4 ms·

As a human the body count of communism is terrifying.

by AndrewKoszela 9y ago

NiklasMort 9y ago
pretty sure capitalism is responsible for way more deaths
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Ok, how many more? Communism is estimated to have killed about 100 million people in the 20th century. How many deaths do you attribute to "capitalism"?
  - pron 9y ago
    Comparing numbers nominally is a bit unfair, as communism is a much more modern economic philosophy than capitalism, and so operated in a much more populous world, but as to direct violent deaths by capitalism, you can start with many of these here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples It's true that one could say that that kind of capitalism wasn't really capitalism, or that capitalism has changed since then, but the same could be said for communism.
yorwba 9y ago
I'd attribute those to mistakes in central planning (attempting to industrialize agrarian societies without securing the food supply) and to the usual death toll of authoritarian regimes (rounding up dissidents etc.). Is it possible to work towards Communism without falling into those two traps? I have no idea. But if someone can give good reasons why their proposal would be different, I'm willing to hear them out.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jonnybgood 9y ago
I'm not aware of any advocation of death in communist literature. Can you provide some citations?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tim333 9y ago
  Googling comes up with >Here’s Marx in an 1848 newspaper article: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” And commies seem to mostly follow Marx, hence perhaps the deaths. I've never been a fan of Marx - he seems to write reams of pompous twaddle. And then I guess when the pompous twaddley stuff doesn't produce utopia more revolutionary terror is the answer. Perhaps you could come up with a better socialist system without that stuff.
vixen99 9y ago
A communist government is intended to be a dictatorship. In that sense, no different from a fascist government. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a myth of course simply because of human nature. It never happens. It cannot be otherwise. And someone will run the show - invariably an alpha male like Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, the list is long. http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators.
- pron 9y ago
  > A communist government is intended to be a dictatorship. Not necessarily at all, and not only in theory but also in practice. The Kibbutzim[1] in Israel are a relatively successful form of communism -- granted, not on a state scale -- and lasted for about 100 years now (though they can hardly be called communist any more), and they have always been democratic (even if in practice they were sometimes oligarchic, but not much different in that respect from many democracies). The Kibbutzim were a particularly radical form of communism, where children were raised collectively, and lived away from their parents (this practice was particularly criticized in Israel and later stopped in most Kibbutzim). > In that sense, no different from a fascist government. There are really so many senses in which communism differs from fascism so completely (e.g. one is founded on exploitation and the other is founded on anti-exploitation) so that even if they were similar in one sense, comparing the two is not very useful. The only sense in which the two can be said to be similar (and this one applies to many ideals, even to opposing ones) is that they're both utopian. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

As a human the body count of communism is terrifying.

NiklasMort 9y ago

pretty sure capitalism is responsible for way more deaths

thehardsphere 9y ago
Ok, how many more? Communism is estimated to have killed about 100 million people in the 20th century. How many deaths do you attribute to "capitalism"?
- pron 9y ago
  Comparing numbers nominally is a bit unfair, as communism is a much more modern economic philosophy than capitalism, and so operated in a much more populous world, but as to direct violent deaths by capitalism, you can start with many of these here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples It's true that one could say that that kind of capitalism wasn't really capitalism, or that capitalism has changed since then, but the same could be said for communism.

yorwba 9y ago

I'd attribute those to mistakes in central planning (attempting to industrialize agrarian societies without securing the food supply) and to the usual death toll of authoritarian regimes (rounding up dissidents etc.). Is it possible to work towards Communism without falling into those two traps? I have no idea. But if someone can give good reasons why their proposal would be different, I'm willing to hear them out.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jonnybgood 9y ago

I'm not aware of any advocation of death in communist literature. Can you provide some citations?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tim333 9y ago
Googling comes up with >Here’s Marx in an 1848 newspaper article: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” And commies seem to mostly follow Marx, hence perhaps the deaths. I've never been a fan of Marx - he seems to write reams of pompous twaddle. And then I guess when the pompous twaddley stuff doesn't produce utopia more revolutionary terror is the answer. Perhaps you could come up with a better socialist system without that stuff.

vixen99 9y ago

A communist government is intended to be a dictatorship. In that sense, no different from a fascist government. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a myth of course simply because of human nature. It never happens. It cannot be otherwise. And someone will run the show - invariably an alpha male like Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, the list is long. http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators.

pron 9y ago
> A communist government is intended to be a dictatorship. Not necessarily at all, and not only in theory but also in practice. The Kibbutzim[1] in Israel are a relatively successful form of communism -- granted, not on a state scale -- and lasted for about 100 years now (though they can hardly be called communist any more), and they have always been democratic (even if in practice they were sometimes oligarchic, but not much different in that respect from many democracies). The Kibbutzim were a particularly radical form of communism, where children were raised collectively, and lived away from their parents (this practice was particularly criticized in Israel and later stopped in most Kibbutzim). > In that sense, no different from a fascist government. There are really so many senses in which communism differs from fascism so completely (e.g. one is founded on exploitation and the other is founded on anti-exploitation) so that even if they were similar in one sense, comparing the two is not very useful. The only sense in which the two can be said to be similar (and this one applies to many ideals, even to opposing ones) is that they're both utopian. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz