Check This Question Out From My Professor Regarding Communism

Class, can you, as a historian, have empathy for those countries that toiled under colonial oppression? Moreover, can you see why some of the people of these captive countries may have embraced communist ideology?

Dear Professor,

Yes, perhaps I can have "emphathy," in the same way that I can have "empathy" for those Germans who adopted National Socialism after living under the oppressive terms of armistice agreement. I don't excuse their stupidity and horrifically bad judgment, but I can "empathize."

He’s being a good democrap and pushing how great commienism is.

If this is a History class, then what needs to be taught are historical FACTS! Not what anybody presupposes is or was going on.

If this is a sociology class trying to get you to (free think) look at both sides of an issue to study how societies have affected history...it doesn’t hurt to listen, but again, look at the FACTS! Look at what REALLY happened first...then form your own opinion...you don’t have to follow or swallow anybody elses OPINION.

Here’s a ‘for instance...

‘Native American’ (Indians) = good
US Americans = bad

First of all there are no ‘native’ Americans, we are all immigrants from Europe/Eurasia...some got here before, some got here later. There were no homo sapiens on the North American Continent before Eurasians crossed the frozen Bering Strait...they are not ‘native’ to this continent. And they never ‘owned’ it. They just squatted here.

Next, the ‘native’ Americans were the last of the hunter-gatherers, or stone age peoples. Stone age peoples have been conquered for centuries all over the planet since homo sapiens became ‘farmers’ and stopped migrating with the seasons for food. At that time political entities came into being, populations started growing, and expansion became necessary. And the great hunter-gatherers were conquered by the ‘civilized’ from that time forward (the Huns, the Ottomen, the Romans, the Socialists, the Nazis, European colonials, et al.

So according to this ‘theory’ of ‘native’ Americans = good, US Americans = bad, it is total BS! Homo sapiens have therefore been bad, period! It even says so in the ‘Good Book’ that is being banned because some folks don’t like facts!

This is just the opinion of a wise Welshtino sociology teacher from Texas. :)

"Class, can you, as a historian, have empathy for those countries that toiled under colonial oppression? Moreover, can you see why some of the people of these captive countries may have embraced communist ideology?"

If I were responding, it would be something like this.

Unfortunately, much of history has been re-written as "faction". The truth of history is still available if sought out and it clearly exposes the brutal starvation and death of a pure communist system. One has to look no further than our own Pilgrims which came to America to spread the Gospel, not flee religious persecution as erroneously reported. (See the opening statement of the Mayflower Compact.) Under the instruction of William Bradford, the Pilgrims set up the purest of communist systems. All food grown was collected in the "Common Store House" and was divided to the Pilgrims according to their need. Half starved to death the first winter as there was no incentive to grow food under this pure communism. However, Bradford saw the folly of this communal food growing and let the Pilgrims keep the food that they themselves grew the next season. The following harvest was bountiful under the individualist system where one could enjoy the fruits of his labor... literally. So, even though the history book authors pushing communism are systematically writing new stories to pass off as truth, this "faction" does not change the facts. The purest example of communism versus individualism is our own Pilgrims.

Colonialism is a different matter and individualism triumphed over the oppression of Britain during our Revolution. So when given the choices of colonialism versus communism, our instructors, teachers and professors should point out the obvious correct choice and form of government... individualism/capitalism which results in a prosperous, free society.

Your professor is wrong. Colonialism is not limited to on political or economic system vs another. Russian & Chinese “colonialism” has been rampant - 90 years or so for the Soviets, and still continuing under the Putin “non-Soviet” system. Chinese “colonialism” has been rampant for 60 years or so and is not slowing down.

“Communism” is an economic order that might be good or bad on a limited community scale, and has been successful in a few instances. The early New Testiment church operated on a share with one, share with all basis. We could perhaps define this as “pure communism” - something that does not and cannot exist in a free society at the “State” level.

Even as an economic system, the Soviets and the Chinese operate in a non-Communist way. There is huge individual wealth among the “chosen” few in both societies.

Again, your professor is wrong. If he likes it so much he should go live as one of the masses in one of these countries that he finds so appealing.

I am sure that eastern Europeans appreciated the non-colonial nature of the Soviet Union. //sarcasm

First, colonialism is not necessarily the same thing as imperialism. He only talks about the former. Second, a historian should be objective rather than empathetic. Third, his selective use of emotional words (e.g., brutal, oppression, captive) telegraphs his views. He is looking for ratification, not critical thinking or thought provoking ideas.

That said, while its understandable that people would feel “disenfranchised” under a colonialist system, a “native” system would not necessarily treat people better nor would it ensure an equal share of the country’s resources or guarantee a political voice. Native rule is not always benevolent. In fact, outside rule could actually have been beneficial in some respects by introducing modern technologies, communications, medicine, etc.

