The socialist/communist death toll, so far

Discussion in 'World Events' started by DJSupreme23, Jul 3, 2003.

Page 3 of 3
  1. DJSupreme23

    DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    Teg:

    Was Hitler elected (as chancellor?):

    NO!

    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

    Your claims that the USSR was democracy (and more so than the USA) are blatantly wrong. The USSR had a single party - the communist party. No others to choose from. That is not a hallmark opf a democracy.

    Your retort regarding the greek city states tells me that you did not read what i wrote. Read it again.

    Your claim as to no democracies since ancient greece is rubbish, as well. Most western nations are representative democracuies today; never in the history of humanity have humans had so many rights, as we have today. The monarchies and empires of ancient times were all authoritaian or totalitiarian states. Today we actually have limited states, and in a few cases, minimalist states. And since it is well known that state power and size is reverse proportional to civil rights, it holds true that democracies are by and large the reason for the rights we enjoy today.

    But, by all means, move to North Korea - I think you'll find your wonderful communist "democracy" there. After all, life in Europe or the USA, is pure hell under the evil capitalists.

    PS: Socialism is still responsible for 120+ million deaths within the last 100 years.
     
    DJSupreme23, Jul 5, 2003
    #41

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nico

    nico Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,122
    DJ you are confused, democracy doesn't have to be capitalist. That is a common mistake that many ppl have. Socialism killed no one, devianations and practice did. Who killed 120 million people? A ideology some thing you can't touch see or feel? No,Stalin,Mao, and like killed 120 million people. The west killed 30 million Indians, and upto 15 million slaves. Then we still aren't talking about imperialism. Also the "capitalist" west has killed millions through poverty, and millions around the world live in abject poverty thanks to your beasutiful capitalist utopia. What about Fascism that killed what 50 million people, and if you include in that figure of 120 million the Soviets who died in WWII then that number is blatantly mis-representative. It should be lowered to 100 million.
     
    nico, Jul 5, 2003
    #42

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DJSupreme23

    DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    >DJ you are confused, democracy doesn't have to be capitalist.

    I have yet to see a democracy where the means of production are state owned. Care to provide examples?

    > That is a common mistake that many ppl have. Socialism killed no one, devianations and practice did. Who killed 120 million people? A ideology some thing you can't touch see or feel? No,Stalin,Mao, and like killed 120 million people.

    Who let Lenin, Mao and Stalin into power? A flawed political system known as Socialism.

    >The west killed 30 million Indians, and upto 15 million slaves.

    1) provide sources for these numbers.
    2) Indian and slave murders have never been on democratic election, and have never been policy of any western nation i know of.

    Feel free to provide examples to counter my claim - if you can.

    >Then we still aren't talking about imperialism. Also the "capitalist" west has killed millions through poverty,

    Bullshit socialist claim. People had better conitions under capitalism than they had under feudalism, which capitalism replaced through the 1700's.

    Secondly, those who died following poor living condition et. cannot be said to have been murdered.

    > and millions around the world live in abject poverty thanks to your beasutiful capitalist utopia.

    Another nonsensical socialist claim. People in Africa and say, India, live under poor coinditions because they have not had a stable political system/rule since the colonial times. Notice how most of the african nations fell into the horror of dictatorships when the colonial powers left.

    > What about Fascism that killed what 50 million people,

    I take it that you are referring to Nazism? Sorry, that falls under socialist ideology.

    > and if you include in that figure of 120 million the Soviets who died in WWII then that number is blatantly mis-representative. It should be lowered to 100 million.

    Please re-read Rudy Rummel's pages on democide:

    http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/
     
    DJSupreme23, Jul 5, 2003
    #43

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nico

    nico Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,122
    have yet to see a democracy where the means of production are state owned. Care to provide examples?

    Examples, Latin America they had democracy yet there economies were centrally planned. Argentian,Chile,Brazil,Uruguay. Also name me a country where the government plays NO role in the economy? Every country on earth is in a sense a socialist one.

    Who let Lenin, Mao and Stalin into power? A flawed political system known as Socialism.


    :bugeye: Your serious? Communism, and who let them into power. No one let them into power, they all fought to get into power. Socialism to Lenin was a step after capitalism, and NEP was limited capitalism. Mao, and Stalin had there own versions of socialism, so to say that Stalinism is socialism is ignorant. (not unusal from you).

    1) provide sources for these numbers.


    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#America

    enjoy.30 million is the more reasonable one, and the Slaves:

    Death Toll
    How many people died in all the slave harvesting by Moslems over the centuries? I hesitate to estimate, but I think we can safely assume that at least 3 people died for every 2 living slaves delivered (similar to the death rate in the Atlantic trade), which comes to about 19M deaths. Keep in mind that the data is so spotty and the margin of error so wide that we can't honestly or definitively accuse either the Christian or Moslem slave trade of being worse than the other.


