The quote 'this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality' is from Winston Churchill in 1920. Communism would clock up millions more killings before the century was out.
I define Marxism, broadly, as a view of history as an ongoing class struggle between oppressors and oppressed groups. The 'oppressed' are generally imagined to be almost wholly virtuous, and not responsible in any way for their fate. 'Social justice' to Marxist eyes, involves labelling a better off-group as oppressors and dispossessing/plundering them for the benefit of the supposed victims of 'oppression'. Marxism also involves some flawed economic theories, such as that work investment rather than demand creates value.
Socialism is a sort of collectivist system set up to ensure the welfare of all members of a given group, with key assets held as common property. Doesn't necessarily involve Marxist dogma.
Communism is the abolition of private property and the centralization of credit, industry, etc. in the hands of the state. In practice it always involves a lot of killing people who don't get with the programme, and highly intrusive government.
The international working class of industrialised nations were supposed to be the foot-soldiers for Communist revolution, establishing a sort of 'equality' (albeit devoid of individual liberty) once the 'class enemy' was removed by violent revolution. Revolutionary terrorism was built into the ideology from the get-go.
Cultural Marxism was an unorthodox outgrowth of Marxism, originating with the ideologues of the Frankfurt School in the 1920s. The cultural Marxists gave up on the Western working class as the revolutionary 'proletariat', and looked for alternative 'oppressed' groups to patronise and agitate among. That while attacking traditional Western Civilization via 'critical theory', cultural relativism, the sexual revolution and the promotion of white guilt- all this in order to undermine Western civilization's confidence and soften it up for the envisaged revolution that never came. Leftist professors engaged in this kind of propagandising were called 'useful idiots' by the Soviets, who would soon have liquidated them had they actually rolled in...
Some of the worst genocides in history were committed by Communists, notably Mao, Stalin, Mengistu and Pol Pot.
www.scaruffi.com/politics/dict… Lenin and Trotsky were also ruthless mass-murderers.
Communism completely failed in the old Soviet Union, but unfortunately the intellectual heirs of Marx (via Herbert Marcuse and the like) are all too influential in the West, especially in academia. Anyone thinking of going to college, especially to study the arts, humanities or 'social sciences' should be wary of Cultural Marxist brainwashing. Look out for anyone who calls themselves 'progressive', or who likes to generalise about groups as oppressors or oppressed. This simplistic dichotomy is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Look out for their double-standards, and their vituperative attacks on Western Civilization by use of one-sided 'critical theory'.
The killing of the Tsar and his family was on Lenin's orders. The daughters were finished off with bayonets. Thousands of Russians were summarily executed by the Cheka, the Communist secret police, in the aftermath of the Bolshevik coup and during the Red Terror.
'As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life.” We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order that crucifies him. And this problem can be solved only by blood and iron.' (Leon Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism, 4, Terrorism
One of the atrocities of the Soviet Union was the genocide in Ukraine 1932-3, known as the Holodomor, where a deliberate famine was used to break the people's resistance... The following is a quote from a communist leader speaking in the Kharkiv region in 1934:
"Famine in Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of the USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence."
- V. Danilov et al., Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU_NKVD. T. 3, kn. 2. Moscow 2004. P. 572
The Communist state did not consider itself bound by the Tsarist regime's signing of the Hague Convention, and thus gave itself licence to carry out many war crimes.
Estimates at the total number of people killed by Communism during the 20th century range as high as 150 million (which is the figure worked out by R. J. Rummel. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE…
The 'Black book of Communism' places the figure at 95 million en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blac…
So it seems reasonable to go with 100 million as a round figure.
Pertinent article by Jim Goad:
I was censoring myself on one particular aspect, and the realisation has been gnawing at me, and feeling like cowardice. A brief quote from Christopher Hitchens suffices to address this matter:
'And thus to my final and most melancholy point: a great number of Stalin’s enforcers and henchmen in Eastern Europe were Jews. And not just a great number, but a great proportion. The proportion was especially high in the secret police and “security” departments, where no doubt revenge played its part, as did the ideological attachment to Communism that was so strong among internationally minded Jews at that period.'
One more thing- what about Che Guevara? He was pretty cool, right? No, he was a psychopath who murdered children:
Did Stalin give a fuck about Polish Jews
To answer your second question - no.
May I never live to see it done to others!
That is why we are fighting to this bloody day to stay as far as away from the F##KING Muscovite Thugs and cold war sore losers that support people like Jugoshvili (A.K.A. Stalin) and the current Kremlin FSB abomination; Vlad the Huiylo/Impaler! They're bloody killers at the core!
Capitalism as enshrined by Adam Smith is the lesser evil when compared to failure ideology of Communism! It cannot ever work cause it's completely contrary to human nature (At least the corrupted version of it) and devolves way too much power to the hands of a few people!
At least in Capitalism, you can still maintain some semblance of individuality! You'll never get that with Communism!
Capitalism/Profit driven governments have killed over 1.6 billion. Capitalism kills, don't forget the great depressions where millions starved to death and profit + nationalism driven World War 1. Not to mention Mein Kampf's very ideas promote mass murder, eugenics and Social-Darwinism which is bullcrap. Nazism is Capitalist, Pol Pot was a nationalist funded by the CIA who confessed he never actually believed in communism and was using it to gain popularity for another ideology and goal: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmYSND…
The holodomor was bullshit and a complete hoax, the katyn massacre was carried out by Nazis:
National Socialism and Fascism would not have come into existence but for the threat posed to Europe by internationalist Marxist Leninism. Nonetheless many of the policies of and pronouncements of the Fascists and Nazis were decidedly Left-Wing and anti-Capitalist. For example:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Hitler, Speech of May 1, 1927.
