How many people have died under capitalism?

[Le Socialiste]

I keep on encountering individuals who, when debating socialism vs. capitalism, tend to cite the number of people who perished under socialistic regimes. They tend to use "The Black Book of Communism" as a way of backing this point up. Now, I've never read it. I also know that such an argument has little basis in the theories and principles of socialism/communism itself, and focuses on the acts of certain individuals over others instead of the ideology itself. This is a very simplified version of the debate, but what I would like to know is:

1) How exactly should I counter this particular argument? I know the premise of it is deeply flawed, but some specific pointers would be appreciated.

and

2) Are there any numbers that might highlight the many deaths that have occurred under capitalist regimes?

[The Man]

Capitalism: Known True Evil
1.6 Billion Murdered

Second Boer War 75,000
Japanese Massacre of Singapore 100,000
Burma-Siam Railroad Construction 116,000
Japanese Germ Warfare in China 200,000
Rebelling Shia Killed by Saddam 300,000
US Bombing of Yugoslavia 300,000
US Bombing Iraq Water Supply '91 500,000
US Civil War 700,000
Iraq-Iran War 1,000,000
US sanctions on Iraq 1,000,000
US Backed Suharto 1,200,000
Irish Potato Famine 1,500,000
Japanese Democides 5,964,000
Famine of 1932-33 7,000,000
Bengal Famine of 1943 10,000,000
Famine in British India 30,000,000
US Intervention in the Congo 5,000,000
Indonesian Anti-Com. Purge 1,000,000
Stateless Capitalist Somalia 1,000,000
Industrial Revolution USA 100,000
1898 US War vs Philippine 3,000,000
Palestinians Killed by Israel 826,626
Guatemala 300,000
Nanking Massacre 300,000
Iraq (Selling Gas to Saddam) 400,000
Iraq (Desert Storm) 500,000
Invasion of the Philippines 650,000
Feudal Russia 1,066,000
Afghanistan 1,200,000
Iraq 1,300,000
South African Apartheid 3,500,000
US Aggression on Latin America 6,000,000
Japanese Imperialism 6,000,000
Vietnam War - including Cambodia & Laos 10,000,000
Korean War 10,000,000
British Occupation of India 20,000,000
Great Depression (America alone) 12,000,000
World War One 16,500,000
World War Two 60,000,000
Native American Genocide 95,000,000
Capitalist Policy in India 1947 - 1990 120,000,000
African Slave Trade 150,000,000
US Backed murder of Tamils 30,000
Spanish-American War 100,000
Spanish Civil War 400,000
Union Carbide Bophal Disaster 15,000
Massacre of Paris Commune 20,000
First Indochina 1946-1954 1,500,000
Belgian Congo Colonization 1,000,000
French Madagascar 80,000
Nigerian Civil War 1,000,000
Rwandan Genocide 1,000,000
US Made Famine Bangladesh 100,000
Children Died fr Hunger '09 5,256,000
Children Killed by Hunger Since 9/11 235,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger during the 1990s 100,000,000

That pesky little commies killing everyone.. If you want to know about the so-called 'Ukrainian Stalin Famine' and how that has nothing to do with Stalin, look up 'Lies conerning the history of the Soviet Union.'

I believe there was a recent thread showing and disproving how 70 million people died under Mao.

[Broletariat]

1. Those weren't Socialism, they were Capitalism.

YOUR MOVE.

2. idk man.

[ArrowLance]

Simply the idea of context less numbers should be enough to put serious people off the argument, but countering with you own context less numbers could help hammer others with this fact.

Here is a list that was compiled by the youtube channel MaoistRebelNews2:



