"Communism has killed 100 Million people"

[Radical]

I hate this piece of propoganda spread by right wing hypocrits.

Its quite easy to cherry-pick points in history where theres been servere sitautions where something hasent been acted out as its supposed to have been.

I just find this annoying pretty annoying when you could say the same about religion or democracy. People like to choose this quote to scare off people, but really its hypocrital and has no meaning.

What are your thoughts on it?

[Pogue]

I don't see how a classless, stateless society based on the free federation of peoples councils has ever killed anyone!

[GPDP]

This is another case where I am conflicted in whether I should refute such propaganda. Obviously, I hold no love for the Soviet Union and similar "socialist" states, and am loath to defend them. But when such idiotic propaganda comes out, I feel the need to rectify.

First of all, people who come out with this tend to completely ignore the wider context under which such atrocities were committed. They blame it on an ideology and not the conditions or the people and policies involved. It's a profoundly ahistorical way to look at the crimes of state-capitalism. It's quick, easy, and self-assuring. It requires no thought and is devoid of any intellectual rigor. Kinda like the human nature argument, really.

And in any case, such numbers are usually cooked by people with an agenda. They tend to add all sorts of dishonest figures, such as the deaths caused by famines that just happened to happen in the countries in question. If we're gonna be looking at famine deaths as being a consequence of "communism," then India alone damns capitalism to a lower level of hell than communism does.

But again, it's hard to clarify my stance against state-capitalism while not looking like I'm defending it. Which is why I hate getting into such debates.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Capitalism has killed more. Its not a choice when we have to choose between 100 millions deaths or 500 million deaths. Communists are working for a system where such deaths are minimized and life is prolonged as much as possible. This can only happen in a system where the means of production are owned and managed by the producing class as a whole, not in the hands of a few parasites, which is what is happening in the current system. When a few control the lives of the many, it is not a coincidence that many deaths result. Of course, substituting the current ruling class with a new ruling class is not the solution. Our aim should be to eliminate all ruling class along with the conditions that cause the ruled and the ruling to exist.

[Cumannach]

I hate this piece of propoganda spread by right wing hypocrits.

Its quite easy to cherry-pick points in history where theres been servere sitautions where something hasent been acted out as its supposed to have been.

I just find this annoying pretty annoying when you could say the same about religion or democracy. People like to choose this quote to scare off people, but really its hypocrital and has no meaning.

What are your thoughts on it?

Don't worry about it, cause there's no truth to it whatsoever.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I hate this piece of propoganda spread by right wing hypocrits.

Its quite easy to cherry-pick points in history where theres been servere sitautions where something hasent been acted out as its supposed to have been.

I just find this annoying pretty annoying when you could say the same about religion or democracy. People like to choose this quote to scare off people, but really its hypocrital and has no meaning.

What are your thoughts on it?

When people present me with this bullshit I just reply with "and Capitalism and Imperialism haven't?" This usually shuts them up.

[GPDP]

When people present me with this bullshit I just reply with "and Capitalism and Imperialism haven't?" This usually shuts them up.

And when you do that, you've essentially ceded the argument yourself. In saying that capitalism is not a whole lot better, you're accepting the basic premise that communism also sucks in its own way.

We can do better than that. It's fine and well to criticize capitalism and put it in its proper context, but if we're not advancing ideas for a better society at the same time, the message you'll get across is that you merely want another kind of shitty society where millions are oppressed or murdered.

That's why when engaging in such arguments, it's important to point out not how capitalism killed more people than communism, but that what killed all those people (and the numbers are debatable) was not communism in any meaningful sense of the word, that you do not advocate that kind of system, and then tell them what it is that communists actually hope to accomplish.

[LOLseph Stalin]

And when you do that, you've essentially ceded the argument yourself. In saying that capitalism is not a whole lot better, you're accepting the basic premise that communism also sucks in its own way.

You do have a point, but I just get so frustrated with hearing these same old lies I won't even argue them anymore. You are right though. I should. I should be calmly explaining how Communism killed alot less people than the Capitalist propaganda says.

