open Democracy News Analysis - global politics - Comments

Tim Werner on "What was communism? "

Tim Werner — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:15:46 +0000

Nick Copper:
It is my belief that capitalism and communism are both subcategories of a coup by humans over the natural systems of the planet, characterized by overpopulation, looting resources and claiming domination over land. It has always been doomed.

it that your seriously ???
in my oppinion are capitalism and communism very different. You cant divide they in subcategories of a coup by humans over the natural systems of the planet.

what have the natural system to do with capitalism and communism? huh? its the myth of revolution?!

Tim

Ethan II on "What was communism? "

Ethan II — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:24:54 +0000

In any case, Stalin plus Mao equals 80-90 million deaths alone, and I used 110 million deaths, so even if Big C doesn't want to accept that Pol Pot, Mengistu, Hoxha and Kim were communists (but we should!!), the figure is still 80-90 million deaths. So what is Big C arguing about in this incredibly foolish manner?

Ethan II on "What was communism? "

Ethan II — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:19:14 +0000

Ben Kiernan, perhaps the world's leading expert on Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime, and Whitney Griswold Professor of History and International Studies at Yale University, speaks of the Khmer Rouge's "mystical approach to Communism."

I think he knows something Big C does not.

Cincinnatus Jr. on "What was communism? "

Cincinnatus Jr. — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:01:21 +0000

Big C says: "But they were no more murderous and barbarous than other empires like the British, the Dutch or the Ottomans. And certainly no more than the regimes they replaced. Much more to the point, they were much less so than those they fought for that succession. The brutality and anti-semitism of the right wing armies of the Russian Civil War is a matter of record. It is not at all fanciful to speculate that their victory would have resulted in enormous carnage for Russia's Jews which would have been comparable to what happened later under the Nazis."

With respect, I am baffled by the assertions in this paragraph. What metrics are you using to state as fact that these regimes were "no more murderous than the British, the Dutch or the Ottomans" and even more amazingly that they were "much less so than those they fought for that succession."

I can understand this may be your perspective in a subjective sense but to state these assert as fact is frankly so incredible as to call into question everything you say.

bigC on "What was communism? "

bigC — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:25:18 +0000

"All these rulers called themselves Marxists and two of them even claimed to be the only true Marxists--so that, according to Big C, proves they weren't Marxists. Go figure."

Then please reply to my reference to Hitler. He called himself a Christian, indeed the saviour of Christendom. Please explain why the logic you have applied to people who claim to be Marxists does not equally apply to those who claim to be Christians.

"All instituted land confiscation, private property confiscation, collective farms, secret police and gulags, all in the Stalin mode. All headed Communist parties. To Big C, this proves they weren't Communists."

Same old Professor. Where have I said that these features "prove" that they weren't Communists? They certainly do not prove that they were by the way. Most English kings up to and including Charles I routinely confiscated land and property. Are you saying that they were Marxists? Collectivisation and nationalisation are certainly common features of Marxism but they not exclusive nor essential to it.

"Pol Pot, like Mao, found "the revolutionary class" in the rural peasantry not in the industrial proletariat. To Big C this proves Pol Pot wasn't a Marxist. I guess the same holds for Mao, eh?"

Sometimes it's difficult to tell whether you're being dishonest or ignorant. Pol Pot's crazy ideology stated that the peasants were THE revolutionary class and dictated that everyone had to return to agrarian beginnings in order to move forward - the Year Zero concept; a negation of every Marxist principle. Mao said that it was POSSIBLE for the peasants to BECOME a revolutionary class and this would be necessary in China because the industrial working class were so few in number. It was a purely tactical adjustment and it did not mean that industrial workers were hunted down and murdered nor did it detract from the need to industrialise and modernise as in Cambodia. Mao industrialised and modernised at breakneck speed. He also went for a high level of literacy. Pol Pot did the exact opposite.

I have no problem with "uncomfortable facts" Professor. I am acutely aware that the regimes of Mao and Stalin were brutal and murderous; as were many of their pupils like Zhivkov, Honeker etc. But your nonsense about Pol Pot and others are not facts, uncomfortable or otherwise. They are silly and spurious associations which crumble to dust as soon as you investigate them.

My argument is not that the empires of Mao and Stalin weren't murderous. They were and they should be judged harshly for it. But they were no more murderous and barbarous than other empires like the British, the Dutch or the Ottomans. And certainly no more than the regimes they replaced. Much more to the point, they were much less so than those they fought for that succession. The brutality and anti-semitism of the right wing armies of the Russian Civil War is a matter of record. It is not at all fanciful to speculate that their victory would have resulted in enormous carnage for Russia's Jews which would have been comparable to what happened later under the Nazis.

