"The Black Book of Communism" - Flawed Basic Premise? [Archive]

View Full Version : "The Black Book of Communism" - Flawed Basic Premise?

Suddenly

3rd July 2003, 09:19 AM

"The Black Book of Communism" is a book that attempts to quantify the number of people killed by "Communism." Part of this book's theme is that many fewer people were killed by National Socialism than Communism. Ignoring for a minute the obvious problem with this contention, that many more people were under communist systems than national socialist systems,and for a much greater time period, and also ignoring other seemingly glaring scholarship issues I'm not fully qualified or personally motivated to fully explain, I have a nagging question about the whole basis for comparison..

Is there a significant practical difference between national socialism as used in Germany, Italy etc. and communism in the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, etc.?

Both systems as a practical matter ignored the rights and wishes of individuals and acted only for the benefit of the "state." In theory, the communist leaders claimed to be were for the benefit of the working class and all mankind, but as a practical matter, that meant for the benefit of the state. In other words, Hitler killed Jews and Poles to strengthen Germany. Stalin killed "counter-revolutionaries" in order to safeguard the "glorious workers revolution" (or some such bombast). Either way, people were killed by the state for political reasons. There may be a difference, but it seems to be like comparing how many people were run over by red trucks vs. those ran over by green ones.

I'd argue that the real political cause of death of the victims of both these systems is the lack of respect of individual rights by government. Individual human rights were considered (if considered at all) subordinate to the needs of the state in both these systems. The deeper reasons are irrelevent.

Crossbow

3rd July 2003, 09:48 AM

Suddenly, since you actually have a copy of this book, could you check something for me please?

Does it mention in there how many people Lenin killed? Someone recently told me it was 40 million and he said that figure comes from the book.

Thanks in advance!

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 10:06 AM

The term communism was used by many totalitarian regimes.

does the black book say how figures were generated, the forty million killed by Lenin probably includes evry Russian who dies in the civil war and those who died in WWI.

Thanks/.

Suddenly

3rd July 2003, 10:41 AM

Does it mention in there how many people Lenin killed? Someone recently told me it was 40 million and he said that figure comes from the book.

I didn't read it. I have read about it, and what the book seeks to claim. I then decided the book wasnt worth my time. According to excerpts I've read they do set the worldwide victim total at 100 million and the USSR total at 20 million.

Here's an excerpt I found via google:

http://home.att.net/~genocides/bbc.htm

So even if you put blame on Lenin for all USSR victims, it doesn't reach 40,000,000.

Of course, if you place blame on Lenin (or Marx) for all deaths from communism, I wonder how many deaths you have to blame on Jesus Christ?

does the black book say how figures were generated, the forty million killed by Lenin probably includes evry Russian who dies in the civil war and those who died in WWI.

Heavy on famine deaths.

Here's a critique of the book: (The author of this piece appears to actually be a communist, so bias is possible)

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bookstore/commie.html

Crossbow

3rd July 2003, 11:00 AM

Thanks Suddenly!

I was referring to that post made by Jedi Knight about a week ago where he said that Lenin killed 50 million people, and when I asked him where that data came from, he said to "read the Black Book of Communism".

Suddenly

3rd July 2003, 11:54 AM

Jedi did remind me of Ignatius J. Reilly from A Confereracy of Dunces , but I guess there is a major difference.

Ignatius at least closely read The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius before he yammered to everyone about how important it was.

headscratcher4

3rd July 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Crossbow
Thanks Suddenly!

I was referring to that post made by Jedi Knight about a week ago where he said that Lenin killed 50 million people, and when I asked him where that data came from, he said to "read the Black Book of Communism".

My recollection, and I read the Black Book of Communism and think it a very good resource, is that 50 million attributable to Lenin personally is way over the line. Certainly, given the man-made famines of the early 20s', millions died -- these were deaths that resulted directly from policies determined and implemented by Lenin. In addition, the state that Lenin created -- and fine-tuned by Stalin -- clearly and in totality is responsible for well over 50 million deaths...though, one could certainly argue that the great bulk of those deaths (repeated famines, civil war, political purges, the weakening of national defense [allowing for the easy course of the onset of the Nazi invation] and the treatment of Russian POWs [both by the Nazis and by Stalin upon their return to Russia] lie directly at the feet of Stalin and his henchmen.

Some excellent additional resources on this issue are:

The Great Terror by Robert Conquest
Harvest of Sorrow, also by Robert Conquest
Kruschev and his Era by William Taubman (a recent biography that has some excellent discussion of the cost of Stalin policies in Ukraine).
Russia Under the Boshivek Regime (Vol. I & II) by Pipes (truly excellent).
Let History Judge by Medvedev

My recollection from my own study is that Conquest's books are particularly useful as he chronicled much of the mass-murder well before opening Soviet and Communist resources and archives confirmed the basic thrust of his argument -- that Russian Communism was directly reponsible for deaths in the tens of millions. Pipes is also very good, as he focuses on how the Soviets warped society, law, culture and history to impose their state -- and its bloody result. His analysis of how the Bolsheviks stole the Russian revolution and imposed themselves as the government without election is facinating and an important lesson to us all about how totalitarians function.

Importantly, it has been the thesis of writers like Paul Johnson (a rabid conservative, who nonetheless has great insights and is well worth reading on the topic) that Lenin and the Leninist Party's victory in Russia was the model for capturing power that was employed by both Hitler and Mousillini. In otherwords, the facists appreciated the how (if differing on the why) of how to gain and retain power. In short, the Nazi state and the Facist state in Italy were essentialy bolshevik parties in practice if not in core ideology. In this respect, and if you accept Johnson's reasoning, the difference between Communism and Facism/Nazism is not particularilly great...specifically because the power employed historically and in both philosophies resulted in mass death to those in oposition to the imposed regime.

IMO, the true sythasis of the philosophies is to be found in Orwell's 1984.

NoZed Avenger

3rd July 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

My recollection from my own study is that Conquest's books are particularly useful as he chronicled much of the mass-murder well before opening Soviet and Communist resources and archives confirmed the basic thrust of his argument -- that Russian Communism was directly reponsible for deaths in the tens of millions. Pipes is also very good, as he focuses on how the Soviets warped society, law, culture and history to impose their state -- and its bloody result. His analysis of how the Bolsheviks stole the Russian revolution and imposed themselves as the government without election is facinating and an important lesson to us all about how totalitarians function.

Another useful and thoughtful post, HS.

Coincidentally, another new poster has brought up a similar topic. I am afraid I did not respond in as reasonable and thorough a fashion, but for anyone interested, see

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22560&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

NA

Nikk

3rd July 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
/snip/

Either way, people were killed by the state for political reasons. There may be a difference, but it seems to be like comparing how many people were run over by red trucks vs. those ran over by green ones.

I'd argue that the real political cause of death of the victims of both these systems is the lack of respect of individual rights by government. Individual human rights were considered (if considered at all) subordinate to the needs of the state in both these systems. The deeper reasons are irrelevent.

I would strongly disagree. Communism, or Marxism to be more exact, has a complex theoretical structure and describes some of the basic failings of capitalism rather well. It still retains a fascination for many and is far from dead as a political force. I think there are some long posts from Malachi ( in Flame Wars ???) about his belief in Marxism which are instructive.

For that reason pointing out what happens when the philosophy/science is applied and goes horribly wrong is a valuable service. There are after all several active communist parties in power today and they are in no hurry to leave the stage!

By contrast Fascism has no intellectual credibility and its atrocities are well known, so there is not the same need to publicise them.

Remember those who do not understand history are compelled to repeat it!

headscratcher4

3rd July 2003, 01:36 PM

NZA: Thanks. I was following that thread but chose not to engage because F is a willful idiot. My thoughts were: even if he is correct...somehow the deaths and famine in the Ukraine are exagerated...what he doesn't explain is: what about the Soviet Regime does he particularly admire? It's freedome of expression? It's academic freedom? It's Artistic freedom? It's open discussion of issues? My point is simply that even if you come to some conclusion (that can only be reached by willful blindness and a failure to read the sources -- inlcluding Soviet Sources!), what is it about "communism" as imposed by Lenin and shaped by Stalin that inpires? THat was a good way to run government? To manage human and natural resources? To protect the enviromnet? TO protect human rights? I don't think that he can anser those questions in any form that would make any kind of rational sense (in short, like Billiefan and Jedi in their respective ways, F is a fundie).....

Jedi Knight

3rd July 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
The deeper reasons are irrelevent.

lol, sure they are irrelevant--to a commie in denial maybe. :rolleyes:

Here is the deal. The Black Book of Communism simply points out that for all the demonization of National Socialism there has been an international intellectual (marginal intellectuals) "celebration" of communism where communism has proved to be even more perverse than National Socialism (and National Socialism is very perverse).

Why is the world silent to the 150,000,000 deaths caused by communism last century? Where are the anti-communist rallies, anti-communist organizations, anti-communist teachings in universities, anti-communist slogans, etc that embrace Nazism to this day? If someone calls themselves a Nazi, they are hog-tied for life, ridiculed, demonized and tarred and feathered. If someone calls themselves a communist, they get prestigous jobs at universities, oodles of money from special interest groups, special favors from the United States Supreme Court, special treatment by the US Senate and the US Congress (via aid and humanitarian assistance to communist states and free trade agreements) and hosts of other perks.

That is what the book is about. The book explains the crimes committed by the most perverse ideology in history and then intellectually ponders why communism gets a pass when Nazism is demonized. It is an accurate work; a very accurate scholarly study of communist perversion and communists hate its truth.

I love that book--I have a copy on my desk at all times to battle communists whenever I encounter them and their sick, perversionist brain-disorder ideology.

