Yes, Soviet type of communism
Yes, community type of communism
Yes, religious type of communism
Yes, other type of communism
No, not possible
I'm curious about your source for this information. I've read, for example, The Civil War in France and didn't see any evidence he thought there should be widespread executions. He did think that it would have been better, in retrospect, to kill the leaders of the former regime. But that seems to be something that happens generally whenever a revolution is fought and won (however temporarily). Either the victors kill the most dangerous among the losers, or they end up not sitting in power for long. So it doesn't seem this is terribly exceptional. The early Christians did the same thing when they moved up into Europe, or back into the Middle East.Originally Posted by Artevelde
The burden that is before you is to show that Marx intended communism to be exceptionally violent and brutal, and moreover, that this was a core ideal of his.
This is not established. Communist regimes have been responsible for a large number of deaths. This does not mean that communism requires mass killings of the sort the world saw under Stalin or Mao. Those horrors may just as easily have been the result of the personalities and cultures involved.Originally Posted by artevelde
I read history quite avidly, and typically don't find myself rolling on the floor laughing afterward. I wonder whether "serious history" isn't just a code word for "history that agrees with Artevelde's worldview" here. Perhaps you could give me some examples of what you mean by "serious history." That is, perhaps you could point out some authors and titles that constitute "serious history."Originally Posted by Artevelde
I can't think of very many genuinely communist regimes. I agree that Russia and China have executed a lot of people. Cambodia and North Korea have as well (it's not clear that North Korea counts as a fully communist nation). On the other hand, as I previously pointed out, quite a few countries have implemented ideas from communism/socialism without a lot of violence (Sweden, Denmark, France, Norway, Canada, Spain...etc). So your argument may rest on a sampling problem. Again, we may well attribute the purges of Stalin and Mao to...well, Stalin and Mao, and not communism as such.Originally Posted by Artevelde
Communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Poland, East-Germany, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Cuba, ... have been responsible for the death of dozens of millions of people and the brutal imprisonment, deportation and torture of dozens of millions more.
What is it about this book that makes it "serious history"? Is there a general consensus among historians in the same subject that this is the definitive work?Originally Posted by Artevelde
I did not say they implemented communism. I said they implemented ideas from communism/socialism. In the same way, China has implemented ideas from democracy and capitalism...but you wouldn't describe China as a capitalist/democratic nation, would you?Originally Posted by artevelde
There is no argument over this point. The argument is over whether Marx intended this to be the case, or not, and whether this is a core ideal and motivation of communism, or not.Originally Posted by Artevelde