The old double standards still alive and well

[M.Dancer]

Yes of course, communism (being a conspiracy, not a political ideology) can never be carried out, which is why the venal communists of today all repudiate Stalinism as some how "not really communism"...

Communism is as versatile as evil itself: it is all things to all men... communism preached independence and racially homogeneous societies to the blacks of Africa in the 60's 70's and 80's.... while simultaneously preaching INTERDEPENDENCE and "bortherhood" to the idiots and suckers in the US and Canada.

Communism (be it maoist, stalinist, Pol potist, cuban etc) leads to but one end: misery and death. It is an "ideology" of anti-humans. Communism comes from the primeval abyss of savagery and ignorance, far from being the "futuristic" ideology it claims to be , communism is the most primitive of human society craft... our ancestors homo-habilis and homo erectus where communists (ie lived in communes without such notions as private property or currency and in the state of indiscriminate equality)

Hierarchy and division of labor is a faculty of civilized society.

Also both varieties of fascism in Europe were DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED... that cannot be said of communism.

and to number the total victims of communism at a conservative glance is roughly 119 million (RJ Rummel) people in this century alone. Far far beyond anything fascists ever did (most of fascism's victims after all were mere communists)

fanciful fantasy in red.....

Also both varieties of fascism in Europe were DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED... that cannot be said of communism.

After which elections ceased. Facsists have no use for democracy, much like communists.

Both are evil stains which are hard to erase.

[lictor616]

fanciful fantasy in red.....

After which elections ceased. Facsists have no use for democracy, much like communists.

Both are evil stains which are hard to erase.

surely you could expound on these... instead of your usual rejection out of hand...

[Muddy]

In the west you can be born dirt poor and with honest toil and initiative you can rise above the station you are born into and create wealth to give your offspring a n even better start. In communist states you have few choices in determining your future and wealth along with freedom of movement and opinion. One must be aware of the Stalinists like Putin who want to white wash Stalin`s murderous record.

[Peter F]

and to number the total victims of communism at a conservative glance is roughly 119 million (RJ Rummel) people in this century alone. Far far beyond anything fascists ever did (most of fascism's victims after all were mere communists)

Double standard indeed... Most of fascism's victims after all were mere communists. Were not most of the victims of Communism also mere communists?

[GostHacked]

If the Nazis had won they probably would have killed way more people than the Soviets.

The Soviets did a huge number on Nazi Germany. Hitler wanted to push south for oil, delayed the assault on Moscow and by the time Hitler orderd the march, it was getting on winter and supply chains were broken. One of the biggest mistakes Hitler made. The Nazi forces were surrounded and the Soviets took no prisoners.

Fascists are a lot of talk and some action. The communists, well the soviets anyways did do much talk, but they did take action. At least we can easily see what the fascists were up to.

[Argus]

Like I say - there are democratic communists in our midst but are there democratic fascists ?

Communism will be coming back some day, so let's save ourselves the effort of having to rework these monuments in future...

Maybe the reason Communism might come back some day is because we politely defer condemning them as they deserve to be condemned. Democratic Communists? I suppose it's a possibility. But they all get over it. They always do. Communism is not just an ideology like capitalism. It's something of a cult religion, too. And once Communists have power they begin to see anyone who disagrees or opposes them as tools of oppression, or counter-revolutionaries, or whatever pejorative term they can use to justify taking action against them. Communism, ironically, like Islam, is deemed to be the newest and thus the ultimate system by its proponents. Anyone against that is against the well-being of man, and thus so morally tainted that almost any action taken against them is acceptable.

Communists are really no different, under the skin, than Fascists. They're both dangerous in that the importance of people is secondary to the importance of their ideas. And they're more than willing to eliminate as many of the former as is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the latter.

[Argus]

Mo,

Not sure what you mean... How about a monument to the victims of Pol Pot, or the victims of the Soviet Union ?

Or we could drop this whole discussion in the real world and leave it here on MLW.

Because you'd need too many monuments. OR perhaps, we could have a park, and in the park would be dozens of monuments, each dedicated to however many millions were slaughtered in the name of Communism under this Communist dictator or that Communist dictator.

[M.Dancer]

Double standard indeed... Most of fascism's victims after all were mere communists. Were not most of the victims of Communism also mere communists?

Point for Peter.

[Argus]

If the Nazis had won they probably would have killed way more people than the Soviets.