JK

Jedi Knight

3rd July 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
NZA: Thanks. I was following that thread but chose not to engage because F is a willful idiot. My thoughts were: even if he is correct...somehow the deaths and famine in the Ukraine are exagerated...what he doesn't explain is: what about the Soviet Regime does he particularly admire? It's freedome of expression? It's academic freedom? It's Artistic freedom? It's open discussion of issues? My point is simply that even if you come to some conclusion (that can only be reached by willful blindness and a failure to read the sources -- inlcluding Soviet Sources!), what is it about "communism" as imposed by Lenin and shaped by Stalin that inpires? THat was a good way to run government? To manage human and natural resources? To protect the enviromnet? TO protect human rights? I don't think that he can anser those questions in any form that would make any kind of rational sense (in short, like Billiefan and Jedi in their respective ways, F is a fundie).....

Communism is a perversion. Want to start peering into it? You're damn right I am an anti-communist fundie, hero.

JK

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 01:55 PM

Thanks JK, the staistics are still questionable.

So can you show where they embrace communism, your views are probably in the majority. There is not internatianle, not after trotsky bought it anyway.

I think that an argument can be made that religion and in particular Xianity has led to more deaths than communism.

(Are you defending National Socialism, I don't think you are but you mention it alot.)

DialecticMaterialist

3rd July 2003, 01:58 PM

Stalin did kill about 20 million to Hitler's 6-11 million. But Stalin was in power for almost 40 years, Hitler for about 6 or so. Controlling for overall time, Hitler was far more brutal.

And that's not counting people who died as a result of Hitler's wars.

Jedi Knight

3rd July 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Thanks JK, the staistics are still questionable.

So can you show where they embrace communism, your views are probably in the majority. There is not internatianle, not after trotsky bought it anyway.

I think that an argument can be made that religion and in particular Xianity has led to more deaths than communism.

(Are you defending National Socialism, I don't think you are but you mention it alot.)

Religious perversions in history are no excuse for giving communism a pass, and no, I am not defending National Socialism.

Jedi said: "The Black Book of Communism simply points out that for all the demonization of National Socialism there has been an international intellectual (marginal intellectuals) "celebration" of communism where communism has proved to be even more perverse than National Socialism (and National Socialism is very perverse)."

See? If you paid attention, you would have read that I already said National Socialism is a perversion, or maybe you just ignored what I said in the initial post so you could come in here as a commie and claim I was defending Nazism?

Like I said, communists are marginal intellectuals and dishonest intellectuals.

JK

RandFan,Jr.

3rd July 2003, 02:33 PM

Nikk,

Let me first start off by apologizing for the tone of my post. I have re-written it already several times but I just can't tone it down any further. Communism is something that I am most passionately against. There is no single invention of man well intentioned or not that has been more destructive to the human condition. I am quite confident that even religion cannot compare.

Originally posted by Nikk
I would strongly disagree. Communism, or Marxism to be more exact, has a complex theoretical structure and describes some of the basic failings of capitalism rather well. A complex theoretical structure" that "describes some of the basic failings of capitalism rather well"??? Sorry but what is the point?

Sure Capitalism has some basic failings, Communism has nothing but failings, and misery and death and lack of freedom of thought, expression, association. No guarantee of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

It still retains a fascination for many and is far from dead as a political force. People still gather at night in black robes during a full moon and chant. So what? That some people are fascinated by any number of destructive things is hardly a reason to legitimize them. I agree that it might not ever be dead. That is why we must be ever vigilant.

For that reason pointing out what happens when the philosophy/science is applied and goes horribly wrong is a valuable service. Let's see Mao and the gang of four (PRC), Stalin (USSR), Pol Pot (Cambodia), Ho Chi Min (Vietnam), Kim Sung Il (N. Korea), Castro (Cuba), etc. And this is only the list of initial tyrants. Has there ever been an instance where it didn't go horribly wrong? An example when freedom of speech and due process and civil liberties weren't trampled under the feet of some dictator?

There are after all several active communist parties in power today and they are in no hurry to leave the stage! You can fool some of the people some of the time...

By contrast Fascism has no intellectual credibility and its atrocities are well known, so there is not the same need to publicise them. You are suggesting that Communism has some intellectual credibility and that the atrocities of Communism are not well known?

Well let's take the opportunity now to enlighten people of the atrocities and the bankrupt ideas of Communism.

Victims of Communism Memorial (http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/)
Memorial to Ukrainian Victims of Communism (http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/la/pubart/CivicCenter/ukrainians.html)
Dead Souls: Tallying the Victims of Communism (http://www.anneapplebaum.com/communism/1999/12_16_weekst_blackbook.html)
Remember the Victims of Communism (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED012696b.cfm?RenderforPrint=1)
Events planned to honour victims of Communism (http://www.radio.cz/en/article/40223/limit)

Remember those who do not understand history are compelled to repeat it! That is why it is time for all of us to support the Victims of Communism Memorial. Me must never forget lest we repeat these, the worst atrocities in modern history and perhaps all human history. Please spread the word and make a donation.

RandFan,Jr.

3rd July 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Stalin did kill about 20 million to Hitler's 6-11 million. But Stalin was in power for almost 40 years, Hitler for about 6 or so. Controlling for overall time, Hitler was far more brutal.

And that's not counting people who died as a result of Hitler's wars. Hitler was a brutal murderous bastard. Stalin deliberatly starved to death entire villages. Imagine watching your children die of starvation in front of you while you could do nothing. Is there a point that one goes beyond the ability to quantify inhumanity? I think so. Hitler and Stalin both fit the definition of monster.

The great puzzle is: Did Hitler or Stalin during WW II kill the most Ukrainians? Hitler's crimes in Ukraine have been better documented and are better known. Stalin once said that history is written by the winners. As a victor, Stalin's USSR was able to hide its genocide of Ukrainians. After the war Stalin said that 7 million Soviet citizens died but we know he was concealing the true higher figures. Nikita Krushchev in 1961 set the death toll in the USSR at 20 million and this seems to be a credible and accurate statistic. Recently Moscow has quoted figures of 25 and 27 million. These new figures are either sheer propaganda or are based on new information about Stalin's genocide of Ukrainians and other Soviet citizens during the War.

As to the timing both commited much of the murders in the same time frame so I'm not sure the relevance of deaths per year. Just because Stalin was in power longer doesn't mean he spread his brutality out over the years. But if that gives you some kind of comfort then fine. I will accept that there is some measurement where by it can be said that Hitler was more brutal.

Did Hitler or Stalin Kill More Ukrainians in World War II? (http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-19.html)

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 03:01 PM

Sorry guys but communism is the natural state of the human being, primitive societies tend to share what they have and to not aquire excess goods.
Then along comes agriculture and storage technologies and boom you get a reason to have wealth.

Communism is no more perverse than capitalism, it is a concept. I am positive that there are many evil people who act in the name of liberty, that doesn't make liberty evil, just the people who do it.

RandFan,Jr.

3rd July 2003, 03:11 PM

headscratcher4

3rd July 2003, 03:23 PM

headscratcher4

3rd July 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry guys but communism is the natural state of the human being, primitive societies tend to share what they have and to not aquire excess goods.
Then along comes agriculture and storage technologies and boom you get a reason to have wealth.

Communism is no more perverse than capitalism, it is a concept. I am positive that there are many evil people who act in the name of liberty, that doesn't make liberty evil, just the people who do it.

This is a bold statement that isn't based on anything...primative societies are often as not higherarchical -- and primative cultures are very much so...a chief, a king, whathave you...their is leadership and little democracy other than the vote of the strong over the weakest...it is more like a Mafia protection scheme than ideal communism. If you look back through histroy few (if any?) successful civilizations emerged out of "communistic" societies...it may, if you buy Marx, be the future...but it certainly wasn't the human past. Besides, who wants to go backwards? Why should we, even assuming there is something to this, want to go back to to a primative state? Human civilization is progressing, it would seem to me that the fact that we are no longer communist (again, assuming that the above post has merit) would suggest that communism failed primative humans -- for why else would they abandon it? If it worked, we'd still be doing it, as it were.

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

This is a bold statement that isn't based on anything...primative societies are often as not higherarchical -- and primative cultures are very much so...a chief, a king, whathave you...their is leadership and little democracy other than the vote of the strong over the weakest...it is more like a Mafia protection scheme than ideal communism. If you look back through histroy few (if any?) successful civilizations emerged out of "communistic" societies...it may, if you buy Marx, be the future...but it certainly wasn't the human past.

This bold statement was made by Olga Sofer-Babyshev Professor of anthropology at the UofI, she is somewhat respected. Most of the societies that we think of are post argiculture or at least horticultural. the vast majority of human history is hunter gatherer, where in you have 'petty chiefs' but not kings, the way to tell a petty chief is that they are more judges than they are rulers. Certainly what you say is true for most post agrarian cultures. But say in the 1960s you gave a t-shirt to a !Kung bushman, he keeps it a while and then passes it on to hos friend , who does the same thing, status is gained but not reveled in. The group survival is always more important than the individual.

headscratcher4

3rd July 2003, 03:37 PM

DD: Noted. Thanks for your clarification.

I guess what I am trying to get to is that, IMO, this sort of wistful justification of "communism" as some sort of natural state of man, always drives me crazy.

Let us just deal with Marxism...a reaction to industrialization and a changing world, the emergence of a working class, middle class, etc. Very far removed from primative....

Suddenly

3rd July 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry guys but communism is the natural state of the human being, primitive societies tend to share what they have and to not aquire excess goods.
Then along comes agriculture and storage technologies and boom you get a reason to have wealth.

