The old double standards still alive and well

[Argus]

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.

Are you implying Stalin didn't KNOW he was murdering all those Ukrainians? Because the history books seem to suggest otherwise, that his government deliberately brought about mass starvation, doing everything in their power to ensure the maximum number of people died.

He thought he was doing it for the ultimate good? Well, arguably, so was Hitler. The ultimate good of the Aryan people.

[Pliny]

Are you implying Stalin didn't KNOW he was murdering all those Ukrainians? Because the history books seem to suggest otherwise, that his government deliberately brought about mass starvation, doing everything in their power to ensure the maximum number of people died.

He thought he was doing it for the ultimate good? Well, arguably, so was Hitler. The ultimate good of the Aryan people.

Although starvation was a major killer as Ukrainians burned their fields instead of yielding the fruit of their farms to the Soviets, we can't forget that Kargansky's firing squads were also killing up to a thousand Ukrainians a day for months on end.

[Wilber]

Stalin also ordered the Katyn massacre.

[Black Dog]

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

Indeed, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. Hitler industrialized genocide, but Stalin was an artiste.

Back to the topic at hand: how would the OP feel about a monument to the millions of victims of "imperialism" around the world?

[Wilber]

Back to the topic at hand: how would the OP feel about a monument to the millions of victims of "imperialism" around the world?

There ya go, a monument to victims of the Soviet Empire.

[g_bambino]

The OP of this thread touches on something I've been witnessing over the last couple of days in a more global context: as China "celebrates" 60 years of communist rule, the west has been ever-so-meekly celebrating with them. Coverage on the BBC and CBC is rife with pretty images of people in colourful garments dancing and singing, and some displays of Chinese miltary prowess, and barely a word about the atrocities commited under this regime and the continued issue of human rights there. The only opposition to this that I've personally heard was from a human rights organization headquartered in the Empire State Building, the property managers of which lit the spire in communist Chinese red and gold. It's all got such a smile-nicely-and-don't-say-anything-mean attitude about it. I mean, I don't think we need McCarthyism back again, but... really, can't we remain just a little more free to openly criticise such an abhorrent system of government?

[ReeferMadness]

Back to the topic at hand: how would the OP feel about a monument to the millions of victims of "imperialism" around the world?

Not exactly the same. Imperialism is a means, not an ideology. It would be like a monument victims of terrorism.

But how about a monument to the victims of "free enterprise"? Here's just a short list of victims from modern history.

• hundreds of millions of natives of the Americas and Australia, murdered, enslaved, and/or forced off their lands
  
• the entire African continent subjugated and left in a state from which it is yet to recover
  
• millions of blacks enslaved and forced to spend their lives in forced labor
  
• the subjugation of the Indian subcontinent by the British East India Company
  
• the millions of Russians who lost their pensions or were otherwise forced into abject poverty when the "new capitalist class" (which strangely resembled the old communist class) were allowed to rob the state blind after the fall of communism
  
• untold millions of people around the world whose lives were spent (and in many cases still are spent) working in brutal, unsafe working conditions for poverty wages
  
• untold millions whose lives have been cut short due to pollution and other forms of environmental degradation
  

I could go on but I think that's enough to convey the idea.

[ReeferMadness]

The OP of this thread touches on something I've been witnessing over the last couple of days in a more global context: as China "celebrates" 60 years of communist rule, the west has been ever-so-meekly celebrating with them. Coverage on the BBC and CBC is rife with pretty images of people in colourful garments dancing and singing, and some displays of Chinese miltary prowess, and barely a word about the atrocities commited under this regime and the continued issue of human rights there. The only opposition to this that I've personally heard was from a human rights organization headquartered in the Empire State Building, the property managers of which lit the spire in communist Chinese red and gold. It's all got such a smile-nicely-and-don't-say-anything-mean attitude about it. I mean, I don't think we need McCarthyism back again, but... really, can't we remain just a little more free to openly criticise such an abhorrent system of government?