Maybe, maybe not. The Communists didn't win. How many would they have killed in their pograms and gulags and re-education camps? The Nazis were evil because they rounded up Jews and killed them in camps. Stalin made all of the Ukraine a death camp and starved 20 million people DELIBERATELY, using food as a political weapon, but few pay much attention to that for some reason.

How was Hitler worse than Stalin? Or Pol Pot? Or Mao? How many do you think these butchers would have killed had they triumphed and spread over the globe?

[Rue]

...The Nazis were evil because they rounded up Jews and killed them in camps.

..Stalin made all of the Ukraine a death camp and starved 20 million people DELIBERATELY, using food as a political weapon, but few pay much attention to that for some reason.

..How was Hitler worse than Stalin? Or Pol Pot? Or Mao? How many do you think these butchers would have killed had they triumphed and spread over the globe?

I find your comments illogical questionable for these reasons:

i- the fact you feel Hitler was no MORE evil than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot

does not make him less evil;

ii-the fact that you believe some people justify the genocide of Stalin, Mao,

or Pol Pot does not mean Hitler was less evil then them or more evil then

them;

iii-evil in the context you are referring to it is used in the specific context

of a subjective not objective reference so it is only logical the conclusions

reached would be subjective-the fact they are subjective in themselves

does not make them necessarily invalid-one would need more information

to determine that, i.e., the standards they used to compare the negative

consequences of the actions of these leaders to be able to come to

any conclusion as to whether the comparison between them was defective;

iv- you appear to have missed the point of your premises-and that is

that the fact that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao all engaged in genocides makes them

all evil and entering into a pissing contest as to whose evil was the worst misses

that point;

v- the people you now make cryptic reference to as thinking Stalin or Mao

or Pol Pot are less evil then Hitler sound like a subjective construct

you fabricated to try advance the subjective assumption you believe that society

engages in a double standard when discussing Hitlerian facism and communism.

What next-Hitler was a good guy and the only thing he did wrong was kill Jews-if

he had not gassed anyone he would have been swell for the world?

Save that stale "he had the trains run on time " for someone else.

The fact is all these people you presented were cold blooded killers blinded by their

meglomania, paranoia and ability to find people to follow them blindly through

both the imposition of fear and beneficial inducement using the goverment as their agent

of coercion.

I do not hear you stating facism and communism in that sense are equally as

guilty and repugnant. I do see you however trying to prop facism by whipping

communism.

Some of us despise both for the same reasons.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Rue

[Black Dog]

People don't get murdered or starved by ideologies, rather by individuals and regimes. It may be acceptable shorthand to refer to the Ukrainians who perished in the Holodomor or the Jews who dies in the Holocaust as victims of "Communism" or "fascism", but historical clarity and precision demands a little more specificity when it comes to memorializing such events. Or: what Kimmy said:

we erect monuments to specific events, not to general ideas. (how about a monument to remember the victims of meanness?)

Edited September 30, 2009 by Black Dog

[kimmy]

We don't see you often enough, BD.

-k

[Argus]

I find your comments illogical questionable for these reasons

Poor reading comprehension skills, I'm thinking.

v- the people you now make cryptic reference to as thinking Stalin or Mao

or Pol Pot are less evil then Hitler sound like a subjective construct

you fabricated to try advance the subjective assumption you believe that society

engages in a double standard when discussing Hitlerian facism and communism.

And yet, it happens to be undeniably true, except for fellow travellors, and it's funny, but a lot of academic leftists were fellow travellors. Hitting too close to home for you, Rue?

Communism, except in the US among conservatives, has NEVER been subjected to the same level of contempt and revulsion that Facism has and continues to experience. Communist parties thrived throughout Europe, and most every European nation has self-admitted Communists in parliament. Throughout the last fifty years, Communists have enjoyed considerable electoral success in various parts of western Europe, and even now, Canada has two official communist political parties which manage to find people to run in most urban ridings. How many fascist parties do we have again? And when was the last time you saw a self-admitted Fascist get up on a stage to address a crowd at a candidates meeting? If one even tried they'd be booed off the stage, assuming they were even able to get to the stage through the angry and violent protestors.

Remember the squawks of anger when Canada granted refugee status to a South Afircan White?

Well, guess what, the president of South Africa is a Communist, makes no bones about it. The Communist party has major influence with the ANC, and many of its members are in high positions of power. Nobody in the west seems to have a lot of trouble with that. Cerainly nobody on the left side of the political spectrum has any trouble with that.