Communism is no more perverse than capitalism, it is a concept. I am positive that there are many evil people who act in the name of liberty, that doesn't make liberty evil, just the people who do it.

However, once you hit modern times, human beings fall into a capitalistic mode. Market forces are as valid and binding on human beings as the force of gravity. You can't completely ignore either and expect to prosper. You can hedge your bets slightly by creating a minimum wage, allowing for government bailouts, or by putting padding under a swingset. Ignoring either will create crisis by means of a shortage or falling off a cliff.

The evil of communism isn't from the idea of sharing, the evil is that in the world at present true communism is impossible and unnatural. The only way to get people to go along is brute force, and since the system doesn't work, the whole thing goes to the crapper in a hurry. Then either the government gives up or it just demands the impossible from its citizens and kills everyone that complains or points out the system stinks. In short, communism ends up killing people because it doesn't work and Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others would rather have people starve and die than admit it doesn't.

Thus my contention that it is bad government that kills people. Communism, if attempted in a truely free country would kill no one, because it would fall apart and be ingnored as the people revert naturally to capitalism. If ever basic conditions change and market forces become irrelevent, communism would be dandy. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

(Just noted when I previewed this that RandFan Jr. already made this point, but I'm posting it anyway, darn it!)

Jedi Knight

3rd July 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
DD: Noted. Thanks for your clarification.

I guess what I am trying to get to is that, IMO, this sort of wistful justification of "communism" as some sort of natural state of man, always drives me crazy.

Let us just deal with Marxism...a reaction to industrialization and a changing world, the emergence of a working class, middle class, etc. Very far removed from primative....

But Marx calls for worse then the "primitive". He instructs his minions to take the state down to the lowest common denomenator together (to hell).

That is why Stalin used Marx's instructions to go into places like the Ukraine and ethnic cleanse millions of farmers there so he could steal all the land.

Communism is evil any anyone trying to start a communist state is a legimate open-ended target for assassination.

JK

Nikk

3rd July 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Nikk,

Let me first start off by apologizing for the tone of my post. I have re-written it already several times but I just can't tone it down any further.

OK.

Communism is something that I am most passionately against. There is no single invention of man well intentioned or not that has been more destructive to the human condition. I am quite confident that even religion cannot compare.

A complex theoretical structure" that "describes some of the basic failings of capitalism rather well"??? Sorry but what is the point?

Sure Capitalism has some basic failings, Communism has nothing but failings, and misery and death and lack of freedom of thought, expression, association. No guarantee of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

My point was that Communism, unlike Fascism is not intellectually negligible. This gives it its attraction and its danger.

People still gather at night in black robes during a full moon and chant. So what? That some people are fascinated by any number of destructive things is hardly a reason to legitimize them. I agree that it might not ever be dead. That is why we must be ever vigilant.

We pretty much agree here.

Let's see Mao and the gang of four (PRC), Stalin (USSR), Pol Pot (Cambodia), Ho Chi Min (Vietnam), Kim Sung Il (N. Korea), Castro (Cuba), etc. And this is only the list of initial tyrants. Has there ever been an instance where it didn't go horribly wrong? An example when freedom of speech and due process and civil liberties weren't trampled under the feet of some dictator?

I never said there was an instance when it did not go horribly wrong. I think my English tendency to understate things misled you.

You can fool some of the people some of the time...

You are suggesting that Communism has some intellectual credibility and that the atrocities of Communism are not well known?

As a description of Capitalism's failings, yes it has credibility but that does not mean that I accept it as a predictive system ( see below ). In fact I think that Communism's atrocities are less well known than those of Fascism as they occured in a very closed and secretive society. Fascist Europe was cracked wide open to inspection.

Well let's take the opportunity now to enlighten people of the atrocities and the bankrupt ideas of Communism.

Victims of Communism Memorial (http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/)
Memorial to Ukrainian Victims of Communism (http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/la/pubart/CivicCenter/ukrainians.html)
Dead Souls: Tallying the Victims of Communism (http://www.anneapplebaum.com/communism/1999/12_16_weekst_blackbook.html)
Remember the Victims of Communism (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED012696b.cfm?RenderforPrint=1)
Events planned to honour victims of Communism (http://www.radio.cz/en/article/40223/limit)

That is why it is time for all of us to support the Victims of Communism Memorial. Me must never forget lest we repeat these, the worst atrocities in modern history and perhaps all human history. Please spread the word and make a donation.

Little of the above is news to me.

[/B]

What hooked my attention in "Suddenly's" post was the suggestion that who killed how many of whom was little more than a sterile numbers game; that there was little point in going on about it as "the deeper reasons are irrelevant".

My point was that Communism did have an intellectual attraction and for that reason the crimes it inspired needed to be remembered. I did say "those who do not understand history are compelled to repeat it".

I do not have the time to write and I am sure that you have no wish to read a summary of Marxist theory but I hope that you will agree that it is in principle generous minded and altruistic. This is the attraction and the threat. The world is always a mess and Marxism not only attracts those who want to change it for the better but also offers an alternative to religion . A complete world view which promises that things will get better provided that a certain process is followed. Needless to say those who stand in the way are either malicious or in need of reeducation and.....I am sure you can fill in the blanks. If you add to this the simple fact that many of those who gain political power in any system are soon corrupted by it and a Marxist party really needs a monopoly of power.....well again you know the rest.

To put it another way, communism might work as predicted if people were more altruistic and community minded than they actually are.

When Lord Acton said that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that great men are nearly always bad men I think he had no real conception of what absolute power really meant. Well, we know now don't we?

Incidently, when the Muslims finally cotton on to the fact that Islam will not resolve the problems of their societies will marxism have a renewed attraction?

Finally, a little personal history. My father is Hungarian and left the country as a political refugee in 1948. He had been arrested by the Communist Party and probably would have been executed if a family friend had not got him out of jail shortly before the party took over the complete criminal justice system. So I have always had a deep personal interest in Marxism and Communism for obvious reasons.

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 05:05 PM

Yeah market forces are okay, as long as they don't lower the price on pregnant slaves.

I am just pointing out that communism is as natural a state as property.

This current obsession with giving people money withe xtraordinary power will pass, so if we starve kids in say 19Th century England in the name of property that is still imorral isn't it?

The problem is that the states that call themselves 'communist' are totalitarian, there is a place for employee ownership in the market place. Labor unions have unfortunately become national and no longer serve thier true purpose either.

Stalin was as evil as Hitler, had Hitler stayed in power as long as Stalin then he would have killed more people.

Evil is not limited to communism. If G. Washington has messed up then he and Lenin would be equals and we would be a French or German nation, under English overseers.

Huzington

3rd July 2003, 06:12 PM

An excellent original post. Thank you for initiating discussion about this important topic.

Before we begin, here is a quote from Conquest himself:
"The Great Terror still had to rely to a large extent on émigré, defector, and other unofficial material."

[Nationalism Socialism and Communism] as a practical matter ignored the rights and wishes of individuals and acted only for the benefit of the "state."

First of all, the USSR was "Socialist", not "Communist". Stalin himself said that it could take hundreds of years to achieve Communism.

The Soviet Union did not ignore the rights the individual. Where is the evidence that they were ignoring the rights of the individual? You will never find such evidence. For such evidence does not exist.

You think of Western standards, Western morality, as universal, objective, and undeniable truths. You might even misuse the word "self-evident" to describe this moral code. From a Western perspective, Socialist Russia was terrible (that is, going by the Western bourgeoisie version of the whole era); but it is this widespread feeling of Western moral superiority which is nothing short of bigotry and ethnocentricity. In bygone times we had our racial theories and our supposed cultural superiority (although we do still have tinctures of the latter); now we are left with feelings of moral and ethical superiority. This, I think, can also be outgrown. (This, however, is one quality which Marxists altogether lack, for Marxists are moral relativists.)

In theory, the communist leaders claimed to be were for the benefit of the working class and all mankind,

And in practise they were. For example, in no other era in human history did a single man bring a nation, within the space of ten years, from the mediaeval ages and into the space age. This is one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind.

but as a practical matter, that meant for the benefit of the state.

This is what I do not understand -- that somehow the sum of individuals is less important than the individual considered in isolation. In Socialist Russia, the benefit of the State is identical the benefit of the Masses, the sum of individuals. And in isolation, the individual is useless, has less truth, has less reality. Quite unlike National Socialists and Fascists, Communists do not subscribe to any "statist" or "corporatist" ideology. Indeed, when Communism is achieved the state will undergo a "withering away".

Stalin killed "counter-revolutionaries" in order to safeguard the "glorious workers revolution".

But they were counter-revolutionaries. Quite unlike the Jews and the Poles, these criminals were actually commiting sabotage, treason, calling for civil war, cooperating with the Japanese and the German Nazis, cooperating with the Americans, cooperating with the British, cooperating with terrorists, commiting acts of terrorism, selling Soviet secrets, etc., etc., etc. Did you know that Stalin was got out of the Comintern by a coalition of rightists posing as Marxists? Do you know how easily a counterrevolutionary could climb the ranks of the Party, which they undoubtedly did? Have you heard of the Zinoviev letter? Have you heard of the British spies, for example, Rielly, who was bribing body guards to arrest Soviet leaders including Lenin, Stalin, et. al? Have you heard of the attempt on Lenin's life, and the assassinations of political figures including Uritsky? Have you heard of the Nazi Fifth Column? Did you know that the Cosacks were fanatically anti-Communist and were cooperating with the Nazis? Did you know that the so-called brutality of the time was just after and during three revolutions, civil war, after Russia had suffered more than any other country in the history of mankind as a result of German barbarity? And so forth, and so forth, and so forth.

