Communist Crimes

[Prabhat]

Communism and Communists have been the greatest mass murderers of World history.

They massacred over 8 crore people in Russia in 70 years.

They murdered (by Pol Pot)13 lakh people in one day in Cambodia.

They massacred over 2 crore in China.

They devasted Eastern Europe.

They have mass starved half of the population in North Korea.

And they have devastated whole of the Africa along with Islam and Christinity.

Their crimes are unforgivable.

Let us discuss their crimes so as to make people know the truth about Communism.

[Zingu]

They massacred over 8 crore people in Russia in 70 years.

I assume you are from India, useing that measuring system.

The Stalinists masacured those people; and it wasen't that high of an amount, many of those figures were exagerrated by capitalist propaganda. I'm sure some actual Stalinists can give you the sources on that.

The term "Communist" means anyone who advocates the abolishment of private party, so you can't label all of us for those crimes.



They murdered (by Pol Pot)13 lakh people in one day in Cambodia.


How the hell was Pol Pot a Communist? He wanted a pre-industrial society, even more contradictory to Marxism than ever.

Sigh, forget it, you're an idiot quite frankly, if any of that was actually done in our ideology, why would we support it?

I'm not a Leninist, Stalinist, or a Maoist, so I never would have supported any of those regimes.

[Che1990]

Absolutely none of those people you mentioned were communist, especially not Pol Pot. Stalin was not a 'real' communist although he claimed to be. And anyway, you say communism has killed all these people, I'd like to see how many capitalism has killed through exploitation and oppression, so why don't you fuck off back to your mansion cappie bastard. :angry: :angry:


:hammer:

[Che1990]

The people you mentioned can't have been communist because massacaring people is not in the communist manifesto, whereas exploitation and oppression is capitalism all over. Thankyou and goodnight.

[bolshevik butcher]

Pol Pot and stalin communists :o . Oh yeh look at the way they gave power to the workers and created equality and freedom. they only said they wre communist to gain support.

[Che1990]

Exactly, did they follow Marx's teachings? I think not.

[Che1990]

Same with Caesescu in Romania, he was a bastard who claimed to be communist.

[1936]

Ive picked shit out of my foreskin more communist then stalin and pol pot.

....thats a nice image to leave you all with

[Hiero]

Compare the USSR of the 80's to the former USSR of today.

The overthow of Socialism in the USSR has put a 2nd world nation back into the 3rd world.

Edit: I would also like to note that it isn't easy to show how many lives were saved by Communism.

In the earlier days of the revolutions in these countries amny people did die, and continued to do. Though these countries did bring many advances in education, science, health etc. These countries greatly improved living standards of the people, which was not going to happen at the great rate that it did if it was left for the neoliberal movement to invade with their sweatshops and what not.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:35 AM
The people you mentioned can't have been communist because massacaring people is not in the communist manifesto,
You haven't read it very well have you ?

[Che1990]

I think it's you who hasn't read it very well. I fucking hate it when you cappie bastards accuse us of murder when you murder a hell of a lot more. Fucking hyppocrite.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:08 PM
I fucking hate it when you cappie bastards accuse us of murder when you murder a hell of a lot more. Fucking hyppocrite.
Murder involves the initiation of force, which we are against. There is no such principle described in the communist mannifesto or any other communist literature.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 30 2005, 09:55 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 30 2005, 09:55 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 04:08 PM
I fucking hate it when you cappie bastards accuse us of murder when you murder a hell of a lot more. Fucking hyppocrite.
Murder involves the initiation of force, which we are against. There is no such principle described in the communist mannifesto or any other communist literature. [/b]
Don't fucking dodge. Pursuit of capital has led to more deaths than socialism can ever dream of and you fucking know it.

[Che1990]

Exactly, and you don't have to 'exert force' to murder. Bush has never 'exerted force' by himself yet is responsible for the deaths of millions.

[RedAnarchist]

I wonder how much communist literature Stalin read? I bet he couldnt sleep at night, knowing what damage he was doing to Communism.

