Quoting Tielhard:

"An intriguing summation tester123 but it is only a set of assertions that you believe to be true."

The long version is two posts above the summary. A quick check of almost any Marxist primer will verify most of what I said. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals was my source on Marx' academic fraud.

Quoting onlytrivial:

"Tester123, the posts previous to yours did not just state that there was nothing wrong with Communism."

Immediately prior to my first post in the thread, niveous stated "There is nothing wrong with Communism, Chinese or Russian or Cuban or whatever." I disagreed and gave reasons why.

Quoting onlytrivial:

"Idealogically, Communism and Socialism are fine, and if Communist nations worked the way they are supposed to, it would be a perfectly acceptable form of government."

I disagree. A lot of things would be great, "if only". Perpetual motion machines would be terrific-- if only they worked. As it is, we live in a real world and economic theories that don't work do exactly that-- they don't. Saying that Communism would be acceptable if only it worked doesn't make much sense. I'd say it meant there was something wrong with it, that it is unacceptable because it doesn't work. Socialism does work, by the way. Every so-called Capitalist country has Socialist elements. Is it "true" Socialism? I don't care.

There's more wrong with Communism it than just the whole not working bit. According to Marxist theory, a revolution is required, and not a peaceful one. In Marx' rosy view of human nature, the bourgeoisie can only be overcome by violent means. To eradicate the former ruling classes, a dictatorship is required. I'm not making this up, this is "true" Communism.

You seem to be saying that Communism is impossible then saying that "if only" Trotsky had held on things would have been OK. Well, he didn't. And what if he had? Would the Soviets still suffered totalitarianism and democide? Let's see what the man has to say (for those of you with short attention spans, basically he says a dictatorship is required to properly brutalize people you don't like and that terrorism helps, too):

"And it is quite clear that, if our problem is the abolition of private property in the means of production, the only road to its solution lies through the concentration of State power in its entirety in the hands of the proletariat, and the setting up for the transitional period of an exceptional regime--a regime in which the ruling class is guided, not by general principles calculated for a prolonged period, but by considerations of revolutionary policy."

In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Funny how few people end up being the proletariat in these deals, no? Also funny how most of them never had real jobs, let alone factory jobs.

"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very existence of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor."

There's that cock-eyed Commie optimism again. Things would be great, if only the rich were slaughtered.

"The man who repudiates terrorism in principle--i.e., repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship. The man who repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat repudiates the Socialist revolution, and digs the grave of Socialism."

While Trotsky once wrote a pamphlet against so-called "individual terrorism", he was fine with the state committing terrorist acts, and ordered terrorist acts be carried out. He also hinted how swell it would be if Stalin happened to be assassinated, but didn't come right out and ask anybody to do it. Not publicly, at least. None of this is top-secret information, it's all easily available. Those quotes are from a pamphlet of Trotsky's I found on a Marxist website.

Would the Russians have done better if Trotsky had become dictator? Well, it's hard to see how anybody could have been worse than Stalin. Unfortunately, my time machine doesn't work-- just like Communism-- so we're stuck with the real world, where all those millions died because of Communism. Not that I think Trotsky wouldn't have killed a lot of people, I think maybe he would've killed fewer than Stalin did. Maybe.

Why this blanket horror of revolution? I've a hunch the U.S. came into being as the result of revolution - or Revolutionary War, even. If anyone's stuck for grounds for attacking Communism, please find something that makes better sense.

Incidentally, I have the strange feeling we're all being asked to subscribe to some doctrine of Paul Johnsonian infallibity. I remember the man when he was an extremely arrogant and apparently very ardent Socialist.

I'd ask everyone to stick to the basic rules of discussion and give sources for claims made. Until I see a source I'll assume that the figure of 43 million killed by Stalin includes:

a) Total number of Soviet dead in WWII (highest known estimate, however implausible);

b) Total number of victims of famine and natural disasters in the Soviet Union throughout Stalin's rule;

c) Actual victims of persecution and purges by Stalin;

d) Additional unspecified groups added by an unreliable and unnamed source.

