100 Million Deaths Due to Communism

bhkad · 07-27-08, 04:18 PM

Quote:

BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism

Jun 12, 2007, 18:47 GMT

Washington - The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, 'The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,' published by Harvard University.

The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.

In his speech at the dedication, US President George W Bush noted individual losses, including deaths in the Ukraine from starvation imposed by Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin; the deaths of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians 'loaded onto cattle cars and deported to Arctic death camps of Soviet Communism;' the Chinese killed in the cultural revolution and Great Leap Forward; Cambodians slain under Pol Pot; East Germans 'shot attempting to scale the Berlin Wall;' Poles 'massacred in the Katyn Forest;' Ethiopians slaughtered in the Red Terror; Miskito Indians murdered by Nicaragua's Sandinista dictatorship; and Cuban refugees 'who drowned escaping tyranny.'

'We'll never know the names of all who perished, but at this sacred place, communism's unknown victims will be consecrated to history and remembered forever,' Bush said of the memorial.

The memorial statue, called the 'goddess of democracy,' shows a woman holding a torch high with her right hand. It is a replica of one carved by Chinese student sculptors in the spring of 1989, and erected during protests at Tiananmen Square that provoked severe reprisals from the Chinese communist government.

Congress had to approve the building of the memorial, but it was built with private funds raised by a non-profit foundation.

BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism

There are far too many people here who think of Communism and Socialism as cool or at least harmless.

They should know the other side.

bub · 07-27-08, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism

There are far too many people here who think of Communism and Socialism as cool or at least harmless.

They should know the other side.

1) ahahah lol I'm going to send that to a friend of mine who says he's communist

2) however, don't confuse socialism with communism. I'm not socialist and would never vote for them, but they have nothing to do with communists and have never killed anybody (at least in my country), unlike extreme-right partisans. It's as if you called republicans "fascists"

bhkad · 07-27-08, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

1) ahahah lol I'm going to send that to a friend of mine who says he's communist

2) however, don't confuse socialism with communism. I'm not socialist and would never vote for them, but they have nothing to do with communists and have never killed anybody (at least in my country), unlike extreme-right partisans. It's as if you called republicans "fascists"

Please consider the following:

Quote:

What is Socialism? Many will tell you that socialism is a moderate form of Communism. Others claim them to be two distinctly different and opposite theories, communism being a cruel and harsh failure and socialism being an enlightened and successful theory. Both of these notions are false though. A recent popular distinction defines one as government controlling the means of production and the other as "the people" controlling the means of production. This too is false considering that the pursuit of either such definition is prone to developing government management of human activity. Though theory may claim distinctions between the two, in practice they become one in the same.

The idea of the sharing of incomes and government management of resources exists with little distinction from communism and its euphemistic partner socialism. In practice though the same problems plague both as freedom becomes necessarily usurped and trampled on due to abuse of power, economic impossibility, and unforeseen and unintended variables among other things. Because of socialism's inherent failures, it tends to resort to extreme measures. Communism is essentially Marx's name for socialist like systems. The only reason communism is equated with more extreme is mostly due to its acquaintance to the Soviet Union.

What is Communism? Again to many this definition is often a matter of great confusion. Some think it means socialism with force, others think it is socialism gone bad. A better definition is a utopian plan to enforce complete economic equality and achieve this by means of forced income redistribution and economic management. In short it is the same idea of socialism operating most often under a smaller branch of the socialist following known strictly as the communists. The ideas are practically the same only the name "communists" tend to attract more ideologues due mostly to a desire among them for alienation from a dissenting opposition, the capitalists, and for a hope of haste in implementing their utopian schemes.

As displayed below, communism is in essence and in practice the same thing as its euphemized sister socialism.

The Differences Between the Two:

The Six Shared Truths: It is hard to fully explain the idea of communism compared to socialism (due much to the fact that communists and socialists have never been able to agree upon and solidly establish exactly what distinguishes one from the other) but a few truths are undeniable:

(1) Both communism and socialism have an end utopian goal of complete equality in their ideal state.

(2) Both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward this so called "equality."

(3) Both communism and socialism experience the same types of problems in accomplishing this economic managing - the unintended side effect.

(4) Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance. Such compliance must be mandated in a socialist system due to the fact that human nature creates skepticism, opposition to the control of others, and a desire for free will.

(5) In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify. This naturally attracts individuals seeking widespread power, or it corrupts individuals already in power with the lure of the same widespread power.