    Bullshit socialist claim. People had better conitions under capitalism than they had under feudalism, which capitalism replaced through the 1700's.


    Just to make things certain I am not a socialist per se. And yes under capitalism conditions are a bit better for us in the already advanced west. But millions are desperately poor world wide do you deny this? Aren;t they the loser's of the world economy? 35,000 children die a day due to starvation and under socialism that would not be able to happen. (and don't bring up Stalin and Mao they are deviations).

    Secondly, those who died following poor living condition et. cannot be said to have been murdered.

    ohh good then Mao's numbers could be further brought down take away 35 million from that number so now we;ve got:

    120 million - 20 million (USSR WWII)- 35million (stravation Great Leap foward) = 65 million

    People in Africa and say, India, live under poor coinditions because they have not had a stable political system/rule since the colonial times.

    That made no sense, I hope you realize. Your telling me that the un-interupted Indian democracy to a Africa is unstable? LMFAO.

    Notice how most of the african nations fell into the horror of dictatorships when the colonial powers left.


    Don't talk about things you know little about.

    I take it that you are referring to Nazism? Sorry, that falls under socialist ideology

    Okay maybe in your warped world but to the vast majority of us it is not socialist. It is fascist, so sorry that card ain't playing.

    Please re-read Rudy Rummel's pages on democide:


    All numbers are subjective so he dosen't really have much authority, and 120 is also subjective.
     
    nico, Jul 5, 2003
    #44
  8. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Nico:

    Thanks for the link I’ve been begging for to some stats on atrocities committed before the American Civil War. Very interesting. However I can’t help wondering how much peer review White’s paper had. No two reviewers would have let pass the colloquial but utterly incorrect use of "decimate" to mean "almost annihilate." It is a very useful word originally coined by Roman tax collectors meaning "to take away one tenth." We don’t have to be that fussy, but the point is that it deliberately leaves enough of whatever is decimated to flourish so we can take another tenth next year. The African population was regularly decimated because the exploiters wished to ensure a steady supply of slaves. But the Indians were not, and there is already a perfectly serviceable and appropriately disgusting word for their fate: genocide. Most scholars also either know how to spell "Carolingian" or would have looked it up. Little things like this cast doubt on the author’s figures despite his admirably exhaustive attributions. A couple of innocent typos due to inadequate line editing in the section we happen to be perusing could really change history.

    White’s skepticism of the population estimates for the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere is laudable and he does his best to normalize them. However he never seems to hit upon the key to the issue, which is the rise of civilization, with which he might have finally made sense out of it. There were only two civilizations in the Americas. The Aztec, the last instantiation of the Olmec-Maya continuum which was about 2,000 years old when the Europeans arrived. And the Inca, which was considerably younger. The huge population figures set forth by some of the more fanciful sources quoted could only be possible in a vast, long-established, well-administered civilization. Division of labor, transport arteries, draft animals and/or long navigable rivers with sophisticated watercraft, civil engineers, money, and above all, peace, are necessary for any continent to support a population into nine figures.

    Twenty-five million people could have been living in Mexico, smaller but the same order of magnitude as its current population as well as that of geographically larger and technologically superior pre-Columbian Europe. But I agree that there couldn’t be three times that many people in Central and South America. The Inca kingdom was young, and although it had the draft animals that Mexico lacked, it had not spread its civilization to as large an area as the Aztec/Maya/Olmec. I doubt that the total for both continents could have exceeded fifty million.

    As for the area north of the Rio Grande, the Athabascan and Na-Dene peoples living here were inarguably still in the Neolithic Era, and on the average the early phases at that. A few proto-cities carved into cliffs, some commerce and government west of the Rockies. But in general agriculture was in its infancy, animal husbandry had barely been figured out, and hunting and fishing were important sources of food. Metallurgy was a long way off unless the Aztec empire – with no indigenous horses, camels, oxen, asses, elephants or llamas to carry it – were to spread northward. I’m comfortable with the usual guess of one million Indians in British North America. Which, as I’ve pointed out before, is just about the same number living among us today. Which, speaking pedantically, makes the term "genocide" unfortunately difficult to justify.

    I don’t see any need to distinguish between the Christian and Muslim slave traders. In the grand scheme of things they’re all disciples of Abraham, sowing hatred, squalor, and warfare wherever they go. And from the point of view of their black African victims, they were indistinguishable from the endless series of European, west Asian, and north African nations that had been exploiting them and trying to keep them mired in the Stone Age for four or five thousand years.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Jul 5, 2003
    #45
  9. You Killed Jesus

    You Killed Jesus 14/88 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    401
    Nazism may have some socialist aspects, but it fixes the errors of communism by getting rid of egalitarianism and other such jewishness. It also protects the noble Aryan race by organizing us in such a manner that we can destroy our enemies.