China is a brutal Communist state but most people prefer to ignore its brutality. Human rights abuses? Oh we're not worried about that. Let's all go stare at Israel some more. Maybe some IDF trooper will be rude to a stone throwing protester.

What next-Hitler was a good guy and the only thing he did wrong was kill Jews-if

he had not gassed anyone he would have been swell for the world?

Save that stale "he had the trains run on time " for someone else.

If you can find me a single posting I've made in the years I've been on this site which in any way even infers a support of facism go for it. Otherwise, I can only assume this drool you've decided to paste up is some kind of frenzied illiustration of the anger you feel at having Communism attacked and equated with Fascism.

I do not hear you stating facism and communism in that sense are equally as

guilty and repugnant. I do see you however trying to prop facism by whipping

communism.

Some of us despise both for the same reasons.

Some of us do, but I have a sneaking suspicion you're not one of them. Else why this frantic anger and pathetic attempt at making up a straw man anyone with more than half a brain can see has no reality?

So tell us about Communism, Rue. Is is a well-intentioned effort at creating an idylic world which has only gotten a bad press because of the bad people who misinterpreted Marx's teachings? A lot of your friends read Marx do they, and think he had a lot of good ideas?

[eyeball]

...the importance of people is secondary to the importance of their ideas. And they're more than willing to eliminate as many of the former as is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the latter.

This is true of isms of every description.

In the meantime... Empire State Building turns red-yellow for China's 60th

Its hilarious, a dedication to Empire as a backdrop to a celebration of Communism.

[Black Dog]

Communism, except in the US among conservatives, has NEVER been subjected to the same level of contempt and revulsion that Facism has and continues to experience.

I'd wager this has far less to do with any abiding affection for the ideology than it does the widespread awareness of the evils of fascism, in no small part due to the efforts of the Israel lobby and Jewish Community to ensure the Holocaust retains its place as the preeminent act of evil of the 21st Century (even at the expense of victims of other ideologies).

China is a brutal Communist state but most people prefer to ignore its brutality. Human rights abuses? Oh we're not worried about that. Let's all go stare at Israel some more. Maybe some IDF trooper will be rude to a stone throwing protester.

"Most people"? How many? Who are they?

[ToadBrother]

Communists are really no different, under the skin, than Fascists. They're both dangerous in that the importance of people is secondary to the importance of their ideas. And they're more than willing to eliminate as many of the former as is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the latter.

This has always been my problem with this particular debate. Who are you referring to here? The regimes that invoked the Communist ideology as a founding principle, or Marxism/Communism, the political theory, or more properly theories (there are a number of competing ones out there, after all).

It's an interesting footnote on 20th century Communism that none of the successful Communist revolutions happened in countries that Marx said it would happen in. Marx believed that every society would have to go through a capitalist industrialized bourgeois stage before the proletariat should revolt. But look at the major Communist regimes; Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, and so forth. Each and every one were still agrarian societies, nowhere near the level of development that Marx supposedly required. In a way, Marx's theories have never actually fully been put to the test. Neither one of the two Big Communist powers; Russia or China, have ever really put forth a true-blue Marxist system.

That all being said, Marxist theory has had an enormous influence on modern political thought. While none of the revolutions that Marx said were coming to the industrialized countries ever happened (or at least they were unsuccessful), it did pretty much shape the behavior of virtually every industrialized nation out there. It's pretty certain that the major reforms in Great Britain both in enfranchisement and in workers rights were at least in part a response to the fears of the ruling class that Marx might actually be right. Many countries brought in more liberal constitutions, and even in the bastion of free market free enterprise capitalism, the US, there are social welfare programs. In a way, more of the underlying notions of Marxism were adopted by the so-called "free enterprise" West than by the self-proclaimed Communist countries, which basically threw out the spirit of Marx's theory in favor of cults of personality (Lenin, Stalin and Mao all took on god-like powers, and effectively became the centers of secular state religions), autocratic rule, the replacement of one ruling class with another, but with lots of Marxist rhetoric thrown in to justify what was essentially authoritarian expansionist regimes.

