Communism killed 94 million people in the 20th century

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century

Deaths from laissez-faire capitalism - 0

Deaths from communism - 94,000,000

Communism is the most violent and destructive ideology in human history. I think it is clear which is the moral social system, and which is not.

Laihendi

Deaths from laissez-faire capitalism - > 0Laihendi

Stalinism =/= Communism...the_ChEeSe_mAn2

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm 

For all you communists out there, GMU Economist George Mason a while ago created this webpage that documents the atrocities and mis-planning of communist regimes. As an aside, despite paying lip service to human freedom, Marx and his successors had deeply authoritarian personalities and ideologies. There's no looking at this another way, you're not a supporter of human freedom if you support the Paris Commune.  

Somewhere in all the bull**** false dichotomies and misrepresentations, there's actually an interesting question.  Why does communism so often morph into authoritarianism?  I definitely don't see a lack of rights as an inherent part of communism, but it's still somehow very easily coopted by authoritarian leaders.  Why don't we see more "free" communist societies?  A free communist society is not a contradiction, but why does communism on a country-wide scale always lead to dictatorship?

I thought this was common knowledge.  How are people arguing against this?

Lai's threads killed 100mil

I thought this was common knowledge.  How are people arguing against this?

GOGOGOGURT

its a common lie

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm 

For all you communists out there, GMU Economist George Mason a while ago created this webpage that documents the atrocities and mis-planning of communist regimes. As an aside, despite paying lip service to human freedom, Marx and his successors had deeply authoritarian personalities and ideologies. There's no looking at this another way, you're not a supporter of human freedom if you support the Paris Commune.  

radicalcentrist

1. Communism by definition is a form of anarchism. You can't call centrally planed economies communist. These regimes the article talks about are so called state 'socialist' governments that supposedly wanted to transition to a communist society. Not every communist is marxist.

2. Self ownership is impossible. You are yourself. You can't own yourself. You are not seprate from your body.  Private property is coercion, and certantly violates my liberty. John Loke extended the reach of the government.

"Free markets" are anything but free, they have costs. The freedom of the market is certantly not my freedom.

Here is a good and informative article

According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic fromInformation is Beautifulentitled simply 20thCentury Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.

During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communisms total by only 9 million.

It gets worse when you look at the lower right of the chartThe Natural Worldwhich includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the worlds worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea. 

Communism is a killer. And yet some still say they support the idea: According to a 2011 Rasmussen poll, 11% of Americans think that communism would better serve this countrys needs than our current system.Laihendi

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century

Deaths from laissez-faire capitalism - 0

Deaths from communism - 94,000,000

Communism is the most violent and destructive ideology in human history. I think it is clear which is the moral social system, and which is not.

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

I thought this was common knowledge.  How are people arguing against this?

osirisx3

its a common lie

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

I thought this was common knowledge.  How are people arguing against this?

osirisx3

its a common lie

Dude.  Stalin indirectly killed more of his own people than germany did. 

But you have a freakin red communist china sig, so it's not like I'm going to convince you of anything.

Lai's threads killed 100mil

wis3boi

1. Communism by definition is a form of anarchism. You can't call centrally planed economies communist. RushKing

Sure you can. These governments explicitly followed the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. They were working towards the goal of a classless society, ie communism. So I absolutely can and will describe socialist republics as "communist."

These regimes the article talks about are so called state 'socialist' governments that supposedly wanted to transition to a communist society. Not every communist is marxist.

True, but every marxist government was communist. 

2. Self ownership is impossible. You are yourself. You can't own yourself. You are not seprate from your body.

Spare me the metaphysics. Nobody hear is trying to reason from the premise of self-ownership to the more complex conclusion "therefore Capitalism". But since you brought it up, I have to ask why self-ownership is impossible. A thing can have relations with itself. When I think of myself, I have the relationship of thinking about myself. Ownership is generally defined simply as the the right of exclusivity, a kind of sovereignty if you will. Surely I can be sovereign over myself even if I am, in fact, identical to myself.

Private property is coercion, and certantly violates my liberty. John Loke extended the reach of the government.