    Destroying democracy would be one of its strong points, for democracy is a flawed ideology that allows genetic inferiors to vote. A government must be elite.

    Oh, and 20 million appears to be deaths related to WWII and the holocaust. While the holocaust was justified, the rest of the deaths seem to be "7 degrees of Kevin Bacon" BS.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    You Killed Jesus, Jul 6, 2003
    #46
  10. nico

    nico Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,122
    Thanks for the link I’ve been begging for to some stats on atrocities committed before the American Civil War.

    Well I've given that link to you before.

    The Inca kingdom was young, and although it had the draft animals that Mexico lacked, it had not spread its civilization to as large an area as the Aztec/Maya/Olmec.

    The Inca yes was young but the culture of the region was ancient there were previous empires like the Wari, and the Nazca who drew those huge animals in the gorund, and the supposed runway for aliens. Then you have the Twanaku who had a large city on the Altiplano in Boliva. The Inca empire streched from modren day Colombia all the way down to the Santiago de Chile. It was a huge empire with a efficent communications network, and was according to what i hear was like a modern say "communist" society. The Aztec and the like were important as well, but the Inca was just a culmination of thousands of years of development.
     
    nico, Jul 6, 2003
    #47
  11. Xev

    Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    You Killed Jesus:
    Puh-fucking-lease.
     
    Xev, Jul 6, 2003
    #48
  12. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Nico:

    Sorry, I must not have realized what it was at the time. All I have on file is 20th Century stuff. Thanks again.
    I guess that gives it as large a geographical area as the northern empire had in Mexico and Guatemala, assuming that they didn't manage to conquer the Amazon and cover all of Brazil too. So how far back have those older civilizations been traced to? I had never heard of copper metallurgy starting earlier than 0 CE in South America and nobody's ever managed to build a civilization without metal tools.

    Since Mexico was settled first, as the Athabascans slowly spread southward out of what was probably a subarctic climate zone in Ice Age North America, one would expect agriculture, metallurgy, and cities to have arisen much earlier there than in South America. It would have taken thousands of years of migration for South America to reach a population density that could not be sustained by a Neolithic lifestyle.

    I'm confused as to the archeological records of exactly when the earliest cities were built on the two continents.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Jul 6, 2003
    #49
  13. DJSupreme23

    DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    Nico: Rudy Rummel dont have much authority?

    I have a heck of a lot mere respect for a man with a Ph.D. in history and a Nobel laureate, comapred to a 17-year old kid with an inflated ego.

    Regarding your double standards - you claim that socialism is not responsible for the 120+ million deaths in the USSR + PRC + etc, but when it comes to slaying of indians, poor workers conditions, slaves, your turn 180°.

    Either ideologies have a influence on actions, or they do not. Make up your mind, will you?
     
    DJSupreme23, Jul 6, 2003
    #50
  14. nico

    nico Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,122
    Nico: Rudy Rummel dont have much authority?

    No one does, do I no. Do i have to believe him b/c he is a nobel laureate? No, big shit wow. Maybe they are right but there are numbers that go against those. We will never really now how many people died.

    comapred to a 17-year old kid with an inflated ego.

    Who the hell are you do decide or not if I have a inflated ego. Let me tell you something it's not me who is thought of as a idoit on this board. Think

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Also 17? So what i have obviously shown I can stand up to you, and a great deal many more. Inferiority complex is clearly evident.

    Regarding your double standards - you claim that socialism is not responsible for the 120+ million deaths in the USSR + PRC + etc, but when it comes to slaying of indians, poor workers conditions, slaves, your turn 180°.


    Socialism is responisble for nothing my ill-informed Danish ilk, what is responsible are individuals, 120 million didn't die, that simple. You try to impose on us that Nazi Germany was socialist, well we ain't buying your right wing propaganda. 65 million people were killed by these dictators. I provided why , and you have as usual as a right winger with no debate begins ad hominem arguements. BORING!

    Either ideologies have a influence on actions, or they do not. Make up your mind, will you?

    Where did I say ideologies killed? Are you reading something no one see's? Slavery was not a ideology it was a pursuit of profit, as with the genocide of the indians they were all slaves. That is not ideology it was a era of greed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    P.S a Question to all Forum members do you trrust this?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2003
    nico, Jul 6, 2003
    #51
  15. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I trust the information on that web page no more and no less than the information in White's report. And for the same reason. They both strike me as having been offered in good faith -- no intention to deceive. And they both strike me as being the results of good scholarship -- correlated secondary research with attribution. But they both strike me as not having sufficient peer review. They may contain, in order of probability, errors of typography, bias, or fact.

    That is acceptable in a SciForums member's website, but not in a research paper. So while I may find White's paper no less trustworthy, I find that lack of trustworthiness to be less forgiveable in White's case.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Jul 6, 2003
    #52
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page