Log in

View Full Version : Faux-communist Murders



Capitalist Lawyer
20th August 2005, 19:27
How many did communist regimes murder?



First, however, I should clarify the term democide. It means for governments what murder means for an individual under municipal law. It is the premeditated killing of a person in cold blood, or causing the death of a person through reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Thus, a government incarcerating people in a prison under such deadly conditions that they die in a few years is murder by the state--democide--as would parents letting a child die from malnutrition and exposure be murder. So would government forced labor that kills a person within months or a couple of years be murder.


So would government created famines that then are ignored or knowingly aggravated by government action be murder of those who starve to death. And obviously, extrajudicial executions, death by torture, government massacres, and all genocidal killing be murder. However, judicial executions for crimes that internationally would be considered capital offenses, such as for murder or treason (as long as it is clear that these are not fabricated for the purpose of executing the accused, as in communist show trials), are not democide. Nor is democide the killing of enemy soldiers in combat or of armed rebels, nor of noncombatants as a result of military action against military targets.

With this understanding of democide, Table 1 lists all communist governments that have committed any form of democide and gives their estimated total domestic and foreign democide and its annual rate (the percent of a government's domestic population murdered per year). It also shows the total for communist guerrillas (including quasi-governments, as of the Mao soviets in China prior to the communist victory in 1949) and the world total for all governments and guerillas (including such quasi-governments as of the White Armies during the Russian civil war in 1917-1922). Figure 1 graphs the communist megamurderers and compares this to the communist and world totals.

Of course, eventhough systematically determined and calculated, all these figures and their graph are only rough approximations. Even were we to have total access to all communist archives we still would not be able to calculate precisely how many the communists murdered. Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still disagree by over 40 percent on the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis. We cannot expect near this accuracy for the victims of communism. We can, however, get a probable order of magnitude and a relative approximation of these deaths within a most likely range. And that is what the figures in Table 1 are meant to be. Their apparent precision is only due to the total for most communist governments being the summation of dozens of subtotals (as of forced labor deaths each year) and calculations (as in extrapolating scholarly estimates of executions or massacres).

With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.

Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.

In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.

Figure 2 shows the major sources of death for those murdered under communism and compares this to world totals for each source for this century. A few of these sources require some clarification. Deaths through government terrorism means the killing of specific individuals by assassination, extrajudicial executions, torture, beatings, and such. Massacre, on the other hand, means the indiscriminate mass killing of people, as in soldiers machine gunning demonstrators, or entering a village and killing all of its inhabitants. As used here, genocide is the killing of people because of their ethnicity, race, religion, or language. And democide through deportation is the killing of people during their forced mass transportation to distant regions and their death as a direct result, such as through starvation or exposure. Democidal famine is that which is purposely caused or aggravated by government or which is knowingly ignored and aid to its victims is withheld.

As can be seen in the figure, communist forced labor was particularly deadly. It not only accounts for most deaths under communism, but is close to the world total, which also includes colonial forced labor deaths (as in German, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies). Communists also committed genocide, to be sure, but only near half of the world total. Communists are much less disposed to massacre then were many other noncommunist governments (such as the Japanese military during World War II, or the Nationalist Chinese government from 1928 to 1949). As can be seen from the comparative total for terrorism, communists were much more discriminating in their killing overall, even to the extent in the Soviet Union, communist China, and Vietnam, at least, of using a quota system. Top officials would order local officials to kill a certain number of "enemies of the people," "rightists", or "tyrants".

How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.

Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism in practice, even after decades of total control, did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made their living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during 1921-23 and 7,000,000 from 1932-3) and communist China (about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine. This is as though the total population of Turkey, Iran, or Thailand had been completely wiped out. And that something like 35,000,000 people fled communist countries as refugees, as though the countries of Argentina or Columbia had been totally emptied of all their people, was an unparalleled vote against the utopian pretensions of Marxism-Leninism.

But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. After all, did not Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao say that. . . . In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.

What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state's instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the family. The result is what we see in Table 1.