[GPDP]

You do have a point, but I just get so frustrated with hearing these same old lies I won't even argue them anymore. You are right though. I should. I should be calmly explaining how Communism killed alot less people than the Capitalist propaganda says.

Uh, no. You should be questioning the numbers, rectifying them for purposes of historical accuracy, and THEN clarifying that it was NOT communism that killed those people.

Remember, the point is not to make it look like communism "sucks less" than capitalism, because to say that is to imply that in the end, it still sucks somewhat.

[Bud Struggle]

That's why when engaging in such arguments, it's important to point out not how capitalism killed more people than communism, but that what killed all those people (and the numbers are debatable) was not communism in any meaningful sense of the word, that you do not advocate that kind of system, and then tell them what it is that communists actually hope to accomplish.

I agree with that plan. I for one as a Capitalist only agree with the nice, kind Capitalism that HELPS people and I REJECT all of tha bad Capitalism that is mean to nice people.

I am an advocate of the Capitalism that feeds starving babies yet I adamentley reject the Capitalism that stages coups in third world democracies. :cursing: (Unless the democracies voted in those bad, bad Communists. And then it's OK to have coups. :cool: )

See the problem. ;) You have to live with the politics you created.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Uh, no. You should be questioning the numbers, rectifying them for purposes of historical accuracy, and THEN clarifying that it was NOT communism that killed those people.

Remember, the point is not to make it look like communism "sucks less" than capitalism, because to say that is to imply that in the end, it still sucks somewhat.

I guess having actual statistics would help alot. Besides, I don't want to be completely out of proportion and say Communism killed nobody because then that would really be stretching the truth.

[GPDP]

I agree with that plan. I for one as a Capitalist only agree with the nice, kind Capitalism that HELPS people and I REJECT all of tha bad Capitalism that is mean to nice people.

I am an advocate of the Capitalism that feeds starving babies yet I adamentley reject the Capitalism that stages coups in third world democracies. :cursing: (Unless the democracies voted in those bad, bad Communists. And then it's OK to have coups. :cool: )

See the problem. ;) You have to live with the politics you created.

I created no such politics. I do not, and have never condoned the actions of any of those governments.

But then again, you seem to be the kind of person that gets hung up on whether a nation identifies with communism on some form, and thus when that nation does something terrible, it become a blotch on the name of communism forever and ever, just because it happened to carry the "communist" label.

Perhaps if I said that I support all the things that communism is supposed to be about, but just changed the name of the ideology into something else (like, say, social-proletocracy, to borrow JR's term), then I'd be clear of any association with the crimes committed under "communist" countries? Does a change in the label change my politics? Or will they still lead to all of that crap, like you've claimed in the past the implementation of communist ideology in the real world inherently does?

[Bud Struggle]

I created no such politics. I do not, and have never condoned the actions of any of those governments.

But then again, you seem to be the kind of person that gets hung up on whether a nation identifies with communism on some form, and thus when that nation does something terrible, it become a blotch on the name of communism forever and ever, just because it happened to carry the "communist" label.

Perhaps if I said that I support all the things that communism is supposed to be about, but just changed the name of the ideology into something else (like, say, social-proletocracy, to borrow JR's term), then I'd be clear of any association with the crimes committed under "communist" countries? Does a change in the label change my politics? Or will they still lead to all of that crap, like you've claimed in the past the implementation of communist ideology in the real world inherently does?

No I think it's a two street. I certainly don't condone some of the horrible stuff Capitalism does and I (as a business owner) get condemed for it regularly for it here on RevLeft. We all get caught up in the business end of our respective philosophies. And that rather misses the point of what we are all here doing trying to make the world a better place.

I think we all have to ACKNOWLEDGE the crimes of what happens when our respective economic systems go wrong, because without that acknowledgement we are doomed to repeat our mistakes, then we have to move on. As Communist and as Capitalists. We really have to learn, no matter what our economic system to distance ourselves from those that are evil.

If we can do that we can begin to make this a better world.

