Killings in socialist countries

[Philosophos]

Hello everyone I wasn't sure where to put this thread so I post it here because there going to be many different opinions.

So I hear about all the killings that took place in the socialist countries and I would like to ask you if you agree with it.

I'm not talking about killing the guys who oppose socialism/communism I'm talking about people who might be innocent and the ones who might not be (guys that there is suspicion of ruining the state)

What's your opinion of this issue? Do you believe it's necessary to kill so many people to maintain socialism or not? If yes do you feel comfortable knowing that there might be some people getting killed for no actual reason?

Last but not least do you believe there is another way for maintaining socialism?

Sorry if I made any mistakes my english are not that good :D

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Do you believe it's necessary to kill so many people to maintain socialism or not? If yes do you feel comfortable knowing that there might be some people getting killed for no actual reason?

Listen, you have to view all of this in context. In Russia, after the Bolsheviks came to power, they faced invasion by 14 countries, counter-revolutionary sabotage (which included assassination, destruction of important facilities, etc.) which culminated in civil war, etc. In this situation, the Red Terror used, while not a favorable option that was to anyone's liking, was absolutely necessary to defend the revolution. In contrast, the Stalinist purges of Old Bolshevik figures like Bukharin, etc. is completely unjustified by material conditions. If such measures show themselves to be necessary, no one would feel comfortable with innocent people being killed.


Last but not least do you believe there is another way for maintaining socialism?

Revolution and dismantling the bourgeois state is of absolute necessity for establishing socialism, and because of this fact a form of "Red Terror" is extremely likely to be a necessary response to violent counter-revolutionaries but we cannot predict the future. If it is not absolutely necessary, it will not be instituted.

[Dean]

Hello everyone I wasn't sure where to put this thread so I post it here because there going to be many different opinions.

So I hear about all the killings that took place in the socialist countries and I would like to ask you if you agree with it.

I'm not talking about killing the guys who oppose socialism/communism I'm talking about people who might be innocent and the ones who might not be (guys that there is suspicion of ruining the state)
I'm assuming you're making the distinction between killings to "cleanse" populations (like Khmer Rogue) and killing in defense of the state / society. Of course the former are wrong, and any functioning socialist society (read: worker controlled) would be highly unlikely to carry these out, since that would essentially entail a group of people sitting down together and concluding that some of themselves must be executed. Rather absurd, but I guess it's possible?

Either way, I completely oppose "red terror" style killings, and I suspect most here agree with me.


What's your opinion of this issue? Do you believe it's necessary to kill so many people to maintain socialism or not? If yes do you feel comfortable knowing that there might be some people getting killed for no actual reason?

If it is a case of militant actively assaulting and conspiring to bring down a democratic or socialist civil society, it isn't surprising that they would be targeted. I can't think of a nation or society that wouldn't defend itself in this way if it had to.


Last but not least do you believe there is another way for maintaining socialism?

Sorry if I made any mistakes my english are not that good :D
Don't worry, you were clear enough in your language.

As for how to maintain socialism... there are plenty of ideas out there, but I think the best ones are the most obvious. For one thing, if we are talking about socialism, we are talking about a kind of democracy (or popular engagement) that has the power to manage our economic and state forces. I don't see the immediate problem that needs to be dealt with here; that is, why should we expect that such a society would be unstable? In fact, egalitarian societies are by their nature more stable than unequal, competitive societies, since they do not have the inherent contradictions that cause capitalist societies to falter.

Of course there are threats to the social fabric of any society. The obvious one is external threats, and those need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. For instance, foreign manipulation of currency deserves a different reaction than foreign military bombardment, and voter/communications fraud is another issue as well. I don't see any reason why socialism would inherently be any more vulnerable with these examples, and they would need to be addressed in any society.

I would like to add, however, that assuming a stable civil society exists, and socialism has maintained an economy of abundance, executions would probably be completely outlawed. Free human beings in a cohesive, prosperous society do not typically have any desire to harm their fellow man, and I certainly don't see executions as some kind of sustaining force for socialist societies. Quite the opposite, I think they perpetuate aggression in society and have very little place in advanced social organization.

[RedHammer]

So I hear about all the killings that took place in the socialist countries and I would like to ask you if you agree with it.

Some of what you hear is fair criticism, but be careful not to swallow all the bull.

You need to take it in context and check the sources used. Regarding the Bolsheviks, they were responding to counter-revolution, in a Russia that was just recovering from a devastating World War I, and in a climate of fierce political and financial uncertainty. I am sure abuses were committed, but the alternative - having the White Army win - would have been much worse for Russia.

And what about Stalin? I recommend you check out http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/ (http://www.stalinsociety.co.uk) ; it's only one source, to be sure, but it will answer many of your questions about Stalin and the opinions surrounding the man.

