For clarification, I say socialism and not communism because states such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China were socialist implementations - this is really just a semantics thing, but actual communism obviously has never existed since it must be international. You can call them communist if you want. The following is obviously my interpretation and I'm interested and open to your thoughts.
Now, moving on.
For this analysis I will be focusing A) on the development of modern capitalism B) On the various socialist states that have come about, especially the Soviet Union and Maoist China
---
The Death Toll of Capitalism
The mode of production wherein there exists a class of people who own the very means to livelihood and a class of property-less workers leads to class antagonism. Workers and owners have mutually exclusive interests. Furthermore, the capitalist mode of production actively creates situations that enable profit-making from human misery. Indeed, entire industries are predicated on the continued existence of war, illness, poverty, and paranoia. The arms industry; big pharma and big medicine; the financial industry, and more, would all be economically diminished and devastated by a decrease in warfare or illness. It is literally against the interests of these industries to solve some social problems. When you have a mode of production where warfare actually stimulates the economy, you know your mode of production is not geared toward the fulfillment of human life. This is a flaw inherent in the for-profit private mode of production known as capitalism. Capitalism is predicated on class divide and the expropriation of wealth from laborers. This is obviously true because otherwise, there would be no point in hiring employees - employees generate more wealth than they earn. This is essentially true. Class divide and misanthropic interests are the products of capitalism.
Modern capitalism and the improved standard of living of the First World is the result of brutal policies of colonization and imperialism in the Third World, as well as domestic exploitation. While libertarians may adhere to this fantasy notion that "what we have now isn't real capitalism", the material and historical reality is that modern capitalist production developed only because of brutal exploitation. Libertarianism is the epitome of idealism, which in this case does not mean naive (although it is), but evoking principles and beliefs which reside in the realm of the "ideal" rather than examining material conditions. Libertarians believe in protecting ideals even at the expense of human life - hence the contradictions where a market allows empty houses to sit around while there are homeless people obviously in need of housing.
Never mind that. Libertarian policies have never existed and likely never will. Even during the Gilded Age, a period of rampant free capitalism, there was imperialistic exploitation of the Third World by Americans and other colonial powers. Imperialism is, therefore, an expression of capitalist interest: nations invade other nations for sources of materials, markets, and labor. I should be more precise and say specific classes within nations invade other nations for sources of materials, markets, and labor. There is no such thing as "we won a war" - material gains have never been distributed equally to the troops or the people of the mother nation, but to the capitalist class of that nation (e.g. Hawaii, the Philippines, World War I). The capitalist mode of production is very much responsible for the deaths due to imperialist wars and policies - deaths that resulted from wars and massacres over privatized wealth. Whereas some have this skewed and irrational notion that only libertarian fantasy capitalism is "real" capitalism and you can't attribute death counts from imperialism to capitalism, the reality is imperialism is a system propagated by privatized wealth: the fundamental notion of capitalism. The great tragedy is so many of these deaths were avoidable.
This includes, but is not limited to:
United States:
US intervention in Latin America: 6.3 million dead
Invasion of Philippines: 650,000 dead + 1898 war 3 million dead
Afghanistan: 1.2 million dead
Vietnam War: 10 million dead
Korean War: 10 million dead
Yugoslavia: 300,000 dead
Iran-Iraq War (US funding both sides): 1 million dead
US intervention in Congo: 5 million dead
US Civil War (financial vs land capitalists) 650,000 dead
Native American genocide: 95 million dead
African slave trade: 150 million dead
Indonesian purges against communists: 1 million dead (underestimate)
US Bombing of Laos and Cambodia: at least 1 million dead
US backed Batista, Pinochet, Metaxas, Saddam, Suharto, and various dictators supported by the United States: at least a few million
Britain:
Bengal Famine: 10 million dead
British Occupation of India: 20 million dead
Famine in Held British India: 30 million
Irish potato famine (British farmers could have helped): 1.5 million
Japanese imperialism in China and Asia: 12 million
South African apartheid: 3.5 million
Spanish Civil War: 350,000
French colonies: 1 million dead
Note that this does not include the number of children and adults alike in the First World who have died from hunger and lack of access to basic needs of life.
This is a good video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmYSNDr84M4
In total, the death toll of capitalism exceeds 1 billion. You may doubt the video because it is made by a communist, but history does corroborate these death tolls.
----
The Death Toll of Socialism
What is critically important in analyzing the number of people that "died under" the Soviet Union or Maoist China is that you examine post and pre revolutionary statistics. By and large, the number of people who died from preventable causes after the establishment of the USSR and PPC is well below the number of people who routinely died from famine and poverty before socialism. This is also evident in Cuba, where Cuban health and educational statistics are well above her non-socialist neighbors
http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_statistics.html
Keep in mind that in all the countries where socialism has been implemented, there was little to no advanced industrial capitalism. This naturally meant a material struggle which could not be fought overnight. Nobody supposes that socialism guaranteed overnight utopia or any utopia at all: only a fairer distribution of food, health care, and the like.