Yes, as everyone knows the United States came into being after the Revolutionary War. Still, revolutions do kill people. I'm not saying that every revolution was horrific or should not have happened, just that Communism, as Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky pictured it, requires an armed revolution to begin. Trotsky dimissed the idea of using democratic means because he considered parlimentary systems to be legal fictions rigged to aid the oppressor classes.

I don't think I need to provide sources on common knowledge. Even a student who made the most superficial study of Marxism would know that Marx was a revolutionary.

Paul Johnson may be the most horrible person you'd ever want to meet, but I'd prefer talk about the issue at hand. Johnson asserted that Marx juggled his numbers while doing research. Do you quibble with this? Johnson's writing is not free of error, but on this one point I found him most persuasive.

My source for the 43 million figure is from an article by R.J. Rummel, a political scientist at the University of Hawaii. It is for democide, which is more inclusive than genocide. Rummel defines democide as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder." Deaths due to war and deaths due to reckless (rather than intentionally murderous) policies are excluded, as would be victims of natural disaster. As Stalin used starvation as a weapon against various elements of his country (most notably the Kulaks) Rummel would include some famine victims-- provided Stalin caused the famine. Perhaps you have another number you'd prefer to use?

Five out of the nine most murderous leaders of the 20th century identified by Rummel are Communists. The two most murderous regimes of the 20th century are both Communist. The Soviet Union is number one with a bullet and number two is-- you guessed it-- China. And yet, as we have seen, even to this day there are those who will say there is nothing wrong with Communism. "If only human nature isn't what it is," they say, "If only Communism occurred in an industrialized country as Marx wanted," or "If only Trotsky had kept power-- then we would have seen Communism succeed." Balony. Communism is a faked economic theory which relies on bloody revolution and seeks to install a totalitarian state, as it invariably has.

Communism, democracy, military dictatorship or whatever. All or any can be good, mediocre, bad, or evil. It just depends on who's in charge. At least 80% of the British public were opposed to Britain becoming involved in the present Iraq war without full U.N. approval, but Tony Blair simply decided to ignore them - just as he or any other democratically elected leader could ignore anything else they wished to.

Again, I couldn't disagree more. All the most lethal governments of the 20th century were some form of dictatorship-- military, fascist, or Communist. Say what you will about representative governments but they are less prone to commit democide than non-representative or pseudo-representative forms.

tester123,

Thank you for your kind reply to my question referencing your previous post. Unfortunately it does not justify your summary of Marxism.

In the summary you said "Marx was an academic fraud." In the prior post you wrote "Marx faked his research. The fact that he did so was proved shortly after Das Kapital was published. Marx' "scientific theories" are built on academic fraud."

All that has been done is to repeat the initial assertion more succinctly. What you need to explain to those reading this thread is: what academic fraud you think Marx committed and how was the case against him proved? It would also be instructive if you could explain if you believe that this academic fraud negates the whole of his body of his work, after all you refer only to 'Capital' and the fraud may only apply to specific parts of that one book. If so what parts? Perhaps Paul Johnson's Intellectuals to which you refer explains? I am sure however that you would not rely on a single source to make such sweeping assertions.

You next said "Communist revolutions kill people just as dead as other revolutions."

True, but why allocate the responsibility for deaths in a revolution to the revolutionaries? Are they not the responsibility of the powers that the revolution is attempting to overthrow?

This was followed in the summary by "Communist revolutions invariably lead to dictatorship.". This would appear to refer to the following passage in the prior post: "Third, Marxist cant then calls for a dictatorship. I'm not that comfortable with dictatorships, myself. Sure, it's supposed to wither away …"

I am unclear if you are referring to a theoretical Marxist analysis or to realpolitik? If you are referring to a theoretical Marxist analysis, are you sure you are not thinking about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat?". If this is the case then it may be, based on what you write subsequently, that you have not fully understood this concept? Alternatively if you are dealing with realpolitik I think you need to define what you understand by the term dictatorship. The Soviet regime may have generated a dictator in Stalin but many other Communist regimes appear to have generated their leaders through a ruling oligarchy.