For you see, Conquest tends to ommit facts. Of this one writer said, "In the omission technique, a paradigm plays a passive role. The paradigm is what the omission upholds. In a later section on a little-known Communist Party functionary named Kovalev, a detailed examination will be made of the more complex situation in which a paradigm acts affirmatively and aggressively to actually alter facts, reshaping and remolding them to produce fiction rather than history." (Stalin and Yezhov: an Extra-Paradigmatic View, by Panahgio, chapter five)

There may be a difference, but it seems to be like comparing how many people were run over by red trucks vs. those ran over by green ones.

That is a very weak analogy. There is no parallel between the crimes committed by the counter-revolutionaries and the so-called crimes committed by the Jews. For with the Jews such crimes do not exist.

I'd argue that the real political cause of death of the victims of both these systems is the lack of respect of individual rights by government. Individual human rights were considered . . . subordinate to the needs of the state in both these systems.

So apparently, the part is greater than the whole.

RandFan

3rd July 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Nikk
What hooked my attention in "Suddenly's" post was the suggestion that who killed how many of whom was little more than a sterile numbers game; that there was little point in going on about it as "the deeper reasons are irrelevant".

My point was that Communism did have an intellectual attraction and for that reason the crimes it inspired needed to be remembered. I did say "those who do not understand history are compelled to repeat it".

I do not have the time to write and I am sure that you have no wish to read a summary of Marxist theory but I hope that you will agree that it is in principle generous minded and altruistic. This is the attraction and the threat. The world is always a mess and Marxism not only attracts those who want to change it for the better but also offers an alternative to religion . A complete world view which promises that things will get better provided that a certain process is followed. Needless to say those who stand in the way are either malicious or in need of reeducation and.....I am sure you can fill in the blanks. If you add to this the simple fact that many of those who gain political power in any system are soon corrupted by it and a Marxist party really needs a monopoly of power.....well again you know the rest.

To put it another way, communism might work as predicted if people were more altruistic and community minded than they actually are.

When Lord Acton said that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that great men are nearly always bad men I think he had no real conception of what absolute power really meant. Well, we know now don't we?

Incidently, when the Muslims finally cotton on to the fact that Islam will not resolve the problems of their societies will marxism have a renewed attraction?

Finally, a little personal history. My father is Hungarian and left the country as a political refugee in 1948. He had been arrested by the Communist Party and probably would have been executed if a family friend had not got him out of jail shortly before the party took over the complete criminal justice system. So I have always had a deep personal interest in Marxism and Communism for obvious reasons. Hey Nikk,

Thanks for your reasoned response.

I can't find anything in your post that I disagree with and I can understand your interest in Marxism. Yes, I agree that Marxism is "generous minded and altruistic". I think your analysis about it being both the attraction and the threat is correct.

Let me applaud you for being objective about Communism/Marxism considering your history.

As to the Muslims, I think you raise a good point. I think Communism might be far more attractive to people who have been under an oppresive form of governemnt than democracy and capitalism. I should note that I make that assesment off the cuf based on my understanding of the past infuences that spawned communism.

Thanks again,

RandFan

Huzington

3rd July 2003, 06:24 PM

Good post, Suddenly.

Heavy on famine deaths.

Not quite.

(The author of this piece appears to actually be a communist, so bias is possible)

This is an unnecessary statement. Bias is possible with every person: I would call it a universal human trait. I would say that bias is even more possible with capitalist, fascist, and anarchist authors. But, of course, we need not be judging articles based entirely on the authors political philosophy.

RandFan

3rd July 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Fraeybol
First of all, the USSR was "Socialist", not "Communist". Stalin himself said that it could take hundreds of years to achieve Communism. Yes you are correct. But it truly misses the point. In addition the Socialism of Europe is quite different from the "Socialism" of PRC or USSR or any other "Communist" countries.

The word is appropriate for use in that it was the stated goal of these nations and that they practiced a socialism that was markedly different than any before or since.

The Soviet Union did not ignore the rights the individual. Where is the evidence that they were ignoring the rights of the individual? You will never find such evidence. For such evidence does not exist. Well, if that was true then there was no need for Glasnost was there?

Actually there are mountains of evidence.

The truth is the "people" did not have many rights including freedom of speech and freedom of travel and due process to name a few. The hundreds of thousands who were imprisoned in the Gulag would strongly disagree with you.

If you honestly do not belive that the Soviet Union did not ignore the rights of the individual then I would recommend reading anything from one of the following: Victor Balenko, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa or Václav Havel.

You might want to google USSR Refusenik. Look up Natan Sharansky who spent nine years in prison for speaking out against the government.

You think of Western standards, Western morality, as universal, objective, and undeniable truths. You might even misuse the word "self-evident" to describe this moral code. So, you are suggesting that the right to life is a "Western" construct? How about the right to not live in a gulag? Is that right a "Western" invention?

From a Western perspective, Socialist Russia was terrible (that is, going by the Western bourgeoisie version of the whole era); So objecting to Stalin's forced collectivization is simply bourgeois? Wow, that is truly amazing.

...but it is this widespread feeling of Western moral superiority which is nothing short of bigotry and ethnocentricity. So thinking that children should not be forced to starve to death is bigoted? Thinking that innocent people should not be thrown into a prison for years on end is simply chalked up to ethnocentrism? That is truly amazing.

In bygone times we had our racial theories and our supposed cultural superiority (although we do still have tinctures of the latter); now we are left with feelings of moral and ethical superiority. This, I think, can also be outgrown. (This, however, is one quality which Marxists altogether lack, for Marxists are moral relativists.) I'm sorry but what ever moral and cultural superiority we might have had, rightly or wrongly, cannot excuse genocide, human rights abuses on a scale so large that it truly can't be comprehended.

And in practise they were. For example, in no other era in human history did a single man bring a nation, within the space of ten years, from the mediaeval ages and into the space age. This is one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind. At what cost? Have you ever looked into what it took to get sputnik and the following rockets into space? By this measure there are no tyrants, there are no dictators, there is always justification for any action.

This is what I do not understand -- that somehow the sum of individuals is less important than the individual considered in isolation. Ah, the old philosophical conundrum, if you could save a million by sacrificing an innocent child, would you?

I don't need to answer the question, the problem that is faced is that simply if we are prepared to sacrifice one innocent child for the good of society then we are prepared to sacrifice many. It was this notion that led to the wholesale slaughter of many in communist countries. God forbid that it is you that is chosen to be the one sacrificed.

In Socialist Russia, the benefit of the State is identical the benefit of the Masses, the sum of individuals. And in isolation, the individual is useless, has less truth, has less reality. Quite unlike National Socialists and Fascists, Communists do not subscribe to any "statist" or "corporatist" ideology. Indeed, when Communism is achieved the state will undergo a "withering away". And of course it never is achieved, is it. Communism like religion turns into a tool to be used by those in power (the state) for their own purposes. They become the land owners, the slave owners. The humans at their feet are but chattel to be used for the good of all. Translation, they are to be used for the good of the those in power.

It is instructional to understand that Orwell was a Socialist and not a capitalist. He understood very well that Communism was a perversion of socialism and that it could not achieve its stated goals.

Huzington

3rd July 2003, 07:42 PM

Thank you for the good response.

In addition the Socialism of Europe is quite different from the "Socialism" of PRC or USSR or any other "Communist" countries.

It reminds me of the Socialists, including Stalin, who called the Germans "fascists" because they did not want the people to associate Nazism (National Socialism) with real Socialism.

Well, if that was true then there was no need for Glasnost was there?

"Need" for glasnost? Gorbachev was a spy who climbed the ranks for purely ideogical purposes, as many had done, to, in his words, "liquidate Communism". No, what they needed was Communism, a society without classes in which every person works according to his abilities and receives according to his needs, a society achieved by means of Socialist annulment of capitalistic means of production -- that is where they were heading before the spies and counterrevolutionaries, first led by Khrushchev, took over and helped to reinstate Capitalism, the result being the present turmoil, the present patheticism, which Russia is enduring.

Actually there are mountains of evidence.

Actually, there are not.

The truth is the "people" did not have many rights including freedom of speech

Compare with Capitalist ("corporatist") nations such as Mussolini's Italy. Compare with America during the Cold War. At all events, do you think that this is stark unjustifiable in light of the circumstances?

The hundreds of thousands who were imprisoned in the Gulag would strongly disagree with you.

Tens of thousands. Of course they would disagree. Most paedophiles and serial killers will find a prison quite disagreeable, never mind a Gulag. But alas, that was the punishment for commiting serious crimes in the Soviet Union. Terrible indeed.

If you honestly do not belive that the Soviet Union did not ignore the rights of the individual then I would recommend reading anything from one of the following: Victor Balenko, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa or Václav Havel.

I could give you a list of authors or a list of books, too. But I will not resort to such methods of debating.

Thank you, however, for mentioning the authors. A couple of the names mentioned are worth considering. I am actually fond of reading fanatically anti-Soviet sources. Solzhenitsyn is not terrible.

You might want to google USSR Refusenik. Look up Natan Sharansky who spent nine years in prison for speaking out against the government.

You might want to search for MKULTRA and COINTELPRO.

So objecting to Stalin's forced collectivization is simply bourgeois? Wow, that is truly amazing.

What forced collectivisation? It never happened as fanatically anti-Soviet historians say. And when "force" did occur, those enforcers were punished; and on certain occasions, in light of the circumstances, I would think a wee bit of force justifiable: not only justifiable, not only advisable, but an absolute necessity.

So thinking that children should not be forced to starve to death is bigoted?

What do you mean "forced" do starve to death?

