This is why I love French workers

[Dante]

Not if there are alternatives. A utilitarian government would be expected to have a far greater budget for assassins than an army.

[Edric O]

Right, but you can't really change a country's political or economic system through assassination. You could at most change the names of the particular people who are in power.

[chatfsh]

I cannot think of any reason why gulags/concentration camps/torture would be even useful in a purely Machiavellian sense, let alone morally justified. They seem to me to be products of stupid paranoia at best, and outright evil at worst. And they tend to backfire spectacularly. The Gulag system under Stalin, for example, succeeded mainly in creating bitter enemies of the USSR.

But while we're on the subject - what do you think about torture in Guantanamo or the WW2 internment of Japanese-Americans?

In general, I find torture to be morally reprehensible and thus the Guantanamo Bay torture revelations were disturbing to me.  However, I will readily admit that if someone that I really cared about was abducted and the authorities captured a close acquaintance of the abductor, I wouldn

[Sneakgab]

What does it say of FD Roosevelt that he gave such an order?]

Racist? hysterical? that he would act without due analysis? (checking if there was any sense to interning Japanese due to a supposed heightened probability of being spies)

The first two at least seem a bit much for a president (you would not expect that degree of simple mindedness or lack of calm). So, one has to wonder why he did issue the order.

[Edric O]

In general, I find torture to be morally reprehensible and thus the Guantanamo Bay torture revelations were disturbing to me.  However, I will readily admit that if someone that I really cared about was abducted and the authorities captured a close acquaintance of the abductor, I wouldn

[Anathema]

When the capitalist economy falls into a recession, or when things go badly for a company for whatever reason, someone has to pay. Either the workers must pay, or the owners must pay. The workers are always asked to pay and suffer the most, usually by losing their jobs. What I admire about French workers is that they won't take it lying down, and they strike back at the owners saying "no, YOU pay!"

The rich pay as well. CEO's who get their golden handshakes entirely in money got off easily, but many of them lost fortunes when their stocks plumeted. (as did almost all regular shareholders) I know of several Dutch businessmen who got depressed and committed suicide. The idea that the rich ride through the storm unscathed is simply untrue. I'd also mention the hedgefunds who have (wrongly) been blamed by politicians for contributing to the crisis.

You think it's normal that we have recessions, layoffs and unemployment. I think these are great unnecessary evils caused by capitalism, and the more the capitalists are asked to pay for them, the better.

Yes, productivity be damned. Productivity is not good for its own sake. We should not produce stuff for the sake of producing stuff. Productivity is good only to the extent that it promotes the happiness of the people. And if the people prefer to have longer vacations and shorter hours instead of more consumer junk... then who are you to argue? The French know that you're supposed to work to live, not live to work.

Capitalism isn't just about productivity. It's also about producing things people will actually buy. Some American car manufacturers have been delivering inferior products for decades and of course that's mainly the fault of its policy makers, but to suggest that those plants stay open just to keep its workers employed is absurd. I sympathise with those Chinese workers because they live in a completely different economy and society than we do, but in western countries we have social security and services.

Err, that was 51 years ago - quite a long time - and the result was the creation of the Fifth Republic, not a "military junta".

I know the official telling of events, and I find it very hard to believe that De Gaulle was completely unaware of the mililtary plot and was simply pushed forward as a neutral person people could unite under. It was a carefully disguised coup.

"French farmers" are not some sort of monolithic entity with a single mind (and I was talking about workers, rather than farmers). I agree that the Spanish strawberry incident, and the farmers who participated in that, had nothing to do with class struggle or international solidarity. But that does not mean that other actions taken by other farmers (or workers) at other times can't be about class struggle or international solidarity.

And that is a good thing. The government should be afraid of the people.

It doesn't have anything to do with international worker solidarity because it's not a trait unique to French manual laborers. Farmers (who are generally well off), truckers (who often operate their own one-man-business) and civil servants (who are often lazy and incompetent) all follow the same pattern of behaviour.

Another topic wortwhile mentioning here is the French-Czech car issue. France's government has given French car manufactuers loans and other perks on the condition that any jobs losses during the crisis would only happen in other countries, wich of course pissed off the Czech government. I haven't heard of French workers taking it to the streets to show their solidarity, in fact I think most of them approve.

Only if you think that being a capitalist is not as bad as being a rapist or a robber. I do not. I believe that capitalists merit exactly the same treatment as other types of criminals. I do not mean any kind of arbitrary sentencing, mind you. Ideally, after the revolution, they should all be tried in a court of law with full rights to representation and the presumption of innocence. It may well be that some of them were forced into their roles of capitalists by circumstances, or that they did not hold for themselves profits higher than a worker's wage (many small business owners are in this position, for example). In that case, they should be found innocent.

