100 million deaths due to capitalism in the 20th century.

[TubbaBlubba]

Is it even meaningful to compare "capitalism" to "communism" like this? Assuming that by "Communism" we mean "Marxism-Leninism" (which has been the system of every Communist state I know of), we then have a systematic and specific politic ideology. Compare to that with capitalism, which on the other hand is a largely self-regulatory economic practice/system, without any inherent ideology or social prescriptions.

I guess it would be more meaningful to compare "capitalism" to "central planning"?

 

[L.Y.S.]

The information on that website goes well beyond what you are asking for, the author seems to be truly dedicated to studying "democide" in all it's forms. Just check out the tables and figures on this page:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

As per your question about comparisons I found a relevant table that showed 95 million of the 119 million killed by their own government were killed by communist regimes.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.TAB1.GIF

Thanks this is all I asked for. I wasn't asking for anything other than this graph. At any rate, I still have my suspicions about this chart. Not about the "communist" totals but by the "free" totals. I'm sure that it is much higher than what is projected on this graph. Again, thanks

 

[WildCat]

Is it even meaningful to compare "capitalism" to "communism" like this? Assuming that by "Communism" we mean "Marxism-Leninism" (which has been the system of every Communist state I know of), we then have a systematic and specific politic ideology. Compare to that with capitalism, which on the other hand is a largely self-regulatory economic practice/system, without any inherent ideology or social prescriptions.

I think that has already been mentioned several hundred posts ago.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Is it even meaningful to compare "capitalism" to "communism" like this? Assuming that by "Communism" we mean "Marxism-Leninism" (which has been the system of every Communist state I know of), we then have a systematic and specific politic ideology. Compare to that with capitalism, which on the other hand is a largely self-regulatory economic practice/system, without any inherent ideology or social prescriptions.

I guess it would be more meaningful to compare "capitalism" to "central planning"?

So why draw the arbitrary comparison of communism? Most former communist countries do not have nearly the greatest death toll as the two largest countries. And I find that tens of millions of people dying in both Russia and China as somewhat unimpressive seeing as tens of millions of people have been dying in those two countries on and off for centuries. I fail to see why this is news or why it should be tied to communism and not the Chinese or Russian cultural psyches.

And while it is true that most communist states are "Marxism-Leninism" there are many different sub-genres. Just like most capitalism is derived from Scottish Philosophers the key player being Adam Smith, yet there are several different "flavors" of capitalism. With all this set aside there were "free nations" on the graph that another member gave. However, my problem with the graph is that it seems to only focus on "citizen deaths" and while "free nations" certainly haven't had many citizen deaths there are many atrocities which are indirectly in their hands. Am I the only one who remembers King Leopold II, king of the Belgians and leader of the Congo Free State?

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~
Am I the only one who remembers King Leopold II, king of the Belgians and leader of the Congo Free State?

As he died in 1909, probably. And congratulations on reaching your advanced age

 

[WildCat]

So why draw the arbitrary comparison of communism?

Because bikerdruid started this thread in response to people reminding him that communism has killed bazillions of people and has been a complete failure wherever it's been tried, and inevitably leads to widespread and institutionalized human rights abuses at best and tens of millions dead at worst.

Nothing arbitrary about it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

the state becomes unnecessary.

the state has long since past their 'best by date'.

there's no government, like no government!
workers of the world, UNITE! etc, etc, etc.

BZZZZZT!!! WRONG!

Under communism, the state is of critical importance. The State is the single most important component of a communist system.

If you ever established you stateless communist utopia, I will undermine it from day one.

I will work to accumulate property for myself. And having acquired property, I will withhold it from the rest of society unless I receive other property I consider to be more valuable in exchange.

Unless you have the apparatus of a State, you won't be able to stop me, nor will you be able to undo the damage I cause to your utopia. You will need a police force to surveil against and investigate people like myself. You will also need a police force to confiscate and re-redistribrute whatever excess wealth I gain during my activities. You might need a court system to place me on trial and determine appropriate punishment for my pursuit of wealth (in communist societies, it's customary to skip trials and simply imprison or execute suspects, Che Guevera himself claimed that courts, juries and judges are simply tools of capitalist manipulation and routinely went straight for the firing squad). You will also need a gulag system to contain me and people like me after we have been charged, tried and sentenced (trial optional under communism).

You absolutely must have a State to enforce communism, or else I and others like me will destroy it.

And we'll have fun doing it.

 

[bikerdruid]

BZZZZZT!!! WRONG!

Under communism, the state is of critical importance. The State is the single most important component of a communist system.

If you ever established you stateless communist utopia, I will undermine it from day one.

I will work to accumulate property for myself. And having acquired property, I will withhold it from the rest of society unless I receive other property I consider to be more valuable in exchange.

Unless you have the apparatus of a State, you won't be able to stop me, nor will you be able to undo the damage I cause to your utopia. You will need a police force to surveil against and investigate people like myself. You will also need a police force to confiscate and re-redistribrute whatever excess wealth I gain during my activities. You might need a court system to place me on trial and determine appropriate punishment for my pursuit of wealth (in communist societies, it's customary to skip trials and simply imprison or execute suspects, Che Guevera himself claimed that courts, juries and judges are simply tools of capitalist manipulation and routinely went straight for the firing squad). You will also need a gulag system to contain me and people like me after we have been charged, tried and sentenced (trial optional under communism).