[Nulono]

People don't know the difference between communism and oppression. Oppressive governments may claim to be communist states, but that doesn't mean the deaths were caused by communism. Oppressive states claim to be communistic because it makes them seem to be looking out for the little guy.

[Communist Theory]

I tell them America makes Communism look like a pushover.
Therefore ceding the argument and making Communism and Capitalism look bad, yet shutting up the ignorant idiot that tryed sounding smart.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You know what's still the #1 killer out there?

Death.

[GPDP]

http://mononoaware.concretebadger.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/people-die-if-they-are-killed.jpg

[Cumannach]

I guess having actual statistics would help alot. Besides, I don't want to be completely out of proportion and say Communism killed nobody because then that would really be stretching the truth.

Communism killed many a capitalist, and a whole mountainful of (capitalist) Nazis.

[brigadista]

I agree with that plan. I for one as a Capitalist only agree with the nice, kind Capitalism that HELPS people and I REJECT all of tha bad Capitalism that is mean to nice people.

I am an advocate of the Capitalism that feeds starving babies yet I adamentley reject the Capitalism that stages coups in third world democracies. :cursing: (Unless the democracies voted in those bad, bad Communists. And then it's OK to have coups. :cool: )

See the problem. ;) You have to live with the politics you created.


tom I think you will find that the capitalism you refer to as" staging coups in third world countries" is the same capitalism that "feeds starving babies" there is always a condition on capitalist aid...

[trivas7]

I don't see how a classless, stateless society based on the free federation of peoples councils has ever killed anyone!
Indeed; non-existent societies clearly are challenged to have much effect on anyone.

[Iowa656]

There has been some great answers already to this completely false assumption.

I've covered this subject in my blog a while back. It's a bit too long to just paste here, so here's the link;

http://tinyurl.com/at9und

[danyboy27]

communist didnt killed 100 million people, sociopathic narcisic powermongering so called leader of the people folks dids.

if communism where divided in many brand of cereals and that for exemple, frostred flakes where killing peoples, i wouldnt say that cereals kill people, i would say that its the fault of the damn frostred flakes if 100 million people died.

[Lynx]

Representative democracy has enslaved billions...

[trivas7]

There has been some great answers already to this completely false assumption.

True; nevertheless most RevLefters IMO are naive or dismissive re the evils perpetrated by the historical communist movement.

[NecroCommie]

I usually start by refuting the famine deaths as not faults of communism as an ideal, pretty much with the arguments mentioned previously. Usually shuts them up already. Afterwards I proceed to point out how the camputsean and chinese revolutions do not represent what I would consider communist ideologies, backed up with a brief introduction into communist schools of thought (from anarchist to maoist).

To finish the brief "debate" I mention that the few pathetic deaths that really were due to the nature of my ideology, are completely justified, and this I back up with a lesson of our local history concerning the method of "red terror" in these neighbourhoods. All this compared to the mistakes of capitalism and the outright bloodlust of imperialism, and communism seems like the nicest thing in the world.

If the fools still dare to accuse communism of murder, they are no more than empty headed fools and not worthy of my time.

[LOLseph Stalin]

To finish the brief "debate" I mention that the few pathetic deaths that really were due to the nature of my ideology, are completely justified,

Like how Mao's Red Guards went on a killing spree when all they wanted was Deng? Of course that doesn't make Mao himself the killer, but it was still his responsibility to keep these over-ambitious Red Guards under control.

[NecroCommie]

...how the camputsean and chinese revolutions do not represent what I would consider communist ideologies...

yeah...

[mikelepore]

I don't see how a classless, stateless society based on the free federation of peoples councils has ever killed anyone!Indeed; non-existent societies clearly are challenged to have much effect on anyone.

But some of the things that we really do have under capitalism are public libraries and parks, town water supplies and sanitation systems, public schools, and a few municipal railroads. These things aren't examples of socialism, of course, since the ruling class and not the interaction of workers manages them, but these things do exist for social use and are not run on a profit basis. The fact they these things aren't owned by stockholders, and are not run for the purpose of profit, hasn't killed anyone so far. So where do the conservatives want to draw the line -- to say that if factories, mines and mills were run on a non-profit basis, they would be suddenly expected to kill people? What places the line there? It's useful to point out how the supposed connection is made up out of thin air.

