question

[ralphusthered]

since discovering the doctrine of marxism/leninism, i have run into this question from detractors over and over again, would love some help with it. the question is always sarcastically "well, look what communism achieved with the khmer rouge and stalin, millions upon millions killed, thats what communism achieves" any answer to that? thank you.

[Deity]

That was not the result of communism that is a result of those people and their actions. Surely they are aware of all the people who have been killed by capitalists?

[subcp]

Ask them if the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' is a shining example of Democracy, direct or representative- and that therefore, because of the DPRK, the practice of democracy can only lead to totalitarian thermonuclear glorious future. Or to demonstrate that people with shit politics will call themselves whatever they want.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Aye, there's a funny double standard when it comes to "communists". When capitalism causes massive death and displacement, no one blames capitalism - they blame the victims, or the weather, or anything but capitalism. Of course, the same events and circumstances are blamed on communism when it's ideologically convenient.
In any case, regardless of how one feels about Stalin(ism), the fact remains - nothing ventured, nothing gained (to borrow a capitalist cliche). Should we continue to tolerate our present (and growing) miseries, up to and including the destruction of the biosphere, because we may not succeed at realizing an emancipatory communist project? Should we say, "Well, it might not work, so let's eat McDo and sweep floors until we die?" It's aiming pretty low.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I begin by going over the basic definition of communism (i.e. a classless, stateless, worldwide society etc). I then point out that none of the states that were part of the communist bloc ever claimed to have anything more than socialism (defining socialism and differentiating between state and stateless forms of socialism are helpful here). Usually, I follow this up with the many examples of workers' revolutions that did not result in the sort of death tolls that would make most people blanch. I also (if the person seems sympathetic) note that if one applies a strict definition of socialism, one could apply the deaths of said regimes to capitalism and not to socialism. Diety's point is also a good one as well, good examples are the White Terrors, the Bodo League Massacre, Vietnam, Pinochet etc. These should partly convince (if not your opponent) then at least the audience that the status quo is only upheld through the renewed application of brutal force on a massive scale. You could also turn this around and be like "Well look at what capitalism achieved with Mussolini and Hitler" and follow up WWII genocide statistics with examples of starvation statistics from the present day (though induced Indian famines are great to bring up as well).

EDIT: Also, if they then argue that fascism is not capitalism, what we have is corporatism etc., you can (again, depending on your level of support for the regimes) argue that similarly, Stalinism is not communism (I sometimes use this, but again, I've no idea as to your tendency).

Since my defense is a sectarian one, you may wish (depending on your preferences) to find an argument to put forth that closely resembles that put forth by your tendency, I am sure comrades much more knowledgeable than I on the history of the fSU etc. would be willing to help you there depending on your support for the regimes.

[Crixus]

That was not the result of communism that is a result of those people and their actions. Surely they are aware of all the people who have been killed by capitalists?
Capitalism as a system demands war and poverty for profits to be possible. Death under capitalism is systemic. There is no real ideology that capitalists uphold, the system makes demands, and, the capitalists, through their state, act upon the demands the market system makes. The demand is to do whatever is necessary in order to maintain economic growth. Capitalism cannot exist without perpetual growth/profits while at the same time creating poverty.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot aren't like capitalists in that regard. Communism as a system doesn't require war and poverty. The results as far as Lenin/Stalin/Mao came from trying to build communism where material conditions made it next to impossible. They had to do capitalism's job and industrialize in the name of "communism" with populations who had no idea how to democratically run an industrial society. Marx and more frequently Engels (more emphasis was put on it by Engels) always talked about the progressive nature of capitalism for it's ability to spread a sort of bourgeois democracy and for it's ability to industrialize. The quasi democracy was important to Marx/Engels because it would give workers some semblance of how society functions while at the same time setting the stage for open dissent. Widespread industry was important because without it workers couldn't run society, without it there was no majority working class. Advanced industry with an advanced working class (actual advanced capitalism) and bourgeois democracy were key per-conditions for socialism to arise. Basically capitalism had to exist in a major way in whichever nation that was going to attempt socialism. It's not socialism's job to set the stage for socialism. Lenin/Stalin/Mao used the name of socialism to do capitalism's job. Russia was not an advanced capitalist nation in 1917. China was not an advanced capitalist nation when Mao came to power. Pol pot?

Pol Pot's perversion of historical materialism AND Marxism in general was insane. It's like calling Hitler a capitalist. It would be true and untrue. One can mount a defense for Lenin attempting socialism in Russia, even Marx defended the possibility in so far as advanced capitalist nations also had worker revolutions and subsequently supported the Russian effort economically; to help Russia industrialize. In that way Russia would not have to use 'socialism' to do capitalism's job. Marx would have denounced Pol Pot but not Lenin. Although both were trying to build socialism at least Lenin understood Marx and the problematic task of building socialism in a backwards nation isolated from more advanced societies. Pol Pot wanted a more isolated backwards nation as a 'blank canvas' which has NOTHING to do with anything Marx/Engels wrote. Starting from that backwards material foundation Pol Pot kept warping Marxism to absurd levels. Mao did much of the same but in a different way, more along the lines of Lenin/Stalin. The end point is Marxist leaders trying to skip the capitalist phase of development have set the stage for authoritarianism, famine and global conflict taken up in a way that Marx/Engels would have rejected.

[ralphusthered]

so many awesome answers! thank you all very much! :)