But communism does not stand alone in such mass murder. We do have the example of Nazi Germany, which may have itself murdered some 20,000,000 Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Yugoslaves, Frenchmen, and other nationalities. Then there is the Nationalist government of China under Chiang Kai-shek, which murdered near 10,000,000 Chinese from 1928 to 1949, and the Japanese militarists who murdered almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Indochinese, Koreans, Filipinos, and others during world War II. And then we have the 1,000,000 or more Bengalis and Hindus killed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 by the Pakistan military. Nor should we forget the mass expulsion of ethnic Germans and German citizens from Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, particularly by the Polish government as it seized the German Eastern Territories, killing perhaps over 1,000,000 of them. Nor should we ignore the 1,000,000 plus deaths in Mexico from 1900 to 1920, many of these poor Indians and peasants being killed by forced labor on barbaric haciendas. And one could go on and on to detail various kinds of noncommunist democide.

But what connects them all is this. As a government's power is more unrestrained, as its power reaches into all the corners of culture and society, and as it is less democratic, then the more likely it is to kill its own citizens. There is more than a correlation here. As totalitarian power increases, democide multiplies until it curves sharply upward when totalitarianism is near absolute. As a governing elite has the power to do whatever it wants, whether to satisfy its most personal desires, to pursue what it believes is right and true, it may do so whatever the cost in lives. In this case power is the necessary condition for mass murder. Once an elite have it, other causes and conditions can operated to bring about the immediate genocide, terrorism, massacres, or whatever killing an elite feels is warranted.

Finally, at the extreme of totalitarian power we have the greatest extreme of democide. Communist governments have almost without exception wielded the most absolute power and their greatest killing (such as during Stalin's reign or the height of Mao's power) has taken place when they have been in their own history most totalitarian. As most communist governments underwent increasing liberalization and a loosening of centralized power in the 1960s through the 1980s, the pace of killing dropped off sharply.

Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

LSD
20th August 2005, 19:35
Seriously, was there even a point to that?

You've been at this board long enough to know what the responses are going to be. You know that people are going to point out that the governments in question were not communist, that their governments were in no way representative of Marxism. You know that someone else will mention that capitalist governments have killed even more and someone else that bourgeois history is biased on the issue of communism.

You know this.

You've seen this conversation before, I'd wager that you've even been a part of it. Was it "fun"? Did you "enjoy" the useless back and forth on whether governments none of us agree with did things none of us agree with?

No? Then why start the whole "black book" rigaramole again? Unless you have an especially masochistic streak or just suffered sever head trauma, I really can't see the point.

For your sake, I'm going to assume that you are particularly drunk. The alternative, of course, is that you're just very very stupid.

Take your pick.

Urban Rubble
20th August 2005, 19:36
Not only have the authors of "The Black Book of Communism" admitted to inflating and downright lying about figures to get the 100 million number, there have also been famines in India which have killed more than that, in one country.

Back to the drawing board asshole. Unless you'd like to compare the numbers of "Capitalist" India's deaths to "Communist" China's.

Edit: Haha, I just read LSD's post.

I'd also like to point out that my response is not an attempt to point out the "fact" that Communism kills less than Capitalism, my point is that the nation state system as a whole has been responsible for a lot of unnecessary deaths, not any particular ideology.

Sabocat
20th August 2005, 19:38
*yawn*

Xvall
20th August 2005, 19:47
omg lame thread.

Forward Union
20th August 2005, 21:01
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2005, 06:45 PM
How many did communist regimes murder?


What communist regimes? :lol:

oh well, I would read the rest but after that introduction the entire thing becomes Invalid

have a nice day.

Comrade Hector
21st August 2005, 00:32
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2005, 06:45 PM


Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.

Now wait a minute, Capitalist Lawyer! Aren't you forgetting something about Pol Pot? Apparently, you've forgotten the post I made a while back about your beloved United States aiding Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge cut-throats. Remember how you and and other right-wing scum avoided that post and made no critical comments?

To make a long story short, I'll keep it simple: here is the thread https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=28597&hl= (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28597&hl=)

Remember the American position on Pol Pot:

"I CALL ON CHINA TO SUPPORT POL POT. THE U.S AS CHINA HAS SENT ARMS TO THE KHMER ROUGE THROUGH THAILAND."

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI 1980
US NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO JIMMY CARTER

ÑóẊîöʼn
21st August 2005, 00:39
Since I'm not a state capitalist, why does this matter?

Wait, it doesn't. Never mind.

JazzRemington
21st August 2005, 02:52
Wow, this thread got owned.

red_orchestra
21st August 2005, 04:01
...and the US has never commited murder in the name of politics scoff scoff scoff

BS!