[NecroCommie]

But some of the things that we really do have under capitalism are public libraries and parks, town water supplies and sanitation systems, public schools, and a few municipal railroads. These things aren't examples of socialism, of course, since the ruling class and not the interaction of workers manages them, but these things do exist for social use and are not run on a profit basis. The fact they these things aren't owned by stockholders, and are not run for the purpose of profit, hasn't killed anyone so far. So where do the conservatives want to draw the line -- to say that if factories, mines and mills were run on a non-profit basis, they would be suddenly expected to kill people? What places the line there? It's useful to point out how the supposed connection is made up out of thin air.
I would further point out how these non-commercial installations were born despite capitalism rather than because of capitalism. If worker struggles hadn't given us some social security, the revolution would have happened aeons ago.

I know... Not exactly on topic, but I had to say this as a pre-emptive counter argument at the cappies who would storm in shouting: "but look how much good capitalism has created!!!"

[trivas7]

I would further point out how these non-commercial installations were born despite capitalism rather than because of capitalism. If worker struggles hadn't given us some social security, the revolution would have happened aeons ago.

I don't know how valid these arguments are. You speak as if privy to an alternate world history I'm not aware of. How do you know we couldn't now all be tolling in Stalinist gulags of momumental proportions under some fascist overlord? Granted, class struggle is a fact and has made life easier for the worker; nevertheless social security was not predestined; public institutions were not inevitable.

[Communist Theory]

Indeed; non-existent societies clearly are challenged to have much effect on anyone.
Haha good one.
OIers:1
RLers:0

[KC]

The 100 million figure isn't even claimed by the authors of the Black Book, which counted it as 94 million. So you know that they haven't even read anything about the subject when people on their side disagree with them.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The 100 million figure isn't even claimed by the authors of the Black Book, which counted it as 94 million. So you know that they haven't even read anything about the subject when people on their side disagree with them.

The 100 million figure seems to be the one that sticks despite being incorrect. Even t-shirt producers know this:

http://api.ning.com/files/m1rhtkvScn9wGpwgq4p8ks-u2ZtST1uKllYMMvJnGMJqjS3WQ0PXpcIHImFLTv-Ktp*-CesKci85Y8gO-igNV4hrC*745D6V/communism.jpg

These people seriously need to do reasearch before even attempting to attack Communism.

[NecroCommie]

I don't know how valid these arguments are. You speak as if privy to an alternate world history I'm not aware of. How do you know we couldn't now all be tolling in Stalinist gulags of momumental proportions under some fascist overlord? Granted, class struggle is a fact and has made life easier for the worker; nevertheless social security was not predestined; public institutions were not inevitable.
Dont understand me wrong, I am not proposing any kind of absolute predetermination on the subject. I was merely pointing out how the worker organizations are the ones that made the life easier, not capitalism in itself as a system. I am not saying that public institutions were inevitable, quite the opposite infact.

[Agnapostate]

Several things: As noted, a specifically anarchist response would not acknowledge the USSR or similar regimes as "socialist" (and even their supporters wouldn't claim that they were "communist"), and more than that, the "100 million" number, aside from being inflated significantly, is largely due to crop shortages and famines obviously not specifically due to political authoritarianism, or even the general economic system in some cases.

[Bud Struggle]

The number may be inflated but it's pretty certain that the greatest killer of Communists the world has ever know was--------------Stalin. :)

(OK, with the possible exception of Hitler.)

[danyboy27]

The number may be inflated but it's pretty certain that the greatest killer of Communists the world has ever know was--------------Stalin. :)

(OK, with the possible exception of Hitler.)

and yet, there is still a fews people to defend such horribles things.

i mean, people can argues that the figures are incorrect, but still, stalin and the other so called leader of the people where nothing but despotic freaky megalonamiac powermonger dictator.

there is no need to diminish the gravity of their crimes beccause they where more egalitarian or beccause all that was done in order to save the russian/chinese people, those people did horrible, monstruous crimes, i dont feel the need to excuse their folly.