Thinking that innocent people should not be thrown into a prison for years on end is simply chalked up to ethnocentrism?
I would be very reluctant to characterise them as "innocent" if I were you. That they were innocent is only a prediction (about the past) of certain bourgeoisie historians.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

cannot excuse genocide

Genocide? What genocide? Where is the evidence? There is not any evidence.

human rights abuses

That is opinion which is unverifiable. The logical positivists said that any statement which is unverifiable is meaningless. Anything can become a "human rights" abuse. If you want to read about human rights abuses, read the history -- recent history -- of Capitalist nations including America.

It is instructional to understand that Orwell was a Socialist and not a capitalist. He understood very well that Communism was a perversion of socialism and that it could not achieve its stated goals.

Yet for some reason he highly admired Marx.

At all events, Orwell is not a very good writer.

RandFan

3rd July 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Fraeybol
Thank you for the good response. Hey Fraeybol,

I think I am figuring you out.

What do you mean "forced" do starve to death? Ahhh.... What holocaust? What Slave trade? What deaths during the Chinese cultural revolution? What million ordered shot by Pol Pot? What dissidents jailed for speaking their minds in Cuba?

It's all a lie, right? A Jewish conspiracy? You know those rabid anti-communist refusniks were Jewish.

And the hall of shame, the liars --
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Andrei Sakharov
Natan Sharansky
Victor Balenko
Lech Walesa
Václav Havel

You know it actually makes sense, the Holocaust and the Purges, both a lie. Both born out of Jewish conspiracy.

I wonder, when Hitler talked about the brutality of Stalin was Hitler engaging in propaganda or was the account itself part of anti-socialist propaganda?

Frayebol, Holocaust deniers simply ignore facts and evidence. I suspect that you will do no different. That is fine. However I would like for those who might wonder if such a thing as forced collectivization and the purges actually happened. Let me assure those readers that it did.

Stalin's First Five Year Plan (http://www.geocities.com/serafinegibbons2001/peasants.html)

In 1928 Stalin began working on the details for his policy of forced collectivization, in other words the First Five Year Plan, which was approved by the Sixteenth Party Conference in April 1929. The plan called for moving peasants onto state "collective" farms, ("savhozes" in Russian) using brutal and savage force and it also included plans for the liquidation of kulaks, or so called "rich" peasants. It is true that in 1918 - 1919 Lenin ordered "severe punishment" for any Bolshevik who preached or practiced collectivization. In the 1930s Stalin began the first of his purges of Ukrainian cultural and political figures

Those who resisted collectivization were either executed or sent to prison camps and their families were deported to Siberia or the Russian Arctic circle. Peasant activists were deported with their families to the northern regions of Russian.

Here is what some eyewitnesses wrote about their experiences:
"Barefooted and poorly clad peasants were jammed into railroad cars and transported to the regions of Murmansk and the like. Peasants were unloaded into snow about two metres deep. The frost stood at 75 degrees below zero. Without even an axe or a saw we began building huts from tree branches. In two weeks all the children, the sick and the elderly had frozen to death."

The death rate among Ukrainian peasants deported to the
Sverdlovsk region in Russia was typical: only 2,300 of the original
group of 4,800 survived the winter.

The suffering during the deportations was terrible enough, yet
it pales in comparison with what happened during the famine of
1932-33. It should be pointed out that Stalin had a change of heart and reversed his plan of forced collectivization.

By the spring of 1930 peasant resistance to collectivization had reached such proportions that Stalin panicked and ordered a temporary retreat. In an article entitled "Dizzy with Success," he admitted that excesses had occurred and falsely pinned the entire blame on local officials. Moreover, he reassured the peasants that membership in collective farms henceforth would be "voluntary." Sadly Stalin had not learned his lesson and renewed force collectivization. This turned out to be a huge failure.

Collective farms stopped distributing food to peasants. For example, according to official statistics, only five per cent of
collective farms in Dnipropetrovsk province handed out food produce for days worked in 1932.

To prevent peasants from feeding themselves by taking collective
farm produce, a law was passed in August 1932 stipulating the death penalty, and under exceptional circumstances, a ten-year sentence in labor camps for "theft of socialist property." Thus, it was reported in the Soviet press (Visti, 10.11.1932) that the Dnipropetrovsk court had sentenced a group of hungry peasants to the firing squad for the theft of a sack of wheat. Yes Virginia, the Soviets forced children to starve to death.

Soviet officials today deny that the famine took place, although they do admit that there were problems due to drought.

If that was the case, then Ukraine should have suffered a famine
in 1934, not in 1932-33. The 1934 harvest was the worst in many years - 12.3 million tons. Ahhh, the lie exposed.

How many millions perished?

Harry Lang, editor of the left-wing Jewish daily Forward,
published in New York, visited Ukraine in 1933 and was told by a
high-ranking state official that six million people had perished from the famine.

Other estimates range from 6.5 to 8.5 million. We will never
know the exact number.

We do know that according to the 1926 Soviet population census there were 31.2 million Ukrainians in the U.S.S.R. According to the 1939 Soviet census this number had dropped by 3.1 million to 28.1 million. (There was no emigration from the Soviet Ukraine in this period.) Over a 13-year period, according to Soviet statistics, the number of Ukrainians had diminished by 11 per cent. The population of the U.S.S.R., on the other hand, increased by 16 per cent and the number of Russians by 28 per cent. According to their own statistics the number of Ukrainians had diminished by 11 percent.

But alas, it is all a lie. The documentation, the press reports (state run), the inconsistencies mean nothing. It is all just one big conspiracy. RIGHT!

Again, I don't expect you to accept the history Freybol. It is easy to simply dismiss it as propaganda. For those commited to critical thinking and objectivity there IS a mountain of evidence including documents that have been released since the end of the cold war and historys writen by peasents while this was happening. Also many of the people who documented the atrocities are from various political backgrounds including socialists and other communists. The documentation and history does not come from a single source.

BillyTK

4th July 2003, 05:45 AM

Hi Randfan Jnr.(btw is this really Jnr or Snr logging in on Jnr's account?)
A complex theoretical structure" that "describes some of the basic failings of capitalism rather well"??? Sorry but what is the point?
The point is that Marx was amongst the first to perform any kind of serious analysis of capitalism, and in those terms alone his analysis is of interest, and more or less still valid--there's a debate over whether Marxism can ever be anymore than a critique of capitalism--but to ignore or condemn Marx's work in the belief that his analysis inevitably leads to totalitariaisn would be--I can't think of the word I want, but it would be wrong, and would be to ignore the conditions that allow totalitarianism to emerge.

The Thrasher

4th July 2003, 07:40 AM

We need to remember the most basic question in governmental structure; what is more important the state or the individual? If the state is all that matters than genocide is irrelevant if it fits the needs of the state.

The modernization of Russia is a great triumph in spite of the millions who died to achieve it if you accept the premise that the individual dosen't matter and the state does.

However if you agree with John Locke and the social contract theory of government you must see the rapid technological modernization of the soviet union as irrelevant, because it ignored the basic duty of government - to protect the rights of the governed

Communism and Facism are two sides to the same coin. They are both corrupt, bankrupt, unworkable ideologies that ignore the most basic realities of human exsistance and trample the rights and the lives of all of those unfortunate enough to live under thier oppressive yokes.

Freedom, capitolism, and democracy won out over communism because when people are able to make an informed choice they overwhelminly choose our way. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history.... [It is] the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism- Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. Ronald Reagan to the British Parliment 1982

BillyTK

4th July 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by The Thrasher
Freedom, capitolism, and democracy won out over communism because when people are able to make an informed choice they overwhelminly choose our way.

I understood that Soviet communism lost because it went bankrupt trying to match US military spending? I'm sure people who left the USSR to settle in capitalist countries were more than happy with their choice, but I'm not too sure that those left behind would agree with your view:
Creating a democratic political system and a market economy to replace the bureaucracy and centralism of the past has proved an elusive goal.
Source: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1102275.stm)BBC News Online.

I'm not making an argument that Russia should return to communism, it's just that I don't believe the factors behind the fall of communism are as simple as you make out.

RandFan

4th July 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Hi Randfan Jnr.(btw is this really Jnr or Snr logging in on Jnr's account?) Snr, and because of some complaints I have reactivated my account.

The point is that Marx was amongst the first to perform any kind of serious analysis of capitalism, and in those terms alone his analysis is of interest, and more or less still valid--there's a debate over whether Marxism can ever be anymore than a critique of capitalism--but to ignore or condemn Marx's work in the belief that his analysis inevitably leads to totalitariaisn would be--I can't think of the word I want, but it would be wrong, and would be to ignore the conditions that allow totalitarianism to emerge. Thanks Billy,

I will grant you that the Manifesto written by both Marx and Engels is philosophically of interest and that it contains some valid analysis of the potential for abuse in capitalist systems. I'm also willing to consider that the authors perhaps understood the severe conditions of the working class well enough to foreshadow events that were to come. However I think it is more likely that the following revolutions were more due to self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words the Manifesto was itself a catalyst.

That being said, unless a person refuses to accept the evidence that is available from history it is clear to anyone that the vision of Marx and Engels, no matter how well intentioned has led to the greatest enslavement of the human soul in the history of mankind.

I would personally prefer that it had never been written.

Huzington

4th July 2003, 11:16 AM

According to their own statistics the number of Ukrainians had diminished by 11 percent.

Diminished, yes. No one denies this. But, lacking the objectivity requisite for informed discussion, you probably deny the deportees.

Foremost, the fact that the numbers range from a few hundred thousand to sixteen million is proof that it is largely speculative.

Secondly, a Kulak, for those of you who do not know, is a rich, exploitative, czarist peasant. The poor peasants had endured three hundred years of their oppression and exploitation.