I listen to CBC radio and they've done a fairly good job of dealing with this in a balanced fashion. For example, they pointed out that in the "People's Republic", the people aren't allowed anywhere near the celebration. I don't watch a lot of TV but if the commercial media are being soft on China, it's likely due to the fact that they or their parent companies or their advertisers are afraid to offend the Chinese.

Official criticism of China has died off over the past few decades and the reason isn't hard to figure out. China has become a major player in the world economy. Any country that criticizes it runs the risk of having its businesses shut out. China also holds a 800 billion dollars of treasury bills and another trillion plus in American mortgage-backed securities, corporate bonds and US dollars. It could sink the US dollar if it chose to do so. A lot of people think that's going to happen anyway, but that's another topic.

The bottom line is that money trumps morality. So it is. So it's always been.

[kimmy]

Indeed, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. Hitler industrialized genocide, but Stalin was an artiste.

So, if people are willing to dismiss the atrocities of Stalin (or Mao or Pol Pot) as poor planning or an awkward implementation of economic change, or if people are simply not aware of those atrocities at all, doesn't that kind of support the original poster's claim of a "double standard"?

-k

[Argus]

Not exactly the same. Imperialism is a means, not an ideology. It would be like a monument victims of terrorism.

But how about a monument to the victims of "free enterprise"? Here's just a short list of victims from modern history.

Imperialism is something which dates back to the dawn of time and was practiced by almost every major state - and possibly still is depending on how you interpet the word. You might as well have a monument to the victims of mean government.

Free enterprise and capitalism might have a long list of victims but you are neglecting the fact that they have lifted billions out of the grinding, hand to mouth poverty virtually the entire world lived under for most of recorded history. Most scientific advancement came about due to free enterprise and capitalism. Were it not for free enterprise and capitalism you'd still be riding horses to work.

[ReeferMadness]

Free enterprise and capitalism might have a long list of victims but you are neglecting the fact that they have lifted billions out of the grinding, hand to mouth poverty virtually the entire world lived under for most of recorded history. Most scientific advancement came about due to free enterprise and capitalism. Were it not for free enterprise and capitalism you'd still be riding horses to work.

Yes, I was ignoring the benefits of capitalism in the same way that erecting a monument to the victims of communism ignored the good points of the communist societies. That was the point I was making.

I can already hear the protests: but nothing good came out of communism. It was pure evil!

In fact last year I worked with a guy who grew up in part of the former Yugoslavia who has very fond memories of life under communism. He said that people were content, everyone had a job, everyone had health care and there was a real sense of community. And while life fell far short of the utopian dream, there were positive things to be said about many of the communist regimes:

• more egalitarian societies
  
• free healthcare
  
• free education
  
• Soviets were first into space
  
• Soviet scientists were very advanced in many fields
  

In fact, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

you are neglecting the fact that they have lifted billions out of the grinding, hand to mouth poverty virtually the entire world lived under for most of recorded history.

That's a very selective reading of history. For much of recorded history, there has been capitalism and the overwhelming majority of capitalists have been only too happy to allow their employees/slaves live in "grinding, hand to mouth poverty". Child labour, unsafe work conditions, 12 hour work days, 7 day work weeks, these are all characteristics of unregulated capitalism. It was in fact the influence of unions and socialists that resulted in government regulation that makes life under capitalism bearable. Public schooling, public water and sewage utilities, employment standards, safety standards - these are the things that create the environment under which a modern society can thrive. If we'd waited for capitalism to bring them, we'd still be waiting.

Most scientific advancement came about due to free enterprise and capitalism. Were it not for free enterprise and capitalism you'd still be riding horses to work.

Now you're just making stuff up. Most real scientific work is publicly funded - either through universities or government agencies. The capitalists come along after the science is mostly done and it's ready to be commercialized.

Capitalism is good at commercializing science but that's a different matter.

The bottom line here is that no system is all good or all bad.