Camarada
21st August 2005, 04:10
The word "democide" is a horribly contrived neologism as the root "demo" actually comes from "demos" meaning "the people" and it would not be accurate to describe a murder committed by a government as "democide" since that implies murder by "the people".

anyways, those regimes weren't communist at all

MoscowFarewell
21st August 2005, 04:23
Want me to tell you how many has America killed?

I would if they had a counter for that f'in size.

Martin Blank
21st August 2005, 05:24
Urban Rubble already handled the issue of the so-called "Black Book of Communism" and the fact that the numbers quoted in it were pulled out of some anonymous ass only known to its authors.

But, even if we were to give this nimrod the benefit of the doubt, and accept this number of 100 million deaths, it still does not even begin to match the slaughterhouse that capitalism built. Between the genocide of First Nations in North and South America, and the Middle Passage (the trade in Africans held as slaves), capitalism racked up well over 100 million corpses without breaking a sweat. (There are some scholars that say that the Middle Passage alone accounts for 100 million deaths.)

Miles

red_orchestra
21st August 2005, 09:13
Death by Capitalism:

some would say the figure is in the 500 Million range...and thats just in the last century alone.

Figures Included from:

*World death rates from preventable diseases--starvation...neglected areas
*Civil War/conflicts
*Pollution--environmental disasters~ ties with Corperate ventures
WWI
WWII
Korean War
Cuban "crisis"
Vietnam
Gulf War
Bosnia/Yugoslavia
Afganistan
Iraq Invasion

Comrade Hector
23rd August 2005, 07:23
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20 2005, 06:54 PM
Not only have the authors of "The Black Book of Communism" admitted to inflating and downright lying about figures to get the 100 million number, there have also been famines in India which have killed more than that, in one country.
Interesting. When did they finally admit it? You know, I read a bit of it on the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Although, I didn't check the source, its fair to say the source was Rambo III.

Led Zeppelin
23rd August 2005, 08:00
"For over 10,000 years the native americans lived and died throughout the vast, rich continent of North America. The burgenoning United States balanced brute military force with one economic transaction after another, on one hand slaugthering entire tribes, on the other "buying" enourmous tracts of land for exploitation. With control over nearly all native american land, leaving only small plots for "reservations", the native american way of life was destroyed and the clear choice became: be assimilated into "modern" life, or rot in "irrelevance" on the reservation.

371 treaties were made by the US government with Native Americans. The United States govenment violated 370 of those treaties, to date. Over 250 years, 160 million Native Americans have been killed by the US government."

The White Book of Capitalism & Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/history/capitalism/white-book-capitalism/)

Martin Blank
23rd August 2005, 08:48
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2005, 02:41 AM
Interesting. When did they finally admit it? You know, I read a bit of it on the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Although, I didn't check the source, its fair to say the source was Rambo III.
Shortly after the Black Book came out, the authors of the sections on the USSR and China wrote to Le Monde Diplomatique and exposed the phony numbers game played by the editor.

Miles

Hegemonicretribution
23rd August 2005, 16:32
As has been pointed out the deaths were not caused by communism, just regimes. To be fair capitalism also has not been achieved, and the deaths caused have also been by regimes of a sort. Dictatorships can exist regardless of economic stance, you know this, we all do. To say communism kills look at Russia, is like saying Capitalism does, see India.

What you are refering to is the terms. Is North Korea a Democracy? According to the logic you use to classify the USSR as communist it must be. It even says so DPRK.

The anti red sentiment was one of the strongest pieces of propoganda to come out of the world ever. It makes Aslinger's attack on pot look amateur. If I was a dictator I wouldn't say so, so why do you only believe what they say if they call themselves communist.

The Sloth
23rd August 2005, 16:39
this was very stupid.

i'm sure you know, capitalistlawyer, that particular instances of "democide" do not reflect the intentions of a socio-political ideology (unless the socio-political ideology specifically calls for, say, genocide). it merely reflects the intentions of the people actually carrying out the "democide."

that being said, think about what you wrote. stalin was responsible for the death of 43,000,000 people? you are absolutely out of your mind. most of the deaths are due to the drastic economic transition from fuedalism to state socialism. and with that being said, 43,000,000 is still a tad high. dare i say, "insanely" high? no, i dare say more -- i call it a complete fabricaton that only an idiot would believe.

and with THAT being said, remember that the only way you can blame an ideology for murder is if it's the inevitable outcome. unless you prove that marxism will inevitably lead to tyranny and exploitation, your argument is non-existent.

so, if you're looking for a serious debate, and not just some reaction from us, you have a lot of work ahead of you.