Ethan II on "What was communism? "

Ethan II — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:23:41 +0000

All these rulers called themselves Marxists and two of them even claimed to be the only true Marxists--so that, according to Big C, proves they weren't Marxists. Go figure.

All instituted land confiscation, private property confiscation, collective farms, secret police and gulags, all in the Stalin mode. All headed Communist parties. To Big C, this proves they weren't Communists.

Pol Pot, like Mao, found "the revolutionary class" in the rural peasantry not in the industrial proletariat. To Big C this proves Pol Pot wasn't a Marxist. I guess the same holds for Mao, eh?

I now suspect that (1) Big C has a secret definition of "Marxist" and "Communist" which he has not revealed to us, and (2) how Big C deals with the hugely uncomfortable fact for him of the horrifying scale of deaths caused by these Communist rulers with their Communist Parties and their Communist states backed by Marxist ideology (after all, that's why you confiscate all private property) is to claim that despite *all of this* these states aren't "really" Marxist or Communist states (according to his private definition).

It's really really silly.

bigC on "What was communism? "

bigC — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:46:03 +0000

Yes wow professor. It's your usual tactic of scatter gun inaccuracies. I suppose it's frustrating for you not to have the anti-semitism gambit to play on this one. Let's deal with them one at a time:

1. "Big C seems unaware that Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) joined the French Communist Party in 1951. This means that in 1971 he'd been an official Communist Party member for 30 years. Before that, as a student in 1950/1951 he'd joined a secret organization called "le cercle marxiste"."

Whatever his background was, he broke with Marxism in 1964 when his party declared that the revolutionary class was the rural peasantry. The dreadful blood bath which occured after he came to power stemmed from that simple declaration as everthing which didn't stem from the peasantry was to be destroyed. This is not a departurre form Marxism. it's a total negation of it. The awful ideology he put into practice resembled Marxism in the same way that Satanism resembles the Society of Friends.

2 "Ethiopia's butcher Mengistu embraced Marxism in the mid-1970s; he didn't just call himself a Marxist, he imposed upon Ethiopia a classic Stalinist command economy modelled on the USSR and the Communist states of eastern Europe. All rural land was confiscated by the state ("nationalized"); most urban private property was confiscated by the state; all were now administered by large state bureaucracies. Farmers were compelled to join collective farms modelled on the Soviet Kolkoz. A million people died of starvation; hundreds of thousands of others fled."

Blaming the 1984-85 famine on collectivisation is dishonest even by your standards Professor. There were equally terrible famines before Mengistu and they have only been averted since by the vigilance of the aid community. This one was the result of a combination of drought and insurrection. Mengistu's policies exacerbated the effects of the famine and his lack of co-operation with the relief effort was utterly shameful but he did not create the famine by any means. He was an opportunist not a Marxist. The movement to overthrow Selassie was Marxist so that was what he joined. If it had been Islamist he would have been an Islamist. The first opposition to his mis-rule came from the Marxist Ethiopean Peoples' Revolutionary party.

3 "In Albania, Enver Hoxha was an avowed Marxist-Leninist and admirer of Stalin; this wasn't just window-dressing, as the huge land confiscations of August 1945 demonstrated. He'd been one of the seven leaders of the Albanian Communist Party politburo (exactly modelled on the USSR) since 1941, and was First Secretary since 1943."

The whole thing gets turned on it's head with Hoxha. You'll find that he repudiated every other Communist party as revisionist and by the time he died he was the only Marxist left. He also decreed that every text book in every subject should have a section extolling his expertise in that subject. In short he was even nuttier than Stalin. He initially embraced the Stalinist model because it gave him an ideological framework for the control he wanted. As each party liberalised it took away that excuse so he rejected them.

4 "In Korea, Kim Il Sung had joined Mao's Chinese Communist Party in 1931; does Big C thinks one joins the CCP just for "show"? Kim had been a Communist Party member already for 20 years in 1950. He establilshed a command economy, with all industry and all agriculture collectivized."

You've kept the best till last haven't you? You'll find that Kim was repudiated by every Communist Party except China and even they have only maintained very luke warm relations with his even crazier son. He fabricated most of his own life story, building up a persona of Messiah rather than leader. Giving himself a name which meant "Becoming the Sun" gives a clue too. Again, a negation of Marxism, not a variant.