You're suggesting that people should be convicted for things wich weren't defined as crimes at the time they committed them. People who merely were succesfull in a system wich the vast majority of academics regard as best serving the needs of society (or creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, if you will)

If we're looking for precedents we'd end up with the Nuremberg tribunals and similar courts after that. I know you despise capitalism and I can understand your reasons to a certain degree, but suggesting that Bill Gates and Donanld Trump have committed crimes against humanity and deserve the same treatment as Goebbels or Goering is a bit rich...

[Wolf]

"Only if you think that being a capitalist is not as bad as being a rapist or a robber. I do not. I believe that capitalists merit exactly the same treatment as other types of criminals. I do not mean any kind of arbitrary sentencing, mind you. Ideally, after the revolution, they should all be tried in a court of law with full rights to representation and the presumption of innocence. It may well be that some of them were forced into their roles of capitalists by circumstances, or that they did not hold for themselves profits higher than a worker's wage (many small business owners are in this position, for example). In that case, they should be found innocent."

Yeah, I wanna attack this, too. Not only is there the ex post facto law issue--which, in any remotely fair legal system, would render that plan as you describe it illegal--but there is also the fact that most self-described socialists of our era "hold for themselves profits higher than a worker's wage." Of course, these individuals may qualify for your "capitalists by circumstances" category, but Anathema's right: to line people up and try them, however fair you make it look, for what is fundamentally a belief is not only wrong, but also represents the same sort of early Soviet/French Revolution-guillotine-mentality that you often profess to eschew. Especially when it's a crime that we're all guilty of committing--capitalists and communists alike--when no one, not even most communists, thought it was a crime.

[Sneakgab]

''You're suggesting that people should be convicted for things wich weren't defined as crimes at the time they committed them.''

So? The idea of ''right'' and ''wrong'' possessed by humans and the idea that people should be punished for ''wrong'' is not restrained to the law. From times before the creation of law, there are probably stories with themes of ''right'' and ''wrong'' and punishment for ''wrongdoers''.

''People who merely were succesfull in a system wich the vast majority of academics regard as best serving the needs of society (or creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, if you will)''

This is true for all systems. In the Medieval ages, people thought that the divine leadership of kings was for the best. The Romans thought highly of their ''democratic governments'' as well. Even the ''wise men'' of ancient tribes thought well of their system of supernaturally guided dictatorship.

Of course, it is difficult to find evidence of this. However, we certainly get this impression from the utter rarity (or perhaps non-existence) of any questioning articles from the time in question.

It is almost always so that when the vast majority of the world is under one system, thoughts of another system are deemed crazy and radical.

As new systems are tried, the academic's official opinions change.

You mention Nuremburg. Those men were convicted for what was carrying out orders. Certainly no crime. Many of them were successful in their service, efficiently carrying out extermination orders. Do you suggest that they should have been let free because of the defined laws of the time? Or maybe because of their own view of right and wrong?

Shouldn't we create laws that punish ''wrongdoers'' based on common consensus? Or should we somehow have a system that punishes people based on their own beliefs?

Why shouldn't we create laws to punish what was wrong but at the time not illegal? (I can think of a reason, as those who read on shall see)

Now, obviously, it is not the consensus that owning a big business is wrong. However, it is the consensus that stealing is wrong.

The idea is that big business is stealing. That is the issue up for debate, and we have spoken on it many times and will probably speak on it again.

You know, the funny thing about this is that punishing past villains won't undo their actions, and after potential future villainous acts have been discouraged by law, punishing those who committed the wrongdoing while it was illegal may not have much effect. So mostly, I am discussing from the idea that if people ''deserve'' to be punished then they should be. I don't even necessarily agree with that very idea, but this seems to be the common mentality of things and I guess I am somewhat pandering to that for the sake of discussion. I think that was important to add: Morally we should punish regardless of legality (whether we punish by our own ideas or by some kind of commonly held ones), but when it comes to serving the greatest happiness...

On the other hand, if we punish people for what was not illegal but now is, maybe it will cause the next bunch who would commit legal misdeeds to have second thoughts, since they may still be punished at a later date?

If we ignore the above mentioned possibility, then is there any ''practical'' reason (I am referring to acting towards the greatest happiness, and forgetting notions of ''wrong'',''right'', ''deserving'',e.t.c) to have punished those of the Third Reich or to punish the present day big businessmen?

