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

[WildCat]

That's not the point of that post. It suggests that regardless if communists would've got into power or not that millions would've died in those two countries anyway.

Does not follow, because those millions were killed in the push for the communist utopia.

 

[WildCat]

My exact words on Leopold, does the word Capitalist appear in here? Or does the phrase "free nation" appear? Tell me when you’re ready to concede.

You think Belgium under King Leopold was a western-style democratic nation?

Have you been able to find a non-western style democracy that has a good human rights record?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Maybe, but fiscal order is a good thing, not a bad thing, in either case.

Well, yes.

I linked to Sjöstedt's own blog. Which "right-wing bloggers" are you referring to?

Well, for one, you linked to an op-ed commenting on the Cuba issue.

Why do you even bother with this useless, despisable party in the first place?

As opposed to the other useless, despicable parties? Well, you have to start somewhere. I suspect that the social democrats are actually more in line with my own views (the left of the SocDems and the Right of the Left Party are close-ish anyway), but they have problems of their own anyway. For now, the Left Party's success will be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a Social Democratic government.

University is overrated. At least if you are socially incompetent like me.

Maybe I should become an autodidact instead. Gene Ray 2.0?

 

[L.Y.S.]

How many deaths would you attribute to the Great Leap Forward and what is your source?

Thanks,

I've brushed up on this issue and to be very honest all death estimates of the great leap forward are highly politicized (very similar when talking about the genocide of Native Americans). They range from 18 million (mostly eastern sources) and 45 million (one anti-Chinese western historian (big surprise)). Most reliable sources estimate between 24-30 million individuals (sources that can be found on Wikipedia).

At any rate, I will not get into a long winded discussion about the total number of deaths caused by communism. I find these arguments to be drab and rather worthless. While it is true that tens of millions died on the watch of communists, I hardly find this to be surprising. Both Russia and China have a long history of collectivism and a general disregard for individual human life stemming back to their perspective creations. While it is easy to blame communists for these travesties, I ask the audience to reexamine the fact that both of the perspective nations on trial have a long and bloody history. This fact cannot be overlooked when examining the origin of all of this bloodshed. Communism is far from the sole cause of all the death, pain, and suffering witnessed in China and Russia. Like Nazis who came to power in Germany, there were already long cultural ties to the ideals that help communists get into power. Furthermore, there is a very long history of “sacrifice for the collective” in each of these countries. Each of these societies are guilty of viewing human life as a disposable means to an end, and the ideal of “obtaining a goal no matter the cost” is a long standing tradition in both of these cultures. Little has changed when the communists got into power, they resumed where the imperial regimes left off.

Does not follow, because those millions were killed in the push for the communist utopia.

I disagree

Evidence

Notice that only 3 major western wars surpass wars that occurred in China and in Russia, and Russia was still involved in all 3 (The Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and WWII). Of the ten deadliest conflicts in human history 4 of them occurred solely in China, one of them solely in Russia, and the highest death tolls for the other events which involved each of these countries were theirs.

Further evidence of this comes from how Soviet Russia conducted very similar warfare methods against Germany that the Tsarists conducted in WWI. One can also see the same exercises with the Nationalists in China during the Sino-Japanese wars. The general disregard for human life doesn't shock me coming from either of these two nations. So trying to pin point all these deaths on communism and not on a long standing tradition of collectivism is a difficult case to make. Communism did indeed play its part, but that does not excuse their perspective views on human life. How telling is “we have more men then you have bullets”? This is hardly something new. These were the same tactics used again Napoleon and Fredrick the Great. Trying to dismiss culture for being culpable is ignoring the facts.

Both Russia and China have a long history of being collective survivalists, and a very long tradition of having bloody and costly wars. And while it may be true that these communists were responsible for millions of deaths it is truer that these communists used very similar methods to their predecessors. Communists are far from original and many of them borrowed concepts from their supposedly "hated" predecessors in order to obtain power. I find little reason to believe that death tolls, suffering, or pain would've been any less if you had allowed conservative inept regimes to remain in power.