To proceed. It was shortages. There was an extreme draught in in the early 1930s. The Kulaks were slaughtering millions of animals. The Kulaks were destroying trains filled with grain. The Kulaks refused to produce anything. The Kulaks were organising terrorist bands. The Kulaks were murdering officials, destroyed collectives. The peasants therefore opposed the Kulaks and their rejection of collectivisation. This started a civil war and helped to cause famine-like conditions. The leader of the Ukranian Nationalist Movement said himsef:

"At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms] or else the Communist officials and their agents were killed, but later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at the systematic frustation of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing and gathering of the harvest. . . . The catastrophe of 1932 was the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine of 1921-1922. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop was being gathered. . . . In many areas, especially in the south, 20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing." (Another view of Stalin by Ludo Martens, "The causes of famine in the Ukraine")

Now a fact worth considering is that the places in the Ukraine with the worst conditions were those areas in which the Kulaks resisted the most.

The Soviet government had arrested 63,000 Kulaks for committing such crimes. In addition to these, 1.8 million Kulaks were deported to other areas. This explains the loss of a considerable percentage of the Ukrainian population to which you had made mention.

As I have said before, in the Soviet archives there is evidence neither of millions of people being arrested nor of executions with the exception of the above-mentioned 63,000 arrested, plus 8 million deported, a considerable number of whom were subsequently permitted to return to their homes.

And as for "force", yes, it is true the the local officials sometimes carried out excesses. This, however, is not surprising in light of the fact that the peasants had endured three hundred years of Kulak oppression.

So force did occur, yes, and Stalin had accordingly initiated a thorough investigation of those Kulaks which had been deported; the investigation had discovered that at most 70,000 families of those 330,000 were incorrectly deported; they were therefore freed by 1932. However, within the space of time in which they were deported deaths had occured as a result of the very long journey coupled with inefficient means of transportation and that the local authorities detested the Kulak population -- local authorities who were punished for this. Stalin also ordered these local officials to treat the Kulaks with more respect, and to correct their poor means of transportation.

According to the Soviet Archives, 300,000 people died between 1930 and 1940 in the special Kulak colonies to which the Kulaks were deported. This figure is quite correct. But it includes all causes of death -- old age, disease, injury, and so forth. And it was at this time that the epidemics broke it. This figure is therefore not surprising; unfortunately, anti-Soviet historians such as Conquest include this, among many other, figures in the Black Book, again ignoring the causes of death. According to the Soviet Archives, upon which historians heavily rely, the government had not sent food to six Kulak villages because they were sabataging grain deliveries. Six Kulak villages is not "millions".

That it was not a genocide, was not deliberate, observe that the so-called famine even spread beyond the mongolian border. Witness that collectivisation was not even forced. As I have said before, there were only a few cases in which force was applied, and these were threats uttered by local officials -- and this was denounced by the Soviet government; in fact it was punished. In the collectives every participant could leave the collective whenever he wanted to: for example, in 1931 the percentage of collectivised families had fallen from 60 per cent to 25.9 per cent because there was little progress; when, however, the government had sent them specialists, machinery, funds, etc., the percentage had increased to 90 per cent. If collectivisation were forced, one would think that they were forced to stay -- and they were not.

In the early 1930s, visitors and foreign journalists were in Ukrainian cities including Kiev. According to their reports there was no famine or anything of the sort; according to them, collectivisation was, on the contrary, improving the living conditions considerably.

Dr. Hans Blumenfeld, for example, who is respected internationally as a city planner, and who had held the Order of Canada for his profession as the premier planner of Canada, had worked in Makeyevka, an eastern Ukraine city, during the so-called famine. Let us see what he had to say about the whole matter:

"Probably most deaths in 1933 were due to epidemics of typhus, typhoid fever, and dysentery. Waterborne diseases were frequent in Makeyevka; I narrowly survived an attack of typhus fever."

And in his autobiography:

"[What caused the famine was] the hot dry summer of 1932, which I had experienced in northern Vyatka, had resulted in crop failure in the semiarid regions of the south. Second, the struggle for collectivization had disrupted agriculture. Collectivization was not an orderly process following bureaucratic rules. It consisted of actions by the poor peasants. . . . The poor peasants were eager to expropriate the ``kulaks,'' but less eager to organize a cooperative economy. By 1930 the Party had already sent out cadres to stem and correct excesses. . . . After having exercised restraint in 1930, the Party put on a drive again in 1932. As a result, in that year the kulak economy ceased to produce, and the new collective economy did not yet produce fully. First claim on the inadequate product went to urban industry and to the armed forces; as the future of the entire nation, including the peasants, depended on them, it could hardly be otherwise. . . .

"In 1933 rainfall was adequate. The Party sent its best cadres to help organize work in the kolkhozes. They succeeded; after the harvest of 1933 the situation improved radically and with amazing speed. I had the feeling that we had been pulling a heavy cart uphill, uncertain if we would succeed; but in the fall of 1933 we had gone over the top and from then on we could move forward at an accelerating pace." (Another view of Stalin by Ludo Martens, "The causes of famine in the Ukraine")

Consider that the epidemics broke out in 1930-1933 and resulted in millions upon millions of deaths. By no means was the Ukraine immune to this.

And yes, the number of deaths did reach a million. But these included all causes of death, and the epidemics.

And as I have said before, the reporters of the famines had come from the Kulaks who went to Romania through none other than the Nazi press, and also from the American press which were reitering the reports of the Nazi press, and fanatically anti-Soviet "journalists", who had never even been to the Ukraine (but were claiming to); indeed, there is not a single genuine report of the famine of the Ukraine. Books on the subject have been proven to make use of fake photographs which are not from the Ukraine but from outside the Ukraine and from the Volga famine (they had even made admission of this). (For instance, the best known book on the subject, "Famine of Despair", makes use of photographs from the 1920 Volga famine, and makes use of photographs of dead soldiers from battlefields, and so forth.) One book which exposes the lies and myths adhered to by "journalists" of the so-called famine is Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth by Mr. Tottle, a Canadian historian; he confutes the accounts of the famine and proves that many the photographs are fakes.

The man who first wrote about the "famine", "Walker", whom, directly or indirectly, we get much of our information with regard to the "famine" from, "admitted his photos were frauds, not taken in the Ukraine nor by himself"; who was a criminal; and whose photographs, according to Lois Fischer, a reporter for The Nation, "could easily date back to the Volga famine in 1921", whose photographs "might have been taken outside the Soviet Union"; whose photographs "were taken at different seasons of the year"; whose photographs "[include] trees or shrubs with large leaves [which] could not have grown by the "late spring" of Mr. Walker's alleged visit"; whose photographs "show winter and early fall backgrounds; who "allow nude poses one moment and required furs the next" -- this, in addition to Nazi and Kulak sources, is the source of the erroneous claims as concerns the "famine".

The documentation, the press reports (state run), the inconsistencies mean nothing. It is all just one big conspiracy. RIGHT!

They do mean something, and what they tell us is that no such thing had occured.

Again, I don't expect you to accept the history Freybol. It is easy to simply dismiss it as propaganda. For those commited to critical thinking and objectivity there IS a mountain of evidence including documents that have been released since the end of the cold war and historys writen by peasents while this was happening. Also many of the people who documented the atrocities are from various political backgrounds including socialists and other communists. The documentation and history does not come from a single source.

Actually, many people who have told us about the lack of attrocities, the causes of death, etc., are from various political backgrounds including capitalists and Communists and the Soviet Archives. The documentation and history does not come from a single source. This documentation and history tends to agree with me.

Fade

4th July 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry guys but communism is the natural state of the human being, primitive societies tend to share what they have and to not aquire excess goods.

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Capitalism is the only organic system currently in place in the world. Goods must flow from one person to another. Barter systems sprung up in every single civilization, ever. Capitalism is a complex barter/trade system.

"Sharing the goods among all" is a concept that only works among very small, close knit communities. And then it only works if there are direct threats from outside. Once you settle in, communal good starts to evaporate, and trades start up. It is the trade empire which has built this world from the ground up.

For once, I tend to agree with JK, though he misses the good points of socialism. Communism, when practiced completely, has lead to some of the worst empires in history. There is no successful communist country to point at and say "look, they did it" because they all failed. They are all evil. The last communist hold outs are breaking down. The good in socialism comes only when it exists within the system of a free market. Some things ought to be free of charge (education primarily, roads/transportation secondary, health tertiary), but the rest of the system needs to be individuals making their own decisions with their own money.

It is a little strange to me that utter communists are accepted by the intellectual elite in some places, while national socialists are not. Both philosophies create oppressive dictatorships, because both philosophies ignore organic societal growth.

Germany, Austria, and Italy got a swift kick in the testicles to boot their systems into the 20th century. Russia and China didn't, really, and they are still lagging behind the rest of civilization.

RandFan

4th July 2003, 12:04 PM

Fraeybol,

As someone who is committed to critical thought and objectivity your posts force me to consider the possibility that you are right. I am forced to make a decision.

Is the history as it has been recorded by Western historians correct or is the account that you have given correct (it would be nice if you cite references).
Some points to consider.

The McCarthy era is often looked at as one of the darkest days of American thought and expression. It should be noted that in the end McCarthysim was roundly defeated. America's claim to free thought and free expression was exonerated.

Democracy is perhaps the only system that is tolerant of ideologies that are antithetical to its very existence.

Western governments do not have state run presses and nearly if not all ideologies are represented.

In my decision I am forced to consider if a free press and media controlled by many who were sympathetic to Communism got it wrong and a State run press that had self serving motives got it right?