[chatfsh]

In theory, socialism might appear to be the solution needed to remedy the economic and moral ills of capitalism.  The redistribution of wealth such that no individual prospers inordinately to the detriment of others seems benevolent enough.  One could readily embrace such an ideology especially in the wake of the global economic chaos presumably caused by the unchecked greed of capitalists.

However, when one takes even a cursory glance at the history of 20th century socialism/communism, one arrives at a very different conclusion.  In fact, when one considers the worst atrocities committed against humanity in our modern era, we find that the majority of said atrocities have been perpetrated by agents of socialists/communists regimes.  And by atrocities, I am referring to mass murder by systematic extermination, genocide, institutionalized terror and intentionally starving the indigenous population.

I

[Sneakgab]

Don't see the relevance but I do see why you might post that given the nature of the topic.

If something replaces the capitalist system, perhaps we shouldn't bother with punishment. Will it really do any good?

Maybe it will. Guess I'll ponder it more. It might give people ''closure'' or something.

From the whole ''punish wrongdoers'' perspective it is a different story though.

So there you have the summary. There doesn't seem to be much ''practical'' motive but there could definitely be ''moral'' motive.

One thing though, some of the posts here give the impression that the poster envisions some pretty apocalyptic ideas: The super rich are few after all, so even if they received some punishment, it probably wouldn't be too crazy. There definitely won't be mass starvation, torture, e.t.c.

''Or, in the defense of socialism, is it this a case of a good idea being co-opted by devious sociopaths who proceed to warp and twist Marxism into a grotesque travesty?''

Vladmir Lenin: I don't know much, but I hear it was simply a matter of practicality, what with being invaded and all. It was probably not necessary, and maybe it was foolish to think it was, but the idea was that Lenin did, and so he did it.

Joseph Stalin: The marxists don't call him the ''betrayer of communism'' for nothing. On Lenin's deathbed, he expressed that Stalin must be stopped from taking power. Clearly, he did not trust Stalin with the ''revolution''.

Adolf Hitler: He was no socialist. He framed the socialist party for burning the Reichstag and crushed the socialists, executing and imprisoning tens of thousands of them. Clearly, no socialist.

Hideki Tojo: Erm... He was basically a military dictator put in place  by a coup after the assassination of 5 presidents to further the militant interests of the high ranking army officers I believe. I don't see any connection to socialism?

Pol Pot: No sensible, sane, real Marxist would ever vouch for or try to create an agrarian state; the conditions of socialism exist in industrialization. Some madman calling himself socialist does not mean much. There were those who assisted in initiating (or wanted) the crusades, but that does not mean that being religious somehow leads to madness.

Don't go thinking that the creation of a Marxist state requires bloodshed and apocalypse just because of the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot. Just look at the Paris Commune. That was pretty dang peaceful and democratic and all. Quite a civilized affair. Except for when outside forces decided to crush the commune by force, but obviously that was not the fault of the commune.

[chatfsh]

Adolf Hitler: He was no socialist. He framed the socialist party for burning the Reichstag and crushed the socialists, executing and imprisoning tens of thousands of them. Clearly, no socialist.

Pardon me, it must have been the Nazis' use of the term National Socialist German Workers' Party as their political affiliation that threw me.  Yes, the Nazis may have been critical of the prevailing socialists and communists during that time, but how was the political system that they implemented much different ideologically from the systems that they condemned?   I don

[Anathema]

So? The idea of ''right'' and ''wrong'' possessed by humans and the idea that people should be punished for ''wrong'' is not restrained to the law. From times before the creation of law, there are probably stories with themes of ''right'' and ''wrong'' and punishment for ''wrongdoers''.

So?

The idea that punishment should only be determined by an independent judiciary, and doing so on the basis of pre-determined criminal statutes, has been around for over two hundred years at least. It's in the 1789 declaration of human rights, for example.

This is true for all systems. In the Medieval ages' date=' people thought that the divine leadership of kings was for the best. The Romans thought highly of their ''democratic governments'' as well. Even the ''wise men'' of ancient tribes thought well of their system of supernaturally guided dictatorship.[/quote']

And? Actions of historical people should be judged in the context of their time. The Roman republic worked well enough for centuries and produced many talented leaders.

I'll add that the last king of France, Louis XVI, was not executed for having been king. Rather, he was executed for inviting foreign kings to help quell the internal resistance. He was convicted of treason because it was believed that he conspired with foreign kings to restore his own position.

