Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
July 23, 2013
Image Size
26.3 MB
Resolution
3760×4406
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
5,300 (7 today)
Favourites
125 (who?)
Comments
483
Downloads
57
×
Communism Kills by dashinvaine Communism Kills by dashinvaine
Another risky foray into politics, although perhaps a useful health warning...

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...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtCa_O…


Many of these ideas have become general in the culture, mislabelled as 'liberal', among people who aren't aware of their origin or their original function, and even pervade nominally 'conservative' circles. Cultural Marxism is now in a curious league with globalist capitalism, which is also an enemy of traditionalist conservativism and a threat to the conservation of authentic national cultures.




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.

Trotsky said:
'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

www.holodomor.org.uk/

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_w…


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:

takimag.com/article/the_bloody…

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.'
www.goodreads.com/quotes/26800…


One more thing- what about Che Guevara? He was pretty cool, right? No, he was a psychopath who murdered children:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMLk1…
Add a Comment:
 
:iconblank-matter:
Blank-Matter Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2015  New member Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Nazism killed over 6.000.000 ppl.
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.
Reply
:iconmorrigann11:
morrigann11 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015  Hobbyist
"Over 60 million people were killed in WWII" (wiki) <--- to Nazism 
Reply
:iconblank-matter:
Blank-Matter Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015  New member Hobbyist Traditional Artist
If you see it like that, that Nazism was the trigger to WWII, which killed so many, then its correct I guess.
Reply
:iconinfinityunlimited:
InfinityUnlimited Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
capitalism kills more :3
to this day!
Reply
:iconallman08:
allman08 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015
And capitalism did....?
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2015
How do you define 'capitalism'?
Reply
:iconallman08:
allman08 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2015
Survival  of the richest. Everything is for sale. You're rights, medical health, slaves ect. And laissez faire means the government can't do a thing about it.
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2015
I am not averse to the idea of the rich surviving, if their possession/creation of wealth was by legitimate means that did not harm me or the nation at large. What do you want to do, shoot anyone with more money than you? I'm sure you could find plenty of people who are poorer than you, so why don't you start sharing out all your stuff and not wait for a dictatorial regime to do it for you?

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. 
Reply
:iconallman08:
allman08 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2015
I just wanted you to know, i'm not gonna read that. Lets just say we have different oppinions. Deal?
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Edited Jan 18, 2015
That's a shame. Bye bye.
Reply
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2014
Hmm out of curiosity what do you think of Lenin's brand of communism?
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2014
Should I prefer that to other sorts?
Reply
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2014
You don't have to I'm just genuinely curious cause I didn't see him mentioned here
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2014
Lenin's regime set the scene for Stalin's. There was all the same tyranny. The only difference was that Stalin also attacked fellow Bolsheviks.
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
You know where where plenty of cannibals in the 20th century? In USSR and Mao's China. You know where are cannibals today? North Korea. Thank you communists, you motherfucking genocidal cunts!
Reply
:icondarkfall303:
Darkfall303 Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2014
Imperials is way more worse then cummunist.  
Reply
:iconthejutsch:
TheJutsch Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2014
Communism killed no one.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao might have, but they are not communism.
Reply
:iconalrita27:
alrita27 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
If they aren't communism, then who is?
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
You are a cunt! Tens of millions died and here you come a fucking braindead commiecunt telling us that it killed no one! 
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2014
Ok, have it your way. Communists kill...
Reply
:iconthejutsch:
TheJutsch Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2014
Aha. I'm sure you know a lot about communism and can totally explain what it is about actually...
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2014
I explained what it is about in the description, although Churchill's summary basically covers it. 
Reply
:iconguychapman:
GuyChapMan Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2014
Not true at all. At most Socialist counties killed 40 million. I could say Capitalism has killed 1 billion people but that would be moronic like your post.
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Go fuc yourself you commiecunt ! 40 million died during Mao's famine, there are statistics on the communist holocaust, capitalism never killed nobody because it is a economic system not a political ideology you retarded child
Reply
:iconroadzero:
RoadZero Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
So educated such good points.
Anger gets you nowhere, dude. And yes, if an abstract thing like political ideology can kill people then "economic system" (and system is an object, a conglomerate, being less abstract) can do it even better.
Reply
:iconguychapman:
GuyChapMan Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014
Nope
Reply
:icontevo77777:
Tevo77777 Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2014  Student Writer
Well you could argue that monarchies have a similar toll.