Edited October 1, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Wilber]

People don't get murdered or starved by ideologies, rather by individuals and regimes. It may be acceptable shorthand to refer to the Ukrainians who perished in the Holodomor or the Jews who dies in the Holocaust as victims of "Communism" or "fascism", but historical clarity and precision demands a little more specificity when it comes to memorializing such events. Or: what Kimmy said:

I agree with the historical clarity and precision aspect when it comes to memorials. And yet for the last century the worst of these individuals and regimes in developed countries at least, have for the most part been communist or fascist.

Hitler murdered his millions largely because of twisted ideals. Stalin murdered most of his because he perceived them to be a threat to him personally. Both wanted to expand their power by conquering and exploiting other nations. Both marginalized and victimized identifiable minorities in society as a tool to gain and maintain power. Both were sick puppies but which was more evil?

[ToadBrother]

I agree with the historical clarity and precision aspect when it comes to memorials. And yet for the last century the worst of these individuals and regimes in developed countries at least, have for the most part been communist or fascist.

Hitler murdered his millions largely because of twisted ideals. Stalin murdered most of his because he perceived them to be a threat to him personally. Both wanted to expand their power by conquering and exploiting other nations. Both marginalized and victimized identifiable minorities in society as a tool to gain and maintain power. Both were sick puppies but which was more evil?

That's a tough call. In pure numbers, Stalin and Mao surely must rank as the worst mass murderers in all of history. But ideologically, National Socialism, to my mind, is still the worst. A lot of Stalin's mass murders weren't so much ethnically justified (though there were purges or mass forced relocations) as they were simply matters of expediency. Stalin was a bulldozer who killed people more because they got in the way of whatever he was trying to do. Most of Stalin's and Mao's deaths involved ludicrous economic and agricultural plans; Lysenko's pseudo-scientific agrononsense and the Great Leap Forward were the big killers, much more so than the political purges. What these make clear is that both Stalin and Mao were completely detached from what was happening on the ground, and particularly in Mao's case, even when it was clear that the policies were failing with unbelievably destructive results, no one dared approach him to tell him the truth. So they're not murders of intent so much as murders of incompetence.

In Hitler's case, it's different. Twelve million people were not killed simply because of botched planning or absurd policies, but as part of a very purposeful plan. It's sort of the difference between being a drunk who plows his car into a crowd of people and some evil bastard who knowingly does so with express purpose of killing as many of those people as possible.

(Not that Stalin and Mao didn't target some ethnic groups for ill treatment and even killing, but that certainly wasn't part of the ideology they had adopted).

[Wilber]

I put them on the same plane. I could really care less about their personal reasons. I'm pretty sure the majority of their victims didn't either. Whatever their reasons, none had any respect for their fellow humans. We put Hitlers numbers at less than Stalin's or Mao's but he did instigate the war that resulted in death's estimated at up to fifty million.

How about Genghis Khan?

[kimmy]

I find your comments illogical questionable for these reasons:

i- the fact you feel Hitler was no MORE evil than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot

does not make him less evil;

And yet, Hitler is widely recognized as embodiment of evil; the crimes of the others are poorly known by comparison.

If you went around the streets of your town and asked people to tell you about the Holocaust, you would probably get fair number of fairly accurate responses.

If you asked the same people about how and who and how many were killed by Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, I bet you'd get very few accurate responses and a lot of blank looks.

It is likely that to some degree this is simply because our nations went to war against Hitler directly and had no direct involvement with the other three.

That's a tough call. In pure numbers, Stalin and Mao surely must rank as the worst mass murderers in all of history. But ideologically, National Socialism, to my mind, is still the worst. A lot of Stalin's mass murders weren't so much ethnically justified (though there were purges or mass forced relocations) as they were simply matters of expediency. Stalin was a bulldozer who killed people more because they got in the way of whatever he was trying to do. (...)

(Not that Stalin and Mao didn't target some ethnic groups for ill treatment and even killing, but that certainly wasn't part of the ideology they had adopted).

If it is purely a question of numbers, then obviously Mao and Stalin are the worst.

However, despite the smaller scale, I find Pol Pot to be as chilling as Hitler. Simply, utterly horrific.

-k

Edited October 2, 2009 by kimmy

[ToadBrother]

I put them on the same plane. I could really care less about their personal reasons. I'm pretty sure the majority of their victims didn't either. Whatever their reasons, none had any respect for their fellow humans. We put Hitlers numbers at less than Stalin's or Mao's but he did instigate the war that resulted in death's estimated at up to fifty million.