[KC]

Several things: As noted, a specifically anarchist response would not acknowledge the USSR or similar regimes as "socialist" (and even their supporters wouldn't claim that they were "communist"), and more than that, the "100 million" number, aside from being inflated significantly, is largely due to crop shortages and famines obviously not specifically due to political authoritarianism, or even the general economic system in some cases.

It is argued by supporters of this nonsense that governmental policies led to the massive death tolls during the famines. While I obviously think that's a load of crap, it is certainly true that many of these situations were exacerbated by governmental policies or the consequences of such policies. However, hindsight is 20/20.




(OK, with the possible exception of Hitler.) and yet, there is still a fews people to defend such horribles things.

i mean, people can argues that the figures are incorrect, but still, stalin and the other so called leader of the people where nothing but despotic freaky megalonamiac powermonger dictator.

there is no need to diminish the gravity of their crimes beccause they where more egalitarian or beccause all that was done in order to save the russian/chinese people, those people did horrible, monstruous crimes, i dont feel the need to excuse their folly.There is a difference between:

1. Recognizing what crimes were committed, putting them into historical context and analyzing them for what they are and;
2. Artificially inflating the extent of the crimes in order to not only condemn various individual perpetrators but communism as an ideology in general.

[Bud Struggle]

There is a difference between:

1. Recognizing what crimes were committed, putting them into historical context and analyzing them for what they are and;
2. Artificially inflating the extent of the crimes in order to not only condemn various individual perpetrators but communism as an ideology in general.

Of course, but then that analysis is open to everybody: and you'll see it argued daily on the pages of Stormfront. Just substitute the word Fascist for Communist.

[KC]

Of course, but then that analysis is open to everybody: and you'll see it argued daily on the pages of Stormfront. Just substitute the word Fascist for Communist.

The analysis to which I was referring was historical analysis, whereby the events are analyzed in their historical context, from their roots to their development and through to their consequences. This type of analysis is relatively free from such judgements as you are implying, which was my entire point. Granted, historical analysis is never free from bias, but the point is to make it as free of bias as possible in order to paint as clear a picture as possible.

[danyboy27]

The analysis to which I was referring was historical analysis, whereby the events are analyzed in their historical context, from their roots to their development and through to their consequences. This type of analysis is relatively free from such judgements as you are implying, which was my entire point. Granted, historical analysis is never free from bias, but the point is to make it as free of bias as possible in order to paint as clear a picture as possible.

i agree that its important to avoid exageration, but still, you can debunk myth and affirm that certain crimes have happened, nobody is forcing us to accuse x of being a bastard beccause he affirm stalin was an assole who killed a lot of peoples.

[trivas7]

The analysis to which I was referring was historical analysis, whereby the events are analyzed in their historical context, from their roots to their development and through to their consequences. This type of analysis is relatively free from such judgements as you are implying, which was my entire point. Granted, historical analysis is never free from bias, but the point is to make it as free of bias as possible in order to paint as clear a picture as possible.
What kind of judgment does this historical analysis avoid? Moral judgment? I don't understand why Marxists are reluctant to call people evil. Chavez had the balls to call Bush the devil. Even Marx makes the moral case against capitalism.

[Agnapostate]

It is argued by supporters of this nonsense that governmental policies led to the massive death tolls during the famines. While I obviously think that's a load of crap, it is certainly true that many of these situations were exacerbated by governmental policies or the consequences of such policies. However, hindsight is 20/20.

I know that, which is why I specified that as being separate. However, some deaths were related to regional crises not caused by governmental incompetence.

[danyboy27]

I know that, which is why I specified that as being separate. However, some deaths were related to regional crises not caused by governmental incompetence.

in the case of the ukrainian famine many evidences showed that it was intentional and mainly an action took against ukrainian autonomist groups, who showed signs of defiences toward the russian governement.

http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine?id_mot=44

now before to claim that this website is biaised, be advised that scholars read book after book in order to recompile the truth from the lies, knowing that, the whole reading is just creepy.