[Black Dog]

The OP of this thread touches on something I've been witnessing over the last couple of days in a more global context: as China "celebrates" 60 years of communist rule, the west has been ever-so-meekly celebrating with them. Coverage on the BBC and CBC is rife with pretty images of people in colourful garments dancing and singing, and some displays of Chinese miltary prowess, and barely a word about the atrocities commited under this regime and the continued issue of human rights there. The only opposition to this that I've personally heard was from a human rights organization headquartered in the Empire State Building, the property managers of which lit the spire in communist Chinese red and gold. It's all got such a smile-nicely-and-don't-say-anything-mean attitude about it. I mean, I don't think we need McCarthyism back again, but... really, can't we remain just a little more free to openly criticise such an abhorrent system of government?

Given the extent to which our own "free market, capitalist system" depends on the cooperation and good will of the thugs in Beijing, the short answer is no.

kimmy:

So, if people are willing to dismiss the atrocities of Stalin (or Mao or Pol Pot) as poor planning or an awkward implementation of economic change, or if people are simply not aware of those atrocities at all, doesn't that kind of support the original poster's claim of a "double standard"?

I don't think it's a double standard in the latter case. Lots of people don't know jack about the purges or the killing fields but that doesn't make them apologists.

Now, I don't disagree that a double standard exists. Indeed, it's that double standard wrt to the Soviet Union, China and Cuba among certain elements of the NA left that has in part made me rethink my position on the political spectrum. But that's not to say it's a widespread belief.

[kimmy]

I don't think it's a double standard in the latter case. Lots of people don't know jack about the purges or the killing fields but that doesn't make them apologists.

I was thinking more along the lines of why are these other atrocities so poorly known by large numbers of Canadians. I don't recall ever hearing a word about any of them in public school.

Not to diminish the Holocaust, of course, but don't these other human disasters merit mention as well? It seems to me that that's a double standard.

Now, I don't disagree that a double standard exists. Indeed, it's that double standard wrt to the Soviet Union, China and Cuba among certain elements of the NA left that has in part made me rethink my position on the political spectrum. But that's not to say it's a widespread belief.

It doesn't seem right to start questioning your views just because some knuckleheads share the same views. There's knuckleheads everywhere on the political spectrum. I spend a lot of time questioning my own views, but it is not because there are knuckleheads who have the same views as me. It's because there are smart people who have different views from me. I like it when I read something that makes me have to stop and think about the positions I hold. That's why I've missed seeing you around here, BD.

-k

[segnosaur]

In fact last year I worked with a guy who grew up in part of the former Yugoslavia who has very fond memories of life under communism.

And a couple of years ago, while I was on a business trip in Africa, I ended up talking with someone from Uganda who said that Idi Amin was actually a good ruler.

The fact that some individuals, who may have either been in a privileged class, or may not have had other options consider a previous political system 'good' doesn't mean that it is so. At least here in the western world, we have enough freedom of speech such that alternatives can be freely discussed.

And while life fell far short of the utopian dream, there were positive things to be said about many of the communist regimes:

• more egalitarian societies
  

Except the communist societies typically did have different 'classes', but mobility between the classes was even more strongly enforced than in western countries.

• free healthcare
  
• free education
  

On the other hand, your typical incomes in communist countries are so low, that health care and education have to be free, because people could not afford it otherwise.

• Soviets were first into space
  
• Soviet scientists were very advanced in many fields
  

Yet they fell behind the U.S. and other western 'capitalist' countries in so many ways... Yes, they had the first satalite and the first people in space, but the U.S. was first to the moon, first to launch a probes to the outer planets, etc.

And frankly, given the fact that the country had a population numbering in the hundreds of millions, they should have had at least a few capable scientists.

In fact, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

Actually, no, they don't.

You see, there is a difference in the way infant mortality is calculated in the 2 countries. If a premature child is born in Cuba, they would not administer intensive medical care, and the event would be recorded as a 'fetal death' (so it wouldn't count in the infant mortality statistics).