The next part of the summary is "Then some more people die." I assume this means after the establishment of whatever you define as a 'dictatorship'. I would like to point out to you that there is a logical inconsistency here. You are condemning Communism for the actions of the 'dictatorship' and yet by your own argument the revolution is no longer Communist it is a ‘dictatorship’? Would you like to clarify you views on this point because on the information available to those of us reading this thread it would appear nonsensical? Notice that I have had to put the word dictatorship in quote marks as I am unsure of what you mean by the term.

You last point in the summary was "People who say there's nothing wrong with Communism obviously haven't thought about it." I have thought a great deal about what you have written about Communism and based on that would be unable to say if there were something wrong with it or not. So I would like to take this opportunity to ask you again to provide some sort of supporting argument and evidence for your assertions. Please note that I have read the whole of the thread and all of your contributions. Thus far you have failed to provide sufficient information to determine the merit or otherwise of your position. I also note that using the phrase “A quick check of almost any Marxist primer will verify most of what I said” is a little disrespectful to your readership including myself: you are making assertions that need to be supported, you want us to accept your arguments. It is therefore up to you to provide that support they need, not send us all off to find a Marxist primer.

You went on to say in your next post. “Trotsky dimissed the idea of using democratic means because he considered parlimentary systems to be legal fictions rigged to aid the oppressor classes.” You did not say if you understood the point he was making to be true or false (It is however clear from context that you disapprove of his solution). Could you explain your position on this?

I was most worried about this statement you made “I don't think I need to provide sources on common knowledge.” Of course you do! Especially as it is clear that the information you are supplying (the so called common knowledge) is subject to question from more than one person and you may be using a single source!

tester123,

I would like to know a little more about your figure of 43 x 10E6 dead. I have no idea if it is correct or not but I have no confidence in it at present. How is it calculated? What about the following:

a) When wars are involved how are losses apportioned? Take the Great Patriotic War for example are all Soviet combat losses taken to be the responsibility of the Nazis or the Communists or is some form of apportionment used? Is there double accounting i.e. is a single death counted twice? How are Soviet civilian losses counted, more interestingly are Axis civilian losses counted as a Communist responsibility?
b) How is the the counter revolution treated? If so which proportion of the deaths are due to the Whites and Interventionist forces (USA, UK, Japan etc.). and what proportion are due to the Communists?
c) Does the number include losses in WWI? If so does it include Romanov losses?
d) Some experts contend that almost as may people have died of starvation during the conversion to a Capitalist economy from a Communist one as during the collectivisation to which you refer in your post. Have these more recent deaths been recorded and who has been deemed responsible.
e) As you are no doubt aware the USA refused to sell wheat to the Soviet Union during periods of famine in the early yeas of the Communist regime. What proportion of Soviet famine losses have been deemed to be the responsibility of the United States?

Tester123, perhaps I should clarify my position. I am not trying to excuse Communism for its failure to be applied practically, nor would I want to live under a Communist regime knowing that it would almost certainly corrupt into a dictatorship. I was stating that Communism in essence, seems an honourable form of government and society, and I don't believe that any Communist country so far has adopted 'true' Communism.

Quote:

---

There's more wrong with Communism it than just the whole not working bit. According to Marxist theory, a revolution is required, and not a peaceful one. In Marx' rosy view of human nature, the bourgeoisie can only be overcome by violent means. To eradicate the former ruling classes, a dictatorship is required. I'm not making this up, this is "true" Communism.

---

I don't know enough about Marx's work to comment on this, but who is to say that Marx's idea of Communism is "true" Communism. Since the publishing of 'The Communist Manifesto', Communism has been refined and changed and in fact two groups emerged; those such as Lenin who supported a violent revolution to give Communism a kick-start, and those who believed in evolutionary Communism - that society and government would slowly over time evolve into Communism.