[Rangeley]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 30 2005, 09:55 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 30 2005, 09:55 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 04:08 PM
I fucking hate it when you cappie bastards accuse us of murder when you murder a hell of a lot more. Fucking hyppocrite.
Murder involves the initiation of force, which we are against. There is no such principle described in the communist mannifesto or any other communist literature. [/b]
Then what about this revolution so idealised? Would this just be a peaceful one without force?

How many would die in America for you to get your way?

[workersunity]

im sorry sir, but you are very ignorant, if you want to make a logical case, youve gone in the opposite direction

[Rangeley]

Ok, explain my flaw.

[Intifada]

Then what about this revolution so idealised? Would this just be a peaceful one without force?


It goes a bit like this:

The workers demand an end to capitalist exploitation.

If that demand is not granted, violent revolution it must be.

[Loknar]

even though i am not a communnist I dont believe communism has ever been tried %100. there are corrupt leaders in every government.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:26 PM
I wonder how much communist literature Stalin read? I bet he couldnt sleep at night, knowing what damage he was doing to Communism.
The sick thing was he could sleep at night, which is why he was such a sadistic fucker.

[Lamanov]

Replication started rather fare until the stalinist came and fucked up the whole conception of it by calling USSR socialist. :rolleyes:

[Rangeley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:12 PM

Then what about this revolution so idealised? Would this just be a peaceful one without force?


It goes a bit like this:

The workers demand an end to capitalist exploitation.

If that demand is not granted, violent revolution it must be.
Ah, so murder and violence would infact be supported by true communists and revolutionists, in this case.

[colombiano]

Care to take a stab at How many Have died at the hands of Uncle Sam? While doing calculations don't forget to the Native Americans, and all the "Little Dirty Wars" sponsored and Funded by the CIA and Uncle Sam.However for a FAIR comparison we should look at the casualties caused by Plutocratic Governments (The US Being One) and regimes thus compared to "Communist " regimes of the past.

100k estimated just in Iraq.
source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html)

[Rangeley]

Excellent, but is that really the point here?

If you are claiming to be the good guys, and America is the bad guy for starting wars, then how can you possibly use war yourself as a method to take over, after citing its evils?

[colombiano]

If you are claiming to be the good guys, and America is the bad guy for starting wars, then how can you possibly use war yourself as a method to take over, after citing its evils?
I think history answers this question, as we have seen in the past when Socialist or "Communist" Movements have been Democratically Elected by the people.( Ex. in Latin America and or Asia ) The United States views this as a threat ( Real meaning of "threat" $$ Loss of Revenue$$) and thus intervenes and imposes Their Brand of "Democracy" which for sake of keeping this arguement short a Pluocratic Regime who's placement of power benefits the Multinational Corporate interests rather than the interest of the people of the respective country. SO you tell me how is a Socialist Revolution going to take place without war when Democracy in Not realized nor fullfilled? :blink:

[Rangeley]

SO you tell me how is a Socialist Revolution going to take place without war
That isnt the issue here.

If you claim one who wages war to get there way is evil, then how can you possibly support a war waged in the interests of the leftist revolutionaries?

[Intifada]

Ah, so murder and violence would infact be supported by true communists and revolutionists, in this case.

For a revolution to succeed, the people must back it. If they do, then violent revolution will have to be the popular choice, as a result of the ruling class' refusal to give in to the demands of the people.

[colombiano]

If you claim one who wages war to get there way is evil, then how can you possibly support a war waged in the interests of the leftist revolutionaries?
Did you not read ?
I am NOT supporting war based on the Interest of a handful of Leftist Revolutionaries. However when Democractic Means are not fullfilled and overruled by the Ruling Elite what other choices are there?
If a Socilaist Movement is elected by the people and thus nullified by Imperial Intervention what is the Solution?Upon this intervention The ONLY means of reconizing what The People had Democratically chosen is through violence. No different than that of the American Revolution.


That isnt the issue here

It is precisely the issue. You asked how can I support violence as a means of achieving a Socialist Revolution and I have given you the reasons why with examples of such to follow.

[Rangeley]

So only if pretty much everyone wants change, but something prevents that from being carried out will there be a revolution?

[Bolshevist]

They massacred over 8 crore people in Russia in 70 years.