[Agnapostate]

in the case of the ukrainian famine many evidences showed that it was intentional and mainly an action took against ukrainian autonomist groups, who showed signs of defiences toward the russian governement.

http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine?id_mot=44

now before to claim that this website is biaised, be advised that scholars read book after book in order to recompile the truth from the lies, knowing that, the whole reading is just creepy.

I didn't say that wasn't the case.

[STJ]

The black book of made up bullshit.

[Oktyabr]

Some body on Youtube tried to use this one on me. "Communism is murder! it has killed more than 100 million people!" lolz

My response:

"Capitalism is murder! more than 4 billion starved/starving, enslaved, or killed by the capitalist system!"

Not to mention all the people killed in the wars caused by capitalism

[danyboy27]

I didn't say that wasn't the case.

hoo my bad...sorry.

well, its refreshing to hear people who reconize this fact.

[danyboy27]

Some body on Youtube tried to use this one on me. "Communism is murder! it has killed more than 100 million people!" lolz

My response:

"Capitalism is murder! more than 4 billion starved/starving, enslaved, or killed by the capitalist system!"

Not to mention all the people killed in the wars caused by capitalism

please dont use it has an exemple, beccause by doing so you admit that communism is murder.

what you have to do is make them understand that dictatorship is murder, and that a real communist society would never
look like______(insert your pseudo-communist country name here, russia should do the trick)

[Oktyabr]

please dont use it has an exemple, beccause by doing so you admit that communism is murder.

what you have to do is make them understand that dictatorship is murder, and that a real communist society would never
look like______(insert your pseudo-communist country name here, russia should do the trick)

How is what I said admitting that communism is murder? I'm just saying that Capitalism has killed more. They are not likely to believe that communism is not murder, so all you can say to most people is that capitalism has killed more.

[danyboy27]

How is what I said admitting that communism is murder? I'm just saying that Capitalism has killed more. They are not likely to believe that communism is not murder, so all you can say to most people is that capitalism has killed more.


beccause you are not refuting his claim, you are just saying his view/system is worst than yours, and that, my friend is called a strawman.

i will never consider that capitalism is worst than stalin communism, i really cant,beccause stalin killed million of people in a fews year, and capitalism killed million of people in a thousand year.

despite my hate for the current system, i would prefers to the stalinist version of the worker paradise.

when someone argues against communism, they dont really argues against the whole thing, but against what they saw that psychotic people created and then branded communism.

the term is incorrect, but the whole feeling of hatred toward all what stalin did is fully justified, and like the holocaust, i think its a duty to remember it, remember the atrocities caused back then by those megalomaniacs, the mass executions, the deportations and killing of hundred of workers for the sake of what people dare to call socialism.

[IcarusAngel]

Capitalism has not been around a thousand years are you crazy?

According to the authors of the Black Book of Capitalism, capitalism has killed 100 million with in a relatively short amount of time.

[danyboy27]

Capitalism has not been around a thousand years are you crazy?

According to the authors of the Black Book of Capitalism, capitalism has killed 100 million with in a relatively short amount of time.

well, according to my understanding of capitalism, its been around for a fews thousand year, isnt the whole banking system significantly more older than a fews hundred year?

maybe dejavu can correct me on that, but what the roman have been doing was a form of capitalism, people where owning lans, and the mean of production where in control of powerful rich peoples, and it was the same during the time of the pharaohs, a fews goons owning nearly everything, and the people getting the leftover.

there was several classes, and a certain form of bourgeoisie during the time of the pharaos, and they had a banking system has well, people.

capitalism is really really really old.

[Agnapostate]

Market exchange alone does not and cannot constitute capitalism.

[danyboy27]

Market exchange alone does not and cannot constitute capitalism.


yea but what the roman have done wasnt simply market exchange.

there was a bourgeoisie, bureaucrats, and poor worker underpaid has well has slaves.

what is the real differences between what happening today than what happened back then?

i mean, yea we made a huge step foward in science and human right, but the structure is really similar.