Let's get one thing straight: Stalin was an authoritarian. He conducted purges, he sent people to gulags. But, again, take it in context: we are talking about a time of global depression, sabotage, espionage, intense industrialization, all while leading up to WWII.

Stalin was a brutal leader but a capable leader and under his leadership, Russia was able to fight the Nazis. To expect fairy tales from socialism is unrealistic; considering the material conditions and the political climate of the time, Stalin got the job done.

That's not an apology for Stalin; many people here feel Stalin destroyed socialism in the Soviet Union. As for me, I don't think Russia was in prime condition for revolution in 1917 and I'm unsurprised that "socialism" got derailed by all the woes of the day.

Also, while some people sent to the gulags were political prisoners, there were, believe it or not, actual criminals among them: thieves, murderers, rapists, and the sort. It's a false notion that anybody ever arrested must have been some harmless poet or political prophet with a beautiful message to share with the world * (MRN2)

Mao? There are some good threads discussing Mao. Again, China was a feudal backwater and despite the costs of revolution, the Chinese Revolution was a major turning point in that it allowed the Chinese people the first opportunity in ages to steer their own destiny.

Be able to separate famine deaths from murder. People will say "Mao killed 50 million people", but what they mean is that 50 million people may have died during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution; most of them died from famine or other material problems, which are unavoidable and the result of insufficient material production as well as poor policy.

It's not the same thing as Mao sitting in a room deliberately and intentionally planning on killing people. Famines happened before Mao, and they happen all over the world in capitalist countries to this day.

Some "leaders" were genuine psychopathic killers, such as Pol Pot. Nobody defends him and nobody should.



What's your opinion of this issue? Do you believe it's necessary to kill so many people to maintain socialism or not? If yes do you feel comfortable knowing that there might be some people getting killed for no actual reason? I believe it is necessary to use force sometimes, yes. Pacifism will not free the working class.


Last but not least do you believe there is another way for maintaining socialism?
I believe that in the initial stages of the revolution and socialism, there will be conflict and violence. Few revolutions have ever occurred peacefully (including bourgeois revolutions). At some point, however, once we have smashed capitalism, there will be much less of a need for force.

[l'Enfermé]

If you stay here longer you will find that genuine Marxist are not so delusional as to think that any of the 20th century "communist states" were properly communist, with the exception of the Soviet Union prior to the Stalinist counter-revolution.

Was the Red Terror justified? It was surely a pretty ugly thing, but considering the circumstances, personally, I can't condemn it.

[RedHammer]

If you stay here longer you will find that genuine Marxist are not so delusional as to think that any of the 20th century "communist states" were properly communist, with the exception of the Soviet Union prior to the Stalinist counter-revolution. None of those states ever even pretended to be communist. The Soviet Union, after all, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

If we're talking about 20th century history, we're talking about the successes and failures of socialism, or at least, attempted socialism. Communism doesn't even enter the discussion at all.

And can you elaborate on the "Stalinist counter-revolution"? Or are you just buying into the bourgeois garbage?

[l'Enfermé]

Nah, bullsht, bro.



Let's get one thing straight: Stalin was an authoritarian. He conducted purges, he sent people to gulags. But, again, take it in context: we are talking about a time of global depression, sabotage, espionage, intense industrialization, all while leading up to WWII.

Stalin was a brutal leader but a capable leader and under his leadership, Russia was able to fight the Nazis. To expect fairy tales from socialism is unrealistic; considering the material conditions and the political climate of the time, Stalin got the job done.
Not really. If it wasn't for Stalin's abhorrent and incompetent "leadership", the USSR wouldn't have been in such an unfavorable position in 1941 to begin with!
1) The Nazis would never have won power if it wasn't for the deranged and counter-revolutionary policies of Stalin's Comintern
2) If they did, the Red Army would have been in a proper shape to face Geramny if Stalin's didn't kill most of it's talented officers because he was afraid he'd lose his previous power. Instead of losing 27 million people, the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have lost half of that.


That's not an apology for Stalin; many people here feel Stalin destroyed socialism in the Soviet Union. As for me, I don't think Russia was in prime condition for revolution in 1917 and I'm unsurprised that "socialism" got derailed by all the woes of the day.
How can Russia not have been in prime condition for revolution in 1917 if in 1917, the Russian proletariat was the most militant and conscious in the world? Don't throw around this stupid cliché .


Also, while some people sent to the gulags were political prisoners, there were, believe it or not, actual criminals among them: thieves, murderers, rapists, and the sort. It's a false notion that anybody ever arrested must have been some harmless poet or political prophet with a beautiful message to share with the world * (MRN2)

I believe that the figure of 2.5 million people sentenced for "political" crimes were part of the GULAG system is usually thrown around. Doesn't seem too ridiculous but I'm not very interested in this stuff so I wouldn't really know.