(6) As a result of the government structures found in both systems, the intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily translates into the usurpation of remaining personal freedoms during its expansion.

The Socialist Myth

bub · 07-27-08, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Please consider the following:

The Socialist Myth

well there is no socialist party in your country. There is one is mine. So I think you are not the one who is going to explain what's socialism.

Socialists (in my country at least) think that everybody is equal and want want everybody to live decently. That's why

- they want to tax the rich and redistribute the money to the poors
- they introduced minimal wage and several other laws regulating work

the difference with communism is that they are moderate (and so comparing them with communists is as dishonest as calling republicans "fascists").

you may agree with it or not, I believe what they do is needed to a certain extent (but not too much)

Scucca · 07-27-08, 05:16 PM

bhkad,

You really need to try and utilise serious sources. From the bobbins you copied and pasted:

Quote:

Many will tell you that socialism is a moderate form of Communism. Others claim them to be two distinctly different and opposite theories, communism being a cruel and harsh failure and socialism being an enlightened and successful theory. Both of these notions are false though.

Socialist political economy is rather diverse, encompassing both Marxist and non-Marxist varieties. You've decided to go for a tosh site that ignores that diversity. Consider, for example, socialist analysis based on Schumpeterian growth theory. That actually suggests socialism is merely the predicted result of “successful” capitalism (via the nature of “creative destruction” of monopoly conditions). Personally, I'm not a fan of such theory. However, it demonstrates nicely how low brow the site you've chosen is.

Quote:

A recent popular distinction defines one as government controlling the means of production and the other as "the people" controlling the means of production.

This is also nonsense. First, for Marxist varieties you'd first have to show some understanding of what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' actually means. Second, for non-Marxist varieties you'd have to also refer to market orientated understanding of the control of the means of production (i.e. the efficiency of worker-owned enterprises)

Quote:

The idea of the sharing of incomes and government management of resources exists with little distinction from communism and its euphemistic partner socialism.

More drivel! Capitalism itself is reliant on government management of resources. This reflects its inherent instability and the need for extra-market interventionism. Even the so called neoliberal capitalist nations are reliant on government coercion: e.g. the US's use of the military sector as a counter-cyclical demand management device.

Quote:

In practice though the same problems plague both as freedom becomes necessarily usurped and trampled on due to abuse of power, economic impossibility, and unforeseen and unintended variables among other things.

Economic impossibility? Even Hayek, via the socialist calculation debate, couldn't reject the validity of socialism. Unforeseen variables? Capitalism commonly replaces the price mechanism with economic planning. How do you account for the multinational? How do you account for firms that grow, via horizontal and vertical integration, to the size of small economies?

Quote:

Communism is essentially Marx's name for socialist like systems.

Why has this person actually made no reference to Marxist theory? Tad of a clue!

Quote:

(1) Both communism and socialism have an end utopian goal of complete equality in their ideal state.

Total garbage. Surprise, surprise! Socialism does not have equality as its goal. It will necessarily refer to how equity and efficiency is linked (and therefore reject the orthodox analysis that the two are conflicting variables). In terms of the labour market, socialism commonly predicts wage determination according to supply and demand conditions. It appreciates that, under capitalism, we have inequity and inefficiency generated by wage norms. These norms are used to increase economic rents and therefore increase wage underpayment (i.e. good ole fashioned exploitation).

Quote:

(2) Both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward this so called "equality."

More nonsense! Market socialism, for example, is actually more reliant on economic decentralisation. Its through worker-owned enterprises, rather than the 'public sector', that economic problems such as agency costs are avoided.

Quote:

(3) Both communism and socialism experience the same types of problems in accomplishing this economic managing - the unintended side effect.

He didn't even bother to make a point here.

Quote:

(4) Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance.

All government will lead to coercion. It is actually that coercion that is vital for capitalism to flourish: from the creation of property rights to the restriction of competition where necessary (e.g. reduction in uncertainty from technical innovation)

Quote:

(5) In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify.