As you can see, Communism does not necessarily call for a revolution.

Here is an interesting page that presents some figures regarding the number of deaths that could be attributed to the First and Second World Wars, Communist China and the Soviet Union . It also gives a number of breakdowns, the following is part of the breakdown for deaths caused by Stalin. Numerous sources are quoted.

Quote:

---

Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000

* There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.
* Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
o Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
+ Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
+ Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
+ Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
o Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
o Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
+ 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
+ 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
+ 1939-45: 18,157,000
+ 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
+ TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
o William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
o Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
+ Cited by Wallechinsky:
# Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
# Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
o MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.
* And from the Lower Numbers school:
o Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
o Cited in Nove:
+ Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
+ Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
+ Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
+ Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
o Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
o Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
o MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
* As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion.

---

"What you need to explain to those reading this thread is: what academic fraud you think Marx committed and how was the case against him proved?"

See Paul Johnson, Intellectuals. A single case of cooked books is sufficient to call Marx an academic fraud, although it was more than just that. I don't care to type in the relevant passages. It's an interesting book, perhaps you could get it from your library.

"True, but why allocate the responsibility for deaths in a revolution to the revolutionaries? Are they not the responsibility of the powers that the revolution is attempting to overthrow?"

No. Absolutely not. A state must defend itself. Provided the government is bad enough, I'll sympathize with the rebels, but they are not absolved of responsibility for those they kill.

"I am unclear if you are referring to a theoretical Marxist analysis or to realpolitik? If you are referring to a theoretical Marxist analysis, are you sure you are not thinking about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat?". If this is the case then it may be, based on what you write subsequently, that you have not fully understood this concept? Alternatively if you are dealing with realpolitik I think you need to define what you understand by the term dictatorship. The Soviet regime may have generated a dictator in Stalin but many other Communist regimes appear to have generated their leaders through a ruling oligarchy."

See the Trotsky quote in my earlier post. Clearly, he takes it to mean a dictatorship in the usual sense. I'm certainly not the Marxist scholar Trotsky was, so I'm taking his word on it.

"The next part of the summary is "Then some more people die." I assume this means after the establishment of whatever you define as a 'dictatorship'. I would like to point out to you that there is a logical inconsistency here. You are condemning Communism for the actions of the 'dictatorship' and yet by your own argument the revolution is no longer Communist it is a ‘dictatorship’? Would you like to clarify you views on this point because on the information available to those of us reading this thread it would appear nonsensical? Notice that I have had to put the word dictatorship in quote marks as I am unsure of what you mean by the term."

Every time Communists have taken control of a country, they have committed democide, hence my statement. Do you dispute this? I can't think of any exceptions, but I suppose they could exist.

"You last point in the summary was "People who say there's nothing wrong with Communism obviously haven't thought about it." I have thought a great deal about what you have written about Communism and based on that would be unable to say if there were something wrong with it or not."

Sorry I was unclear. I think Communism has something wrong with it because it doesn't work and kills people. For evidence, I present the 20th century. What's your opinion? Do you deny that Marxism calls for revolution and absolutism? Do you deny that Communist regimes have been the most murderous in history? What's right about Communism?

If I really must provide cites that Marx was a revolutionary and that he and Engels formulated the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, I cite Enclyclopedia Britannica, fifteenth edition.

"You did not say if you understood the point he was making to be true or false (It is however clear from context that you disapprove of his solution). Could you explain your position on this?"

It is false.

About the 46 million...

"a) When wars are involved how are losses apportioned?"

War dead are not included.

"b) How is the the counter revolution treated?"

Rummel would not count deaths from the Russian Revolution, as the revolution was over when Stalin took power.

"c) Does the number include losses in WWI?"

No.

"d) Some experts contend that almost as may people have died of starvation during the conversion to a Capitalist economy from a Communist one as during the collectivisation to which you refer in your post. Have these more recent deaths been recorded and who has been deemed responsible."