You mention Nuremburg. Those men were convicted for what was carrying out orders. Certainly no crime. Many of them were successful in their service' date=' efficiently carrying out extermination orders. Do you suggest that they should have been let free because of the defined laws of the time? Or maybe because of their own view of right and wrong?[/quote']

Obviously I think that the Nuremberg trials were "legitimate". The point is that even if communism is feasonable and preferable to any form of capitalism it's a long stretch to argue that capitalist entrepreneurs deserve to be retroactively branded as criminals. I can accept that for people who have committed genocide or other crimes against humanity. The policies of the Nazis or the Armenian genocide themselves were a horror even by early 20th century standards.

And, as Wolf said, if the only bar is earning more than the average worker you'd have to kill or imprison a substantial part of the population. Including social-democrats and leftist intellectuals.

Shouldn't we create laws that punish ''wrongdoers'' based on common consensus? Or should we somehow have a system that punishes people based on their own beliefs?

Why shouldn't we create laws to punish what was wrong but at the time not illegal? (I can think of a reason' date=' as those who read on shall see)[/quote']

For all we know, the US congress could pass a law tomorrow that makes printing, selling and owning copies of Frank Herbert's Dune illegal (I know it's a silly example, but bear with me). If it weren't for the constitution, they could add a clause that makes it retroactively illegal for the past 10 years or so. Our American members would be in serious problem through no fault of their own, for they could not foresee potential illegality and therefore couldn't have decided to act differently.

As for setting an example, conceivably that would work. But besides that I'm against punishing someone merely to set an example (one of the reasons I'm against the death penalty) it's even worse when you're making an example of someone who hasn't done anything that was illegal.

Adolf Hitler: He was no socialist. He framed the socialist party for burning the Reichstag and crushed the socialists' date=' executing and imprisoning tens of thousands of them. Clearly, no socialist.[/quote']

Adolf Hitler despised marxism, among other reasons, because Karl Marx was jewish. He took most of his inspiration from fascist Italy, whose founder happened to be a former socialist who got kicked out of his party. Fascism is technically not marxist in nature, but both ideologies are collectivist: i.e. both stress the importance of the nation above that of individual rights and both advocate far reaching state power under the guise of collective welfare.

Oh, and the Paris commune lasted only two months. Not a particulary good example I'd say.

[Sneakgab]

''

So?

The idea that punishment should only be determined by an independent judiciary, and doing so on the basis of pre-determined criminal statutes, has been around for over two hundred years at least. It's in the 1789 declaration of human rights, for example.''

The point is that it is not necessarily unjust to punish for immorality even when the immorality is illegal.

I mentioned the history of ''right'' and ''wrong'' to emphasize that man has thoughts of right and wrong regardless of legality. Ie: even if '''Hitler's men'' or the capitalists existed in times where there actions were legal, it does not mean that they wereare not immoral.

''And? Actions of historical people should be judged in the context of their time. The Roman republic worked well enough for centuries and produced many talented leaders.

I'll add that the last king of France, Louis XVI, was not executed for having been king. Rather, he was executed for inviting foreign kings to help quell the internal resistance. He was convicted of treason because it was believed that he conspired with foreign kings to restore his own position.''

Well to be honest I strayed from the topic there.

I'm not judging their actions. I am pointing out that the Roman academics thought their system the best, and it was not. Also I am pointing out that the dominant system of the time is always thought to be superior amongst academics and pretty much everyone. Seems natural perhaps. However, that is no reason to discount a system.

So, to be honest, I just decided to make that point rather than oppose the idea that if a system is considered to be okay by the majority, then normal and legal actions in that system are ok. To be honest, I was absent minded and didn't even realize you were making that point when I read through it (I thought you were also going off-topic and denouncing marxism based on it's acceptance). My fault, not yours.

However, shouldn't an individuals sense of right and wrong be based on common sense and not just on common thought?

Is there nothing wrong with the actions of the Roman rulers or medieval kings, slaughtering  slaves or subjects to maintain their rule with this being seen as a legal thing to do with their system accepted by the majority and so it's maintenance a good thing? To give a better comparison, the dealings of slave traders was also legitimate at a time, both by legality and by the common thought (most likely of the academics as well but obviously I can't say for sure).

Are these slave dealers not to be considered immoral?

It is a question of understanding. Back then it was presumably not commonly understood that slaves were humans like everybody else and this was wrong. Hypothetically speaking, if in the future, it was determined that the understanding of our time was lacking, and big business is theft.

Should we absolve these slavers, kings, e.t.c on the basis of the common and dominant understanding of the time?

Should we absolve them on their lack of understanding?

That's actually an interesting question. At what point does it become ''obvious enough'' that despite the common thought of the time the action was ''villainous'' and the person should be considered thus. Clearly, it is not very obvious to the capitalists that they are doing anything wrong (if they are). On the other hand, when your income is that of thousands of workers, if not tens of thousands, then isn't it time that you had the sneaking suspicion, that possibly you do not deserve such a share of your laborer's fruits, and some of it should be given to them? (ie: salary increase).