5 "And for Big C the very similar and USSR-like policies of all these men have nothing really to do with Communist ideology (I guess it's all just a coincidence?), and, moreover, it's some sort of sinister slight of hand to call these leaders Communists?"

"...sinster slight of hand"? You do like to dramatise Professor. No. It is simply intellectually lazy. Transfer your logical process to test it. Hitler regarded himself as a Christian. The inner cover of Mein Kampf depicted him together with a suspiciously Aryan looking Jesus Christ. Using the logic you have used here, not only was Hitler therefore a bona fide Christian (because he said he was) but his actions (including carrying on the Christian tradition of murdering Jews) can therefore be transferred to all other Christians. Does that logic appeal to you Professor?

You ask why people join parties. There can be any number of reasons. Ideology can be one. But so can self advancement or a wish to associate with an anti-establishment force. In many of the cases above it was also a case of choosing sides in a cold war or getting popular support. Claiming that every nutter who claimed inspiration or (more likely) sought military aid from Marxists is part of one homogenous "movement" is pure tosh. It doesn't stand up to any examination whatsoever. It is not the only reason why Rummel's figures are rubbish but it is certainly a major one.

And, Reconmarine, I am not quibbling about "a few million deaths", I am simply pointing out that a large number of these deaths are a) wrongly attributed and/or b) are not exclusive to what you call "communism." I am as appalled as anyone about the atrocities of Stalin and Mao and their satellites. But I think it equally appalling that so many are completely ignorant of the terrible events which shaped their own histories and how much they compare. This applies most to those of us living in countries with imperial histories.

Cincinnatus Jr. on "What was communism? "

Cincinnatus Jr. — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:59:24 +0000

It seems to me highly ironic and not a little tragic that those who advocate various forms of government, economies, social orders and the like, especially those that attempt to one extent or the other to "level" various inequalities, fail to see the common denominator involved in every failure of such efforts---"human nature." I suppose this should not be a great surprise in that a real understanding of this nature and its characteristics involves a theological principle that "man" is a fallen creature. Thus, any system that fails to take adequately into account the tendency (people can and do on occasion rise above these to perform very noble things but one cannot assume this is the general rule as history is clear that it is the opposite) of people to be selfish, materialistic, power-hungry, deceitful, manipulative etc. is doomed to fail. This reality is subject to synergistic forces, for both good and evil such that some forms of government or social order facilitate and exacerbate the negative characteristics, when for example a dictator like Stalin ascends to the top of a bureaucracy like the former Soviet Union that is then used with its much great scale to enslave and murder.

reconmarine on "What was communism? "

reconmarine — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:26:50 +0000

I join with you in amazement at how some apparent supporters of "communism" (with apologies to those purists or "experts" in such matters, I use the term generically to include the various forms of collectivism-based systems that have been labelled in various ways but have much of their roots in the views of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others) can quibble (to even use such a word in this context borders on the obscene) over a "few" million human deaths here or there when discussing the bloody legacy of this form of government speaks volumes about its inherent moral blindness and bankruptcy.

Another classic response of apologists for "communism," is to attribute the excesses of such regimes to their nominal heads (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot et al.) while seeking to absolve and extol the rest of the systems that gave rise to and kept in power these evil people suggesting the system was benign and was hijacked by the leader. Of course, no leader could have done the damage on the unfathomable scale that resulted without countless other knowing and willing accomplices and supporters, coupled with justifications for such measures derived from the "good of the whole" type arguments that make it far too easy to victimize those pesky individuals who refuse to go along.

Another way to try to avoid the huge "elephant in the room" whenever discussing the scourge that "communism" has been on mankind is to divert attention ot other forms of totalitarian governance. While the horrors of such governments and systems such as the rule of the Tsars are certainly worthy of study and condemnation in their own right, they cannot excuse or mitigate the clearly established excesses and horrific treatment of their people of communist regimes in the last 100 years.

That there can be any discussion of "communism" in isolation of the terrible toll it has inflicted on mankind is itself incredible to me. When apologists of "communism" attempt this it is perhaps one of the best explanations as to how communist regimes could ever get started in the first instance. It requires one to suspend (or more often elminate entirely) such bourgeoise and sentimental notions like the the sanctity of life and other atttributes of humanity.