Excluded. Stalin was dead by then.

"e) As you are no doubt aware the USA refused to sell wheat to the Soviet Union during periods of famine in the early yeas of the Communist regime. What proportion of Soviet famine losses have been deemed to be the responsibility of the United States?"

Excellent question. You should contact Rummel and ask him. I don't know, but I would presume they would be excluded unless linked to Stalin. For instance, if he decided that because there was a shortage, he starve some "class enemies".

You claimed you read the thread and thought about it a great deal. If that's the case, why'd you think anything that happened after Stalin died or before he took power would be blamed on him? The 43 million figure had Stalin's name right next to it. And, if you don't mind me asking, are you going somewhere with all this? I don't see much point in this pettifogging. It's all quite simple, and it's all easily found. If I need to define every word I use and provide four cites for each sentence, I'm not going to bother. I certainly don't see other posters doing so. In fact, I think I may be the only poster in this thread to cite a source.

onlytrivial,

I wouldn't want to live under any sort of Communist regime, either. I'm not sure what you mean by true Communism, though. As far as I know, Marxism is real Communism-- real fake Communism, because as we've established, it doesn't work. I don't think I'd prefer any of the other brands, either-- Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. As an aside, if I lived in a primitive economy with strong kinship ties, a high level of interdependence, and a tradition of reciprocity, I might actually prefer Communism (provided it was already in place and we didn't have to kill off "oppressors") to Capitalism. I'm not sure what you mean by true Communism in the modern sense if not Marxism, though.

Dear tester123,

You are making it very hard for me, and others I suspect, to decide if I think you are correct or not.

Perhaps I was not making myself sufficiently clear:

1) What was Marx academic fraud? If we know that then we, the readers can decide how significant it is. Please stop referring me to a book, if you make the statement you should at least explain it.

2) You suggest the revolutionaries are responsible for the deaths they cause during the revolution. What of the deaths the state causes during the revolution? You imply (but do not state) that the revolutionaries are responsible for these also, how so?

It is also interesting to address the idea of the Civil War in the Soviet Union. Were the Bolsheviks the state by this stage or were they the revolutionaries?

3) It may be me, but using my find function I cannot find a quote from Trotsky that mentions dictatorships of any sort. Please would you be so kind as to repost the quote in which Trotsky discusses dictatorship.

4) "Every time Communists have taken control of a country, they have committed democide". You seem to be missing the point. You implied earlier Communism becomes dictatorship, this may or may not be true. However, if it becomes a dictatorship it isn't Communism whatever they call themselves.

5)"Sorry I was unclear. I think Communism has something wrong with it because it doesn't work and kills people. For evidence, I present the 20th century. What's your opinion? Do you deny that Marxism calls for revolution and absolutism? Do you deny that Communist regimes have been the most murderous in history? What's right about Communism?"

At the present I am more concerned with discovering what your views are and why than presenting my own. However as you asked, let me make a few general points.

(a) You present the 20th Century as evidence. Let me note that a few examples of something are not statistically significant and you cannot use such a small sample of revolutions as evidence one way or the other. I also note that the Soviet Union was based on a primitive empire surrounded by forces hostile to its survival and in addition physical geography was not in its favour. A simple analysis after the fashion of Adam Smith would lead us to believe that it would fall to outside influence, irrespective of its internal politics. Indeed Stalin came to much the same conclusion in 1936 perhaps even earlier.

(b)"Do you deny that Marxism calls for revolution and absolutism?" I was really rather hoping you would tell me some more about Marxism before I answered but you are correct that it calls for revolution, this may or may not be violent. What do you mean by absolutism?

