The next time I hear Communism killed 100 million...

[Contra mundus]

...I'm brining up this

Quote:

If we can just raise some comparisons of the socialist countries to the western imperialists we would see that tens of millions of African slaves perished en route to the Americas; tens of millions of Amerindians perished as well. Another 10 million Congolese were worked to death by the Belgians from 1885-1908. Started by the western imperialists, the world wars brought about the deaths of some 40 million. About 5 million people were murdered as a result of CIA operations from 1946-1990. An additional 5 million were murdered due to America's meddlesome action in the internal affairs of the Korean and Vietnamese people. If we are to classify famine as murder, then the tens of millions of deaths from famine in British India tops all others; 10 million died from famine in Bengal alone during 1769-1773.

So the purpose of this thread I guess is to discuss arguments against Communism and to come up with responses to this. Comments?  

[34616782446782 b76]

If I am correctly informed this number is brought up in "The Black Book of Communism" another work, called "The White Book of Capitalism" points out similar things as you have just done.

You forgot how many african slaves perished on slave ships or in slavery.  

[Steve Sage]

I seriously doubt anyone would defend slavery expect for some daft Neo-Confederates.  

[Next Dollar After]

stuff like that is really kinda lame, and I really see it as a bit of a cop out. "Hey, at least we killed less than those assholes!" I mean obviously during a revolution some folks gonna die, but trying to apologize for the multi-million death toll of past expirements by saying it sucked less than slave drivers is pretty weak  

[Contra mundus]

Next Dollar After

stuff like that is really kinda lame, and I really see it as a bit of a cop out. "Hey, at least we killed less than those assholes!" I mean obviously during a revolution some folks gonna die, but trying to apologize for the multi-million death toll of past expirements by saying it sucked less than slave drivers is pretty weak

It's one way to argue against it, if you can see a better way be my guest.

It's not saying "Hey we're not that bad, we killed less than slave drivers!" it's more of a "If you going to argue against something purely on death statistics I'm doing it right back at you." and hope that they realize that arguing from that point is stupid.  

[Next Dollar After]

M-mann

Next Dollar After

stuff like that is really kinda lame, and I really see it as a bit of a cop out. "Hey, at least we killed less than those assholes!" I mean obviously during a revolution some folks gonna die, but trying to apologize for the multi-million death toll of past expirements by saying it sucked less than slave drivers is pretty weak

It's one way to argue against it, if you can see a better way be my guest.

but I wouldn't! I'm completely opposed to Statist/authoritarian forms of communism.

Quote:

It's not saying "Hey we're not that bad, we killed less than slave drivers!" it's more of a "If you going to argue against something purely on death statistics I'm doing it right back at you." and hope that they realize that arguing from that point is stupid.

you are saying yeah maybe we killed 100 million but you killed this much. that is like an exact quote ish. That s**t is wack.  

[Contra mundus]

Next Dollar After

M-mann

Next Dollar After

stuff like that is really kinda lame, and I really see it as a bit of a cop out. "Hey, at least we killed less than those assholes!" I mean obviously during a revolution some folks gonna die, but trying to apologize for the multi-million death toll of past expirements by saying it sucked less than slave drivers is pretty weak

It's one way to argue against it, if you can see a better way be my guest.

but I wouldn't! I'm completely opposed to Statist/authoritarian forms of communism.

What do you mean specifically?

Quote:

Quote:

It's not saying "Hey we're not that bad, we killed less than slave drivers!" it's more of a "If you going to argue against something purely on death statistics I'm doing it right back at you." and hope that they realize that arguing from that point is stupid.

you are saying yeah maybe we killed 100 million but you killed this much. that is like an exact quote ish. That s**t is wack.

No, I mean if your going to judge us as bad purely because of statistics, then do that to everyone else. You just as guilty of crimes.

