Federal government will fund Hill monument to victims of communism

[bjre]

Federal government will fund Hill monument to victims of communism

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Federal+government+will+fund+Hill+monument+victims+communism/8826674/story.html

OTTAWA — An anti-communist group will get up to $1.5 million in federal funds to build a monument on Parliament Hill.

Tribute to Liberty, a registered charity, has already received approval to build a memorial to people killed by communist regimes.

I feel sad that my tax dollars will be wasted in this way.

If $1.5 million has to be spent, I prefer build a memorial to hundreds of millions of people killed by colonists.

[Demosthenes26]

Is your point that the government is wasting money? Or that they are spending based on ideology. Either point Is invalidated by the second.

[Moonlight Graham]

This whole idea seems a bit dim. They should have stuck with the name for the monument as "Monument to Victims of Totalitarian Communism" instead of the current "A Memorial to Victims of Communism" name. Communism doesn't in itself kill people so much as totalitarian governments led by with horrendous dictators kill people. How much better or worse were ie: African dictators before vs after their regimes were Communism vs not?

[Demosthenes26]

This whole idea seems a bit dim. They should have stuck with the name for the monument as "Monument to Victims of Totalitarian Communism" instead of the current "A Memorial to Victims of Communism" name. Communism doesn't in itself kill people so much as totalitarian governments led by with horrendous dictators kill people. How much better or worse were ie: African dictators before vs after their regimes were Communism vs not?

While the statue is probably referring to victims of totalitarian oppression. Communism itself is not blameless in the suffering of the people under its rule. Centrally planned economies of Communism frequently suffered starvation as a result of the economic mismanagement of bureaucrats.

The great Chinese famine killed 15 million people be Chinese government estimates. Similarly the soviet famine of 1932-1933 killed at least 5 million.

You should also note there had yet to be a democratic communist state.totalitarianism and communism kind of go hand and hand.

[ReeferMadness]

And when will Chairman Harper erect a monument to the victims of Capitalism? Or is he just a transparent idealogue?

[bleeding heart]

Of course it's the action of ideologues.

Hell, we don't have monuments to "victims of fascism"--an "ism" which is probably the most despised of all.

Instead, we have monuments to victims of particular fascist regimes.

There's a difference.

[hitops]

I feel sad that my tax dollars will be wasted in this way.

If $1.5 million has to be spent, I prefer build a memorial to hundreds of millions of people killed by colonists.

Communism has killed far more people than every other form of government, religion, economic system or other system in the history of the world combined. Estimates for Stalin alone are around 30 million. The 'hundreds of millions' you are talking, is simply made up.

[The_Squid]

What a waste of money.... and a silly concept as well.

Gotta stop that Red Menace!!

Edited September 6, 2013 by The_Squid

[Wilber]

Of course it's the action of ideologues.

Hell, we don't have monuments to "victims of fascism"--an "ism" which is probably the most despised of all.

Instead, we have monuments to victims of particular fascist regimes.

There's a difference.

Spot on.

I could see it if this country had a history of totalitarian communist government but it doesn't. Definitely ideological.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Wilber

[Bonam]

Spot on.

I could see it if this country had a history of totalitarian communist government but it doesn't. Definitely ideological.

No, but this country has a large immigrant population (majority or close to majority in some of its cities) that originates from countries with a history of communism and mass-murder in the name of communism. There is no need to call it "totalitarian communism", because by its very nature, communism is totalitarian, because a tyrannical regime is the only way to force people to act against their own nature (anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't know what communism actually is). As for whether or not government should be spending money on it... maybe not, but who cares, we have wasteful expenditures thousands of times larger that we should worry about first.

[eyeball]

a tyrannical regime is the only way to force people to act against their own nature

No it isn't. Governments can and all to often do try to compel people to change their ways and nature all the time. The level of force used can range between brutal or subtle but it's still force nonetheless. The desired change in the population can be anything from getting everyone to worship a new god to simply washing their hands more frequently.

Its often second nature for just about any human institution to do this. That's not to say changing human nature is always a bad thing but this memorial being proposed by Harper's Ottawa is more about adding more cement to an ideological belief system that is already firmly concretized into place or misplace depending on your point of view.

[g_bambino]

There is no need to call it "totalitarian communism", because by its very nature, communism is totalitarian...

Well, is it not the same with fascism?

[Bonam]

Well, is it not the same with fascism?

For the most part, yes. Although, for the majority of the population, fascism can actually be in line with their natural inclinations. Some fascist regimes were not particularly repressive or tyrannical towards their nation's majority, whereas a communist regime oppresses and tyrannizes all. That is not to say fascism is any better than communism, just different.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bonam

[g_bambino]

Some fascist regimes were not particularly repressive or tyrannical towards their nation's majority, whereas a communist regime oppresses and tyrannizes all.

Such as? I can't think of one wherein the entire population wasn't forced by threat of death or brutal imprisonment to extol the virtues of the governing regime and its leader.

[Bonam]

Such as? I can't think of one wherein the entire population wasn't forced by threat of death or brutal imprisonment to extol the virtues of the governing regime and its leader.

I dunno, look at the Kingdom of Italy or Francoist Spain... while political opposition was cracked down upon, a typical majority individual living in either of these states would not have experienced repression in the same way that a person living in the USSR or China would have during the 30s-70s. Having to mouth an ideology is one thing... having your property confiscated, being forced to work in terrible conditions in factories or collective farms, etc, is another. While fascist regimes committed atrocities against targeted groups, communist regimes committed atrocities against their entire populations. That being said, the atrocities that fascist regimes often committed against their undesirable minorities are truly horrific, and I am by no means trying to defend fascism, just making a distinction between it and communism.