Notwithstanding these points, given your current situation you may just want to avoid rocking the boat and simnply feed him some empathetic BS. He’s going to get a jolt when he sees his president’s utopian visions crushed under the weight of reality.

“For many countries that experienced the benefits/brutal horrors of European/American colonialism/imperialism, a communist system is an attractive form of government.”

Well lets go over that Checklist. Russia was not a ‘colonialised’ people. Neither were the Chinese. These were the two largest communist nations.

How does your prof explain that Marxism essentially says the opposite, that Marxism requires a modern state with industrial production in order to form a class divide between the proletariat and the workers?

This does not fit at all with agrarian peoples without industry of their own.

Lets look at America, and Canada, and India and other colonial nations. What do they all share? Today they are representative democracies. Why should we expect people in foreign countries to abide by different rules than the American people went through?

It’s clear to me that the most successful former colonials all have some form of representative goverment. This includes, Canada, the US, Australia. Even South Africa who was the fourth dominion experienced considerable material wealth all through the first half of the 20th century.

It seems clear to me from these examples, that the best government for former colonials is representative democracy.

Many of these colonized people were stripped of their ancestral possessions and reduced to slave labor in some sort of agricultural or industrial ‘farm’. To them, having an equal share of the country’s resources while having an equal share of a political voice makes practical sense.

Class, can you, as a historian, have empathy for those countries that toiled under colonial oppression? Moreover, can you see why some of the people of these captive countries may have embraced communist ideology?

For many countries that experienced the benefits/brutal horrors of European/American colonialism/imperialism, a communist system is an attractive form of government. Many of these colonized people were stripped of their ancestral possessions and reduced to slave labor in some sort of agricultural or industrial 'farm'. To them, having an equal share of the country's resources while having an equal share of a political voice makes practical sense.

Class, can you, as a historian, have empathy for those countries that toiled under colonial oppression? Moreover, can you see why some of the people of these captive countries may have embraced communist ideology?

As a historian, it is not your job to have empathy for any side. What you are called to is an objective consideration of the facts. While part of that certainly involves thoroughly understanding all points of view regarding historical issues, including points of view with which you might vehemently disagree, it does NOT mean that you have to commit yourself to viewing all points of view as being equal.

Sure, I can have empathy with those who toiled under what some would consider to be "colonial oppression." Being a conquered people isn't necessarily easy. I also think, however, that any historian worth his or her salt would take issue with the value judgment injected into the question by the term, "colonial oppression", as in using that phrasing your teacher has already committed himself to not being objective.

Can I see why people in these societies have embraced communist ideology? Absolutely. People who are poor and not very well educated have a tendency to embrace fine sounding ideologies in all opposition to the facts. From a theoretical standpoint, Maslow's hierarchy of needs points out that people will always work to serve lower physiological and security needs before they will even think of higher needs. When people are hungry and clad in rags, they will listen to people who offer them food, clothes, and shelter. It doesn't matter that the ideology they offer has a poor track record in providing those things, and it matters even less that societies built upon the ideology in the past have done precious zilch to fulfill the higher needs of the majority of people. So, yes, I can certainly see why native populations would embrace communism despite the fact that they are demonstratively wrongheaded in doing so. Their error is compounded by the fact that, in theory, Communism requires an industrialized society (which they are not) and agricultural-based Communist approaches have proven to be even more destructive than ones that focused on industrialization (think Pol Pot).

It gets tiresome when professors such as yours insist upon empathy and understanding for certain positions to the point where the facts are to be ignored, however. I won't repeat the facts here, as everyone on this thread is well aware of them. History is about being as objective as possible within our cultural framework. The cultural framework part is often overlooked. The problem with liberal scholars is that they try to take their objectivity beyond our cultural framework and look past that; in doing so, instead of transcending "frameworks" they simply create a new one. They then proceed to ignore the fact that all they've done was created a new framework and try to impose that upon all of history. The end result is a historical view based upon flawed assumptions that ignores facts in favor of a system based on fanciful wishes and whimsy.

Good historians realize that they are working within the framework of the current time, place, and culture and realize that they are bound by the limits of those things. In knowing your assumptions and knowing that you are making assumptions, it is easier to look past those assumptions at times while keeping the facts clearly in view. I believe that this is what sets historians like your teacher apart from great modern historians like VDH.

But, I'd also remind you, you're not in school to make stands. You're in that class to get a good grade so that you might get a good degree and move on with your life. Were I in your shoes I'd bite my tongue and roll with the punches.

North Korea must be the most perfect place in the world... hah

“For many countries that experienced the benefits/brutal horrors of European/American colonialism/imperialism, a communist system is an attractive form of government.”

Well lets go over that Checklist. Russia was not a ‘colonialised’ people. Neither were the Chinese. These were the two largest communist nations.

How does your prof explain that Marxism essentially says the opposite, that Marxism requires a modern state with industrial production in order to form a class divide between the proletariat and the workers?