From "Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union" by Mario Sousa, the record says that from 1934 to 1953 1.053.829 people died, but this also includes criminals. That is 52.691 deaths per year and the average % of counter-revolutionaries in the Soviet prison system was 31%. That is hardly what I would call genocide or "tens of millions" deaths, it is obvious that the 'facts' presented by pro-capitalist scholars are nothing but lies!


Exactly, did they follow Marx's teachings? I think not.

You don't have to be a Marxist to be a communist. Marxism does not hold monopoly over communism, and there are many examples of where communists are not Marxists (such as anarchists, council communists (although they might use Marx's analysis of capitalism though) 'Pol Potists' and such).

[Intifada]

So only if pretty much everyone wants change, but something prevents that from being carried out will there be a revolution?

Yes.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:25 PM
So only if pretty much everyone wants change, but something prevents that from being carried out will there be a revolution?
Democracy means: government by the people.

If the people do not want capitalism in america, and america is still capitalistic... that wouldn't be government by the people.



If you claim one who wages war to get there way is evil, then how can you possibly support a war waged in the interests of the leftist revolutionaries?


No, we claim someone who wages war against the will of the people they govern, or wages war for no reason other than their own benefit, or with no justification than it is evil. And we don't support a war that is just for a handful of people. We support a revolution for the PROLETARIAT. That's 80% of the US-of-A. And revolution would of course be a last resort if capitalists would not go peacefully despite the well-being of the people.

[Rangeley]

If the people do not want capitalism in america, and america is still capitalistic... that wouldn't be government by the people.
But right now, a vast majority do want capitalism or atleast a form of it. Yet some, not necessarilly you or anyone who has posted here, do want a revolution even though it would go against what the people want.

You consider these people wrong, right?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:56 AM


But right now, a vast majority do want capitalism or atleast a form of it. Yet some, not necessarilly you or anyone who has posted here, do want a revolution even though it would go against what the people want.
Notice why we aren't starting a revolution yet? :lol:

People will revolt when they want to.

They are not wrong, currently, Capitalism has not run into enough internal contradictions and/or the condition of the proletariat is not at the level that is worth revolting over. It will take time for class counsciness among the wage workers is evoked.

[Rangeley]

Yea, but lets say a group of militants attempts one and it succeeds, and all of you get the government you want.

Would you support it, or want to go back to capitalism because thats what the majority wants?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:05 AM
Yea, but lets say a group of militants attempts one and it succeeds, and all of you get the government you want.

Would you support it, or want to go back to capitalism because thats what the majority wants?
No, because the government (or in many of our cases, the absence of government; anarchists) must be established by the proletariat, not by some outside guerilla group or a elite members of a party with one special interest.

Depends, as an anti-imperialist, I would support it, as it helps to undermine global capitalism. But, if this was a Stalinist, or Maoist revolution, I would join the Communist Left oppisition to oppose the new government in hopes of setting up one that is democractic and run by the working class, not by a 'Communist Party'.



"We" will not set up the government, the people will.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:25 PM
So only if pretty much everyone wants change, but something prevents that from being carried out will there be a revolution?
Not everyone.

The capitalists will do everything to hang onto power and the means of production.

Its called class war, the proletariat against the capitalists, the past against the future.

[Rangeley]

Capitalism is modern day, not past. But you do have clever word choice.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:29 AM
Capitalism is modern day, not past. But you do have clever word choice.
I meant by Capitalism will be the past hence when Socialism comes calling.

The capitalists will struggle to keep their system in place, introducing fascism maybe to control the proletariat.
While the proletariat will fight for Socialism, the future compared to Capitalism, that will be viewed to be reactionary when the revolution breaks out.

[Free Spirit]

If you claim one who pay war to get there way is evil, then how can you possibly support a war waged in the interests of the leftist revolutionaries?


I’m a radical pacifist but I do know that the violence will be un-freely needed as we rather choose to do something about the unfairness of the society because we choose liberation through violence rather then prison through violence (those are the only choices). If you could have the fairness that free we wouldn’t have capitalism, imperialism and the long list of injustice.
We are not asking for violence, they are and dragging us into their own war
But we have not much of a choice if we want us and the next generation and the generation after that to have a life with fair rights.

