4 ms·

Common definitions of atrocity associate it with intention. That leaves Genghis Khan, another totalitarian.

• GavinMcG 9y ago
  Ahh, but now we're talking about totalitarianism. That probably is better supported, historically, than what had been posited. (Also, I'd argue, totalitarianism is largely orthogonal to political organization.) In terms of data points for drawing these sorts of conclusions, our history as a species isn't all that long.
  • CamperBob2 9y ago
    There's a very strong correlation, isn't there? Unlike communism, you don't have to hold a gun to peoples' heads to get them to practice capitalism.
    • GavinMcG 9y ago
      Well, not exactly. Two of the examples above still hold; some others include the US Civil War, the Crusades and other religious conflicts, and genocides such as those in Pakistan, Armenia, and Rwanda. Sorry to be inconvenient, but I keep coming back to this: you need a better theory than these ham-fisted ones.
    • klez 9y ago
      Well, try NOT to practice capitalism or protesting it. You're in for a lot of nuisances at best and to jail at worst. The point is, capitalism seems to do a wonderful job of looking like "the good system", as soon as you stay within the boundaries. And I'm not talking about rioting. I'm talking about groups doing perfectly legal stuff getting infiltated (if they're doing nothing wrong why would you try to entrap them?) or peaceful protests broke out by force by the police. The fact that you're not stepping out of the boundaries is what gives you the impression that no-one is pointing a gun at you to practice capitalism. I'm sure plenty of people in a communist, fascist or whatever regime stayed within those boundaries and lived a happy life without guns pointed at their heads. Just witness how many people in Italy (for example) want a fascist government to come back.