Think of it this way... in the 1930s or 1940s, would you rather have been a Russian in Russia, or an Italian in Italy? Clearly if you were in the majority, you'd rather have been in Italy. In fact, you'd probably also have been better off as a German in Germany, as well. On the other hand, if you were a Jew, you'd rather have been in Russia, because although you would have suffered the same generalized oppression as everyone else, you would not have been specifically targeted (as much) for even worse things. Communism spreads out the oppression over everyone, fascism targets specific groups.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bonam

[Moonlight Graham]

Communism has killed far more people than every other form of government, religion, economic system or other system in the history of the world combined.

[eyeball]

Having to mouth an ideology is one thing... having your property confiscated, being forced to work in terrible conditions in factories or collective farms, etc, is another.

What about the people who were in power, the one's actually doing the confiscating and forcing, were they living and working in terrible conditions too? I doubt it. That's one institution of governance I'd like to change along with our human nature to always put up with unaccountable leaders no matter how they lead.

Capitalism is failing us for the same fundamental reason communism failed it's adherents. Maybe in the future we'll build a monument celebrating the day we did something about that - maybe after we've evolved another 100,000 years.

[g_bambino]

I dunno, look at the Kingdom of Italy or Francoist Spain... while political opposition was cracked down upon, a typical majority individual living in either of these states would not have experienced repression in the same way that a person living in the USSR or China would have during the 30s-70s..

I did think of Spain under Franco and Italy under Mussolini. Putting aside the wars those dictators brought upon the populations of those countries, yes, the regimes were probably somewhat less repressive than those of the USSR, China, or Cambodia. But, is comparing the degree of repression a valuable exercise? The majority living in Cuba was (and is still) less repressed than that of the USSR or China, yet, does that mean Cuba wasn't totalitarian by virtue of it being Communist? In all cases, outward support for the leader was constantly demanded of everyone by threat of a Gestapo or Stasi or KGB car arriving outside your door in the middle of the night.

[Bonam]

But, is comparing the degree of repression a valuable exercise?

It makes a big difference for the people living under said repression.

[Moonlight Graham]

There is no need to call it "totalitarian communism", because by its very nature, communism is totalitarian, because a tyrannical regime is the only way to force people to act against their own nature (anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't know what communism actually is).

Communism isn't totalitarian "by its very nature", it's totalitarian when the specific political institutions and organization is itself totalitarian when communism is instituted in a country, which during the 20th century was virtually always a "Marxist-Leninist" variety of political organization (even Maoism), which was distinctly totalitarian and led by a single "vanguard"-like party. Marx was never very specific in his writings about the actual political organization that communism/socialism should or would take. Lenin took Marx's idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and took it to mean (arguably inaccurately) there should be a literal political dictatorship in a socialist state.

It's easy to imagine a democratic, communist state. There could be ie: 5 different main political parties in a democratic communist state. Let's say 2 were dedicated to capitalism, but the other 3 were dedicated to communism and central economic planning (state ownership of the means of production). In a democratic communist state the ruling party of the day (receiving the most votes from the electorate) could plan the economy centrally with assistance from the bureaucracy. Elections could be held ie: every 5 years, and the electorate could choose to vote among the ie: 3 communist parties based on who they thought would be most effective at central economic planning, or vote for capitalist parties if they wanted a return to that form of economy.

In short: communism is a form of economics, while democracy is a form of government. They are not mutually exclusive.

[g_bambino]

It makes a big difference for the people living under said repression.

That's not really the point, though. If there are degrees of repression under communism (Cuba vs. the USSR), yet Communism is, by it's nature, totalitarian, then fascism is too by nature totalitarian, despite there being degrees of repression that facist regimes have exercised.

[ed.: grammar]

Edited September 6, 2013 by g_bambino

[Moonlight Graham]

That's not really the point, though. If there are degrees of repression under communism (Cuba vs. the USSR), yet Communism is, by it's nature, totalitarian, then fascism is too by nature totalitarian, despite there being degrees of repression that facist regimes have exercised.

[ed.: grammar]

What's preventing a communist economic system from being democratic? Why is communism, by it's nature, totalitarian? What is the "nature" of communism? I don't understand the supposed inherent link between common ownership of the means of production and a single-party, highly repressive form of government.

[Bonam]

What's preventing a communist economic system from being democratic? Why is communism, by it's nature, totalitarian? What is the "nature" of communism? I don't understand the supposed inherent link between common ownership of the means of production and a single-party, highly repressive form of government.

Because the only way you can force people to not have their own property, to relinquish it all to "collective ownership", is through force. Furthermore, once all production and reward is collectivized, you have a scenario of tragedy of the commons.. what is the motivation of any person to work harder or more productively if they are in any case entitled to have their needs fulfilled by the state, and they cannot acquire any additional reward through working? The only way to get people to work productively when they have no "selfish" economic incentive to do so is through forceful coercion.

To summarize, communism can only be implemented through force for 2 reasons:

1) People don't want to give up their property

2) The tragedy of the commons

To put it even more simply, a communist economic structure is against human nature, and to make a person live in a way that is contrary to his/her nature requires force.

[cybercoma]

Communism has killed far more people than every other form of government, religion, economic system or other system in the history of the world combined.

Congratulations. This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen posted in the 8 years I've been reading these forums.

[Wilber]

Genghis Khan took a pretty good stab at it.