• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Victims of Communism

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
I'm starting to think people want it thinking the government is the answer to their problems and are willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for safety and security.
Maybe under the hegemony of crony capitalism, people are starting to realize that the freedom to starve in the gutter of their choosing, is not as attractive as safety and security and...food for their kids. Maybe that's why the people are turning away from representative democracy and so called trickle down economics. Turning to us communists/socialists, or to our adversaries, the populists and fascists/nationalists.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Norma Cossetto, a very young woman who was killed some months before university graduation.
She was killed by the Communists led by Tito, in 1943, in Istria.

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Of course? Shes a lassiez fair free market liberal? Unfettered free market capitalism. Right? Greed and avarice in its purest form.
Let's re-examine your claim...
Yes. Unfettered state ownership, would be problematic.
Neither do I, but people like Ayn Rand (RIP) advocate for such systems.
[nevermind]
It strongly appears that you claim Rand advocated for state ownership.
I disagree.
Are you thinking of any particular book?
I think you didn't glean her messages very accurately.
You left out personal responsibility.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
She was quick to collect her state pension from the Russian government though.
Evidence of this?
What happened to being independent and not a leech on the states nipple?
Oh, you doctrinaire partisan purists...grasping at
any straw to demonize the loyal opposition.
<pats you affectionately on the head>

Rand did collect Social Security (SS) in USA.
I get it too. And while I prefer less government,
& that people support themselves, our system
exists without my approval or oversight. I play
a game with rules of someone else's making,
but in the most libertarian way practical for me.

Over many decades I paid into SS, & I'm finally
getting some return on those payments. You
might call that "leeching", but that's specious.
I call it "repayment".
BTW, I still pay income tax that exceeds my SS
income (on which I pay income tax).
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Vietnam is no longer communist. It has a lot of private enterprise, too.


It makes one wonder what the U.S. government was truly afraid of back when they were spouting off "domino theories" and creating a bogus casus belli to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It makes one wonder what the U.S. government was truly afraid of back when they were spouting off "domino theories" and creating a bogus casus belli to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War.
Do you think they didn't believe the proffered
reason of communist government conquest?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The victims of capitalism number millions, and thousands are sacrificed daily to "mammon". ;)


Typically, leftists have responded to the accusations levelled at “communism” by discussing the accuracy of the statistics cited and the logic of the arguments proposed. As Chomsky (Citation2016) ably argued, using findings from Amartya Sen, we can apply the same approach of the authors of BBC to
conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed … experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone.

This should put the matter to rest, but we could and should go even further and blame capitalists for all the deaths related to colonialism, imperialism, inter-capitalist wars, famines, and premature deaths due to industrial accidents, workplace negligence, and inadequate healthcare provision in all the countries outside the “Communist Bloc.” When doing this, the figure for the victims of capitalism doubtless ranges to levels that easily dwarf that mythical 100 million. The amount of death traceable to free-market policies is staggering, including such horrors as the wilful poisoning of local inhabitants at Minimata (Japan) and more recently at Flint (Michigan, US), as well as the Bhopal “accident” (India), the worst industrial accident ever. Yet searching for and acquiring all the gruesome information would need years of dedicated study, alongside generous funding. The task would be as monumental as the sheer enormity of capitalist destructiveness (for a more thorough account based on several regional case studies, see Leech Citation2012).

Taking clues from Chomsky, I would like to give proponents of the “100 million victims” swindle a taste of their own methodology by examining just the war-related deaths caused by capitalism. I consider the period of 1914–1992, or from the beginning of World War I, to which the Russian Revolution is intimately tied, through the early 1990s, when hardly any “communist” country remained. Certainly, no socialist state has been engaged in “all-out war” since then. The data are mainly from Wikipedia (Citation2020) and other sources for what is unreported in Wikipedia, like the anti-communist genocide in Indonesia (Bevins Citation2020). In not a few cases, the period of conflict extends beyond the historical intervals used. It was not possible to locate data adequate to suit a periodisation compatible with the comparative analysis carried out in this editorial. However, the total mortalities from the conflicts that cross the historical intervals chosen have little effect on the war death sums per social system (capitalism or “communism”). Such discrepancies have even less bearing on the overall totals from 1914 through 2020, which is the main basis of the argument presented here.

Following anti-communists’ preference for inflating figures (aside from laying blame on those who are historical victims of aggression), I will unabashedly and deliberately go for the highest mortality totals, even if only demonstratively, and be just as relaxed about the logic of culpability. Regardless, it will become obvious that even limiting the discussion to the much more easily retrievable data on war-related deaths (using even the more statistically restrictive estimates) gives plenty of reasons to deem capitalism as much deadlier than any nominal “communism,” and by several orders of magnitude. This admittedly limited intellectual exercise has the merit of furnishing a gross underestimation of capitalism’s deadliness. In other words, if just through warfare capitalism causes more death than any horror done through alleged “communism,” it follows that capitalism must be the main focus of concern.

Aside from statistics on war-related deaths being more easily and widely available, focusing on war also makes sense because capitalism is intrinsically prone to warfare. It should not take too long to understand why. Violent conflict is eventually what happens when there are ruling economic groups constantly vying to grab resources and extract labour from oppressed classes. Capitalist ruling classes engage in ceaseless manoeuvring to outcompete each other and to outgun ruling economic groups somewhere else for the sake of endlessly accumulating economic power over the rest of society. War is a main way to gain the upper hand in the endless competition required for the endless accumulation of capital.