On the other hand, the same premature child born in the U.S. would result in substantial medical care. Sometimes this care would be successful, sometimes it would not. However, if attempts were made to keep the child alive, and those attempts failed, then it would be considered a live birth, followed by a death.

See: http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/200...fant-mortality/

That's a very selective reading of history. For much of recorded history, there has been capitalism....

Actually, not sure if that's exactly true... while there may have been variious merchant classes over the past millenium, most of the earth's population existed under some form of autocratic rule/fudalism/etc. It has only been since around the 18th/19th centuries that capitalism (at least in the form that we would recognize) has become a significant economic system.

and the overwhelming majority of capitalists have been only too happy to allow their employees/slaves live in "grinding, hand to mouth poverty". Child labour, unsafe work conditions, 12 hour work days, 7 day work weeks, these are all characteristics of unregulated capitalism.

Actually, those aren't so much the characteristics of 'unregulated capitalism' as they are the characteristics of depressed economies and lack of human rights.

Keep in mind that prior to capitalism 'abusing' the workers, many people were stuck in feudal societies where they were likewise 'abused', living in poverty. Yes, going from being subject to some nobleman to being stuck in a factory wasn't really much of an advancement, but it shouldn't necessarily be considered a step 'backwards' either.

It was in fact the influence of unions and socialists that resulted in government regulation that makes life under capitalism bearable.

Actually, don't discount the effects of the improved standard of living for making capitalism 'bearable'. After all,

Public schooling, public water and sewage utilities, employment standards, safety standards - these are the things that create the environment under which a modern society can thrive. If we'd waited for capitalism to bring them, we'd still be waiting.

No, we wouldn't. After all, when the economy is strong, employees have the ability to demand better working conditions, better environmental controls, etc. (Remember, here in the western world, we have a slightly better record of handling the environment than the former communist countries did.)

The bottom line here is that no system is all good or all bad.

Perhaps not, but we can hold the opinion that some economic/political systems are bad enough for such a significant portion of the population that they can and should be avoided at all costs.

[jbg]

If communists want to be offended let them be offended. Their ideas have brought grief enough to the world. More by far than even the Nazis. None can even count the tens of millions that died under Stalin and Mao and the others. Of all human philosophies, communism is the one most deserving of a monument to its folly, that the only thing one can become if one embraces communism is a victim.

Nazism didn't have a long enough run to have that high a death toll nor could it have. Nazism's main ideology was death; there are other aspects to Communism other than a desire to kill people. Entities run by people such as the Nazis tend to draw enemies from all directions since they strike out in all directions. This shortens their reign of terror whereas Communism's toll is more subtle and far slower.

Eventually Islam may suffer the same fate for the same reasons, which would be a tragedy since innocents will suffer far more than the "fighters". Eventually their more or less unselective attacks will draw enemies from all over, and since Muslims "fight" out of uniform, civilians will disproportionately suffer. Look at Gaza, where Israel makes greater efforts than most countries to avoid collateral civilian casualties. The radical Muslims, like the Nazis, will unite strange bedfellows (such as "Uncle Joe" Stalin, FDR and Churchill) if there are any more mass attacks such as 911.

To return to the topic, I think Nazis killed at a far higher clip than the Communists. They killed fewer since no one would give them a chance to kill more.

[Catallaxy]

Pavlovian Conditioning

I was thinking more along the lines of why are these other atrocities so poorly known by large numbers of Canadians. I don't recall ever hearing a word about any of them in public school.

Not to diminish the Holocaust, of course, but don't these other human disasters merit mention as well? It seems to me that that's a double standard.

-k

We have been and still are being conditioned by Hollywood, television and some newspapers, to fall into a contrived obsequious stupor, at the mere mention of the Holocaust. Something like 275 films and documentaries have been made about the Holocaust, so that the names of particular camps, like Auschwitz and Treblinka, are household words. Who can name a single Gulag death camp?