You absolutely must have a State to enforce communism, or else I and others like me will destroy it.

And we'll have fun doing it.

you haven't actually read the communist manifesto, eh?

 

[Cobalt]

you haven't actually read the communist manifesto, eh?

You didn't actually read his post, did you? You might want to address the points he made.

inb4 "not points" or "no need"

Thankfully, I have League of Legends to keep me busy while I wait on your remarkably insightful rebuttal.

 

[trustbutverify]

you haven't actually read the communist manifesto, eh?

I'm interested in hearing how your communist non-state will stop SOT from messing everything up.

 

[mortimer]

BZZZZZT!!! WRONG!

Under communism, the state is of critical importance. The State is the single most important component of a communist system.

If you ever established you stateless communist utopia, I will undermine it from day one.

I will work to accumulate property for myself. And having acquired property, I will withhold it from the rest of society unless I receive other property I consider to be more valuable in exchange.

Unless you have the apparatus of a State, you won't be able to stop me, nor will you be able to undo the damage I cause to your utopia. You will need a police force to surveil against and investigate people like myself. You will also need a police force to confiscate and re-redistribrute whatever excess wealth I gain during my activities. You might need a court system to place me on trial and determine appropriate punishment for my pursuit of wealth (in communist societies, it's customary to skip trials and simply imprison or execute suspects, Che Guevera himself claimed that courts, juries and judges are simply tools of capitalist manipulation and routinely went straight for the firing squad). You will also need a gulag system to contain me and people like me after we have been charged, tried and sentenced (trial optional under communism).

You absolutely must have a State to enforce communism, or else I and others like me will destroy it.

And we'll have fun doing it.

I think you already articulated the answer, bolded above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#Property

 

[L.Y.S.]

But how are we sure the human death atrocities that took place in China and Russia are completely the fault of the communist and not the fault the Chinese or Russian psyche's? Russia and China average 20 to 40 million dead bodies a century. I hardly find it surprising that a Regime change caused more deaths. Tsarist Russia and Imperial China inflicted the same death toll on its people that the communist have. I find it hard to believe that "free societies" would've changed this. WWI was inevitable, WWII was inevitable, and the Sino-Japanese Wars were also inevitable. They still would've had tens of millions of deaths with these situations alone.

 

[IDB87]

But how are we sure the human death atrocities that took place in China and Russia are completely the fault of the communist and not the fault the Chinese or Russian psyche's?

So what you're saying is peoples who murder millions upon millions of their fellow creatures are more susceptible to Communism?

Is this a point in favor of Communism or against?

 

[L.Y.S.]

So what you're saying is peoples who murder millions upon millions of their fellow creatures are more susceptible to Communism?

No, Communism is the same government with a different face is what I'm trying to say. There's not a tremendous different between the communist party and Tsarist Russia.

Is this a point in favor of Communism or against?

I'm just saying, how are we sure that the same atrocities wouldn’t have occurred if someone else got into power? I doubt that these countries would've saw anything less than 10 or 20 million dead regardless of who got in. I'm not entirely confident that Chiang Kai-shek would've prevented any more deaths than Mao.

 

[Virus]

Why does the "communism killed 100,000,000 people" thing touch a nerve in some people who don't consider themselves communists?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Why does the "communism killed 100,000,000 people" thing touch a nerve in some people who don't consider themselves communists?

How are we certain that the white coats (Russia) and the nationalists (china) coming to power would've made that number any smaller? Both were ardent traditionalists and opposed western democracy. So at any rate you probably would've had more of the same but under a different and more conservative name. China and Russia had bad options to pick from and in my opinion they picked from the lesser of two evils. No amount of political pendulum talk will change this. I happen to think that millions would’ve died in both nations regardless of what happened.

 

[bikerdruid]

Why does the "communism killed 100,000,000 people" thing touch a nerve in some people who don't consider themselves communists?

people who seek truth find the claim wildly inaccurate.
lies are the enemy of truth.

 

[L.Y.S.]

people who seek truth find the claim wildly inaccurate.
lies are the enemy of truth.

Not only is that a gross over estimation but 800'000 deaths from "free nations" is a gross understimation.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Here is what I do if the world goes insane and bikerdruid's fantasies come true:

Lead a group of like minded people to sieze land and property needed. Declare ourselves a sovereign state. Allow anyone to come in. Continue to size land and property from the anarcommies as needed. Eventually come to dominate the world. Since the anarcommie morons abolished the state and thus have no leadership and no military they will be unable to stop me. The end.

 

[IDB87]

No, Communism is the same government with a different face is what I'm trying to say.

Yes, it's quite the same thing as the Tsardom of Russia. No one disputes that they're both authoritarian.

I'm just saying, how are we sure that the same atrocities wouldn’t have occurred if someone else got into power?

You are free to speculate on whatever you want. I can't stop you.

I doubt that these countries would've saw anything less than 10 or 20 million dead regardless of who got in.

What makes you say this?

I'm not entirely confident that Chiang Kai-shek would've prevented any more deaths than Mao.

I don't know why you wish to speculate so much. Do you have any evidence Chiang would have implemented a plan similar to Mao's Great Leap Forward?