And if there will ever be such a fight communist will be fighting for human rights and they for money. So what do you do? Fight or let your right, liberty and fairness die?
In this way we wouldn't be choosing war but out rights to justice.
Simple as it could be!

[Professor Moneybags]

Murder involves the initiation of force, which we are against. There is no such principle described in the communist mannifesto or any other communist literature.
Don't fucking dodge. Pursuit of capital has led to more deaths than socialism can ever dream of and you fucking know it.

"The pursuit of capital ?" Are you saying that earning money and stealing it are two phenomenon of the same order ? What a con-artist. <_<

You are the one who is evading the issue; the difference between the two is that one involves the initiation of force, while the other doesn&#39;t. Hence the non-initiation of force principle that I embrace and you reject in favor of "anything goes" democracy which has a proven track record of initiating force against people.

[Professor Moneybags]

Exactly, and you don&#39;t have to &#39;exert force&#39; to murder.

Yes you do. I said "initiate" it, not exert it.


Bush has never &#39;exerted force&#39; by himself yet is responsible for the deaths of millions.

Yeah yeah, and bombing Naz- er, I mean German civilians during WW2 = war crime. Spare me the crocodile tears.

[NovelGentry]

"The pursuit of capital ?" Are you saying that earning money and stealing it are two phenomenon of the same order ?

Money is not inherently capital.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"The pursuit of capital ?" Are you saying that earning money and stealing it are two phenomenon of the same order ? What a con-artist. <_<

Well if nobody&#39;s earning money it becomes a little hard to steal.


You are the one who is evading the issue; the difference between the two is that one involves the initiation of force, while the other doesn&#39;t. Hence the non-initiation of force principle that I embrace and you reject in favor of "anything goes" democracy which has a proven track record of initiating force against people.

ARe you delusional, or just blind? Or have you just not noticed that when people actually apply principles of your stripe to real life, historically it has meant a small group of rich white men getting richer and screwing the world for everybody else?

[Professor Moneybags]

You are the one who is evading the issue; the difference between the two is that one involves the initiation of force, while the other doesn&#39;t. Hence the non-initiation of force principle that I embrace and you reject in favor of "anything goes" democracy which has a proven track record of initiating force against people.

ARe you delusional, or just blind? Or have you just not noticed that when people actually apply principles of your stripe to real life, historically it has meant a small group of rich white men getting richer and screwing the world for everybody else?

I don&#39;t suppose you care to explain how this happens, do you ? (No straw men.)

No one has ever applied these principles consistently "in real life"; the only people to have followed them partially have created a civilized society. The only people "everyone else" got screwed by were each other.

If respecting people&#39;s rights results in a dictatorship, then what does violating their rights supposedly result in ? Utopia ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don&#39;t suppose you care to explain how this happens, do you ? (No straw men.)

Of course. Nearly all wars and a lot of atroicites have occurred thanks to the pursuit of capital. The two world wars were both attempts to grab land, which can be turned to produce capital.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Rangeley+May 30 2005, 07:51 PM--> (Rangeley @ May 30 2005, 07:51 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 05:12 PM

Then what about this revolution so idealised? Would this just be a peaceful one without force?


It goes a bit like this:

The workers demand an end to capitalist exploitation.

If that demand is not granted, violent revolution it must be.
Ah, so murder and violence would infact be supported by true communists and revolutionists, in this case. [/b]
Not really, you misake a revolution for a coup.

An easy mistake for the uneducated.

[Professor Moneybags]

Of course. Nearly all wars and a lot of atroicites have occurred thanks to the pursuit of capital.

Wars are caused by one party initiating force against another, in most cases, it involves the siezure of property. This involves the violation of property rights, which are central to capitalism. Violating property rights in the name of capitalism makes about as much sense as economic inequality in the name of communism.


The two world wars were both attempts to grab land, which can be turned to produce capital.

Forgetting something are we (property rights) ?

There&#39;s no moral difference between the Nazi invasion of Poland and the revolution you are planning. Both are attempts to sieze the unearned by force.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wars are caused by one party initiating force against another, in most cases, it involves the siezure of property. This involves the violation of property rights, which are central to capitalism. Violating property rights in the name of capitalism makes about as much sense as economic inequality in the name of communism.