The Left is using this vehicle as a convenient pretext with which to show that the Right is forever tainted. If people were to become more aware of the humanitarian atrocities, industrially perpetrated by Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, the Democrats, in the United States, the Liberals in Canada and the Social Democrats, in Europe, would all have hardly a chance, at the polls.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Catallaxy

[Guest TrueMetis]

I was thinking more along the lines of why are these other atrocities so poorly known by large numbers of Canadians. I don't recall ever hearing a word about any of them in public school.

Not to diminish the Holocaust, of course, but don't these other human disasters merit mention as well? It seems to me that that's a double standard.

-k

It's taught in my school.

[Michael Hardner]

If people were to become more aware of the humanitarian atrocities, industrially perpetrated by Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, the Democrats, in the United States, the Liberals in Canada and the Social Democrats, in Europe, would all have hardly a chance, at the polls.

Fantastic ! Stephane Dion was a war criminal all along ! I knew it.

I'll file this in the "I'm not right-wing, the entire world is left-wing" column...

Thanks for the laugh...

[lictor616]

Yes, I was ignoring the benefits of capitalism in the same way that erecting a monument to the victims of communism ignored the good points of the communist societies. That was the point I was making.

I can already hear the protests: but nothing good came out of communism. It was pure evil!

In fact last year I worked with a guy who grew up in part of the former Yugoslavia who has very fond memories of life under communism. He said that people were content, everyone had a job, everyone had health care and there was a real sense of community. And while life fell far short of the utopian dream, there were positive things to be said about many of the communist regimes:

• more egalitarian societies
  
• free healthcare
  
• free education
  
• Soviets were first into space
  
• Soviet scientists were very advanced in many fields
  

In fact, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

That's a very selective reading of history. For much of recorded history, there has been capitalism and the overwhelming majority of capitalists have been only too happy to allow their employees/slaves live in "grinding, hand to mouth poverty". Child labour, unsafe work conditions, 12 hour work days, 7 day work weeks, these are all characteristics of unregulated capitalism. It was in fact the influence of unions and socialists that resulted in government regulation that makes life under capitalism bearable. Public schooling, public water and sewage utilities, employment standards, safety standards - these are the things that create the environment under which a modern society can thrive. If we'd waited for capitalism to bring them, we'd still be waiting.

Now you're just making stuff up. Most real scientific work is publicly funded - either through universities or government agencies. The capitalists come along after the science is mostly done and it's ready to be commercialized.

Capitalism is good at commercializing science but that's a different matter.

The bottom line here is that no system is all good or all bad.

where to begin?

first off the Soviet Union was founded on capitalist money (look at G.E.'s electrification of Russia in 1921, chase bank, Rockerfeller donations... Communism WAS financed by moneyed corporations...

and even still look at RJ Rummel's democide study on Communist Occupied countries... the conservative estimates of the number of people killed in communist occupied countries from 1931 to 1978 was 119 million (EXCLUDING WAR CASUALTIES)....

and the societies they created were not at all egalitarian... and Soviet healthcare?!?!? NONSENSE ON STILTS!

Edited October 21, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

I was thinking more along the lines of why are these other atrocities so poorly known by large numbers of Canadians. I don't recall ever hearing a word about any of them in public school.

Not to diminish the Holocaust, of course, but don't these other human disasters merit mention as well? It seems to me that that's a double standard.

-k

That's because the "victim echelon" of our educational system has been designed to demonize Right Wing and anti-internationalist policies and ignore and sometimes even praise globalist crypto-communist ones.

They teach the Holocaust, and ignore the Holodomor, Katyn, Mao's "great" leap forward and countless other communist acts of savagery, because the very foundation of modern liberalism is based on endless yammering on the Holocaust... and absolving Socialists, and Communists of any historical wrong doing.... which is used ad nauseam to teach people what happens when a people is "not egalitarian" and segregates...

the holocaust is merely a hammer to bludgeon the masses into accepting such programs as "multiculturalism" and "diversity".