"Free markets" are anything but free, they have costs. The freedom of the market is certantly not my freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow_Growth_Model 

Anybody who thinks that communism is a viable economic system can stand to take an economics course at the 300 level or above. All factors of production have to be paid, and the price system is absolutely necessary to achieve an optimal allocation of a country's resources. 

Wouldn't it be totalitarianism under the guise of communism?

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Private property is coercion, and certantly violates my liberty. John Loke extended the reach of the government.radicalcentrist

Propertarians are violating MY freedom. Do you believe me asking for equal acces to natural resources is unreasonable? Or is it the guy with the gun in the room who is unreasonable?

[QUOTE="RushKing"]"Free markets" are anything but free, they have costs. The freedom of the market is certantly not my freedom.radicalcentrist

Well sure, there are always costs. Resources are scarce and persons face constraints. There is only so much land, labor, and capital, but people's desire for utility is limitless. This is true regardless of whatever economic system you have, be it capitalism, socialism, communism, or feudalism. 

Money is creating artificial scarcity. We already produce enough to end world hunger but we can't becuase market won't let us. No way can I call it effiecint resource allocation. In capitalism your freedom gets determined by the amount of cash in your pocket.

In capitalism your freedom gets determined by the amount of cash in your pocket.RushKing

No, the amount of cash you have in your pocket lets you purchase things from others.
Someone builds a chair, you want a chair, you pay for it.
In a "free world" you wouldn't simply be given a chair, the maker would either make the chair for themselves, or could simply not give you the chair, he's free do do what he wants with his property.

You're free to go where you like, so long as you obey laws.
Money's only important if you want more things that cost money.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]1. Communism by definition is a form of anarchism. You can't call centrally planed economies communist.radicalcentrist

They were working towards the goal of a classless society, ie communism. So I absolutely can and will describe socialist republics as "communist."

No, they weren't. They were dictators, they wanted to preserve their power structures.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]2. Self ownership is impossible. You are yourself. You can't own yourself. You are not seprate from your body.radicalcentrist

Spare me the metaphysics. Nobody hear is trying to reason from the premise of self-ownership to the more complex conclusion "therefore Capitalism". But since you brought it up, I have to ask why self-ownership is impossible. A thing can have relations with itself. When I think of myself, I have the relationship of thinking about myself. Ownership is generally defined simply as the the right of exclusivity, a kind of sovereignty if you will. Surely I can be sovereign over myself even if I am, in fact, identical to myself.

Ownership requres two seperate objects. You cannot be seperated from yourself.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]In capitalism your freedom gets determined by the amount of cash in your pocket.Nibroc420

No, the amount of cash you have in your pocket lets you purchase things from others.
Someone builds a chair, you want a chair, you pay for it.
In a "free world" you wouldn't simply be given a chair, the maker would either make the chair for themselves, or could simply not give you the chair, he's free do do what he wants with his property.

You're free to go where you like, so long as you obey laws.
Money's only important if you want more things that cost money.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]In capitalism your freedom gets determined by the amount of cash in your pocket.RushKing

No, the amount of cash you have in your pocket lets you purchase things from others.
Someone builds a chair, you want a chair, you pay for it.
In a "free world" you wouldn't simply be given a chair, the maker would either make the chair for themselves, or could simply not give you the chair, he's free do do what he wants with his property.

You're free to go where you like, so long as you obey laws.
Money's only important if you want more things that cost money.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

No, the amount of cash you have in your pocket lets you purchase things from others.
Someone builds a chair, you want a chair, you pay for it.
In a "free world" you wouldn't simply be given a chair, the maker would either make the chair for themselves, or could simply not give you the chair, he's free do do what he wants with his property.

 

You're free to go where you like, so long as you obey laws.
Money's only important if you want more things that cost money.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="RushKing"] Without money or land, you are a slave in capitalism.RushKing

I haven't heard this whole thread, but the OP is completely wrong. If we are going to argue that everyone killed by countries that practiced communism then we have to look at the number of deaths caused by countries that are capitalist.  Nazi Germany comes to mind, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Pinchot's Chile and more.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Like what? Taking things from others? Killing others? You dont need to break laws to live.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="RushKing"] If you are a landless peasant your only options are basically wage labor, death or property violation.RushKing

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Here is a good and informative article

According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic fromInformation is Beautifulentitled simply 20thCentury Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.