Capitalism: Known True Evil
1.6 Billion Murdered

Second Boer War 75,000
Japanese Massacre of Singapore 100,000
Burma-Siam Railroad Construction 116,000
Japanese Germ Warfare in China 200,000
Rebelling Shia Killed by Saddam 300,000
US Bombing of Yugoslavia 300,000
US Bombing Iraq Water Supply '91 500,000
US Civil War 700,000
Iraq-Iran War 1,000,000
US sanctions on Iraq 1,000,000
US Backed Suharto 1,200,000
Irish Potato Famine 1,500,000
Japanese Democides 5,964,000
Famine of 1932-33 7,000,000
Bengal Famine of 1943 10,000,000
Famine in British India 30,000,000
US Intervention in the Congo 5,000,000
Hurricane Katrina 1,836
Indonesian Anti-Com. Purge 1,000,000
Stateless Capitalist Somalia 1,000,000
Industrial Revolution USA 100,000
1898 US War vs Philippine 3,000,000
Palestinians Killed by Israel 826,626
Guatemala 300,000
Nanking Massacre 300,000
Iraq (Selling Gas to Saddam) 400,000
Iraq (Desert Storm) 500,000
Invasion of the Philippines 650,000
Feudal Russia 1,066,000
Afghanistan 1,200,000
Iraq 1,300,000
Khmer Rouge 2,035,000
South African Apartheid 3,500,000
Nazi Holocaust 12,000,000
US Aggression on Latin America 6,000,000
Japanese Imperialism 6,000,000
Vietnam War - including Cambodia & Laos 10,000,000
Korean War 10,000,000
British Occupation of India 20,000,000
Great Depression (America alone) 12,000,000
World War One 16,500,000
World War Two 60,000,000
Native American Genocide 95,000,000
Capitalist Policy in India 1947 - 1990 120,000,000
African Slave Trade 150,000,000
US Backed murder of Tamils 30,000
Spanish-American War 100,000
Spanish Civil War 400,000
Union Carbide Bophal Disaster 15,000
Massacre of Paris Commune 20,000
First Indochina 1946-1954 1,500,000
Belgian Congo Colonization 1,000,000
French Madagascar 80,000
Nigerian Civil War 1,000,000
Rwandan Genocide 1,000,000
US Made Famine Bangladesh 100,000
Children Died fr Hunger '09 5,256,000
Children Killed by Hunger Since 9/11 235,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger during the 1990s 100,000,000
Ciggarette Related Deaths Worldwide (1960 - 2010) 300,000,000

Total Killed by Capitalism: 1,559,657,267

As I said this list is not of any real importance and I have not verified myself any of the numbers.

[Gorilla]

I keep on encountering individuals who, when debating socialism vs. capitalism, tend to cite the number of people who perished under socialistic regimes. They tend to use "The Black Book of Communism" as a way of backing this point up. Now, I've never read it. I also know that such an argument has little basis in the theories and principles of socialism/communism itself, and focuses on the acts of certain individuals over others instead of the ideology itself. This is a very simplified version of the debate, but what I would like to know is:

1) How exactly should I counter this particular argument? I know the premise of it is deeply flawed, but some specific pointers would be appreciated.

and

2) Are there any numbers that might highlight the many deaths that have occurred under capitalist regimes?

The super-high Communist body count numbers come largely from "excess mortality" - which includes people who literally starved to death but also people who died from something else they would otherwise have recovered from because they were weakened by hunger, didn't have basic medical supplies or whatever. Even assuming that the excess mortality figures are correct, comparing them with something like the Holocaust - where the issue is people literally shot or gassed - is apples to oranges.

[ArrowLance]

1. Those weren't Socialism, they were Capitalism.

YOUR MOVE.

2. idk man.

How do you know they weren't Socialism and were Capitalism. Ignoring actions done in the past by Socialist experiments is intellectual sloth.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Capitalist Policy in India 1947-1990 120,000,000
African Slave Trade 150,000,000

Um

[Broletariat]

How do you know they weren't Socialism and were Capitalism. Ignoring actions done in the past by Socialist experiments is intellectual sloth.


Because private property, circulation with currency still existed, as did wage-labour etc.

I obviously don't ignore them if I'm classifying them as something.

[The Man]

Simply the idea of context less numbers should be enough to put serious people off the argument, but countering with you own context less numbers could help hammer others with this fact.

Here is a list that was compiled by the youtube channel MaoistRebelNews2:



As I said this list is not of any real importance and I have not verified myself any of the numbers.

I haven't researched into some of the deaths, but a lot of them, according to other conflicting reports, seem to be dead on. Look, I have no opinion on MaoistRebelNews, and I don't want to start a flame war. But most of the numbers in these situations, so far, seem to be in the correct range.

[ArrowLance]

Because private property, circulation with currency still existed, as did wage-labour etc.

I obviously don't ignore them if I'm classifying them as something.