I would use the "they're not Communist" argumetn, but so far everytime I use that they seem t to argue I'm wrong and that all forms of Communism have a single party totalitarian state and that this is the only requirement (well and they have to call themselves Communist, I have a PM that demonstrates a talk with someone about this)  

[Next Dollar After]

M-mann

Next Dollar After

M-mann

Next Dollar After

stuff like that is really kinda lame, and I really see it as a bit of a cop out. "Hey, at least we killed less than those assholes!" I mean obviously during a revolution some folks gonna die, but trying to apologize for the multi-million death toll of past expirements by saying it sucked less than slave drivers is pretty weak

It's one way to argue against it, if you can see a better way be my guest.

but I wouldn't! I'm completely opposed to Statist/authoritarian forms of communism.

What do you mean specifically?

I thought this was pretty straight forward? I would nevver argue in favor of Revolutionary Russia, Cuba, China, Venezuala, etc. etc., so I don't have to argue against folks that argue against them. I don't support "revolutionary states" cause they are still States. I am an anti-authoritarian. I don't support authoritarian revolutionary means.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not saying "Hey we're not that bad, we killed less than slave drivers!" it's more of a "If you going to argue against something purely on death statistics I'm doing it right back at you." and hope that they realize that arguing from that point is stupid.

you are saying yeah maybe we killed 100 million but you killed this much. that is like an exact quote ish. That s**t is wack.

No, I mean if your going to judge us as bad purely because of statistics, then do that to everyone else. You just as guilty of crimes.

I would use the "they're not Communist" argumetn, but so far everytime I use that they seem t to argue I'm wrong and that all forms of Communism have a single party totalitarian state and that this is the only requirement (well and they have to call themselves Communist, I have a PM that demonstrates a talk with someone about this)
[/quoted]

I really feel like the "they're not communist" argument is a cop out too. especially when it is used for something like Russia, since so many communists support one stage or another of that whole situation. I have just as big of a problem with lenninist russia as stalinist russia(oh uh grachhsv;alskdj;alkd is gonna get mad at me now!) Those states are the ones that took up the banner of communism, the people in those revolutions are the ones who supposedly followed some form of the ideology of communism, if the outcome was not communism then that might say something about the ideology. sayin'

And I'm not judging commies on only statistics, they are straight up irreconsilable differences between authoritarian leftists and anti-authoritarian leftists. I'll work with you and do my bit if you do yours but at the end of the day I know what historically has happened to anarchists who took part in the same struggles as Communists and I know from experience how rediculous it can get trying to organize with 'em.


oh and anarchists didn't kill mutliple millions of people. sayin'  

[Lady Merewyn]

Then again, anarchy has never been actually tested in the modern world...  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

yes, it has, just before the spanish civil war there were anarchist communes, but due to the fact that they were anarchist, they did away with centralisation and industry, as engels said of proudhon "you wish to do away with the power loom to return to the spinning wheel", due the the fact that such an economy can only exist at such a level(as was admited by bakhunin) they could not oppose gov't forces sent against them. in the end, the true test of an economic system is warfare.

Quote:

I don't support authoritarian revolutionary means.

ok, so what happens in a revolution hmm? isnt the armed and organised working class the ultimate expression of authority? how else is the higher stage of communism/anarchy sposed to come about?

also, after the revolution, are you going to "do away with the power loom to return to the spinning wheel"? if not, then explain to me how modern society would run in such a case, how would a factory operate? you need machinists, mechanics, porters, all of which have to be organised. how will that happen if there is no authority?  

[Next Dollar After]