During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communisms total by only 9 million.

It gets worse when you look at the lower right of the chartThe Natural Worldwhich includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the worlds worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea. 

Communism is a killer. And yet some still say they support the idea: According to a 2011 Rasmussen poll, 11% of Americans think that communism would better serve this countrys needs than our current system.Menalque2

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century

Deaths from laissez-faire capitalism - 0

Deaths from communism - 94,000,000

Communism is the most violent and destructive ideology in human history. I think it is clear which is the moral social system, and which is not.

You cannot abolish private property without an organized government to enforce it.Laihendi

Actually it's quite the other way around. You cannot have private property without a government to enforce it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow_Growth_Model 

Anybody who thinks that communism is a viable economic system can stand to take an economics course at the 300 level or above. All factors of production have to be paid, and the price system is absolutely necessary to achieve an optimal allocation of a country's resources. 

radicalcentrist

Capitalist price systems fail miserably at optimally allocating a country's resources.  Mostly because optimal is viewed in terms of gross numbers produced.  Supply and demand don't take into account the product being produced or its overall effects on society (eg A purely capitalist society would produce heroin if the demand was there, regardless of the fact that we're better off without it).  Capitalist optimization fails to properly prioritze production or recognize the overwhelming importance of certain resources such as basic food, medicine, and shelter.  Demand disproportionately encourages resources and labor to go towards consumer goods.  We end with the ridiculous situation we're in now, where we churn out flat screen TV's and luxury cars by the millions, while people are homeless and starving.

Further, capitalist optimization fails to take into account the strain caused by production.  In the long run, production can be completely unnecessary and deplete our natural resources or destroy the environment, but this is ignored by free market forces.  Instead, the capitalist mantra is more production is always good as long as there is demand, disregarding the actual utility of the product being produced (after all, demand is equivalent to utility in a capitalist mindset), disregarding the environmental damage caused by production.

"Optimal allocation" is short-sighted.  We end up producing in reckless ways that could have terrible reprocussions 30, 50, 100 years down the road because supply and demand is immediate.  There is no consideration of long-term effects in an economy driven by consumer decision-making.  Consumers are short-sighted, thus the decisions they make are often reasonable in the short run, destructive in the long run.

The free market does not lead to optimal allocation of resources.  It leads to short-sighted, unsustainable modes of production that are only efficient insofar as we are producing as much useless crap as possible.  I simply can't believe capitalism is efficient, when countries such as the US, with so many resources and so much labor, fail to feed millions under a capitalist system.  This is not efficiency.  This is a gross, irresponsible allocation of resources, where money is power and society is forced along by the invisible choke-chain of the almighty dollar.

If economics calls this efficiency, you can keep your 300-level courses.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]You cannot abolish private property without an organized government to enforce it.worlock77

Actually it's quite the other way around. You cannot have private property without a government to enforce it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]You cannot abolish private property without an organized government to enforce it.Laihendi

Actually it's quite the other way around. You cannot have private property without a government to enforce it.

You can drone on all you want about "natural rights" (no such thing, by the way), but if no one is there to enforce your rights then it's absolutely meaningless.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]You cannot abolish private property without an organized government to enforce it.Laihendi

Actually it's quite the other way around. You cannot have private property without a government to enforce it.

No it's like blaming nazism for WW2 and the Holocaust.charlesdarwin55

For all you communists out there, GMU Economist George Mason a while ago created this webpage that documents the atrocities and mis-planning of communist regimes. As an aside, despite paying lip service to human freedom, Marx and his successors had deeply authoritarian personalities and ideologies. There's no looking at this another way, you're not a supporter of human freedom if you support the Paris Commune.radicalcentrist

You're opening a huge can of worms here, and suffice it to say I think your treatment of this issue is overgeneralizing at best.  For one, there's a difference between defending the Paris Commune in principal and in practice, a distinction that is constantly getting swept under the rug in this thread.  No sane person goes out and says "yes, killing is good, that is exactly what they were trying to accomplish and good on them for doing it."  However, that's not to say that they can't admire the idea at work behind all of it and try to find a way to make it work in some form without all the killing.  