This does not fit at all with agrarian peoples without industry of their own.

Lets look at America, and Canada, and India and other colonial nations. What do they all share? Today they are representative democracies. Why should we expect people in foreign countries to abide by different rules than the American people went through?

It’s clear to me that the most successful former colonials all have some form of representative goverment. This includes, Canada, the US, Australia. Even South Africa who was the fourth dominion experienced considerable material wealth all through the first half of the 20th century.

It seems clear to me from these examples, that the best government for former colonials is representative democracy.

There is an element of truth in what your Professor says. People who have had their world turned upside down will search for answers. Since their traditions did not prevent the problem they look to outside sources. Communism as a modern religion, albeit a false religion, offers answers to those seeking. Look back throughout history at the times when new religions or cults prospered and you will find a correlation with significant societal changes. Colonialism and imperialism showed the backwardness of many societies and pushed their members to seek new solutions. Communism promised a means of jumpstarting the economy of a backward country and allowing it to quickly catch up with western civilization; unfortunately for those who attempted the communist solution it was a false promise. Step back and treat communism like any other false and ultimately harmful new religion.

Seems to me that the US once toiled under colonial oppression.

Communism is just one choice to change the system and end the oppression. The wrong choice.

That will leave a mark :)

You must assert to the good professor the true nature of man. Over the past 50+ years I have found the definition of Jeremiah, the prophet, distill the nature of man down to its essence..."the human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" The delusion which your professor is working under is that the unregenerate man is nice and has the best in mind for his fellowman. He begins his journey in life with a false understanding of human beings. He may be perfectly coordial, but men who obtain power must rule and they rule by their nature, and their nature is to impose their will on all others...Rex-Lex. Without an understanding, as our founders memorialized in our founding documents, that God gives freedom to man, and man then agrees with his neighbors that they enter into a contract to abide by an agreement of behaviors (Contitution), then the communist man (atheist) relies on his own affirmed nature which holds no one in check by chains of virtue. It is truely the law of the jungle with the strong man controlling all.

One needs only to look at the history of mans inhumanity to man to see that his nature, his world-view allow, encourages, and implements savagery against his countryman. Mao, Stalin, Hitler (national socialist, darwinist) all demonstrated the end of your professors tragic view of the world. We are seeing Obama move this country towards adopting a fallacious view of 'right' propelling this country dangerously towards a similar destiny.

Remember, when the communist says peace, he does not mean peace as you know it. He believes peace as acquiescence to his world view....other views are eleminated.....ergo, peace. Truth is a weapon for the communist, and truth is what the leadership of communism says it is. And truth is what advances the cause of the communist doctrine. Dialectic materialism demands that a lie is the truth, if it advances their cause. They say that themselves.

Ask your professor to show to you the mass graves of men, women and children here in the United States. He cannot do it. Then remind him of the thousands of bull dozers needed to dig the mass graves which hold the soviet dissident, the Chinese communist dissident. His convenient lapse in remembering those 'minor' details should be challenged at every opportunity. He is a liar from the beginning.

I could write all afternoon, but will not bore you. I suggest you get a book by Fred Swartz, "You Can Trust the Communist to be Communists."

bookmark for later

The best argument I’ve got against communism is that the church in Jerusalem didn’t succeed with communism, even with the Holy Spirit weeding out the liars.

American History II..not Sociology. See what I am saying?!? I can understand this convo taking place in a Sociology class more than I can in an American History class. This is just pure indoctrination every single day. Every day I turn around he is asking me another question to try and denounce Communism to which he always finds a route to bashing America in the end.

As far as commienism, look at historical facts. Socialism has always failed and is failing all over the planet. You are as we speak witnessing it first hand in your own country (since 1964) and European socialism is cratering on itself. It sucks the life out of its peoples by making demands that cannot be sustained.

Socialism has never had the ability to survive. It IS imperialism, the only survivors of it are those within the regimes!

If the Prof wants you to have sympathy and empathy for people that foolishly select Marxism as an equalizing economic system, I suggest you tell him what he wants to hear, and get an A+.

In your written work, regurgitate the standard Marxist goals speaking generally and describe the society and all it's social programs as it goes into Marxism. Don't make final evaluations and close ambiguously.

At this point, turn the work in, and get back to your desk and write the final chapter. Here get specific, select a colonial nation that went communist (I prefer Rhodesia), analyze and report the changes in human rights and standard of living, and be brutal in your descriptions of communism's end game conditions on it's human victims. Add this chapter to your copy of your work.

At end of term, after grades are recorded, submit the final chapter to the Prof, and keep yours for your kids to read. You will be spending a lot of time reading with them, and when they hit the 7th grade give 'em this and read it with 'em. Here the kids' normal sympathy and empathy will drive the decision to Anything But Marxism, you will continue to guide them and prepare them for other political traps, but the Prof's intended use of sympathy will be defeated twice.

That's the way to deal with this type of professor.