I think my point was that for Stalin and Mao, it wasn't any malice in particular, just arrogance and stupidity. In Hitler's case, it was something else. It was the transformation of one of the roles of State into an intentional killing machine. Stalin and Mao were deluded enough to believe they were helping their people, Hitler knew full well what he was doing.

How about Genghis Khan?

Or Attilla the Hun. Brutal conquerors whose pursuit of glory and wealth knew no bounds except their own mortality. Alexander the Great fits in there somewhere as well, as one writer once called him, the "brutal golden boy of the West". Everyone from two-bit dictators to the most powerful strongmen have lusted after Alexander. He's probably inspired more death than any other single figure in history.

[ToadBrother]

If it is purely a question of numbers, then obviously Mao and Stalin are the worst.

However, despite the smaller scale, I find Pol Pot to be as chilling as Hitler. Simply, utterly horrific.

Sadly the 20th century has far too many examples of both kind of dictator; the arrogant fool who kills through stupidity and blind ideology, and the madmen who just simply want to kill. One of the posters is right about one thing, to the victims in mattered little. Whether you were a Jew at Auschwitz or one of the millions of Chinese who starved under the incompetence of the Great Leap Forward, you died horribly either way.

[August1991]

People don't get murdered or starved by ideologies, rather by individuals and regimes. It may be acceptable shorthand to refer to the Ukrainians who perished in the Holodomor or the Jews who dies in the Holocaust as victims of "Communism" or "fascism", but historical clarity and precision demands a little more specificity when it comes to memorializing such events.

But we celebrate certain principles (ideologies, I suppose) such as liberty, freedom and democracy.

Peace is better than war. And niceness is better than meanness.

I agree however that a monument deploring "communism" or "fascism" is simplistic. The next versions of communism or fascism will use other names.

We don't see you often enough, BD.

I agree. The place seems empty without BD.

Communism, except in the US among conservatives, has NEVER been subjected to the same level of contempt and revulsion that Facism has and continues to experience.

I agree.

I will add that Boris Fyodorov's party placed large billboards in Moscow during the 1996 presidential campaign asking whether 50 million victims of communism would vote Communist.

Vaclav Havel, the Czech president, was also clear on the similarity of communists and fascists.

[kimmy]

I think my point was that for Stalin and Mao, it wasn't any malice in particular, just arrogance and stupidity. In Hitler's case, it was something else. It was the transformation of one of the roles of State into an intentional killing machine. Stalin and Mao were deluded enough to believe they were helping their people, Hitler knew full well what he was doing.

It has been argued that the Holodomor was not just incompetence and not just forceful imposition of an "economic program", but also a calculated effort to erase the Ukrainian identity from the USSR.

-k

[Wilber]

I think my point was that for Stalin and Mao, it wasn't any malice in particular, just arrogance and stupidity. In Hitler's case, it was something else. It was the transformation of one of the roles of State into an intentional killing machine. Stalin and Mao were deluded enough to believe they were helping their people, Hitler knew full well what he was doing.

Or Attilla the Hun. Brutal conquerors whose pursuit of glory and wealth knew no bounds except their own mortality. Alexander the Great fits in there somewhere as well, as one writer once called him, the "brutal golden boy of the West". Everyone from two-bit dictators to the most powerful strongmen have lusted after Alexander. He's probably inspired more death than any other single figure in history.

You are far too kind to Stalin. Not sure about Mao.

Genghis Khan was more along the lines of Stalin. Arrogance and stupidity weren't in it. With both it was calculated terrorism. They both eliminated any real or perceived threat without a second thought in order to intimidate others. Genghis would massacre entire cities to set an example to others. It is probably unfair to judge Genghis by the standards of 700 years later but the mentality was similar. Hitler killed out of ideology and to terrorize. Genghis' and Stalin's brutality might have been more pragmatic but either way it was willful murder and I see no moral difference.

Alexander was no angel but he was certainly more complex. As well as spreading Greek culture he absorbed what he thought was the best of those he conquered. His remarkable military record aside, no 32 year old has had a more lasting effect on the world. The Hellenistic culture that resulted had a profound effect on the developement of Rome and and the world we now live in. Of course others have tried to emulate him but no one ever has. Hannibal came close as a tactician and commander. Julius Cesar was continually comparing his life to Alexander's at the same age and lamenting that he came up short. There is problably no one in history that deserved the title "The Great" more than Alexander.