The Paris Commune actually started out quite peacefully, who's to say how it would have turned out had they not been invaded?  And if you're going to say that they had no right to establish in the first place then I'll be happy to point out the words of John Locke when he says "In these and like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other, as they shall find it most for their safety and good."  How are you going to differentiate the Commune from the American Revolution?  They went to extreme measures to establish a new government when they felt the old form of government was inadequate?  If we took your line of reasoning back in time to the American Revolution would we even have a United States at all?  Furthermore, what about the actions of the invading army?  What about them carrying out summary executions in the street? To try to pin all of the violence that took place during the Commune solely in the hands of the communists is a gross misrepresentation.

As to Marx, I think he can best be described as pragmatic, and perhaps to a fault.  He certainly wasn't autoritarian in his ideology.  He envisioned a state where everyone practices whatever trade they are best at and gives freely to whoever wants their products, that's nything but authoritarian.  However, he did envision a long process in actually achieving that state, one stage in which he called crude communism.  He describes this in a very uncomplimentary manner, though he still believes it to be a necessary step.  This is quite indiciative of his pragmatic attitude, which I have no problem criticizing, I just don't see it as authoritarian.  I'd also like to point out that if you told Marx he could establish a communist state somewhere without intereference he would be happy, but part of the reason why he was so cool about war was because he saw conflict between capitalist and communist societies as inevitable.  He didn't think that capitalist militaries would leave an independent government like the Paris Commune alone, and he was right.

I'd also like to point out that you don't have to be a communist to be arguing on the communist side of things in this thread.  There's a lot of poor argumentation taking place on the capitalist side of things and if we could just clear up a lot of the fallacies and misinformation that's getting put out there I'd be happy.  You don't need to be a communist to appreciate good argumentation.

Somewhere in all the bull**** false dichotomies and misrepresentations, there's actually an interesting question.  Why does communism so often morph into authoritarianism?  I definitely don't see a lack of rights as an inherent part of communism, but it's still somehow very easily coopted by authoritarian leaders.  Why don't we see more "free" communist societies?  A free communist society is not a contradiction, but why does communism on a country-wide scale always lead to dictatorship?HomicidalCherry

There are several factors to consider.  One is the proliferation of communism in agrarian and pre-industrial nations.  Marx was arguing for communism from the point of view of nations already having undergone industrial revolutions and generally beginning to have a more educated populace and developed systems of communication.  Agrarian societies generally have lower levels of education and a less connected populace, thereby making them a bit more prone to authoritarian measures.  Going along with that, they're also typically poorer.  This has the effect of making them more likely to buy into promises of a better life and more susceptible to propaganda portraying capitalist countries as the source of all their suffering (though propagandized, sometimes these claims have some truth to them as well).  

Another factor to consider is the almost inevitable military confrontations that will take place in a communist society.  At a civil level, there will always be a split and there will always be decisions to make about retaining traditional boundaries or not, and how to handle dissidents.  That can lead to civil war, as in the case of Vietnam.  Foreign involvement in Vietnam highlights the second part of this issue, that capitalist nations generally don't allow communist nations to come into existence without some sort of military engagement.  Military engagement necessarily breeds solidarity behind an autonomous military figure.  Even in the American Revolution there are examples of policy tending towards authoritarianism because democratic measures are not very conducive to good wartime strategy.  Many times when the war is over and the threat ended the military will be reluctant to give up the power it commanded during the war.

Furthermore, there's an interesting dynamic to the evolution of communist thought on the world stage.  Early on communists took a sort of "by any means necessary" approach in their thinking, and in this regard I do think Marx deserves some blame.  They didn't come out and sanction something like the Khmer Rouge, but they did speak as if combat was inevitable and probably necessary, and certainly spoke as if the implrementation of their ideology was a moral imperative.  This was put into a formal theory by Lenin who said that there needed to be imlemented a single-party communist system in order to bring communism into effect.  This was furthered by Stalin, who said that not only did there need to be a national party, but that it needed to be headed by a charismatic dictator who would be a cult of personality.  A great deal of the communist governments that came into existence took off directly from these theories, getting Marx and other previous communist thinkers simply by diffusion.  In essence, the proliferation of communism has had an inherently authoritarian bent simply by means of the thinkers these movements have modeled themselves on.

