias?
by Nate on September 7th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How many "puppet governments" can you name?
by HoneyBee on October 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is anybody really a republican or democrat? Left/Right? I don't see why people like to define themselves into only these few categories.
by styxxoo1 on October 20th, 2011
| 5 people like this
You're reading Why is there such a negative stigma regarding communism?
- which can also be phrased in the following ways:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Well-said; better than I did. :)
by WelbyQuentin on May 20th, 2009
Oh, thank you :D
by Fashionista on May 20th, 2009
You're welcome,Fashionista.
by WelbyQuentin on May 20th, 2009
I agree with what you've said, but not with your political viewpoint. The "nobel and interesting concept" is a utopian idea with an unattainable result, because it doesn't factor in human motives.
Human motives are working against the overall good of the people in Communism. Human motives are working FOR the overall good of the people with Libertarianism.
by Lindsey on May 26th, 2009
Lindsey, surely human motives are a constant & dont change regardless of the political system?
by TheJoker on August 26th, 2009
That's right. Human motives will work to benefit themselves. The difference is with a capitalist system you cannot benefit yourself unless you provide helpful things to others who then agree to help you in return. With Communism, instead of people controlling themselves, they are controlled by the government, which if it's trying to benefit itself will take for itself without consent from those it's hurting.
by Lindsey on August 27th, 2009
although capitalism has a strong political implication, it is a economic rather than a political concept. Thus there is no point of comparing it with communism while the latter is indeed a political concept. For example, it was clear that Hitler ran Germany with Nazism but the majority of property in the economy was owned privately and there were still free transaction of goods and production (admittedly subjected to certain extent of distortion)
by Dr.Tso on August 30th, 2009
Economics and politics are involved with both concepts. The difference is how much control the politics tries to have over the economy. So yes, they are comparable. When a political system does not try to interfere with the economy, you will have capitalism. And communism is on the other end of the scale, with political powers attempting to control the economy as much as possible.
by Lindsey on August 31st, 2009