Godwin's Law fallacy directly descends from it.

Russia was egalitarian and yet, produced far more cadavers and human suffering then Hitler ever did... and if that fact was widely known... and Spielberg made movies of that... that would put the Holocaust in quite a different light wouldn't it? It would show that egalitarian reigns are always stained with a redder smear then fascist "politically incorrect" ones...

To them Auschwitz is important because jews died there, but Vinnitsya is irrelevent because Ukrainians (european "whites") died there. It can't communicate the "racism or prejudice is the root of evil" drivel.

Without Auschwitz... liberals can't shut down debate about immigration or multiculturalist policies...

[Catallaxy]

Good Post Lictor

The Holocaust is a sacred issue, for Jews. This is understandable, considering the mass murder or genocide that Hitler and his Nazis perpetrated, on them. However, for the Left, it is a useful tool, to relentlessly repeat, in movies, on television and on the radio, to distract our attention away from the deliberate exterminations of human beings, which were done, to a much greater extent by their more extreme Left wing comrades, in Cambodia, the Soviet Union and China.

I don't think that it is a surprise, that the media is by and large, a Left wing oracle. Does anyone really doubt this?

Edited October 21, 2009 by Catallaxy

[M.Dancer]

I don't think that it is a surprise, that the media is by and large, a Left wing oracle. Does anyone really doubt this?

Rupert does

[Oleg Bach]

There was a report recently that one third of the homeless in Toronto are immigrants - and they are "highly educated" - and can be redeamed..what a joke - There is a mission at the far west end of my hood that serves the homeless _ I had a good look at a band of them - I was surprised to see a few brown ones - BUT I did wonder why they were their for a bed and meal - after closer examination, I noticed they were what we use to call boarder line retards..These "immigrants" use to be taken care of by family - but once family is westernized the loyalty to the weak family members disolves - they ran off the crazy and stupid people that they once tolerated and took care of..now they are homeless....Did no one run an IQ check on the lower end immigrants? Did no one understand that some are poorly bred to the point that they can not function in our society?

[lictor616]

Good Post Lictor

The Holocaust is a sacred issue, for Jews. This is understandable, considering the mass murder or genocide that Hitler and his Nazis perpetrated, on them. However, for the Left, it is a useful tool, to relentlessly repeat, in movies, on television and on the radio, to distract our attention away from the deliberate exterminations of human beings, which were done, to a much greater extent by their more extreme Left wing comrades, in Cambodia, the Soviet Union and China.

I don't think that it is a surprise, that the media is by and large, a Left wing oracle. Does anyone really doubt this?

absolutely, the holocaust IS sacred for Jews, and rightly so. What's perverse is that the media is trying to force non-jews to feel the same kind of angst and pain for the holocaust as Jews (even more so!).

Its like asking a family two blocks away to feel the same degree of empathy and pain over the death of a child of another family...

They use the holocaust "ad infinitam nauseam" because it suits their program of multiculturalism so well... whenever someone has a nonleftist opinion about anything they can immediately get them on the run by saying "that's what hitler did"... that's how powerful the holocaust industry is... its the central pillar of Political Correctness and brainwashed left-wing politics.

Just think, in our begrimed and defiled country, it is perfectly reasonable and OK to wear a hammer and sickle t shirt, or EL Che backpack pin... or any other type of Communist regalia, but for all practical purposes, it would ILLEGAL to wear a Hakenkreuz or Swastika, or say a Goebbels t-shirt...

The double standard is quite obvious.

[M.Dancer]

Its like asking a family two blocks away to feel the same degree of empathy and pain over the death of a child of another family...

If you had a child you loved, you would know how easy it is to feel empathy for the loss of another's child.

If you had human emotions, you would find that empathy for 10+ millions humans comes easily too...