Capitalist Wars’ Death Tolls​

For a rapid comparison with the grand total of “100 million victims of communism” from all causes, one can start with World War I. About 23 million deaths were directly caused by mostly liberal democratic regimes at war with each other. Then, between seven and 12 million people died in the Russian Civil War, during 1917–1923 (Mawdsley Citation2009). This is entirely imputable to capitalist regimes since they intervened to crush the Revolution (the Czarists trying a military coup even earlier, arguably hastening the Revolution). Czarist forces (the White Army) tried in vain to re-impose the Romanov dictatorship while foreign governments, including the US, sent much military aid and invaded with tens of thousands of troops in support of White Army rogues. During that upheaval, a budding Turkish state’s genocide (1919–1923) included at least a quarter million dead, largely Armenian. From the early 1920s through the 1930s, the Italian government murdered nearly 400,000 people in Ethiopia (1923–1936) and 80,000 in Cyrenaica (mainly in the 1930s). In South America, the 1932–1935 Chaco War (between the Bolivian and Paraguayan states) caused possibly 130,000 deaths. The Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), entirely concocted and supported by capitalist regimes of all stripes (liberal to authoritarian), is associated with between a quarter of a million and a million deaths, with the wide uncertainty due to the suppression of information by the Franco dictatorship (1939–1975), supported throughout its existence by liberal democracies. On the other hand, 70 to 85 million people died in World War II, a war entirely again caused by capitalists and their state and fascist allies. Many major businesses (Fiat, Krupp, Volkswagen, Ford, IBM, etc.) also supported and profited from the war-imposing Fascist and Nazi regimes. And this is small wonder. Those dictatorships were based on defending private property, privatising public assets (against the general trend at the time), busting unions, and persecuting and murdering leftists of any sort. The resulting dividend for many capitalists was rising profits and greater market control (Bel Citation2006; De Grand Citation1995, 40–46).

It cannot be stressed enough that the vast majority of people killed in that conflagration lived in East Asia and Central and Eastern Europe. They were killed overwhelmingly by Japanese, German, and Italian imperialists and their local allies. Of course, the very democratic, freedom-loving US managed to mass-murder 200,000 Japanese civilians in a couple of days with the atom bomb. Overall, the USSR and China alone suffered 26.6 and 20 million deaths, respectively. This is more than half of total World War II casualties, yet in liberal democracies one is constantly fed images and narratives of white Western Europeans being the main victims. Such is the obscenely obfuscated lens that people in free-market democracies are induced to develop since childhood.

Just starting on this macabre accounting and one already arrives at roughly 101 million victims of capitalism, taking the more restrictive geometric mean. The geometric mean is used here to make death estimates comparable, as they can vary considerably. It is about 120 million if one takes the loose approach to numbers favoured by anti-communists (Table 1). In other words, within just three decades (1914–1945) capitalism murdered more than all forms of alleged killings by roughly 75 years of “communism.” As a conservative estimate, the mass killings by liberal democracies during World War I and the Russian Civil War alone account for more than 30 million deaths. Aside from all other kinds of fatalities generated by capitalists, this statistic excludes all the genocides a mere decade prior to World War I committed by liberal or free-market democracies like France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and the US.

DAxKXJ3WsAAG5qv.jpg


victimsofcapitalism.jpg
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you think they didn't believe the proffered
reason of communist government conquest?

If Vietnam is not communist, then that means the original pretext for fighting the war was bogus all along. What do you think?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Oh you commies....such simplistic rationalization
to demonize us running dogs of capitalism.

The problems you cite aren't due to capitalism
simply because some occur in some capitalist
countries.
Societies, be they capitalist, socialist, or communist
decide how to use the fruits of their economy.
Is it for miltary embiggenment, conquest, or
social services? The choice varies independently
of the system. Examples....
N Korea (socialist) favors military over social services.
So its populace is underfed, & riddled with parasites.
Norway (capitalist) favors the reverse. So its people
are happy & well fed, but it has no nukes.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If Vietnam is not communist, then that means the original pretext for fighting the war was bogus all along. What do you think?
You're confusing 2 different uses of the term "communist".
One is about an economic system. Another is a political
label for some authoritarian regimes (which might or
might not have communism). The Red Scare crowd
used the political label without regard to economics.
Even today, it's popular on the fervent right side of the
aisle to call Democrats "communists".
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh you commies....such simplistic rationalization
to demonize us running dogs of capitalism.

It's exactly the same thing you capitalists do to demonize the godless communists. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to talk about "victims of communism," then you open yourself up to this kind of argument.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's exactly the same thing you capitalists do to demonize the godless communists.
You're confusing me with someone else.
Godless is good....nay, it's great!
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to talk about "victims of communism," then you open yourself up to this kind of argument.
I don't really have much criticism for communism
because that economic system is without real
world examples. (Criticism is based upon
extrapolating from socialist systems.)

I criticize socialism for what actually happens in
socialist countries, ie, those with government
owning the means of production. The best
results under socialism are simply always worse
than the best under capitalism.
 
Top