The last answer is that there have been examples of functional communism at larger levels.  They're admittedly the exception, but it does show that it's not impossible.  I'd also like to say that I do think large-scale communism isn't really in vogue anymore.  I think that many communist or pseudo-communist thinkers today prefer communism on a smaller scale.  Part of the problem with communism in practice, in my opinion, is that they implement a lot of revolutionary ideas at the same time, which creates a sudden shock and isn't conducive to effective change.  Effective change needs to be experimental, problems need to be addressed and it's hard to do that with an authoritarian government on a national level.

1. Communism by definition is a form of anarchism. You can't call centrally planed economies communist. These regimes the article talks about are so called state 'socialist' governments that supposedly wanted to transition to a communist society. Not every communist is marxist.

2. Self ownership is impossible. You are yourself. You can't own yourself. You are not seprate from your body.  Private property is coercion, and certantly violates my liberty. John Loke extended the reach of the government.RushKing

The distinction you're making isn't set in stone, there's still a lot of semantic debate over the terms socialist, communist, and marxist.  That being said I can tacitly accept your distinction.  The issue I would have would be in defining a small community that wrote a charter that included creation of a commons, acted democratically, and supported a form of cooperative economy (worker-owned industry).  It's very grassroots, I think it qualifies as communist, but it's still not anarchist.  On the contrary, it could very easily exist within the context of the current U.S. government.

I somewhat disagree with the second point.  I don't think property ownership is coercion, I just think that Locke went a bit too far in defining what property is and how it can be acquired.  This stems in part from an absolutely horrid understanding he had of how ecosystems and natural resources function.  One fo the funny things that never seems to get brought up when discussing Marx is that he and Locke (and Smith for that matter) both shared views on property.  They both ascribed to the labor theory of value, Marx even begins one of his essays saying "we proceed from the laws of economics" (referring specifically to the classical liberal economists)

Sure you can. These governments explicitly followed the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. They were working towards the goal of a classless society, ie communism. So I absolutely can and will describe socialist republics as "communist.".

True, but every marxist government was communist. 

Anybody who thinks that communism is a viable economic system can stand to take an economics course at the 300 level or above. All factors of production have to be paid, and the price system is absolutely necessary to achieve an optimal allocation of a country's resources. 

radicalcentrist

You really can't impugne an inherently anti-authoritarian ideology because someone used it to create an authoritarian state.  I don't know how this could be any clearer.

Those governments were also most certainly not explicitly following the teachings of Marx and Engels.  They shared a goal, that is not explicitly following.

You're equivocating in the next line.

Not all communism argues for the total abolition of price and private property.  Much communist thought argues for the means of production to be communal, but for there still to be a market.

You must hate living in a world where food, shelter, and all of the luxuries of life do not spontaneously appear and instead must be created by the minds and labour of men.Laihendi

Actually, most communist theory stresses the value of labor.  The difference is that everyone actually produces for themselves instead of selling their labor to someone else.

Also, OTcars are rigged, MrGeezer's got nothing on me.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]You cannot abolish private property without an organized government to enforce it.Laihendi

Actually it's quite the other way around. You cannot have private property without a government to enforce it.

I remember there being a lot of dictatorships masquerading as communism in the 20th century, but I don't remember much actual communism.chessmaster1989

True communism is impossible with human beings.  We're too greedy.  

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]I remember there being a lot of dictatorships masquerading as communism in the 20th century, but I don't remember much actual communism.hartsickdiscipl

True communism is impossible with human beings.  We're too greedy.  

There's been plenty of examples of truely communist societies. Quite a lot of native american societies were communist, for instance.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Actually it's quite the other way around. You cannot have private property without a government to enforce it.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Actually it's quite the other way around. You cannot have private property without a government to enforce it.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Not according to Laissez-Faire capitalism. That said all the BS you said about that particular system being infallible is baseless since it's never actually existed and your inability to criticize it just shows how you're incapable of critical thought.Ace6301