I am not arguing that communists are not in some way responsible, but I find it difficult to believe that there would’ve been the same death toll had communism been implemented in either America or Britain. The cost of life wouldn’t have been nearly as great.

 

[L.Y.S.]

You think Belgium under King Leopold was a western-style democratic nation?

It was technically one the moment it separated from the Netherlands back in 1839, seeing as a congress of Belgians separated from the Dutch and not a king.

Have you been able to find a non-western style democracy that has a good human rights record?

No, I haven't been able to find a western one either. Humans suck, go figure.

 

[Virus]

Notice that only 3 major western wars surpass wars that occurred in China and in Russia, and Russia was still involved in all 3 (The Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and WWII). Of the ten deadliest conflicts in human history 4 of them occurred solely in China, one of them solely in Russia, and the highest death tolls for the other events which involved each of these countries were theirs.

Further evidence of this comes from how Soviet Russia conducted very similar warfare methods against Germany that the Tsarists conducted in WWI. One can also see the same exercises with the Nationalists in China during the Sino-Japanese wars. The general disregard for human life doesn't shock me coming from either of these two nations. So trying to pin point all these deaths on communism and not on a long standing tradition of collectivism is a difficult case to make. Communism did indeed play its part, but that does not excuse their perspective views on human life. How telling is “we have more men then you have bullets”? This is hardly something new. These were the same tactics used again Napoleon and Fredrick the Great. Trying to dismiss culture for being culpable is ignoring the facts.

Both Russia and China have a long history of being collective survivalists, and a very long tradition of having bloody and costly wars. And while it may be true that these communists were responsible for millions of deaths it is truer that these communists used very similar methods to their predecessors. Communists are far from original and many of them borrowed concepts from their supposedly "hated" predecessors in order to obtain power. I find little reason to believe that death tolls, suffering, or pain would've been any less if you had allowed conservative inept regimes to remain in power..

The overwhelming majority of victims of communism were civilians murdered by their own governments. Not war casualties. The 100,000,000 figure doesn't even include them. War wasn't last century's biggest killer. It was communism.

Are you claiming China would have had a Great Leap Forward and a Cultural Revolution even if the communists never came to power? That's absurd. Do you think Germany would have exterminated 20 million people regardless of what party won the election in 1933?

 

[L.Y.S.]

The overwhelming majority of victims of communism were civilians murdered by their own governments. Not war casualties. The 100,000,000 figure doesn't even include them. War wasn't last century's biggest killer. It was communism.

I get that you hate communism virus, that's fine, but that still doesn't remove the truth. Most of the major deaths that took place in China and Russia were either related to power struggles (of the 4 major events I mentioned about china, 3 of them were rebellions. The 1 event I mentioned with Russia was a civil war) or lack of resources (food included). Millions of people have died from construction projects over the centuries in China and Russia alone. If you include war, then both nations have experienced hundreds of millions of deaths over the last several centuries. Putting dissidents to death is nothing new in these countries and don’t act like it is. It is an old tactic used and abused by both the Chinese and the Russians for centuries. Both have terrorized populations into submission for centuries.

I’m not arguing that communism didn’t inspire some of the bloodshed, but these mentalities already existed prior to the rise of communism. Combined with a vicious drive to achieve a goal no matter the cost, and modern technology, of course the communists achieved horrendous death tolls. It was only a matter of time. Nothing you say implicating communism will change this fact. Like Nazi Germany, Communist China and Russia already had the seeds of the preceding ideology long before it ever rose to power. The communists only had to whisper in the ear of upset farms and factory workers, the same way the Nazi’s only had to appeal to Germany’s disgruntled intelligentsia and starving workers for their plan to work.

Are you claiming China would have had a Great Leap Forward and a Cultural Revolution even if the communists never came to power? That's absurd. Do you think Germany would have exterminated 20 million people regardless of what party won the election in 1933?