Note my abundance of question marks. They are not exactly rhetorical questions. I am definitely willing to go either way on this issue. Actually, perhaps it is more accurate to say that I am currently exploring it and trying to find a reasonable position.

''Obviously I think that the Nuremberg trials were "legitimate". The point is that even if communism is feasonable and preferable to any form of capitalism it's a long stretch to argue that capitalist entrepreneurs deserve to be retroactively branded as criminals. I can accept that for people who have committed genocide or other crimes against humanity. The policies of the Nazis or the Armenian genocide themselves were a horror even by early 20th century standards.''

So in other words, you do accept the idea that after a certain point, it becomes ''obvious enough''. However, I note in the case of the Nazis there was not a worldwide consensus in favor of their actions. So I guess I will ask, if such trials were held after such a time, say after the end of the reign of kings (let us pretend this happened simultaneously and suddenly) and these trials condemned these kings who before the sudden change of thought and government, executed hundreds for whatever medieval reason, would you approve of their punishment?

''And, as Wolf said, if the only bar is earning more than the average worker you'd have to kill or imprison a substantial part of the population. Including social-democrats and leftist intellectuals.''

Well gosh I suspect that that was not what Edrico had in mind. He has said that in one possible socialist system there would be workers earning up to 4 times the least paid (probably much more than the average worker right?). I think that he does not have in mind the person who could possibly deserve his wage. What he probably has in mind is people who are earning thousands of times the average worker's wage. Does this boss possess the strength of a thousand workers? Perhaps the intellect of a thousand workers, some kind of God like omniscience? Maybe he can run like the flash? Even if his input makes the difference of a thousand workers, we can say that of many. Were it not for the invention of electricity, we would not have the vast majority of what we have. Should we therefore lump together nearly all of the worlds produce to pay the inventor? Were it not for the sewer workers, we also could not have modern industry and civilization. Then we owe them all as well. True, these can be replaced, but so can a boss. Even so, if our sewer workers were some kind of mutants, the only ones able to work in our radioactive sewers (hypothetical scenario), would they deserve nearly all of the fruits of man's labor, since this fruit would not exist without them? If they do not deserve the majority of the product of man, then if they (legally) blackmailed the rest of the population into paying them thusly, is there not the possibility that this is wrong? So herein lies the idea of Edrico, I suspect. ''There are those who have taken a share they could not possibly deserve''. It isn't illegal now, but should it be punished or shouldn't it be punished? (just emphasizing the fact that this is not a rhetorical question, but that I am not sure of the answer)

----Quote from: Sneakgab

Shouldn't we create laws that punish ''wrongdoers'' based on common consensus? Or should we somehow have a system that punishes people based on their own beliefs?

Why shouldn't we create laws to punish what was wrong but at the time not illegal? (I can think of a reason, as those who read on shall see)----

''For all we know, the US congress could pass a law tomorrow that makes printing, selling and owning copies of Frank Herbert's Dune illegal (I know it's a silly example, but bear with me). If it weren't for the constitution, they could add a clause that makes it retroactively illegal for the past 10 years or so. Our American members would be in serious problem through no fault of their own, for they could not foresee potential illegality and therefore couldn't have decided to act differently.''

So am I to take it that owning copies of Frank's Dune is wrongevil :D. It's not about legality, it's about morality. What if people killed while it was legal and came into trouble when it was declared illegal? That trouble would be through their fault of villainy. Also, these Dune owners and murderers COULD have decided to act differently, it's just that they were not influenced by the law. I'm still not saying we should punish retroactively, I am just giving you this situation for consideration.

Of course, if we remove ''right'' and ''wrong'' from the equation, then it is bad to randomly punish people via retroactive application of laws. Any random punishment is bad.

''As for setting an example, conceivably that would work. But besides that I'm against punishing someone merely to set an example (one of the reasons I'm against the death penalty) it's even worse when you're making an example of someone who hasn't done anything that was illegal.''

I'm definitely not convinced of the virtues of example setting myself. Just so you know, the reason I referred to was a reason for why we SHOULDN'T retroactively punish when we feel our understanding has increased and something is a crime. That reason being, basically, that while this may have negative results (eg: we were wrong in general and should not have punished... or a case went wrong), I don't see much possibility for it to be positivefor positive things to come from it. All I can think of is that the victims may receive ''closure''.