I'm sorry Fraeybol, I don't know how others will choose but I am left with little reason to suppose that all of the editors, reporters, journalists and historians were part of a grand conspiracy and that they were able to succeed in hiding the truth in an open market place of ideas.

Conversely, it is difficult to believe that a state run information department with selfish motives would provide the truth.

Without evidence and reason to suppose differently I am going to have to conclude that the many historians and journalists from many countries with competing ideologies and interests got most of it right. And that the revisionist history that you are propagating is simply wrong.

Thank you,

RandFan.

RandFan

4th July 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Fade
For once, I tend to agree with JK... Don't you just hate it when that happens?!

NoZed Avenger

4th July 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Fraeybol,

As someone who is committed to critical thought and objectivity your posts force me to consider the possibility that you are right. I am forced to make a decision.

Is the history as it has been recorded by Western historians correct or is the account that you have given correct (it would be nice if you cite references).

Randfan:

If you will look at the other thread begun by Mr. F listed by me, above, you will see the exact same language cut-n-pasted, and the fact that Renata and I already requested his sources several times.

Renata discovered that some of the text is identical to that found on the PLP (Progressive Labor Party) website, also referenced in her responses.

That he knows that she and I discovered that he has quoted this material verbatim and shown him the source, yet re-posted the same screed without even mentioning a source (again) should give you some indication of what's going on.

Essentially, you may think of Mr. F as Luci -- just replace "Targ & Puthoff" with "Stalin."

NA

JAR

4th July 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Fade
[snip]
There is no successful communist country to point at and say "look, they did it"
[snip]
Good point.

RandFan

4th July 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Randfan:

If you will look at the other thread begun by Mr. F listed by me, above, you will see the exact same language cut-n-pasted, and the fact that Renata and I already requested his sources several times.

Renata discovered that some of the text is identical to that found on the PLP (Progressive Labor Party) website, also referenced in her responses.

That he knows that she and I discovered that he has quoted this material verbatim and shown him the source, yet re-posted the same screed without even mentioning a source (again) should give you some indication of what's going on.

Essentially, you may think of Mr. F as Luci -- just replace "Targ & Puthoff" with "Stalin." NA Thanks NA,

I thought it was odd when he didn't offer any links or reference.

BillyTK

7th July 2003, 09:41 AM

Hi Randfan Snr (it is you, so welcome back!)
Thanks Billy,

I will grant you that the Manifesto written by both Marx and Engels is philosophically of interest and that it contains some valid analysis of the potential for abuse in capitalist systems. I'm also willing to consider that the authors perhaps understood the severe conditions of the working class well enough to foreshadow events that were to come. However I think it is more likely that the following revolutions were more due to self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words the Manifesto was itself a catalyst.

That being said, unless a person refuses to accept the evidence that is available from history it is clear to anyone that the vision of Marx and Engels, no matter how well intentioned has led to the greatest enslavement of the human soul in the history of mankind.

I would personally prefer that it had never been written.
We'll have to disagree on this one I fear; your last remark in particular saddens me. Marx's work "Das Kapital" is not only a valid analysis of the potential for abuse, but also of actual abuse in capitalist systems, along with Engels' work on the experience of workers in the 19th century mills of Manchester, UK. Marx's work is also important for its direct and indirect influence on reform of labour laws and conditions for workers in Western Europe and the UK.

I could go on at length about how the communism of Revolutionary Russia and after was an abomination of Marx's views, and bore as little relation to Marx's views as Hitler's did to Nietszche, but that's not the point; nor is it the point that it seemed inevitable that Imperial Russia would fall to revolution of one form or another anyway. The point is how power became concentrated in the hands of a few, and how they administered that power for their own benefit. It's an important lesson, and one that we should remember, now more than ever.

RandFan

7th July 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Hi Randfan Snr (it is you, so welcome back!)

We'll have to disagree on this one I fear; your last remark in particular saddens me. Marx's work "Das Kapital" is not only a valid analysis of the potential for abuse, but also of actual abuse in capitalist systems, along with Engels' work on the experience of workers in the 19th century mills of Manchester, UK. Marx's work is also important for its direct and indirect influence on reform of labour laws and conditions for workers in Western Europe and the UK.

I could go on at length about how the communism of Revolutionary Russia and after was an abomination of Marx's views, and bore as little relation to Marx's views as Hitler's did to Nietszche, but that's not the point; nor is it the point that it seemed inevitable that Imperial Russia would fall to revolution of one form or another anyway. The point is how power became concentrated in the hands of a few, and how they administered that power for their own benefit. It's an important lesson, and one that we should remember, now more than ever. You are probably right in your assessment that we are probably going to have to agree to disagree.

Stating that Soviet Communism is simply an abomination of Marx's view misses the point IMO. Communism is quite simply fatally flawed. By the time of the American revolution most of the problems inherent in civilization, economics and government were well known and understood. You are right, to prevent abuse power must not be concentrated in a single body. Further more power must be divided in such a was as to seriously limit any group from increasing the level of power that they had.

One of the most serious Flaws in Marx and Lenin's theories was that the government must consist of a strong central government. This government was necessary to mold the populace and weed out dissenters in order to create a homogeneous society where everyone worked for the betterment of society.

Well, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In instance after instance those leaders who were supposed to lead the people towards communism exploited the power given them. Couple that with the next flaw, that the group was more important than the individual. In Communist countries we see a pattern of human rights abuses. These abuses are justified by those in power based on this very notion. Sadly the abuses often have more to do with the ego and stupidity of the leaders than furthering the good of the people.

Based on the thousands of years of civilization prior to Communism and even more on the years since it's inception I can say with out any qualification that I would that Marx and Lenin had never lived. The sheer weight of human suffering far outweigh any benefit that might be derived from any critique of capitalism. It is obvious that they did not mean to be authors of so much death, destruction and human missery. The fact is that they were.

Jedi Knight

7th July 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Fade
For once, I tend to agree with JK, though he misses the good points of socialism.

I am all for certain types of socialism. I don't like to see children go hungry and have seen people starve to death in the thousands in Africa. But in America, most of the social problems are caused by no-fault divorce, men-bashing, lack of moral standard in the law, etc.

It is hard to convince me that families that self-destruct because of the 90% female no-fault divorce initiation rate demand an influx of socialism.

I could agree that medical care be socialized because let's face it--most people can't afford it and never will be able to. There are certain areas where socialism works well with capitalism.

That said, the socialism being pushed in America by dangerous leftists seeks the abolition of private property, the complete absorption of corporations and private wealth for redistribution, the destruction of the family, the killing of God in name and idea, and the exploitation of the people via immoral laws that dooms them to early deaths and attacks on the system itself (homosexuality for example).

For socialism to be a positive factor in a capitalist system it must not be an unnecessary burden on the people (not a 60% tax rate like Germany does to its people, etc), it must not entangle itself with corporations as an individual, it must have limits in the bureaucracy that advances it and it must be fundable responsibly.

If people who want socialism are willing to give up some years of their life to serve the state that gives them the socialism, I also do not have a problem with socialism. For example, if a single mom gets $1500.00 a month from the state, she works in a nursing home for the money or does something to contribute to the community--not just sit at home.

No matter what form of socialism is used, it must not unduly steal from others, and all involved must contribute to the system so the system benefits from the allocation of resources without harming capitalism in the process.

JK

BillyTK

8th July 2003, 05:18 AM

Hi RandFan

Thanks for your considered and thoughtful reply. I realise I'm not going to change your opinion on Marx, but there are a number of points you raise which I'd like to address:
Stating that Soviet Communism is simply an abomination of Marx's view misses the point IMO. Communism is quite simply fatally flawed. By the time of the American revolution most of the problems inherent in civilization, economics and government were well known and understood.
I have to disagree. As civilisations and societies develop, new problems develop which have to be addressed. All societies are in a state of change to a lesser or greater extent, and even the attempt to maintain stasis causes problems. For instance, in the UK the transition from predominantly rural, family-based economy to centralised, industrial economy created new problems in terms of law and order as populations became concentrated. Labour legislation was authored which seemed to about the protection of women and children, but were actually about public decency and protecting men's work. These contributed to the modern conception of the family--father works, mother stays at home and children go to school, with all the problems that raised.
You are right, to prevent abuse power must not be concentrated in a single body. Further more power must be divided in such a was as to seriously limit any group from increasing the level of power that they had.

One of the most serious Flaws in Marx and Lenin's theories was that the government must consist of a strong central government. This government was necessary to mold the populace and weed out dissenters in order to create a homogeneous society where everyone worked for the betterment of society.
Actually, Marx was anti-government; the only role he saw for government was as a tool to collect and redistribute wealth, production and power in society. Then by necessity central government would wither away and die, for he knew well the problems of concentrated power, and his idea was that if power and wealth was distributed equally across society it would prevent the rise of elites who could manipulate affairs for their own benefits. I have to admit that at this point I'm unaware if Marx anticipated the risk inherent in the initial centralisation he proposed which led to the iteration of communism we saw in the USSR.

Well, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In instance after instance those leaders who were supposed to lead the people towards communism exploited the power given them. Couple that with the next flaw, that the group was more important than the individual. In Communist countries we see a pattern of human rights abuses. These abuses are justified by those in power based on this very notion. Sadly the abuses often have more to do with the ego and stupidity of the leaders than furthering the good of the people

Based on the thousands of years of civilization prior to Communism and even more on the years since it's inception I can say with out any qualification that I would that Marx and Lenin had never lived. The sheer weight of human suffering far outweigh any benefit that might be derived from any critique of capitalism. It is obvious that they did not mean to be authors of so much death, destruction and human missery. The fact is that they were.
But they weren't; would that we could "unimagine" all the ideas and tools that have been implicated directly or indirectly with human misery--for instance; the Bible, monarchy, firearms, modern warfare, even capitalism for its implication in slavery and colonialism, and for the very real suffering it caused to many, as well as the challenges to democracy and its principles that neo-liberal capitalism raises--but I can't imagine how such a society would be.