Jim on "What was communism? "

Jim — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:43:50 +0000

The Bolsheviks said publicly that they could build the new Russia with 80% of the population and were indifferent to the fate of the rest - no different from the claim of the Khmer Rouge that 1 or 2 million young people would be enough to build Democratic Kampuchea. No regime with this attitude to the value of human life is ever going to succeed in building paradise on earth. Although Lenin backtracked on this Jacobin extremism during the NEP the "original sin" of terrorism was always there, latent or overt, at the heart of the soviet system.

The failures of the communist project make even capitalism look good, which is a real pity. Marx explained very well why the capitalist system is bound to run amok and cannot possibly operate in the interests of the common people if it is left to its own devices. We need sceptical, educated governments which are willing to tame this monster and bring it under social control. Instead we have leaders who seem to worship the accumulation of wealth by the few and who seem to believe that by cosying up to corporate insiders they are living the vision of free enterprise set out by Adam Smith. As Smith himself observed, whenever two businessmen get together it is with a view to defrauding the public. The solution to this, however, is not to murder the businessmen but to understand the incentives that motivate them and adjust them accordingly. In a way, that is NEP but without the mass murders that preceded it and came (inevitably) afterwards.

Ethan II on "What was communism? "

Ethan II — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:27:36 +0000

Wow.

Big C seems unaware that Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) joined the French Communist Party in 1951. This means that in 1971 he'd been an official Communist Party member for 30 years. Before that, as a student in 1950/1951 he'd joined a secret organization called "le cercle marxiste".

Ethiopia's butcher Mengistu embraced Marxism in the mid-1970s; he didn't just call himself a Marxist, he imposed upon Ethiopia a classic Stalinist command economy modelled on the USSR and the Communist states of eastern Europe. All rural land was confiscated by the state ("nationalized"); most urban private property was confiscated by the state; all were now administered by large state bureaucracies. Farmers were compelled to join collective farms modelled on the Soviet Kolkoz. A million people died of starvation; hundreds of thousands of others fled.

In Albania, Enver Hoxha was an avowed Marxist-Leninist and admirer of Stalin; this wasn't just window-dressing, as the huge land confiscations of August 1945 demonstrated. He'd been one of the seven leaders of the Albanian Communist Party politburo (exactly modelled on the USSR) since 1941, and was First Secretary since 1943.

In Korea, Kim Il Sung had joined Mao's Chinese Communist Party in 1931; does Big C thinks one joins the CCP just for "show"? Kim had been a Communist Party member already for 20 years in 1950. He establilshed a command economy, with all industry and all agriculture collectivized. Just like in Albania. In Ethiopia. In Cambodia.

And for Big C the very similar and USSR-like policies of all these men have nothing really to do with Communist ideology (I guess it's all just a coincidence?), and, moreover, it's some sort of sinister slight of hand to call these leaders Communists?

Another amazing performance from Big C.

bigC on "What was communism? "

bigC — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:41:07 +0000

To Big C, 1 million dead in the Potato Famine--and where is the evidence that this was intentional, please?

Irish grain exports actually rose during the famine. The famine was easily preventable and allowed to continue in the intersts of market freedom.

.. pretty much the same as 110 million dead in the name of Communism
(though I note that Big C's emotional heat is reserved for those who
encompassed the 1 million not those who gloried in the 110 million).

No it's not the same. The one million dead in the potato famine is an accurate number. The 110 million is utter piffle.

Ethan II on "What was communism? "

Ethan II — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:09:39 +0000

Glad to see that Cincinnatus has taken the measure of Big C. (I thought I was the only one.)

To Big C, 1 million dead in the Potato Famine--and where is the evidence that this was intentional, please?-- is pretty much the same as 110 million dead in the name of Communism (though I note that Big C's emotional heat is reserved for those who encompassed the 1 million not those who gloried in the 110 million).

To Big C, 110 million dead is a mere "flaw", while 1 million dead in the potato famine, allegedly done because of capitalism is hence the real crime.

I really suggest that Big C read the biography of Vasili Mihailovich Blokhin on wikipedia, as Mr. Crawford suggested. This person personally executed 300 people a night, every night, for 28 consecutive nights in April 1940. After personally murdering 7,000 people, Comrade Blockhin was greatly honored by Stalin. His photo on Wiki shows him loaded with medals. I guess that's just a "flaw" in the system to Big C, yes, the regrettable but unavoidable backwash of the necessary Revolution. Not something *really* bad, like capitalism.

bigC on "What was communism? "

bigC — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:08:49 +0000

Rummel is utterly unscientific. To begin with he very conveniently takes his cut off point as 1900 thus avoiding comparison with the excesses of other European and North American empires. For example, he is right to point out the brutality of Stalin's deportations but should these not be compared with the methods used to make most of the North American continent available for white Christian colonisation?