The revolution goes through many stages but is still a socialist experiment. And yes you did ignore them, what you did was simply say 'It wasn't me! In fact it was YOU!" If that isn't lazy, completely ignoring the actual situations and blanketing a thousand observations with something that is certainly not true, lets all stay home because the revolution is complete.

[Broletariat]

The revolution goes through many stages but is still a socialist experiment. And yes you did ignore them, what you did was simply say 'It wasn't me! In fact it was YOU!" If that isn't lazy, completely ignoring the actual situations and blanketing a thousand observations with something that is certainly not true, lets all stay home because the revolution is complete.

Experiments fail bro, and when a socialist experiment fails.... guess what it is.

Capitalism.

[ArrowLance]

Experiments fail bro, and when a socialist experiment fails.... guess what it is.

Capitalism.

Often true, but what you are saying is that all stages of a socialist experiment all its actions and consequences are a result of capitalism. Simply the idea of socialism could be held accountable for many actions, saying otherwise ignores the entire history of socialism and its experiments labeling it all false and bourgeois deception.

[Broletariat]

Often true, but what you are saying is that all stages of a socialist experiment all its actions and consequences are a result of capitalism. Simply the idea of socialism could be held accountable for many actions, saying otherwise ignores the entire history of socialism and its experiments labeling it all false and bourgeois deception.

Naw man, what I'm saying is that those forms of production were still Capitalist. They might have been genuine efforts sure, but there was still C-M-C and M-C-M' accumulation cycles going as far as I can tell.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Rather than the number killed by capitalism, a more poignant point might be to tell them how many people the US alone has killed solely in the name of anticommunism. David Schweickart made a long list of conflicts which I can't find online anywhere. But really you don't need that. You need simply state and explain the quote:


A single non-revolutionary weekend is infinitely more bloody than a month of total revolution.Thousands of people starve every day due to the poverty created by neoliberalism. There is a huge amount of literature among philosophers and sociologists to back this up (though somehow the entire left has been too lazy to take back the Wikipedia page on poverty from neo-con garbage published by conservative institutions. It's at the end of my very, very, long to do list).

Tell them how our fractured, alienated, miserable lives under capitalism can barely be called living. You could go on for pages about this point if you compile a list of good points the situationists made.

[ArrowLance]

Naw man, what I'm saying is that those forms of production were still Capitalist. They might have been genuine efforts sure, but there was still C-M-C and M-C-M' accumulation cycles going as far as I can tell.

I doubt these people blame the statistics on the modes of production but instead link it to the ideals of communism and its Utopian impossibilities.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Great Depression (America alone) 12,000,000
Need source.

Native American Genocide 95,000,000
Were there even 95 million Native Americans?

Belgian Congo Colonization 1,000,000
It's actually higher, around 10,000,000 in the "Free" Congo State under Leopold II.

[The Man]

Need source.

Were there even 95 million Native Americans?

It's actually higher, around 10,000,000 in the "Free" Congo State under Leopold II.

1. http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/
I believe the 7 million was industrial only. I can't find the resource that told me that the other 5 million were agricultural.

2. There were 95,000,000 Native Americans. Remember, this was from 1500-1800 that all of these deaths were accounted for.

3. Noted, I just got to look into it more I guess.

[agnixie]

1. http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/
I believe the 7 million was industrial only. I can't find the resource that told me that the other 5 million were agricultural.

2. There were 95,000,000 Native Americans. Remember, this was from 1500-1800 that all of these deaths were accounted for.

3. Noted, I just got to look into it more I guess.

Capitalism is not 500 years old, it's a 18th century phenomenon.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Capitalist policy in India really beats the others, but weren't they Soviet-aligned until the 1980s?

[#FF0000]

Capitalist policy in India really beats the others, but weren't they Soviet-aligned until the 1980s?

Kinda, starting in the 70's. Other than that, they were always explicitly non-aligned.

[chegitz guevara]

Naw man, what I'm saying is that those forms of production were still Capitalist. They might have been genuine efforts sure, but there was still C-M-C and M-C-M' accumulation cycles going as far as I can tell.

Was the main form of production in those societies commodity production, i.e., goods and services created in order to be exchanged in order to realize a profit?

No? Then it wasn't capitalism.

Furthermore, while there was accumulation of capital, it didn't take place through M-C-M', because M had no actual value. It was not exchangeable with other currencies or for goods outside those countries. Rather, capital accumulation took place at the source of production, and was realized by direct appropriation. It did not need to be realized through the medium of exchange.