RandFan,Jr.

8th July 2003, 07:56 AM

Thank you for the response.

Originally posted by BillyTK
I have to disagree. As civilisations and societies develop, new problems develop which have to be addressed. Oh, no question. I was not very clear. I meant the basic dynamics of the needs of society, the needs and wants of the individual and the influence of power were well understood. People will always need to eat and have a roof over their head. The vast majority of the populace will live in a society and the needs of the individual must be balanced against the needs of society. To provide for justice and security and other various assundry things there must be a government. These basic elements and the dynamics of them have not really changed in thousands of years.

Actually, Marx was anti-government; the only role he saw for government was as a tool to collect and redistribute wealth, production and power in society. No argument. I have always understood this.

Then by necessity central government would wither away and die... Yes, absolutely and this is the fatal flaw. To effectively accomplish this the government must be strong enough and single minded enough to accomplish it's goal.

The problem is that "strong" enough and "single minded" enough are recipes for disaster.

As I said earlier, human motivation and its role in a society was well understood long before there ever was a Marx or Engels. The notion that those in power would not work to consolidate that power (see Lennin's discrediting of Trotsky) was something that the authors should have fore seen.

...for he knew well the problems of concentrated power, and his idea was that if power and wealth was distributed equally across society it would prevent the rise of elites who could manipulate affairs for their own benefits. Before power could be distributed, all people (or the vast majority) would have to embrace communism and think with one mind (assuming that is even possible) and would have to be motivated for the good of all. Until then the government would have to have the power to make decisions that would effect individual lives. It would have to decide always to choose the good of society over the good of the individual. The needs and wants of the individual could only be considered if they were proportionate to the needs and wants of society.

I have to admit that at this point I'm unaware if Marx anticipated the risk inherent in the initial centralization he proposed which led to the iteration of communism we saw in the USSR. And this is a sincere and valid point of criticism of Marx and Engels. It was quite predictable. Thousands of years of history and human nature predicted it, demanded it. And look at the result.

Mao and the gang of four. Elevated to an almost god like status Mao et al carried out programs (great leap forward, cultural revolution, etc.) (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/cn/cn_overview.html) that devastated the population.

1958-1960: Mao launches the Great Leap Forward, a campaign to make China the West's industrial equal in 15 years. Farmers are herded into huge communes. Among the campaign's projects: the creation of steel in backyard furnaces, the killing of sparrows, and the close planting of crops. In an effort to please Mao, farmers over-report their yields. The world's worst manmade famine follows.

Pol Pot. Again, power is held by a single individual. And he gets his turn to play god with human beings.

Masters of the killing fields (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/135476.stm)
Money, private property, education and religion were abolished and Cambodia's towns and cities were emptied as the population was forced into massive, unworkable agricultural collectives.

This was the era of the Killing Fields in which more than a million people would lose their lives.

The list goes on from that fun loving Tyrant Kim Il Sung to Uncle Fidel and Ho Chi Min. All brutally killed those in opposition and became dictators who had no desire for the government to "wither away and die".

But they weren't; would that we could "unimagine" all the ideas and tools that have been implicated directly or indirectly with human misery--for instance; the Bible, monarchy, firearms, modern warfare, even capitalism for its implication in slavery and colonialism, and for the very real suffering it caused to many, as well as the challenges to democracy and its principles that neo-liberal capitalism raises--but I can't imagine how such a society would be. Capitalism is fraught with problems and there have been many human rights abuses. But capitalism coupled with democracy is unique from communism in that it can work. There is no inherent need to kill those in opposition or "re-educate". As I said earlier, democracy is the most tolerant of governments. Allowing for ideologies that are antithetical to its own existence. Democracy welcomes all. Communism on the other hand demands that any individual who is opposed to Communism change his or her ideology or be relocated to a forced labor camp or even executed.

There is nothing wrong with thinking what could have been if there had not been a Holocaust or slavery or Communism. Most importantly it helps us to avoid repeating such mistakes.

headscratcher4

8th July 2003, 08:34 AM

The list goes on from that fun loving Tyrant Kim Il Sung

Hey...I resmeble that remark! ;)

Of course, the true, modern "communist" will argue that all of this is a corruption of Marx, made possible by the deviationist program and theories of Stalin. I can't tell you the times that I've heard some Trotskyite argue that had only Trotsky been the Marxist in action philosopher of the 20th Century, the results would have been so different... In the end, it seems to me, and RandfanJr I think nails it, is that regardless of how you read Marx, it is theory. Lenin and his vangaurd party puts theory to work and discovers the fundumental contradiction...you can't eliminate the need for government with out all consuming loyalty, power to the government and an elitist (completely antithetical to book Marxism) party leadership. Ineed, the Leninist model becomes not only the model for tyranical oppression under the name of Marx, but also the model for facist action (and, oddly enough, one of the places where JK and I would likely agree on results if not philosophical core...Hitler was a Leninist and the Nazis in action were a Leninist party.

Of course the ultimate problem of a Leninist party is that there isn't and can not be "democracy" within the party for it to work. Without democracy and the right to dissent within the party, the party is institutionally incapable of promoting democracy in the culture/society/state...it can only direct, which reads as dictate. As importantly, it must crush all oppostion both within the party and without to survive...and, as the instrument of historical will (as it were) it can not admit to mistakes. Being Marxist, party leadership has the key to understanding the Historical diolectical process...admitting a mistake (even a small one) calls into question the leadership of the vangaurd party and its ability to implement the Marxist agenda...thus, you have to kill lots and lots of people ... anyone who can look behind the curtain.

BillyTK

8th July 2003, 10:02 AM

Hi Randfan,
Thanks for your reply; I'm in broad agreement with your comments.
I meant the basic dynamics of the needs of society, the needs and wants of the individual and the influence of power were well understood. People will always need to eat and have a roof over their head. The vast majority of the populace will live in a society and the needs of the individual must be balanced against the needs of society. To provide for justice and security and other various assundry things there must be a government. These basic elements and the dynamics of them have not really changed in thousands of years.
Apart from this; this is probably at best a few hundred years old, and I'd probably pin it on the British constitution of the 17th century (exact date escapes me) which started the process of limiting monarchic powers; what we have at the moment looks more like a short period of calm between ages of tyrants.

It would have to decide always to choose the good of society over the good of the individual. The needs and wants of the individual could only be considered if they were proportionate to the needs and wants of society.
This is an interesting point; too often, the needs of society means the needs of government, for really how can the needs and rights of the individual be so easily disentangled from the needs and rights of society? But I digress... :)

Capitalism is fraught with problems and there have been many human rights abuses. But capitalism coupled with democracy is unique from communism in that it can work. There is no inherent need to kill those in opposition or "re-educate". As I said earlier, democracy is the most tolerant of governments. Allowing for ideologies that are antithetical to its own existence. Democracy welcomes all. Communism on the other hand demands that any individual who is opposed to Communism change his or her ideology or be relocated to a forced labor camp or even executed.
If we look at the example of Chile in the '70s and '80s we can see the problems of unbridled capitalism. It's the moderating effects of democracy which is important here; and the reason why we wouldn't choose to condemn capitalism outright. Can we imagine a time when capitalism and democracy are in conflict? I think we're heading there.
There is nothing wrong with thinking what could have been if there had not been a Holocaust or slavery or Communism. Most importantly it helps us to avoid repeating such mistakes.
We must never forget how these came to be, but I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of condemning fascism and communism without remembering the conditions which allowed these particular ideologies to take root, for whilst these ideologies explain the why, in and of themselves they don't explain the how. As I noted before, it's when too much power becomes concentrated in too few hands without sufficient checks and balances, and this is not a unique feature of either fascism, communism, capitalism or any other ideology you could mention.

But my problem with "unimagining" communism is that too often it's perceived as an aberration along the road of human progress, as if this is the inexorable product of historical forces, a form of Panglossian optimism which is almost exactly mirrors Marx's historicism, and is just as dangerous: Marx believed that, just as the rise of the merchant class liberated serfs from feudalism only to become their oppressors, so would the working class evolve a communist consciousness, and that the communist revolution would be spontaneous, popular and momentous, which quite possibly explains his lack of anticipation of the results of a "forced" revolution.

Dancing David

9th July 2003, 08:38 AM

That said, the socialism being pushed in America by dangerous leftists seeks the abolition of private property, the complete absorption of corporations and private wealth for redistribution, the destruction of the family, the killing of God in name and idea, and the exploitation of the people via immoral laws that dooms them to early deaths and attacks on the system itself (homosexuality for example).

For socialism to be a positive factor in a capitalist system it must not be an unnecessary burden on the people (not a 60% tax rate like Germany does to its people, etc), it must not entangle itself with corporations as an individual, it must have limits in the bureaucracy that advances it and it must be fundable responsibly.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You know Jedi there must be some regression to the mean here, I am a leftist but I agree with most of what you say. (Excepting the usual troll bait)

My view of socialism is about corporate ownership by the employees and higher accountability of management.

The idea that corporation should be abolished smacks more of Lenin than it does of socialism.

I am not for the total nationalization of health care either, I would like to see the profit motive remain in any 'socialized medicine'.

My only real gripe with the capitalist system is the over power that the wealthy exercise.

BTW can you tell me where I could go where a single mom get 1500$ a month, I think I am am going to get pregnant and retire.