Eugenics is just the desire to improve the genetic quality of the population. How anyone who supports social engineering (as Communists do almost by definition) can condemn eugenics is mysterious to me. Communists never had a problem with the 'liquidation' of awkward people who don't fit in with their utopia, either. Bernard Shaw openly advocated such liquidation, and Engels apparently would have seen all the Romanians wiped out because of their ingrained national sentiment.
If you have a critique of Social Darwinism, and can say why it is based on false premises, then lets hear it. I'm open to the argument, but just calling it 'bullcrap' doesn't suffice.
Eugenics is about the killing off of what are considered people with undesirable genetics, Nazi Germany carried out an extermination of disabled people and even used certain body parts for fat for example. It is different from genetic modification in which you modify the person's genes so the next generation don't have it, eugenics is about killing and genetic engineering is modification to improve genes.
Also wrong, nationalism was the driving force of World War 1. People of other "races" were painted as inferior for example to motivate you to fight and to also fight for the "glory of your country" and to demonstrate your "loyalty to your country/patriotism": alphahistory.com/worldwar1/nat…
A republic is doomed to be a terrible failure, a democracy is better than a republic. Why the heck should the minority not be held accountable by the majority?
Socialism is about domination of the majority over the minority, its about internationalism and the formation of a one world federation. Unity of humanity and having democracy in the workplace, being able to impeach or elect your employer at will and getting to keep all you earn without them being able to take any of it from you and having to work just as hard as you to earn it.
Socialism and Communist Value systems are the opposite of Social-Darwinism actually. Give one example of any other opposites of Social-Darwinism, oh wait there isn't.
History shows that human nature is a product of the conditions created by the system they live and people will take on certain traits to help them survive in each system. Humans are social animals who cooperate and work together for each other's survival. Better understanding of evolutionary psychology has disproven the basis of Social-Darwinism too and its an anti-cooperation ideology and anti-civilization. Many people are miraculously alive today because of civilization.
Best example was the Paris Commune of 1871 where you could democratically elect your representatives in the workplace. Where it was truly a majority controlled state. "Public ownership of the means of production" statement is meaningless if the majority don't own the state and therefore own the means of production.
Eugenics is not about killing people off. The way the Nazis went about it should probably not be taken as representative. And as noted it is very rich for a Communist to condemn the project when Communism similarly entailed the eradication of those who didn't fit the desired profile. Personally I am all for living and letting live, but not for the form of welfareism that forces productive people to subsidise the reckless behaviour of others (including reckless fertility- having kids and expecting other people to pay for them, via taxation and state redistribution). The likely dysgenic potential of such a system (which punishes virtue and prudence and rewards irresponsibility) should be as obvious to us as it was to Darwin. Not that there was any more mercy in the Communist heart, if George Bernard Shaw's writings are anything to go by. He advocated the 'liquidation' of the non-productive. He didn't go into details but it doesn't sound very pleasant.
Darwinism is just an appreciation of reality and nature as it is. Leftism is at war with the reality principle. History, contrary to your delusions, does not show human nature as being particularly mutable. 'New Soviet Man' never showed up in any numbers. Human nature is that people respond to incentives. They are also tribal creatures, and they want to retain the fruits of their labour, and pass on their wealth to give their children a better chance. It is natural to want to give your children advantages over the children of strangers, and to prioritise the prosperity of your own nation over those of foreign peoples. Hence the failure of intrnationalist Socialism and the cult of universalist equality. Groups work together to enhance the survival-chances of the individuals involved, and of their genetic lineages or those of their relations. Most progress of civilization is the result of competition, as well as co-operation. Competition (for just rewards) drives quality. If DA were run along socialistic lines, and favs and positive comments were redistributed by a central authority in the name of 'equality', then it would remove any incentive for artists to produce better quality work. The same principle applies in every conceivable field of human endeavour.
Your account of the origins of WWI is hysterical. And patriotism is no less rational than Marxist notions of international class allegiance. A society entirely comprised of workers is hardly more viable than a society of women or of homosexuals (the latter, of course, being among the groups the Marxist 'intellectuals' tried to recruit as substitute revolutionaries in the West after they gave up on the workers as such. I tend to view the whole project of selling oppression, vicimhood, malcontent and entitlement as a cynical exercise in manipulation, these days. It is more about disrupting and undermining the older society than the chance of building something better. A viable society is based on family and national, things Leftism generally tends to undermine.
Communism over 100.000.000 (?) ppl.
Capitalism about 205.000.000 ppl.
How about simply saying Ideals kill?
'Cause they does, 'til someday there is nothing left to kill.
to this day!
As for everything for sale, that assumes that there are at least property rights to begin with, as opposed to with Communism, where, as indicated, the government assumes the right to take everything, and where the individual has no rights or autonomy whatsoever. As for slavery, Communist regimes enslave entire populations, since the definition of a slave is someone who has to work but who is not entitled to retain the fruits of his own labour. It's not as though the most brutal forms of slavery didn't exist in the USSR, either, in the Gulag etc. Meanwhile the first civilisation to actually abolish slavery on an international basis was the West, principally Britain.
It's quaint that you think 'more power to government' is the answer to everything, as though you think all human beings who don't form the government are pernicious and exploitative, but all those who form the government are incorruptible and altruistic to a fault.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao might have, but they are not communism.