[l'Enfermé]

None of those states ever even pretended to be communist. The Soviet Union, after all, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

If we're talking about 20th century history, we're talking about the successes and failures of socialism, or at least, attempted socialism. Communism doesn't even enter the discussion at all.

And can you elaborate on the "Stalinist counter-revolution"? Or are you just buying into the bourgeois garbage?
Marx did not make any distinction between "Socialism" and "Communism". Because there's is none. Lenin made no such distinction either. Marx divided Communism into lower-phase communism and higher-phase communism. Lenin did likewise, quoting Marx in The State and Revolution.

What bourgeois garbage? There is basically 3 lines of bourgeois thought when it comes to Stalininism
1) Stalinism was the logical and natural evolution of Leninism/Bolshevism, even though Lenin wasn't so nasty and Marx was sorta alright just misguided
2) Stalinism was the logical and natural evolution of Leninism/Bolshevism, and actually Lenin was also as bad but Marx was sorta alright but misguided
3) Stalinism was the logical and natural evolution of Leninism/Bolshevism, and actually Lenin and Marx were both as bad, even worse than Hitler and Satan and Gay Marriage and Abortion put together.

How is my view, that the counter-revolution of the Stalinist bureaucracy ran contrary to the spirit and practice of Marxism, Leninism, and the Proletarian Revolution of October/November 1917, bourgeois garbage?

I'm not able to comprehend this.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, yes, every Socialist actually envisions a society where the party maintains authoritarian control and kills everyone who raises an eyebrow at the smallest policy detail.

We take our inspiration from 1984, if you want to join us on Mondays at 10:00 for a couple of minutes' hate, you're welcome...:rolleyes:

[Positivist]

Well first and foremost, discard the ridiculous figures of Stalin killing 20 million or Mao killing 200 million or anything like that. From 1-1.5 million suspected political opponents of the regime were executed or died in incarceration under Stalin's regime. Another 5-10 million died from a famines called holdomor in Ukraine, which resulted primarily from kulak sabotage, and incompetence of the local government (the local Soviet officials did not report the volume of cattle and grain ruined by the kulaks, nor did they report a large drought.) There were also famines happening around the world at the same time as this happened in Ukraine which indicates that it was a poor growing year in general.

Most of the opposition here to the Soviet union under Stalin is not based on subscription to the propaganda of mass systematic killing, or intentional starving, and rather is founded on a percieved abandonment of internationalism in the time leading up to the second world war.

As for Mao, I am not as educated in the Chinese revolution, but I know there was a famine during the great leap forward, and mass chaos during the cultural revolution.

[RedHammer]

I'd say the post-Staliln era was the real abandonment of internationalism. "Peaceful Co-existence" is nothing short of abandoning the struggle for socialism.

[Comrades Unite!]

I'd say the post-Staliln era was the real abandonment of internationalism. "Peaceful Co-existence" is nothing short of abandoning the struggle for socialism.

I'd argue both the Stalin era and the post Stalin era are guilty of that.

Frankly what I see in Stalin is what I see in other figures I am opposed to, but then again I am brainwashed by bourgeois media:rolleyes:

[RedHammer]

I'd argue both the Stalin era and the post Stalin era are guilty of that.

Frankly what I see in Stalin is what I see in other figures I am opposed to, but then again I am brainwashed by bourgeois media

Can you elaborate?

[DasFapital]

When discussing death tolls in socialist regimes we also have to keep in mind the deaths at the hands of capitalist regimes. For example, the millions that died in India as a result of famines and unequal distribution of medical resources. Or the genocide enacted against the Native Americans in the name of Manifest Destiny. The primary flaw in the west is attributing every death that occurred under socialism to socialism while ignoring the widespread death as a result of capitalist policies. We don't hear much about the Reagan backed right wing death squads that killed hundred of thousands in Central America, the millions killed in the mass bombings of Korea and Vietnam (both of those countries had more tonnage of explosives dropped on them than were dropped on all of Europe during WWII), or the fact that the US still recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia after the Soviet backed Vietnamese took them out of power. Yes, millions died in socialist countries but by the same standards millions more have probably died under capitalism.

[RedMaterialist]

All previous class war has been brutal; slavery, feudalism, capitalism. Why would you expect the class war of socialism and capitalism to be any less brutal?

The difference with socialism is that after the capitalists are exterminated there won't be any further class society.

[Comrades Unite!]

The Class war occuring in the Soviet Union under Stalin and after placed the Laborer in the Oppressed class, Hell the Class war intensified in 1989 around the Eastern Block and Albania showing yet another example to the one's already described by Marx.