[chegitz guevara]

Capitalism is not 500 years old, it's a 18th century phenomenon.

Wrong. Capitalism is far, far older than that. There was capitalist production in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. Starting five hundred years ago IN EUROPE capitalist means of production had expanded to the point that they began to dominate their economies. The period known as mercantilism is the period when capitalist economies were dominated by feudal states. Eventually, capitalism needed to burst the shackles placed on it by feudalism, and so began the era of bourgeois revolutions, beginning with the Dutch Revolt in the 1570s. But there were even semi-capitalist city states in Italy and Germany several hundred years before that.

[The Man]

Because private property, circulation with currency still existed, as did wage-labour etc.

I obviously don't ignore them if I'm classifying them as something.

You're completely misinterpreting what Socialism REALLY is.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

The Stalinist has a point, private property and currency can, and I expect will, exist in a socialist economy.

[Broletariat]

The Stalinist has a point, private property and currency can, and I expect will, exist in a socialist economy.

I'm pretty sure you're not a Communist if you actually believe this.

The entire goal is to eliminate Capitalism, which has a basis on generalised commodity production, a symptom of which is exchange-value (money). The enabler is private property.

[Broletariat]

Wrong. Capitalism is far, far older than that. There was capitalist production in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. Starting five hundred years ago IN EUROPE capitalist means of production had expanded to the point that they began to dominate their economies. The period known as mercantilism is the period when capitalist economies were dominated by feudal states. Eventually, capitalism needed to burst the shackles placed on it by feudalism, and so began the era of bourgeois revolutions, beginning with the Dutch Revolt in the 1570s. But there were even semi-capitalist city states in Italy and Germany several hundred years before that.

Capitalism is a GENERALISED production of commodities. Sure certain specific instances might exist, but it was not the generalised mode of production. Just like how under Socialism neighbours might occasionally trade little knick-nack goods or what have you, doesn't mean barter is the generalised system of distribution or whatever.

[Tommy4ever]

Were there even 95 million Native Americans?

It's actually higher, around 10,000,000 in the "Free" Congo State under Leopold II.

Well, estimates for the population of America at the arrival of the Europeans usually lie between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000. Considering that Tenochiclan (sp? - the Aztec capital) was larger than any European city when Cortez arrived the 10 million estimate seems a tad low. However, the vast majority of deaths (we're talking 99%) were due to disease. So whilst 95 million native Americans were certainly killed over the period - I don't think we can blame capitalism for diseases.

The Congo Free State was probably the worst state to exist - ever. Worse than Nazi Gemany. The population when Belgium annexed the Congo was half that of when Leopold took over. So I'd put a more realistic estimate of the deaths at 20 million - probably more (we have to take what the trend population growth woud be).

[Enigmocracy]

There is a huge amount of literature among philosophers and sociologists to back this up (though somehow the entire left has been too lazy to take back the Wikipedia page on poverty from neo-con garbage published by conservative institutions. It's at the end of my very, very, long to do list).I at least started this process by flagging the article on poverty reduction (where neocon propaganda is most evident) as not neutral. Thank you for alerting me to the extraordinarily low standards of neutrality on these articles.

[chegitz guevara]

Capitalism is a GENERALISED production of commodities. Sure certain specific instances might exist, but it was not the generalised mode of production.

Yes, it was. Try actually studying the period.

[chegitz guevara]

Every year, more than ten million children under the age of five die from easily preventable causes. The root cause is there is no profit in saving them. The numbers have dropped over time. It was twelve million a year in the 90s. That's at least a billion dead every decade (in the modern world). And that's just for humans under the age of five.

We can never know the number of those whose lives were prematurely ended by capitalism, but it's probably ten digits.

[Broletariat]

Yes, it was. Try actually studying the period.

If it was generalised why did it need to break free from the chains of feudalism? Sounds a lot like feudalism was generalised, not Capitalism.

[chegitz guevara]

Do any of you Marxists ever actually read any Marx?

A feudal state was sitting on top of a capitalist economy, holding it back. The state needed to be overthrown so that the capitalists could be unleashed.

[SacRedMan]

Capitalism: Known True Evil
1.6 Billion Murdered

Second Boer War 75,000
Japanese Massacre of Singapore 100,000
Burma-Siam Railroad Construction 116,000
Japanese Germ Warfare in China 200,000
Rebelling Shia Killed by Saddam 300,000
US Bombing of Yugoslavia 300,000
US Bombing Iraq Water Supply '91 500,000
US Civil War 700,000
Iraq-Iran War 1,000,000
US sanctions on Iraq 1,000,000
US Backed Suharto 1,200,000
Irish Potato Famine 1,500,000
Japanese Democides 5,964,000
Famine of 1932-33 7,000,000
Bengal Famine of 1943 10,000,000
Famine in British India 30,000,000
US Intervention in the Congo 5,000,000
Indonesian Anti-Com. Purge 1,000,000
Stateless Capitalist Somalia 1,000,000
Industrial Revolution USA 100,000
1898 US War vs Philippine 3,000,000
Palestinians Killed by Israel 826,626
Guatemala 300,000
Nanking Massacre 300,000
Iraq (Selling Gas to Saddam) 400,000
Iraq (Desert Storm) 500,000
Invasion of the Philippines 650,000
Feudal Russia 1,066,000
Afghanistan 1,200,000
Iraq 1,300,000
South African Apartheid 3,500,000
US Aggression on Latin America 6,000,000
Japanese Imperialism 6,000,000
Vietnam War - including Cambodia & Laos 10,000,000
Korean War 10,000,000
British Occupation of India 20,000,000
Great Depression (America alone) 12,000,000
World War One 16,500,000
World War Two 60,000,000
Native American Genocide 95,000,000
Capitalist Policy in India 1947 - 1990 120,000,000
African Slave Trade 150,000,000
US Backed murder of Tamils 30,000
Spanish-American War 100,000
Spanish Civil War 400,000
Union Carbide Bophal Disaster 15,000
Massacre of Paris Commune 20,000
First Indochina 1946-1954 1,500,000
Belgian Congo Colonization 1,000,000
French Madagascar 80,000
Nigerian Civil War 1,000,000
Rwandan Genocide 1,000,000
US Made Famine Bangladesh 100,000
Children Died fr Hunger '09 5,256,000
Children Killed by Hunger Since 9/11 235,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger during the 1990s 100,000,000

That pesky little commies killing everyone.. If you want to know about the so-called 'Ukrainian Stalin Famine' and how that has nothing to do with Stalin, look up 'Lies conerning the history of the Soviet Union.'

I believe there was a recent thread showing and disproving how 70 million people died under Mao.

Precise numbers please :rolleyes:

[TC]

1. Those weren't Socialism, they were Capitalism.

YOUR MOVE.

2. idk man.

This pretty much sums up the whole point of internet left-communism and modern day faux-trotskyism:

you want to call yourself communist - but you accept uncritically rather than challenge liberal bourgeois propaganda - so rather than questioning and refuting the lies about socialist states you adopt them as your own and bizarrely claim that you, and not true revolutionaries who actually seized power, have a genuine claim to the term 'socialist.'

[Broletariat]

Do any of you Marxists ever actually read any Marx?

I've read some Marx, but, until lately, I've been restricted in my access of literature.


A feudal state was sitting on top of a capitalist economy, holding it back. The state needed to be overthrown so that the capitalists could be unleashed.Perhaps generalised was the wrong word choice for me then, and dominant would have been a better one.


This pretty much sums up the whole point of internet left-communism and modern day faux-trotskyism:

you want to call yourself communist - but you accept uncritically rather than challenge liberal bourgeois propaganda - so rather than questioning and refuting the lies about socialist states you adopt them as your own and bizarrely claim that you, and not true revolutionaries who actually seized power, have a genuine claim to the term 'socialist.'

I just find it more effective to say, that's a misconception it wasn't socialist, rather than point out all the historical inaccuracies and such. I'm less of a statistics person and more of a theory one.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

@ TC,

This pretty much sums up the whole point of internet left-communism and modern day faux-trotskyism:

you want to call yourself communist - but you accept uncritically rather than challenge liberal bourgeois propaganda - so rather than questioning and refuting the lies about socialist states you adopt them as your own and bizarrely claim that you, and not true revolutionaries who actually seized power, have a genuine claim to the term 'socialist.'Did the workers control the means of production? No? Not socialism.

@ Broletariat,


I'm pretty sure you're not a Communist if you actually believe this.