Capitalist Lawyer
23rd August 2005, 22:59
Seriously, was there even a point to that?


Your lack of comprehension skills is glaring.


You've been at this board long enough to know what the responses are going to be. You know that people are going to point out that the governments in question were not communist, that their governments were in no way representative of Marxism. You know that someone else will mention that capitalist governments have killed even more and someone else that bourgeois history is biased on the issue of communism.



Repeating the same fallacy over and over again will not magically make it true.



You've seen this conversation before, I'd wager that you've even been a part of it. Was it "fun"? Did you "enjoy" the useless back and forth on whether governments none of us agree with did things none of us agree with?


You obviously did, because you spew the same vapid pablum over and over again.



No? Then why start the whole "black book" rigaramole again? Unless you have an especially masochistic streak or just suffered sever head trauma, I really can't see the point.


I have this particular respect and love for actual truth. If that is what you call "masochistic," then I'm guilty.




For your sake, I'm going to assume that you are particularly drunk. The alternative, of course, is that you're just very very stupid.



And for your sake, I'll assume that you're a deluded fucktard with a tendency to hallucinate that he actually understands the concepts which he spews, but whose hallucinations have no basis in reality whatsoever.

In other words, you are still a clueless little nitwit with delusions of grandeur.

Osman Ghazi
23rd August 2005, 23:14
CL, it hardly matters how many people self-proclaimed communist murder. Any society, feudal, capitlaist, communist or anything in between which has such glaring social divisions will always witness a certain amount of bloodshed. AS always, ideas dont kill people, organized (or in some cases, unorganized) groups of people kill people. The communist party of China and the Guomindang are the groups responsible for most of the deaths in China. The Red Army, which was always the most powerful institution in Soviet society and the White Army, as well as the numerous militas were responsible for the deaths there.

In fact, since Communism is not a corporeal force, it couldnt actually ever kill someone with it. (You couldn't for example bludgeon someone to death with communism).

CL, I agree with some of the main points that you propose, but what you are doing is not debating, its bickering.

Edit: Also, your definitions really swirl together. First, murder is usually a federal rather than a municipal matter. But more important, a government committing democide, through recklessness or wanton disregard for their life sounds a lot more like manslughter. I can name tens of thousands reckless governments who didnt mean to kill their own people, but did through ignorance and yet, you dont seem to include those in your list of democidal maniacs.

The Sloth
24th August 2005, 00:32
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM
Your lack of comprehension skills is glaring.

Repeating the same fallacy over and over again will not magically make it true.

You obviously did, because you spew the same vapid pablum over and over again.

I have this particular respect and love for actual truth. If that is what you call "masochistic," then I'm guilty.

And for your sake, I'll assume that you're a deluded fucktard with a tendency to hallucinate that he actually understands the concepts which he spews, but whose hallucinations have no basis in reality whatsoever.

In other words, you are still a clueless little nitwit with delusions of grandeur.
that was a very poor and irrelevant response. you should, instead, consider offering a rebuttal to whatever else was presented.

by the way, the phrase "deluded fucktard with a tendency to hallucinate that he actually understands the concepts which he spews, but whose hallucinations have no basis in reality whatsoever..." is ugly for a couple of reasons:

1) you switch from "you" to "him" without reason

2) there is no logical connection between "actually understanding [his own concepts]" a "tendency to hallucinate," implying that you mentally cut-and-paste from a repetoire of pre-made phrases instead of actually thinking about what you're trying to say

3) the phrase "whose hallucinations have no basis in reality whatsoever" is simply inexcusable; hallucinations, ipso facto, "have no basis in reality whatsoever," thus making repetition of the obvious a bit much.

also, using the word "little" as a negative adjective is cliched. but however cliched it is, it's still not as cliched as the phrase "delusions of grandeur." you're obviously literate, but also a little stale. that's not good.

...kidding.

i just figured that if you're not really up for serious debate, i might as well fuck around, too.

anyway, get back to us with some relevant material. peace.