(c)"Do you deny that Communist regimes have been the most murderous in history?" This depends on your definition of the word murderous. You may well be right although just thinking about the 20th Century one could easily make the case that the USA was more murderous than any of the Communist regimes. Why, well any number of reasons really, they are the only nation to have discharge nuclear weapons against cities, they are to my knowledge the only nuclear weapons state that has not foresworn first strike, they can be adjudged responsible for any number of small scale wars and oppressions and so on. I suspect if I made even a minimal effort that over the course of the century one could hold the USA and its Capitalist/Democratic government responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. It simply depends on who you hold responsible for what.

In the particular case of China, undeniably the great leap forward caused a very large number of deaths, so too has the change from a Communist to a semi-Capitalist economy but the numbers are better enumerated in the former case. However one could make a very good case that nearly all, and there were many, of the deaths in China between 1933 and 1948 were due to the Capitalist KMT or the Japanese and that the Communists were largely blameless. It would also be interesting to compare famine deaths under the Imperials and Nationalists with those under the Communists. Perhaps you might consider doing that before drawing conclusions as to murderousness?

4)"If I really must provide cites that Marx was a revolutionary and that he and Engels formulated the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, I cite Enclyclopedia Britannica, fifteenth edition." In the first place whilst citations are nice that is not what I am asking you for. I want to know where your evidence comes from yes, of course but we readers would also know what evidence you are talking about. We learn nothing from simply reading your conclusions. I also note that citing a very large encyclopaedia without even a page number suggest one of two things: either you are being deliberately disrespectful of me and your other readers or that your reading in this area is very shallow indeed and you are trying to cover up the fact. If there is some third reason I would be happy to hear it.

5) You said you thought that the assertion make when “Trotsky dimissed the idea of using democratic means because he considered parlimentary systems to be legal fictions rigged to aid the oppressor classes.” is false. I wonder if you would mind explaining why it is false as the idea seems to have more than a grain of truth in it to me.

6) Turning to the very large figure for the number deaths for which you appear to hold Stalin responsible. I note that roos’, who I have rarely agreed with has made a post which comprehensively destroyed any credibility in any estimates for deaths in the Soviet Union including your own.

You suggest that the revolution was over when Stalin took power. This is true. However, first, I was talking of the counterrevolution and interventions and secondly, I assume from the context of your reply that by ‘coming to power’ you mean becoming party chairman? I find it very curious that you exonerate Stalin of responsibility for any deaths prior to this point in time.

I find it alarming that you continue to attribute part of the large number of deaths due to famine to the Soviet Communists when responsibility may lie with the USA. I personally would withdraw this number as evidence as it no longer seems supportable.

7) I noted further evidence in your new post that you do not fully understand the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.

Just a couple of points that may help readers find their way through this dense fog.

1. Rummel (*Not* to be confused with Rommel, incidentally)

This link to a Wikipedia article may be useful. I note, not without a wry smile, that one of the main criticisms mentioned in the article is the controversial way he calculates the death toll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rummel


2. Allegations of fake, forgery, etc.

I think there's still a very simple point that needs answering. Before and during the Cold War, anti-Communist propganda poured out in vast quantities, by the American gallon, the Imperial gallon - you just name it! Many of the things said about Marx were downright funny; there were claims that he was a "devil worhsipper", attended "black mass" (whatever that may be). We were also told that Communists were homosexuals deliberately sub- and perverting the U.S.

The zest on the part of some anti-Communist propagandists for making themselves look very, very silly in public knew no bounds.

At the same time, there were also people who scutinized Marxist theoretical writing. If it had been possible to demolish Marxist theory at one fell swoop by pointing to some phoney statistics, surely the opportunity wouldn't have been passed over. So, why did the whole world have to wait for His Infallibility to point it out? Did he himself discover it, or was he rehashing stuff from the 1950s that had been quietly dropped because it was about on a par with all that stuff about "black masses" and homosexuals?

"You are making it very hard for me, and others I suspect, to decide if I think you are correct or not."

I think I've already figured out the answer to that, and my dog has a few suspicions of his own. Come off it. A blind man could see where you're coming from. You'll agree with me at a quarter past never.

1. "...if you make the statement you should at least explain it."