''Adolf Hitler despised marxism, among other reasons, because Karl Marx was jewish. He took most of his inspiration from fascist Italy, whose founder happened to be a former socialist who got kicked out of his party. Fascism is technically not marxist in nature, but both ideologies are collectivist: i.e. both stress the importance of the nation above that of individual rights and both advocate far reaching state power under the guise of collective welfare.

''

There is a big difference between stressing the importance of the ''nation'', that imaginary entity, and stressing the important of the greater happiness of all mankind. I could care less about ''nations'', but for people, perhaps I would be willing to dispose of some ''individual rights'' if necessary. Also, just because two ideologies or systems or whatever both seek the greater happiness of all (or any goal) does not mean that they have the same ideas on happiness and how to achieve it (or on whatever objective and how to achieve it). Marxist ideas typically do not involve the execution of jews. Actually, they might take qualm even with the party name ''National Socialist'' because they believe that ultimately the bringers of a socialist system must strive to make it international. In any case, if I remember correctly, the national socialist party was hijacked by Hitler. Regardless of it's original intentions (which I suspect emphasized the ''national'' over the ''social'').

In any case Anathema, I suspect that we are both familiar with the widespread self-labeling of non socialist (in the sense of desiring the abolishment of owning the means of property) parties as socialist (much of the above paragraph is for Hwi, in case you are wondering why I would tell you what I suspect you already think and know)

''Pardon me, it must have been the Nazis' use of the term National Socialist German Workers' Party as their political affiliation that threw me. ''

Don't worry, were both making absent minded errors today (well I didn't read properly and you were mislead by a misleading title)

''Yes, the Nazis may have been critical of the prevailing socialists and communists during that time, but how was the political system that they implemented much different ideologically from the systems that they condemned?   I don

[Edric O]

I will first reply to Hwi Noree's posts:

However, when one takes even a cursory glance at the history of 20th century socialism/communism, one arrives at a very different conclusion.

This entire argument is flawed from the beginning. The merits of a certain proposal cannot be judged based on the historical experience of different proposals bearing the same name. If I said "hey, let's copy what they did in the Soviet Union," THEN you would be entirely justified in using the experience of the USSR as an argument against me. But since present-day socialists and communists propose something different, associating them with the USSR just because they happen to share a number of ideological similarities is like me associating you with Otto von Bismarck just because you're both conservatives.

Or, to use another analogy, what you are doing here is the same as if I used the historical experience of 19th century British conservatism (or 19th century conservatism in general, if you prefer) to argue that 21st century American Republicans will inevitably end up building a colonial empire in Africa.

In fact, when one considers the worst atrocities committed against humanity in our modern era, we find that the majority of said atrocities have been perpetrated by agents of socialists/communists regimes. And by atrocities, I am referring to mass murder by systematic extermination, genocide, institutionalized terror and intentionally starving the indigenous population.

That's only if you ignore the millions upon millions of people who die of starvation or poverty in capitalist countries as a matter of daily routine. Currently, about 24,000 people die of hunger in the world every day. The vast majority of countries are capitalist, but because a few small non-capitalist countries remain, let's round the number down to 20,000 and call that the number of people who starve to death in capitalist countries every day.

20,000 people per day means 7,300,000 people per year, or 100 million people every 13.7 years. It seems capitalism has quite a death toll!

And while I agree that death by starvation is not as bad as death in a concentration camp, the vast majority of the people killed by Stalin and Mao died of starvation, not in gulags or prisons of any kind. The vast majority of Stalin's victims died in the Great Famine of the early 30s, and the vast majority of Mao's victims died as a result of the famine caused by the Great Leap Forward.

So, why do you hold a double standard? Why is it that people who die of hunger in the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China are "victims of communism," but people who die of hunger in capitalist countries are not victims of capitalism?

Vladmir Lenin

Joseph Stalin

Mao Zedong

Hideki Tojo

Adolf Hitler

Pol Pot

Your list is a very odd one. First of all, the only communist on the list was Lenin. Even if we go by the more popular, more inclusive and much more inaccurate definition of communism, we can still only take - at most! - Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Tojo and Hitler were virulent, outspoken anti-communists and anti-socialists. They saw themselves as the world's greatest bulwark against socialism and communism, and, arguably, they were right. They even signed an alliance called the Anti-Comintern Pact, for God's sake!

Pol Pot would probably be better categorized as an agrarian anarchist. His desire to create a self-sufficient agrarian society - which you correctly pointed out - flies in the face of the fundamental Marxist belief in the goodness of technological progress and international co-operation. From the very beginning, socialists and communists have been technophiles, eager to push forward industrial development.

Keep in mind that all of these government sanctioned acts of barbarism were carried out, not against an enemy in wartime, but rather against its own citizens!