Indeed, with statistics and sources I provided in the USSR thread, the USSR industrialized and provided superior health care only after socialism. This is all despite two major World Wars which resulted in 25 million casualties and leveled entire cities, and the routine threat of the Cold War. The same goes for the other socialist revolutions: there were numerous attempts to crush the PPC in China, and to undermine the Cuban revolution. The material accomplishments of socialism are especially impressive when it is understood just how hard the bourgeois West tried to undermine it.
The White Army of the USSR, supported by foreign capitalist interests, engaged in the routine murder of the peasant classes of Russia. Chiang Kai-shek's reactionary forces murdered peasants in China and stole their land. Batista brutally suppressed Cuban dissent and arrested Cuban youth.
Under the leadership of Mao Zedong, China's illiteracy rate was, in fact, significantly reduced and industrial development improved. While it is true that millions died during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, this was due to poor planning and insufficient industrial resources and not deliberate executive orders of murder. By far, the working and peasant classes of China enjoyed greater quality of life after the revolution than before it. Many Chinese regret the descent of the Chinese revolution into capitalism and one of the most misinformed myths of the West is that the Tienanmen Square incident was a protest of socialism: on the contrary, it was a protest of policies that diverged from the policies of the Gang of Four and Mao.
The same can be said for the Soviet Union. The Ukraine famine, which did occur, did not occur because of any deliberate executive order, and the persecution of the Kulaks was rightfully done because of their collusion in allowing the grain to rot. Stalin sent strict orders to continue production because the working classes of the cities depended on the grain: to spite him, they hoarded the grain and allowed workers to die.
According to www.stalinsociety.co.uk, the gulag system was, in fact, not a death camp system and most inmates were released within 1-3 years. Never mind the fact that many of them were common criminals, it is an interesting point that there are more prisoners in America now than at any point in the Soviet Union.
What is important to note about the death toll of socialism is that poor policy or insufficient industry does not constitute murder. Mao Zedong never gave executive orders that called for murder. While he did enable Chinese peasants to hold trials for the landlords, their actions are independent of his approval and the execution of some 800,000 landlords across China was an expression of local anger at the landlords who let the Chinese starve to death. The same can be said of the Soviet Union. What is important to understand is that fewer people suffered, by far, under the USSR or PPC than before revolution. There seems to be an intellectual trend where any death occurring in socialism is attributed to socialism, whereas the routine murders of people in capitalism is either "not real capitalism" or "just a few bad people.
There were genuinely murderous regimes that justified their actions in the name of socialism. Pol Pot is one such man; but people forget that it was the Vietnamese communists who ultimately stopped (and thus laid judgement) upon Pol Pot. Korea DPR is another such regime, which has moved entirely away from Marxism on an ideological level (Juche, etc)
Now, moving on.
For this analysis I will be focusing A) on the development of modern capitalism B) On the various socialist states that have come about, especially the Soviet Union and Maoist China
---
The Death Toll of Capitalism
The mode of production wherein there exists a class of people who own the very means to livelihood and a class of property-less workers leads to class antagonism. Workers and owners have mutually exclusive interests. Furthermore, the capitalist mode of production actively creates situations that enable profit-making from human misery. Indeed, entire industries are predicated on the continued existence of war, illness, poverty, and paranoia. The arms industry; big pharma and big medicine; the financial industry, and more, would all be economically diminished and devastated by a decrease in warfare or illness. It is literally against the interests of these industries to solve some social problems. When you have a mode of production where warfare actually stimulates the economy, you know your mode of production is not geared toward the fulfillment of human life. This is a flaw inherent in the for-profit private mode of production known as capitalism. Capitalism is predicated on class divide and the expropriation of wealth from laborers. This is obviously true because otherwise, there would be no point in hiring employees - employees generate more wealth than they earn. This is essentially true. Class divide and misanthropic interests are the products of capitalism.
Modern capitalism and the improved standard of living of the First World is the result of brutal policies of colonization and imperialism in the Third World, as well as domestic exploitation. While libertarians may adhere to this fantasy notion that "what we have now isn't real capitalism", the material and historical reality is that modern capitalist production developed only because of brutal exploitation. Libertarianism is the epitome of idealism, which in this case does not mean naive (although it is), but evoking principles and beliefs which reside in the realm of the "ideal" rather than examining material conditions. Libertarians believe in protecting ideals even at the expense of human life - hence the contradictions where a market allows empty houses to sit around while there are homeless people obviously in need of housing.
Never mind that. Libertarian policies have never existed and likely never will. Even during the Gilded Age, a period of rampant free capitalism, there was imperialistic exploitation of the Third World by Americans and other colonial powers. Imperialism is, therefore, an expression of capitalist interest: nations invade other nations for sources of materials, markets, and labor. I should be more precise and say specific classes within nations invade other nations for sources of materials, markets, and labor. There is no such thing as "we won a war" - material gains have never been distributed equally to the troops or the people of the mother nation, but to the capitalist class of that nation (e.g. Hawaii, the Philippines, World War I). The capitalist mode of production is very much responsible for the deaths due to imperialist wars and policies - deaths that resulted from wars and massacres over privatized wealth. Whereas some have this skewed and irrational notion that only libertarian fantasy capitalism is "real" capitalism and you can't attribute death counts from imperialism to capitalism, the reality is imperialism is a system propagated by privatized wealth: the fundamental notion of capitalism. The great tragedy is so many of these deaths were avoidable.