First you ask for a cite, then you ask me to explain the cite. In short, Marx faked his research, that was the fraud. Read the book if you want more, and then take it up with the author. Or you could take a page out of Bloom's book and throw mud at Johnson. I can easily turn Bloom's position around: If Johnson's claim is such a sham, and given that Marxists are active online, why hasn't anyone posted a refutation of his claim?

2. "You imply (but do not state) that the revolutionaries are responsible for these also, how so?"

Generally speaking, they're not. I won't be tied down to that answer in any specific cases, though, sorry.

"It is also interesting to address the idea of the Civil War in the Soviet Union. Were the Bolsheviks the state by this stage or were they the revolutionaries?"

Seeing as how you suggested the state is responsible for the deaths caused by revolutionaries, I imagine that is quite an interesting question-- for you. I'll pass, because people are responsible for any killing they might do, regardless of motives.

3) "It may be me, but using my find function I cannot find a quote from Trotsky that mentions dictatorships of any sort. Please would you be so kind as to repost the quote in which Trotsky discusses dictatorship."

You know, Trotsky would say you're digging the grave of Socialism here. That aside, rather than using a function, you might read that post I made where I quoted Trotsky. It's on this page two of this thread. I won't be repeating it because you plead incompetence.

4) "Every time Communists have taken control of a country, they have committed democide". You seem to be missing the point. You implied earlier Communism becomes dictatorship, this may or may not be true. However, if it becomes a dictatorship it isn't Communism whatever they call themselves.

OK. So who's a Communist then? Not Marx, not Engels, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not Mao, not Castro. Give these guys some credit. While they aren't people that I'd like to hang with, called themselves Communists and in some cases tried to make Communism work on a practical basis. Why, just think of all the people they killed. Don't you think that's hard work? At some point you said a Communist revolution doesn't have to be a violent revolution. That wasn't what Marx thought and I expect you know it. He meant a real, live, shooting revolution and wasn't using metaphors. I believe it is the same with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and my reading of Trotsky, scant as it is, supports that conclusion.

5) "At the present I am more concerned with discovering what your views are and why than presenting my own. However as you asked, let me make a few general points."

You've presented-- or hinted at-- some views, all right. Such as: Communist revolutions don't kill anyone, the state is responsible for killings by revolutionaries, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean dictatorship at all, that representative government is a tool of oppression, and that the United States is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century. Some views. But let's get to cases.

a. I disagree that the 20th century is insuffient evidence. For starters, it's certainly sufficient evidence that Marx' predictions didn't come to pass. Second, how many people need to die before you have second thoughts? Revolutions, civil wars, democide, terror, the floundering of every economy that has tried to apply Communist economics-- when do you wake to reality? It may be that Communism would work under ideal conditions. Under less than ideal conditions, a lot of people die-- millions. I submit that conditions are going to be less than ideal. The evidence provided by 20th century supports my position.

b. Again, every Communist revolution has been violent and Marx believed only a violent revolution could bring Communism into being. If Communism foreswore revolution (and really, I think Marx was right on that one-- few would passively allow their rights to property to be taken away, you'd have to kill at least some) I'd have one fewer objection to Communism. As it is, they have it wrong. They're screwed both ways, though. Preaching violent revolution toward the end of putting untested theories in place is evil, but they can't test their theories without it.

c. I see. The United States has killed more people (that's what I mean by murderous, by the way) than any other state in the 20th century on the grounds that it used nukes and was willing to use them again. That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have the required extraordinary proof? Or by murderous do you mean the potential to kill (we're all murderers)?

If it would really only take you the minimal effort you pretend it would to prove the US killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century, why, you should do so immediately. It would be earthshaking, to say the least. Me, I'll stick with actual people killed as a basis for deciding who's murderous. As for China, certainly the Nationalist government committed democide. The Communists simply killed a lot more, and hence are the more murderous of the two-- by an order of magnitude.