Market power is the norm in capitalism. Look closer to home for those 'elites'. Without any requirement for a bloated public sector, socialism eliminates exploitation from market power

In summary, you've referenced a load of garbage!

donsutherland1 · 07-27-08, 05:24 PM

Bhkad,

I read that book. It offers a powerful and exceptionally well-documented case into the horrific human catastrophes that resulted from communism. It's lengthy but a must-read for those who want to understand the nature of communist regimes.

donsutherland1 · 07-27-08, 05:37 PM

In The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press: 1999), co-author Stéphane Courtois, director of research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique wrote of communism:

…it was flesh-and-blood Communism that imposed wholesale repression, culminating in a state-sponsored reign of terror… Communist regimes, in order to consolidate their grip on power, turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government…

Communism has committed a multitude of crimes not only against individual human beings but also against world civilization and national cultures…

The enormous human catastrophe engineered by communist regimes is magnified by the many other lives that were ruined, disrupted, altered, or otherwise adversely impacted by Communism. As Communism claimed a fraction of the population of the societies in which it reigned with unimagined cruelty, those additional lives scarred by its abuses are almost certainly a multiple of those that were lost.

Courtois’ observation that the terror of Soviet Communism "stemmed from…the Utopian will to apply to society a doctrine totally out of step with reality" reveals the fundamental nature of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is about imposing by brute force a system that is alien to human nature. Consequently, it can only survive by force and such force leads to often massive loss of life.

Totalitarians reject basic yearnings for individual freedom and choice. They have to. Such desires stand in the way of the totalitarians’ ability to seize and retain absolute power. Consequently, the "scientific" Utopians of the Communist movement rejected notions of individual freedom and the concept of rule of law. Instead, they made brute force the sole arbiter of society in order to impose and enforce their ideologies that would otherwise be rejected.

When brute force rules, basic moral concepts, such as those of guilt and innocence and right and wrong, cease to exist. The whim of the tyrant topples due process. Under such an arrangement, life becomes exceptionally hard, even when one puts aside the economic failures associated with Communism.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn sketched the following powerful portrait of his experience under Soviet Communism:

I have climbed not three or four makeshift steps, but hundreds and even thousands of them; unyielding, precipitous, frozen steps, leading out of the darkness and cold where it was my fate to survive, while others -- perhaps with a greater gift and stronger than I -- have perished. Of them, I myself met but a few on the Archipelago of Gulag, shattered into its fractionary multitude of islands; and beneath the millstone of shadowing and mistrust I did not talk to them all, of some I only heard, of others still I only guessed. Those who fell into the abyss already bearing a literary name are at least known, but how many were never recognized, never once mentioned in public? And virtually no one managed to return…

Frequently, in painful camp seethings, in a column of prisoners, when chains of lanterns pierced the gloom of the evening frosts, there would well up inside us the words that we should like to cry out to the whole world, if the whole world could hear one of us.

All said, The Black Book of Communism is one of the most important works on Communism that has been written. It provides a vivid window into the nature of Communism, not to mention totalitarianism in general.

Scucca · 07-27-08, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

All said, The Black Book of Communism is one of the most important works on Communism that has been written. It provides a vivid window into the nature of Communism, not to mention totalitarianism in general.

I'm no fan of communism but I don't think the Black Book is ever going to be an important work on communism. Maddock in his review in the Journal of American History puts it nicely:

It may be most useful as a historical artifact of the immediate post-Cold War era when blanket condemnation of communism that equated the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a la Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), came back into vogue. But, with the fading ardor of Cold War triumphalism, a more balanced assessment of the rise and fall of international communism that neither whitewashes its crimes nor suppresses its periods of mass popularity remains to be written

bub · 07-27-08, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Bhkad,

I read that book. It offers a powerful and exceptionally well-documented case into the horrific human catastrophes that resulted from communism. It's lengthy but a must-read for those who want to understand the nature of communist regimes.

yeah, and it's about communism, not socialism

bhkad · 07-27-08, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

well there is no socialist party in your country. There is one is mine. So I think you are not the one who is going to explain what's socialism.

Socialists (in my country at least) think that everybody is equal and want want everybody to live decently. That's why

- they want to tax the rich and redistribute the money to the poors
- they introduced minimal wage and several other laws regulating work

the difference with communism is that they are moderate (and so comparing them with communists is as dishonest as calling republicans "fascists").

you may agree with it or not, I believe what they do is needed to a certain extent (but not too much)

Quote:

Allow me to tell you about the finest liqueurs and natural fruit flavorings used to make this delicious punch. Uh, just overlook the turd floating in there.

The level of Socialist ideology allowable in our Presidential candidates is the same amount of feces content we allow in our beverages.

0.00000000%

Europeans can swallow as much as they like and tell us it's delicious.

Americans would have to be tricked into it and that is exactly what the Junior Senator from Illinois is trying to do. Sneak it into our every day political diet until we don't even know that's what we are swallowing.

Well, the Democrats are liking it, but that's because they don't know any better. They'll eat anything.