Actually, Lenin's acts WERE carried out against an enemy in wartime. He was fighting a civil war, remember?

After examining this information, I am compelled to ask

[chatfsh]

This entire argument is flawed from the beginning. The merits of a certain proposal cannot be judged based on the historical experience of different proposals bearing the same name. If I said "hey, let's copy what they did in the Soviet Union," THEN you would be entirely justified in using the experience of the USSR as an argument against me. But since present-day socialists and communists propose something different, associating them with the USSR just because they happen to share a number of ideological similarities is like me associating you with Otto von Bismarck just because you're both conservatives.

If you wish to argue that the modern day socialist proposition is nothing like what existed in the USSR, fair enough.  My point was that the historical record demonstrates that those professing to be socialists and communists have an abysmal track record.  And therefore you can not fault anyone for being somewhat resistant or skittish about a modern day application of socialism/communism.  

Really, saying that we can not look at the USSR model is the equivalent of my saying you can

[Sneakgab]

''You must realize that there is a difference between a country failing to be economically successful or mismanaging its resources which may result in starvation of its citizens versus a government that intentionally sets out to starve its citizens or who forces them into gulags.  There simply isn

[Sneakgab]

''-----So why is it that you believe them when they call themselves socialist, but not when they call themselves democratic?----

As I understood it, capitalism and socialism/communism are economic systems as opposed to a form of government (democracy, fascism, aristocracy etc.)    Therefore one could live under a democracy and still have a socialist economic system, likewise, one could live under a dictatorship while wealthy private citizens still owned and controlled the means of production.  (Some argue that this is precisely what existed under Nazi Germany, which is why I say the jury is still out on how to classify Nazism in terms of an economic system).  Is that not the case?''

Yes that is correct (that we can have democratic socialism and autocratic capitalism). But Edrico's point is that you are so ready to believe that any party bearing the label ''socialist'' is socialist that you are still debating about the Nazis and firm in Pol Pot (maybe you even think the current China is communist) while you presumably do not believe that NK is democratic despite their title. Why the difference? I assure you, the historians and official documents refers to the Nazis as the National Socialist Workers Party and NK as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

That is the point. While I compliment you for your quick grasp of the fact (compared to the norm) that socialism and capitalism can both exist under democracy and autocracy (with the usual contrary idea being pounded in at school) and for your apparent open mindedness on these issues (pretty good for a banker brought up in an army base) I must say that you appear to have dodged the point in this case.

''If you wish to argue that the modern day socialist proposition is nothing like what existed in the USSR, fair enough.  My point was that the historical record demonstrates that those professing to be socialists and communists have an abysmal track record.  And therefore you can not fault anyone for being somewhat resistant or skittish about a modern day application of socialism/communism.  ''

Yes your right. After all the usual talk, being a little skittish is no great crime.

''Really, saying that we can not look at the USSR model is the equivalent of my saying you can

[chatfsh]

Just wanted to take a quick moment (during lunch) to elaborate on the issue that Edric O raised concerning capitalisms

[Sneakgab]

That's okay, just save a little bailout for the rest okay? :D (j/k of course).

Don't worry about responding if your busy or tired or whatever of course. Wouldn't want you to feel imposed on.

[Edric O]

You must realize that there is a difference between a country failing to be economically successful or mismanaging its resources which may result in starvation of its citizens versus a government that intentionally sets out to starve its citizens or who forces them into gulags.

Indeed, there is a difference, but the difference works in my favour, not yours.

If people die as an unintentional effect of an economic system, without anyone actively trying to kill them, then the system is MORE at fault than if people die as a result of murderous intent. In the case of murderous intent, the responsibility lies more with the individual murderous leader and less with the system.

I think our evaluation of political and economic systems in general suffers from an excessive desire to compare anything and everything with the Nazis. The Nazis were a special case, in that the system and the leader were one and the same, inseparable. Communism, socialism and capitalism are not like that. These systems are independent from the particular thoughts and actions of any one leader.

Of the original list that I posted, I still hold to Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.  I already agreed that Tojo should be removed, but I believe that Hitler

[chatfsh]

So basically what you

[Khan]

But the point still stands that an ideology or an economic system can't always be held responsible for the actions of individuals. If I said capitalism = war it would be stupid but by your logic I could find a lot of capitalist countries which have gone to war. Just the same as Islam wasn't responsible for the July 7th bombing and communism isn't responsible for the stalinist purges.

[chatfsh]

I agree that one could make a solid argument that an ideology is not responsible for various crimes against humanity.  I have no issue with that and would be pleased to hear those arguments.