The entire goal is to eliminate Capitalism, which has a basis on generalised commodity production, a symptom of which is exchange-value (money). The enabler is private property. 1) I'm not a Communist, I'm a communist.
2) The "enabler" is the private ownership of the means of production. Is that what you meant? I was thinking, you know, toothbrushes and such. I know I'm using the bourgeois definitions, but that's what everyone else understands it as, and they get the misconception that we want to abolish the right to not have your toaster stolen.
3) Money won't exist in a society that achieves "higher communism" (to be completely unambiguous) but by all accounts (and would the people with more green bars please back me up here?) the transitional socialist society will still need currency for practical reasons. You'll still need programmers, for example. Should they wonder around with their server maintenance scripts and try to get people to trade them for food?

The only time a Communist country has done away with money, afaik, is when Lenin was forced to, due to inflation etc. rendering money worthless. Of course, he tried to make it seem like it was on purpose.

[chegitz guevara]

Perhaps generalised was the wrong word choice for me then, and dominant would have been a better one.

Actually, in your description of capitalism as generalized commodity production, you were correct. You error was in not understanding that it existed before the capitalists smashed the feudal state and created their own.

[Broletariat]

Actually, in your description of capitalism as generalized commodity production, you were correct. You error was in not understanding that it existed before the capitalists smashed the feudal state and created their own.

You've taught me something through this then, thank you.



@ Broletariat,

1) I'm not a Communist, I'm a communist.

I've never understood the differentiation.


2) The "enabler" is the private ownership of the means of production. Is that what you meant? I was thinking, you know, toothbrushes and such. I know I'm using the bourgeois definitions, but that's what everyone else understands it as, and they get the misconception that we want to abolish the right to not have your toaster stolen.

This just seems like catering to the bourgeoisie framework, they developed those terms and concepts a specific way for a reason. Saying you want to enable private property is a bit confusing I think. I also think we should be working on building our own framework as opposed to working within the given one.


3) Money won't exist in a society that achieves "higher communism" (to be completely unambiguous) but by all accounts (and would the people with more green bars please back me up here?) the transitional socialist society will still need currency for practical reasons. You'll still need programmers, for example. Should they wonder around with their server maintenance scripts and try to get people to trade them for food?

The only time a Communist country has done away with money, afaik, is when Lenin was forced to, due to inflation etc. rendering money worthless. Of course, he tried to make it seem like it was on purpose.

I suppose money would be necessary in lower-communism for purposes of trading with capitalist nations (if they would trade?), but is it really necessary inside those nations that have Communism? Why wouldn't a different method of distribution work?

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Big C Communist refers to the actual Communist party, implying all of the self-declared successors to Lenin's party. Little c refers to anyone who basically agrees with communism by Marx' definition.


Saying you want to enable private property is a bit confusing I think.
I think the vast majority of people would understand it as having your own stuff. The means of production escapes the attention of the modern worker. If someone hears "no private property" they aren't going to think means of production. It just serves to perpetuate a particularly stupid myth that you can't have personal possessions like guitars, computers, etc., in a socialist (lower communist) country.

Whereas if you just say "ownership of the means of production", or even better "ownership granted by start-up loan" then you're being completely specific. It's not catering to any framework, it's catering to the needs of the workers in understanding our theory.


I suppose money would be necessary in lower-communism for purposes of trading with capitalist nations (if they would trade?), but is it really necessary inside those nations that have Communism? Why wouldn't a different method of distribution work?

The Communists wish. Sure, you can have some central planning agency give out rations according to some grand formula of the economy. But that pisses people off, and rightly so. What salient rationale is there for getting rid of a person's right to spend their money how they want? "To each according to his contribution" has always been the plan for socialist countries, including Communist countries with Communists in power. It does NOT, however, include communist countries, in which it becomes "to each according to his need".

[bezdomni]

1. http://english.pravda.ru/world/ameri...5255-famine-0/
I believe the 7 million was industrial only. I can't find the resource that told me that the other 5 million were agricultural.


Just so you know, pravda.ru is really not a reliable source at all. It is more of a tabloid magazine with some half-legitimate articles than serious journalism. You may as well be citing TMZ or something.

A good rule of thumb is this: If it ends with .ru, do not take it as a reliable news source! There are a handful of exceptions lenta.ru (http://www.lenta.ru) being one of them.