Off the top of my head I would say it relates to our fear that communism is more likely to produce another Hitler who will attack other countries in order to spread his power. Fervent nationalism and communism seem to go hand-in-hand.
I really don't think so. The aggressive stance Russia and China have shown toward their neighbors is not a function of their communist systems, it is an extension of a trend that both nations have exhibited for centuries. Similarly, a Cuba, a Vietnam, or a Nicaragua would be unlikely to take an imperialist stance regardless of the political system in power. They simply haven't got the population, economic strength, or resource base to sustain such a campaign. Nationalism in large, powerful countries is likely to turn aggressive, in small countries with histories of foreign domination, it tends to be defensive. I don't see this as a function of their political or economic systems.
X points out that the Nazis grew out of the Weimar Republic; it might also be good to add that the largest and most aggressively expanded Empire of the last few hundred years was held by England, a constitutional monarchy.
With feudalism there's still a struggle for power going on. It may last many decades, even centuries, but the people haven't given up on freedom yet. Some freedom still exist. You can speak relatively freely against the government, you can struggle and find ways around the system to earn a living. You can raise your children without a lot of direct state controlled mechanisms in place. And yes, you can even post on the internet your many thoughts, as demonstrated by your posts.
With communism, everything belongs to the state. Including your children. Freedom of speech has nearly evaporated because of the fear instilled in the people. Additionally, freedom to earn a living outside of the system in nearly impossible.
I'm not sure that the distinction is as clear as you seem to think. I suspect that Communist, Fascist, and Feudal states strive to attain the same kind of control (in some Feudal states the control issue takes on a quite different dynamic, discussed below).
I am not convinced that Communist states are necessarily more efficient at achieving the control they set out to achieve than any other kind of totalitarian/authoritarian state. Do you really think that no struggle for power goes on inside communist states, that no hope for change exists? Even after the rather radical changes in the communist world over the last 20 years?
I suspect if the Philippines were unexpectantly taken over and controlled by a communist dictator who wanted to indoctrinate your children and make them good fascist soldiers. You would decide to escape. And perhaps move to another feudalistic state, instead of accept communism as "just another alternative form of government, not better or worse, just different."
I have no doubt that a communist state would be much worse for me than the current system. Many of the peculiar privileges that I enjoy by being a dollar-earning white guy in a developing country would immediately evaporate. I am not convinced that it would be much worse for the average Filipino, particularly the rural poor (the vast majority of the population,)which is perhaps somewhat more important. If there were some way to restrict a communist government to a limited term (unfortunately, there isn't). I might think it an entirely good thing: I don't see any other force with the will and the means to drive the oligarchs out of power, and I don't see much hope for the country as long as they are in power.
Did a bit of driving yesterday, and had an opportunity to think a little about this fascist/feudal dichotomy. A feudal state can turn fascist - it happen when one feudal lord or faction is able to claim sufficient power to force the others into subordinate factions. When this happens, power, both political and economic, is rapidly centralized, and the influence of the central government becomes pervasive. That's where we were under Marcos, and how things stood under a Batista, a Somoza, etc.; the classic dictator paradigm.
There is another kind of feudal state entirely, the sort we have in the Philippines now. In this type, the central government has very little influence; in many regions practically none at all. Effective power has migrated almost entirely to the independent sectors who control various regions of the country and parts of the economy. They have control of the police, the courts, often the military units in their area, and most important of all, over virtually all economic activity (their power comes from money). As a result, you can criticize the central government all you want - it's practically a national pastime - but you would think very carefully before crossing the local powers that be.
The area in which I live is completely controlled by one family. I would write things about them here (there's plenty to write), as the chance of it being seen would be tiny. But even with the very substantial latitude I enjoy as a privileged outsider, I wouldn't dream of, say, writing a critical letter to the editor of a newspaper, or even being critical of them in conversation with or near people I didn't know well. Bad things happen. For a local, it is much, much, worse. And this area is relatively benevolent; some of the regional lords are outright monsters. And within their boundaries, their power is absolute and capricious.
I could go on, but as I will be accused of verbosity for this much, I won't. I'm sure you get the point. |