beyond the spanish civil war(the history of which you just butchered, but I guess that is to be expected since yr version is probablybased along leninist party lines), I'd also look at the Mahknovichina in the ukraine during the russian revolution (again as far as the russian revolution I can't recomend emma goldman's my dissolusionment in russia enough) and the factory expropriations currently taking place in argentina.
I really don't have time to try and give you anarchism 101. I highly suggest you look over the recomended reading list in GULAG, infoshop.org has an anarchist faq, which is a decent starting point. Kropotkin's fields, factories and workshops. Rocker wrote a good basic peice and anarcho-syndicalism. I think spain showed very well what an anarchist society could look like. I'd suggest checking out flag.blackened's page on it
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html
and reading George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia(which you can find online for free, Mr. Orwell fought with the POUM during the spanish civil war and was almost killed). You want to look for why the left failed during the revolution in spain and why Franco won? The lack of revolutionary solidarity by Statists(the actions of Stalin and Russia for one, the maydays and the actions of the UGT at that time) the reformist pro-republican actions of the spanish CP and the supposedly leftist "popular front" government before the coup as well. During the entire conflict the ONLY truly revolutionary activity was on the part of the CNT-FAI and those who were willing to work with them(such as the POUM) . When the Communists finally grabbed control of non-fascist spain the quickly move away from the collectivization of property and other revolutionary gains made by the anarcho-syndicalists and their allies and reverted back to the oppressive republican government that proceded the conflict(which of course was then quickly squashed by Franco)

edit: whoa grachvs? anarchists in spain did away with industry? what the s**t? you must be joking.
Primitivism is an extremly new strain of anarchism. Up until recently all variants of anarchism supported the use of technology and were completdly based around a concept of class and class conflict.

edit two electric boogaloo: ya'll got me sounding like a RAAN-ista
http://redanarchist.org/
s**t!  

[Contra mundus]

Whoa whoa whoa. First off I'm not supporting Stalinist Russia, Cuba, etc. because I support them. I just defend all thing that I feel are true and need to be defended regardless.

Next Yes it may be a cop out, but it's true. I hate using it though, but my problem is not so much with Lennist Russia ('ve been influenced by Tnak too much). It's alwasy Stalinist, Maoist Leftism I had problems with, and whatever statement it might bring with the fact that what they created despite what they proclaimed they were creating may make a statement, but it's overexaggerated by those who repeat it. No one looks at the great examples of a Democracy built in the former Soviet States that degenerated into Oppressive and much less Democratic states they are adn say there's a great lesson to be made there (well maybe you have one).

And I will admit we have our differences and splits which really do frustrate me, but I believe at least we can try to work together and not stab each other in the back the minute one of us get's an advantage over the other. I mean we are very similar and we should concentrate on those similarities to at least further our movements.

Edit: And it is true, out of all the ideologies Anarchists don't really have any history of massive killings and purges.  

[Next Dollar After]

M-man read the goldman book. and don't believe grachvs when he tells you that it is all petite-bougerious counter-revolutionary propaganda or some such. I posted a link in a rec. reading thread in here that has the whole thing for free. if you need I'll post it again. That was during Leninist russia, and shows it to be hardly democratic. Russia degenerated into an oppressive state far before Stalin took power. You only need to look at the actions taken by folks like lenin and trotsky towards their former allies on the left. Read up on what happened to Mahkno for instances(I'll refrain from bringing up kronstadt and giving any leninists/trots from having to write petite-bourgious too many times)
edit: look how nice I am
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/disillusion/toc.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/further/further_t  

[Contra mundus]

I'll give it a read, although I still have Ten Days that shook the world to Read.

But before I read if I recall, it was those Leftists you said that betrayed them, that joined the White Armies to fight against them, which is why they had to become so oppressive. I do recall some Bolsheviks rather disaapointed when one promienent Menshevik Leader left them.  

[Next Dollar After]

M-mann

I'll give it a read, although I still have Ten Days that shook the world to Read.

But before I read if I recall, it was those Leftists you said that betrayed them, that joined the White Armies to fight against them, which is why they had to become so oppressive. I do recall some Bolsheviks rather disaapointed when one promienent Menshevik Leader left them.

some maybe. But many didn't, Goldman's book brings up some good stuff. And again I'd bring up what happend to the Mahknovichina. Gracchvs would you like to try and justify that?

EDIT: and what was the reason for many of these folks leaving the bolsheviks? Goldman brings up that many felt betrayed by them after they took power, that they're rhetoric didn't match what they actually did.