The concept of private property brings the concept of theft. You cannot have larceny if there is no property to steal. Capitalism causes theft.


There&#39;s no moral difference between the Nazi invasion of Poland and the revolution you are planning. Both are attempts to sieze the unearned by force.

Here&#39;s where subjectivism comes into play. I think we should take back what is rightfully ours, and you disagree. Neither of us is likely to change our opinion, so one of us will resort to violence to get our way.

[Professor Moneybags]

The concept of private property brings the concept of theft.

Property is evil becuase we can steal it ?


You cannot have larceny if there is no property to steal.

It&#39;s already been stolen.


Capitalism causes theft.

Yeah, and air pollution is the fault of Henry Ford.


Here&#39;s where subjectivism comes into play. I think we should take back what is rightfully ours, and you disagree. Neither of us is likely to change our opinion, so one of us will resort to violence to get our way.

Might makes right, does it ? Why don&#39;t you just give up all pretence of rationality ?

And subjectivism ? Don&#39;t make me laugh.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It&#39;s already been stolen.

You say stolen, I say liberated. Property and theft are abstract human concepts, and since abstract concepts have little bearing on the real physical world, rather than the moralistic plateau of human thought, the objective analysis is that it is neither.


Might makes right, does it ? Why don&#39;t you just give up all pretence of rationality ?

Because using force is rational. It is the most effective way of getting your own way. That is why it is so despised by both weak and strong.


And subjectivism ? Don&#39;t make me laugh.

Abstract, nonmaterial concepts such as property and theft are entirely subjective. One is entirely free to make their own judgements about it. You cannot be subjective about the material world, but you can be about the mental.

[Professor Moneybags]

You say stolen, I say liberated. Property and theft are abstract human concepts, and since abstract concepts have little bearing on the real physical world, rather than the moralistic plateau of human thought, the objective analysis is that it is neither.

They&#39;re no more subjective than gravity.


Because using force is rational.

Retaliating, yes. Initiating, no.


It is the most effective way of getting your own way. That is why it is so despised by both weak and strong.

Are you one of these people who *****es about police brutality ?


Abstract, nonmaterial concepts such as property and theft are entirely subjective.

Go and murder someone. I&#39;m sure the police will love to hear your subsequent excuse : "It might be murder to you, but not to me it isn&#39;t &#33;"


One is entirely free to make their own judgements about it. You cannot be subjective about the material world, but you can be about the mental.

True for you, but not for me.

[OleMarxco]

Right. So you say Stalin&#39;s purging of his fellow Bolshevik&#39;s in the thirties was so &#39;Communist&#39; of him, two wasn&#39;t it? Killing his opponents so he could go away from the road to Communism and start slaying peasents like WHUT&#33; Goin&#39; for a new personal record&#33; :lol:

Threads like this should be locked, and...shall we say...&#39;sent to the gulag&#39;s&#39;. Who&#39;se with me? :ph34r:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 2 2005, 03:23 PM
Retaliating, yes. Initiating, no.

Im sorry but that&#39;s rubbish, what if you knew someone was going to kill all your children, would it be wrong to initiate force?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 2 2005, 09:39 PM
Im sorry but that&#39;s rubbish, what if you knew someone was going to kill all your children, would it be wrong to initiate force?
That wouldn&#39;t be initiating, would it ?

[red_orchestra]

Is it the political ideology which brings people to murder or is it men with large egos? I think politics don&#39;t lend to murder unless the person in charge is bent on killing. Communism takes many forms, you must understand.

The USA is largest murdering force on the planet, and they are imperialists not Communists. PolPot was a dictator funded by the USA... Osama Bin Laden and the Musahadihn were funded by the USA back in the 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s... the Teliban were given weapons by the USA... Right wing militias in Africa were funded by the USA... and all of these groups murdered innocent people in the thousands. Some groups like PolPot&#39;s dicatorship killed 100,000 people, possabiliy more. the US gave weapons to him and turned a blind eye to his terror.

....don&#39;t tell me Communists are to blame. If you do some research you will find that the USA is behind 90% of the world problems thank you&#33;