China was already experiencing a massive population boom and grain shortages. Mao made it worse by taking it upon himself to collectivize farms in order to prevent these shortages. In other words, he made it worse by trying to make it better.

Regardless, the key issue is one of supply and demand. There would’ve still have been millions of starving Chinese unable to do anything about the situation. Mao made it worse, but that does not mean that his absence would’ve prevented all deaths, just that less people would’ve died. Millions of Chinese would’ve still died from famines in the proceeding decade from failure to meet food demands. In fact, grain shortages still plague China till this very day; they have to make up the missing grain shortages by purchasing the deficit from other countries each year. Therefore, I doubt the Nationalists would’ve prevented all death; there just wouldn’t have been as many deaths.

 

[Skepticemea]

War wasn't last century's biggest killer. It was communism.

Mosquitos are communists? Yuck!

 

[Humes fork]

Well, for one, you linked to an op-ed commenting on the Cuba issue.

Was it in any way factually incorrect?

As opposed to the other useless, despicable parties? Well, you have to start somewhere.

Many of the other parties are decent by comparison.

I suspect that the social democrats are actually more in line with my own views (the left of the SocDems and the Right of the Left Party are close-ish anyway), but they have problems of their own anyway. For now, the Left Party's success will be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a Social Democratic government.

It actually surprises me that a whole quarter of the population is willing to vote for the clowns currently in charge of the Soc Dems.

The Left Party's success will come at the expense of the Soc Dems. The Left Party doesn't attract centrist voters, it scares them away.

Maybe I should become an autodidact instead. Gene Ray 2.0?

Though the degree can be useful.

 

[Virus]

I think we all know what's going on here. Some people sympathize with communism and don't like hearing that they're the greatest mass-murderers in human history.

 

[Stellafane]

I think we all know what's going on here. Some people sympathize with communism and don't like hearing that they're the greatest mass-murderers in human history.

Well, I don't think anyone likes hearing about the sins of communist regimes past. It's that some apologists appear to simply refuse to even acknowledge them, or at least their magnitude.

 

[Humes fork]

I think we all know what's going on here. Some people sympathize with communism and don't like hearing that they're the greatest mass-murderers in human history.

What surprises me the most is that people refer to Marx and Engels as if they actually had a clue about anything.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, I don't think anyone likes hearing about the sins of communist regimes past. It's that some apologists appear to simply refuse to even acknowledge them, or at least their magnitude.

The front page of the Nizkor Project site has the single most salient quote there is about Holocaust denial:

"The real purpose of holocaust revisionism is to make
National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again."​

Communist genocide denialism is pretty much fueled by the same motive. They only want to politically rehabilitate their corrupt and destructive ideology.

 

[Virus]

What surprises me the most is that people refer to Marx and Engels as if they actually had a clue about anything.

Marxism holds a lot of influence in some sections of Western society like education, universities and the media.

Check out what the Loony Left were up to in Britain:

 

[timhau]

Both Russia and China have a long history of being collective survivalists, and a very long tradition of having bloody and costly wars. And while it may be true that these communists were responsible for millions of deaths it is truer that these communists used very similar methods to their predecessors. Communists are far from original and many of them borrowed concepts from their supposedly "hated" predecessors in order to obtain power. I find little reason to believe that death tolls, suffering, or pain would've been any less if you had allowed conservative inept regimes to remain in power.

Really? Did you know that the Cheka, under orders from Lenin, executed way more people during its first year than the Czar's Okhrana did during its entire existence? (And no, that's not because the Okhrana was nice and gentle.)

 

[IDB87]

At any rate, I will not get into a long winded discussion about the total number of deaths caused by communism.

Then why bother bringing it up? If you don't wish to support your claims, don't make them.

While it is true that tens of millions died on the watch of communists, I hardly find this to be surprising. Both Russia and China have a long history of collectivism and a general disregard for individual human life stemming back to their perspective creations.

Virus made a good point, which I'll echo:

Would the Germans have exterminated the Jews and socially undesirable people of their conquered neighbors had the Nazis not come to power?