This includes, but is not limited to:
United States:
US intervention in Latin America: 6.3 million dead
Invasion of Philippines: 650,000 dead + 1898 war 3 million dead
Afghanistan: 1.2 million dead
Vietnam War: 10 million dead
Korean War: 10 million dead
Yugoslavia: 300,000 dead
Iran-Iraq War (US funding both sides): 1 million dead
US intervention in Congo: 5 million dead
US Civil War (financial vs land capitalists) 650,000 dead
Native American genocide: 95 million dead
African slave trade: 150 million dead
Indonesian purges against communists: 1 million dead (underestimate)
US Bombing of Laos and Cambodia: at least 1 million dead
US backed Batista, Pinochet, Metaxas, Saddam, Suharto, and various dictators supported by the United States: at least a few million
Britain:
Bengal Famine: 10 million dead
British Occupation of India: 20 million dead
Famine in Held British India: 30 million
Irish potato famine (British farmers could have helped): 1.5 million
Japanese imperialism in China and Asia: 12 million
South African apartheid: 3.5 million
Spanish Civil War: 350,000
French colonies: 1 million dead
Note that this does not include the number of children and adults alike in the First World who have died from hunger and lack of access to basic needs of life.
This is a good video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmYSNDr84M4
In total, the death toll of capitalism exceeds 1 billion. You may doubt the video because it is made by a communist, but history does corroborate these death tolls.
----
The Death Toll of Socialism
What is critically important in analyzing the number of people that "died under" the Soviet Union or Maoist China is that you examine post and pre revolutionary statistics. By and large, the number of people who died from preventable causes after the establishment of the USSR and PPC is well below the number of people who routinely died from famine and poverty before socialism. This is also evident in Cuba, where Cuban health and educational statistics are well above her non-socialist neighbors
http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_statistics.html
Keep in mind that in all the countries where socialism has been implemented, there was little to no advanced industrial capitalism. This naturally meant a material struggle which could not be fought overnight. Nobody supposes that socialism guaranteed overnight utopia or any utopia at all: only a fairer distribution of food, health care, and the like.
Indeed, with statistics and sources I provided in the USSR thread, the USSR industrialized and provided superior health care only after socialism. This is all despite two major World Wars which resulted in 25 million casualties and leveled entire cities, and the routine threat of the Cold War. The same goes for the other socialist revolutions: there were numerous attempts to crush the PPC in China, and to undermine the Cuban revolution. The material accomplishments of socialism are especially impressive when it is understood just how hard the bourgeois West tried to undermine it.
The White Army of the USSR, supported by foreign capitalist interests, engaged in the routine murder of the peasant classes of Russia. Chiang Kai-shek's reactionary forces murdered peasants in China and stole their land. Batista brutally suppressed Cuban dissent and arrested Cuban youth.
Under the leadership of Mao Zedong, China's illiteracy rate was, in fact, significantly reduced and industrial development improved. While it is true that millions died during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, this was due to poor planning and insufficient industrial resources and not deliberate executive orders of murder. By far, the working and peasant classes of China enjoyed greater quality of life after the revolution than before it. Many Chinese regret the descent of the Chinese revolution into capitalism and one of the most misinformed myths of the West is that the Tienanmen Square incident was a protest of socialism: on the contrary, it was a protest of policies that diverged from the policies of the Gang of Four and Mao.
The same can be said for the Soviet Union. The Ukraine famine, which did occur, did not occur because of any deliberate executive order, and the persecution of the Kulaks was rightfully done because of their collusion in allowing the grain to rot. Stalin sent strict orders to continue production because the working classes of the cities depended on the grain: to spite him, they hoarded the grain and allowed workers to die.
According to www.stalinsociety.co.uk, the gulag system was, in fact, not a death camp system and most inmates were released within 1-3 years. Never mind the fact that many of them were common criminals, it is an interesting point that there are more prisoners in America now than at any point in the Soviet Union.
What is important to note about the death toll of socialism is that poor policy or insufficient industry does not constitute murder. Mao Zedong never gave executive orders that called for murder. While he did enable Chinese peasants to hold trials for the landlords, their actions are independent of his approval and the execution of some 800,000 landlords across China was an expression of local anger at the landlords who let the Chinese starve to death. The same can be said of the Soviet Union. What is important to understand is that fewer people suffered, by far, under the USSR or PPC than before revolution. There seems to be an intellectual trend where any death occurring in socialism is attributed to socialism, whereas the routine murders of people in capitalism is either "not real capitalism" or "just a few bad people.
There were genuinely murderous regimes that justified their actions in the name of socialism. Pol Pot is one such man; but people forget that it was the Vietnamese communists who ultimately stopped (and thus laid judgement) upon Pol Pot. Korea DPR is another such regime, which has moved entirely away from Marxism on an ideological level (Juche, etc)