However, what I take issue with is arguing that those examples presented can not be used because the country in question really wasn

[Khan]

However, what I take issue with is arguing that those examples presented can not be used because the country in question really wasn

[Sneakgab]

Yes but the capitalists wouldn't need to speak to it if the systems did not hold to the basic fundaments of capitalism l(free trade and protection of private property I suppose).

If we had a few countries with free trade, but NO protection of private property (so no laws against it) then those countries would probably be loony bins probably with a great deal of violence.

To ask a capitalist to take responsibility for that is ridiculous.

But anyway, what your basically doing is looking at the definition of socialism with just it's three pillars (so 1 more than capitalism maybe?) and saying: HA HA! That system has never existed! That means your asking for too much and this system is some kind of impossible dream!

Just because the system has never existed does not mean the definition demands too much specificity or could never exist. How do you feel about  basic democracy as typically seen today? Not too specific or impossible yes? And yet, if we take ourselves back to the medieval ages and try to convince of the merits of such a system, someone might first point to Rome and Greece and say how they were not so great.

To that we would say: Democracy has never existed becuase it must have these three pillars:

1: Everyone above 18 enfranchised.

2: Free and fair elections

3: Multiple political parties.

They might point to you and say: HA HA! That system has never existed! You're asking for too much and if it's never existed it must impossible!

Funny enough both cases are also about the lacking of one pillar.

But of course, if we look at it sensibly, we would say: Why the feck would it be impossible to have enfranchisement for everybody above 18 along with the other 2 things? It may never have happened but that does not mean it is impossible.

Something to take into account is that the conditions for socialism only existed around the 20 century (ie: 19th century - 20th century... yeah I hate that naming method too but since everybody uses it). That's for some countries. Pretty much America and the pre-imperial powers Most of the world would be much later.

Now, it's not everyday that some country in the world decides to try a system that has never been tried before. Only after an initial success does the rest of the world quickly follow in the attempt (usually). Therefore it's not TOO surprising that in the 1 century window so far a socialist country has not yet emerged.

Anyway, since you seem to seek an answer about the atrocities committed by the ''communist'' countries:

I notice that these countries were pretty much all backward weak countries in desperate and dangerous waters. Their very existence was threatened. Lenin had already given up a great deal of Russia's resources andor territories to make peace with the Germans in WW1. That was after simultaneous invasion by western powers at about the time of the October revolution (not sure about the time gap). Then Hitler popped up. The October revolution was in 1917 I believe. WW2 started in 1939 (the threat was apparent before the official start of course, and that number may be for America's entry, but let's just forget about that). So in 22 years it faced 3 serious threats to existence. That some backwater recently feudal country managed to fend off great powers 3 times is remarkable, but the point is the constant threat to the existence of the ''socialist'' state. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the Cold way of course. Then the first super power threatened the state as well.

The other countries were in similar waters as well. Of course, I don't know a thing about most of the countries you mentioned, but as of the typical bunch I do know things about I notice these were all poor house backwards countries in unstable regions usually constantly threatened by war and invasion.

The imperial powers enslaved and committed atrocities when there were other big powers to threaten and perhaps conquer them. In general, in the medieval ages and from earlier, when large invasions were relatively common, so were atrocities. The rulers want to hold on to their power, and they don't care how. Hence the slaughtering of innocents. After all, the commonly cited reasons for Stalin's purges was paranoia. He felt his rule was threatened. He didn't purge just because he was some kind of sadist; he wanted to ensure his reign of power (maybe he did happen to be a sadist though).

And of course, sometimes you just get madmen.

Take note that most of the countries you mentioned were part of the SU. Bulgaria, Yugoslavia,Romania, Albania, Czechoslovakia (I think). These countries were all basically ruled by the same person. Obviously he would probably commit atrocities there if necessary as well.

''Of course you are entitled to hold to your definition of communism, but surely you understand that the world/history classifies those regimes as communist.  If you intend to engage in meaningful discourse on the topic, you must be prepared to deal with this.''

World/history mostly classifies those regimes as communist as a matter of common knowledge. Besides, who cares. Communism is just a word. If the world and it's historians hijacked the word and changed it to no longer include the third tenent (as we would expect from the victor who writes history: That he would flagrantly distort the ideas of the defeated), then forget about that word; We'll create a new one. It is not the fault of the Marxists that the rest of the world decided to change the meaning of the word they created to label their system.

What, must the Marxists have the world and it's historians decide why they are and what their system is? Ridiculous.

Now here is something noteworthy: I will surround the most relevant sections with ----- and will add a little emphasis. Won't change any words though.

''In criticizing Marx