The famines are reported as if they are an exclusive feature of "communism" and directly the result of it. But the famine of 1921 came on the heels of a dreadful civil war, itself following the devastation of the Great War in a country where periodic famine was almost routine. Does he suppose that the famine would not have taken place if the White armies had prevailed?

The 1932 famine in the Ukraine was undoubtedly a vile atrocity but it compares to scale with the Irish famine where (as you have corrected me) a million died and a million fled to escape death out of a population of 8 million. Why does he not make the comparison? And, like so many of the atrocities you and he attributes to communism, it was as much to do with Russian imperialism as"communism".

Perhaps the most dishonest feature of his list is the inclusion of every rag and bobtail nutcase lunatic who hung on to Marxist coat tails in order to claim legitimacy. The regimes in Korea, Albania, Ethiopia, Rumania and many others but especially Kampuchea had the most tendentious links to Marxism. Most of them had been involved in power struggles long before they had anything to do with any kind of Marxist theory. You might as well say that the Spanish Inquisition or the Lords Resistance Army are typical of Christianity. A list of anti-communists could just as easily be prepared to include Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan alongside the US and the UK. It would be ridiculous to do that but no more ridiculous than Rummel's list.

I've no intention of defending Stalin or Mao. They were both utterlly repellant human beings and their actions have (probably) harmed Socialism rather than advance it. However, they were no more vile and oppressive than many of those who ruled alongside them and just before them. And, horrendous though it might be to contemplate, they were both probably preferable to the people over whom they prevailled.

Not logged in on "What was communism? "

Not logged in — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:24:25 +0000

In the current world economic recession, many people are working hard with a pile of books in an expectation of finding out a better way to exit the current situation, and some others are exhausted with the war news, notwithstanding, the article ''communism'' is coming up with a warning shock of a lot of philosophy referendum, the writer is working hard too.

The communist allies or Soviet ghost had no longer existence, but what they left to human being are still unforgetable with sufficient records. The writer, with a huge pile of his own knowledge and reference, is bringing up the front a brief of contemporary world history.

We are living in the first decade of the 21st Century that, from its beginning, witness the prominent events such as America 11th September 2001, Afghan War, Irac War, World Economic down turn and now the warning that ''The Communism is coming back'' from this writer. After reading carefully this article, what it left is to mind that his warning may be a warning indeed.

Recently, a remarkable event in America is The President Barrack Obama voted, he is the winner in the racing to The White House and becomes famous with his statement ''The change has come to America''. The Author to this article seems align the two words ''change'' to ''revolution'', he brings up the four elements of communism and extends his explanations to the third element : the myth of revolution. With that explanation, he does imply the similarity of those two quoted words.

This writer is not only presenting his philosophy but also creating some debates for discussion, the followings are outstanding:

-The similarity of Revolutionary Marxism to the radical politics of Islam world ( 1st component of the 4).

I definitely agree that somebody may love or hate some other, but one should consider the manner used to present one's love or aversion. Any rubbish should be classified before we bin it.

-The alignment of Osama Bin La-den to Le-nin ( 1st component of the 4):

Ironically, ''Le'' is rather similar to ''La'' but opposite to each other in sex. In a serious article in philosophy, this pattern in wording cannot avoid contra-concept.

In reality, Osama Bin Laden has been trained then he reaches to top above his colleagues and may be recognized as a pioneer in terrorism, he can be aligned with Hittle of the second world war. His achievements can be enlisted as Tween Tower Breakdown on 11th September 2001 by then giving job to George Bush while he was idle in the White House. Then, unlike Hittle, Osama Bin Laden has been successful in attracting Foreign Direct Investment to Middle East-his home land-whereby the total value may mount thousands lives of man kind and a huge amount of weapon and money. Though, thinking of Osama with all of my aversion, but I yet recognized him as a person who is successful in his occupation.

At last, for the late termination to this comment, I should indicate that the author's intention is to write for academic elite, especially his wording. The professional terms are used rather often such as ''emancipation, messianism, radicalism or aporia''. As matter of fact, I cannot blame a professor for his using academic words in writing, but as long as my perception to the articles in Open Democracy, the more plain English words used in writing, the more readers he is attracting.

Charle Kuhn