[RebelDog]

All class systems lead to the immeseration, oppression and murder of the producer class and economically weak. Be it capitalism, feudalism, slavery, state capitalism, it doesn't matter, they all exist to enrich an elite and promote selfish interests to the ruthless detriment of the wider population.

[RGacky3]

maybe dejavu can correct me on that, but what the roman have been doing was a form of capitalism, people where owning lans, and the mean of production where in control of powerful rich peoples, and it was the same during the time of the pharaohs, a fews goons owning nearly everything, and the people getting the leftover.

there was several classes, and a certain form of bourgeoisie during the time of the pharaos, and they had a banking system has well, people.

capitalism is really really really old.

Back then Capitalism, was'n the dominant power structure nor did it define the ruling class. In a way, communism exists now, there are Coops, there are collectives, even parts of the world structured by communist principles. However, communism, is'nt the defining power structure of the world, it is, (to an extreme extent) Capitalism.

[danyboy27]

All class systems lead to the immeseration, oppression and murder of the producer class and economically weak. Be it capitalism, feudalism, slavery, state capitalism, it doesn't matter, they all exist to enrich an elite and promote selfish interests to the ruthless detriment of the wider population.

i am 100% with you on that, the problem is, there are some among us that completly disagree with that and believe that the ruthless methods of Mao and stalin where okay. this is beccause of those persons that we will have to endlessly defend ourselves against claim that communism killed x number of people.

we are verrry prompt to defend those people when a nutjob come out and say communism killed x number of folks, we should NEVER defend them, and instead explain rationally that the stalin way of communism was nothing but an horrible stain on our ideology.

[NecroCommie]

When people tell me: "Stalin killed X number of people", I tend to answer: "Well, why are you still capitalist? Wanna die?"



Hehee... Not seriously.

[PCommie]

Let me put it this way. I am anti-Stalin as Stalin. I believe he wrote some good stuff, but what I know of his policies were questionable. However, would you rather be murdered slowly and without knowing it by an insidious capitalist system, or taken out and shot by a Stalinist regime? I'll take the latter, thanks.

(That paragraph had no intellectual value whatsoever, nor was it intended to. Now, on.)

I didn't read the whole thread, but I believe the original post was about the "communism has killed 100 million people" argument. First off, "communism" killed nobody. An ideology cannot physically kill. People, leaders, and THEIR individual policies killed. Therefor, the argument that communism is inherently murderous is invalid, and after explaining this, you have won the argument, no matter how much the cappie you are debating sputters and tries to counter you.

My bigger problem is with the "human nature" argument, I get that alot, not because the people I talk to are pro-capitalist, they just don't think communism/socialism can work.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Brother No. 1]

I am anti-Stalin as Stalin

Can you give reasons/examples why you are Anti-Stalin? Yes Stalin made mistakes but so did every Communist/Anarchist in history. Stalin tried his best to live up to the Marxist-Leninist ideals and tried to industraize the country for it needed to be. The Country just came out of a allied invasion/civil War and wasnt the powerful CCCP in the 50s-80s and Its Science wasnt all that high, it didnt have any culture, and women didnt have alot of rights/jobs when Stalin was elected to power.

[RGacky3]

Yes Stalin made mistakes but so did every Communist/Anarchist in history.

Yeah everyone makes mistakes, but the reason poeple did'nt like him was because of the things he did on purpose, i.e. kill millions, set up a police state, take abslute power. Anarchists can make mistakes, and make bad desicions, and even be evil douche bags, because they arn't in absolute power over people.


tried his best to live up to the Marxist-Leninist ideals and tried to industraize the country for it needed to be.

He does what every politician does, use the ideals when they suit him, and ditch them when they don't.


The Country just came out of a allied invasion/civil War and wasnt the powerful CCCP in the 50s-80s and Its Science wasnt all that high, it didnt have any culture, and women didnt have alot of rights/jobs when Stalin was elected to power.

Being relatively poor and culturally primative does'nt not equal mass murder and oppression.