If you wish to support your claim that the deaths attributed to the Great Leap Forward were inevitable (due to collectivism shown in Russian and Chinese history and their general disregard for their civilians), you have to show where you think those deaths would come from. Did Chiang Kai-Shek plan to implement anything at all related to the GLF?

While it is easy to blame communists for these travesties

Very easy, actually.

I ask the audience to reexamine the fact that both of the perspective nations on trial have a long and bloody history.

Most of the world does. What is your point?

Communism is far from the sole cause of all the death, pain, and suffering witnessed in China and Russia.

It is the direct cause of all the deaths in the Great Leap Forward.

Like Nazis who came to power in Germany, there were already long cultural ties to the ideals that help communists get into power.

While there was obviously antisemitism in Germany before the Nazis rose to power, Hitler managed to inflame it to the point where he was able to execute his Final Solution. Ditto to communism.

Furthermore, there is a very long history of “sacrifice for the collective” in each of these countries.

Except you don't see such numbers of deaths or Communistic regimes in places like India and Japan that also favor the "sacrifice for the collective" mentality. Why?

Each of these societies are guilty of viewing human life as a disposable means to an end, and the ideal of “obtaining a goal no matter the cost” is a long standing tradition in both of these cultures. Little has changed when the communists got into power, they resumed where the imperial regimes left off.

What is your excuse for India and Japan whose culture was similar to China and Russia in that respect? Why did Communism not to come those countries, and why aren't there a great number of deaths attributed to a redistribution of resources via Communism?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Was it in any way factually incorrect?

I don'ẗ know. I do know that I wouldn't trust them to provide accurate facts (neither would I trust left-wing bloggers for that matter)

Many of the other parties are decent by comparison.

Not really. Parts of them, maybe.

It actually surprises me that a whole quarter of the population is willing to vote for the clowns currently in charge of the Soc Dems.

There are serious internal issues within the SocDems, no question about that. I THINK they have the potential to make a turnabout for 2014 (Depending on how the Juholt affair pans out and them putting a leash on Östros). If not, it's probably a mostly dead party.

The Left Party's success will come at the expense of the Soc Dems. The Left Party doesn't attract centrist voters, it scares them away.

The issue is more complex than that. I don't know how familiar you are with the history of that left, but many of them would never, ever vote for the Social Democrats. The SocDems won't be able to get a hold of the Riksdag without the support of V and MP by 2014 unless a miracle occurs.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I think we all know what's going on here. Some people sympathize with communism and don't like hearing that they're the greatest mass-murderers in human history.

I don't care who killed the vast majority of people last century, but saying that the cultures which fielded communism have no responsibility in this issue is poppy-cock. There is a general disregard for individual human life in both these countries, and people keep neglecting this fact when making their assertions on the matter.

 

[Virus]

So China is culturally prone to having Great Leap Forwards and Cultural Revolutions?

 

[Humes fork]

There are serious internal issues within the SocDems, no question about that. I THINK they have the potential to make a turnabout for 2014 (Depending on how the Juholt affair pans out and them putting a leash on Östros). If not, it's probably a mostly dead party.

I think lots of people vote for them out of habit. If I'm not mistaken, their support is mainly in the rural north. Where I'm from (Stockholm), Soc Dems are an endangered species.

The issue is more complex than that. I don't know how familiar you are with the history of that left, but many of them would never, ever vote for the Social Democrats. The SocDems won't be able to get a hold of the Riksdag without the support of V and MP by 2014 unless a miracle occurs.

This still doesn't change the fact that the Soc Dems and the Greens are the left-wing parties that can attract the centrist voters. The Left Party can't do that. In the last election, the alliance with the Left Party actually scarred away voters from the Soc Dems.

And what of the Left Party's foreign policy? They would (if they could) cut us off from our natural friends (the US and the other European countries) in exchange for... yeah? Probably some "anti-imperialist" like Gaddafi. They would lead us into international isolation, which is certainly not in the interest of a small, open, export-dependent and trade-dependent economy like ours.