4. "...either you are being deliberately disrespectful of me and your other readers or that your reading in this area is very shallow indeed..."

While I don't have respect for anyone who would make the insinuations you have, I do think you are bright enough to look up Marxism in an encylcopedia.

5. "You said you thought that the assertion make when 'Trotsky dimissed the idea of using democratic means because he considered parlimentary systems to be legal fictions rigged to aid the oppressor classes.' is false. I wonder if you would mind explaining why it is false as the idea seems to have more than a grain of truth in it to me."

Where I live, people respect the ability of their elected government to more or less represent them, and would reject the idea that the parliment is a fiction designed to suck their blood. As evidence, I present the fact that Australians have been voting peaceably and happily participating in their government for quite a spell. My own rights are protected and I have a considerable amount of freedom. That's something you can take to the bank. You seem to disagree. Where's your evidence?

6) "Turning to the very large figure for the number deaths for which you appear to hold Stalin responsible. I note that roos’, who I have rarely agreed with has made a post which comprehensively destroyed any credibility in any estimates for deaths in the Soviet Union including your own."

It's not my estimate, it's Rummel's. I grant that his estimate is just that-- an estimate. However, I reject your idea that all estimates are invalid. Even accepting low estimates we will conclude that Stalinism killed millions, actual real live dead people, not people who were threatened with the possibility of death from a nuclear first strike. The guy who put together the page roos posted doesn't find all estimates invalid. "...whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings..." Even French Communists put the number at 20 million. The estimates of those who lived under Stalin run as high as 60 million! Who knows better? You? Demanding proof (perhaps you'd like to examine a few million exhumed corpses?) for all the deaths before you accept the estimates is an old trick of apologists. For Rummel's motives and why he thinks his numbers are accurate, see http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MTF.CHAP1.HTM

No, the people Stalin killed were not the responsibility of the USA. That's yet another of your claims that I sincerely hope will not be entertained by anyone who lives even close to reality's neighborhood. In the 30's Pravda and Stalin denied famine existed and even continued to export grain. http://www.colley.co.uk/garethjones/soviet_articles/american_response_famine_ukraine.htm How anyone could blame that on the Americans is beyond me. I mean, if you have some reason to be a Stalin apologist... you're related, maybe? I could understand that. FDR cooked and ate your mother, maybe?

Here's where I think you're going with this. You'll try to pick at this and that, demand that I jump through a lot of hoops, you'll make unsubstantiated claims, and then you'll say I'm not worth debating because I use lame-o references like encyclopedias. Did I get it right?

I don't know the esotorica of Marxist theory, but I do know that Marxists speak of revolutionary dictatorships and extreme measures. I also know the invariable results of Communist revolution. Luckily, Marxist theory is discredited with all but a few lonely cranks whom we don't have to worry about anymore and a few ineffective dinosaur academics relegated to posts where they'll do the least harm. True, Communism's death has been a lingering one, but every Communist replaced with a democrat is, on the whole, a blessing to humanity. That is my rosy view of humanity, and history supports it. Of course, nobody with sense needed fancy arguments or to learn that Marx faked his numbers-- only a fool would think it could work. Unfortunately, fools exist, to the great suffering of innocent millions.

Communists revolutions dont kill people guns kill people.
Ok lame joke aside I have a question since poeple here clearly a little more informed on the subject than I. Th opening of The Communist Manifesto mentions communism. I was always under the impression that Marx "invented" Communism, in which case it couldnt already be haunting Europe ( i forget if that was the phrase and i cant be bothered getting up to check). Can i assume that the concept of communism already existed. Where did it develop? How did it evolve?
And if my assumption is correct are Marxism and Communism the same thing?

Referring to my handy Britannica once again, I read that Marxism and European communism are considered synonyms. When a school of thought differs significantly from Marxism, it's given another name, such as Stalinism. However, communism certainly predates Marx. One interesting place it shows up is in the Bible:

"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Acts 2:44-45

"This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat." Ex. 16:16-18