And Fascism was not far behind, I think it would have caught up if it lasted longer. I mean the USSR and China were communist for decades on end.
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2014
There again some might say fascism was only a reaction to communism...
Reply
:iconklatuk4u:
klatuk4u Featured By Owner Sep 24, 2014
Pretty brave to say this.  Kudos! 
Reply
:iconmxm777:
mxm777 Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2014
are you ceral this is not the ussr we chaned
Reply
:icondeanthefoul:
DeantheFoul Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Insta-watch for great knowledge and awareness of Communism and Marxism, and also for being against it
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2014
Being against it isn't difficult when one understands it. Thanks!
Reply
:iconneworldisorder:
Neworldisorder Featured By Owner Jul 28, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
What do you think about corporatism ?
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Jul 28, 2014
Inevitable that some form of collectivism will manifest. Interest and identity groups would seem to be natural and nearly impossible to suppress. The key thing would seem to be ensuring that the freedom the individual is not disregarded for the sake of any collective interest. 
Reply
:icondynamicsynthesism:
DynamicSynthesism Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2014
Actually... isn't that a gross under estimation of the true death toll numbers?
Reply
:iconguychapman:
GuyChapMan Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2014
Stalin killed around 800,000, Mao killed 20 million and than every other small Socialist country all together killed probably 10 million. so 20-40 million.
Reply
:icondynamicsynthesism:
DynamicSynthesism Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014
I'm sure there is some debate about the numbers, based on such things as who's word you take as more accurate and how you figure up what the accurate numbers are.
But (based on my memory--since I'm not in a position to double check this, and wouldn't really want to if I was) my information suggests that you are way low. On the order of a magnitude, meaning that the numbers I've heard place it closer to 200-400 million. I seem to recall reading that there were close to 100 million killed in one year.

Also, it depends on which countries you call communist. Nazis, for example, were essentially a communist country. At first, Russia hoped to join forces with Hitler, and Hitler signed a treaty--which he then broke. There are quotes from the communist leaders expressing the notion that Hitler's Germany was almost identical to their own forms of government--just with a little more nationalism thrown in. So you have some 6 million Jew and a roughly equal number of non-Jews to add right there.

Again, I acknowledge that the numbers can vary greatly depending on how you count.
Reply
:iconguychapman:
GuyChapMan Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014
The Soviets never wanted to wiped out 100% of Jews, 80% of Slavics and who knows what else. The Nazi's would have killed 100 billion if they could.
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Damn you are fucking stupid
Reply
:icondynamicsynthesism:
DynamicSynthesism Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2014
Perhaps, but the soviet system was so economically inept that millions did die of starvation. Also, many were killed by sending them into war without guns or ammunition... just bodies to shot down, so they'd look imposing

There are a lot of ways to categorize communism. And a lot of ways to count up the deaths they're responsible for.

A few decades back, radical/communists-minded liberals pushed to get DDT banned. The result was that over the next several decades some 40 million people in poor countries died of malaria... which had been all but eradicated. The communist agitating environmental wackos pushed false science to promote a ban on one of the safest (and most effective) pesticides ever used. And the result of this was that millions died.

My numbers don't include side issues like these... which is why I've said the numbers could (arguably) be much higher.
Reply
:iconguychapman:
GuyChapMan Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2014
Those cannon fodder battalions are just myths, i've talked with many Soviet veterens of the great patriotic war.
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2014
Could be...
Reply
:icon1ww3:
1ww3 Featured By Owner Edited Jul 9, 2014
Unfortunately, my English does not allow me to maintain a full discussion, so I will refrain from commenting on "facts" in your text.

But I want to emphasize one thing: communism, good or bad it, is the real working alternative to the existing capitalistic order. Therefore, you will never hear objective words about communism from beneficiaries of capitalism. On contrary, serious money will be invested in biased materials.

So if what you have written above is your opinion, and if you value the quality of your opinions - please treat your sources critically.

P.S.
Sorry for my English
Reply
:iconshadow07203:
shadow07203 Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014
"Marxism also involves some flawed economic theories, such as that work investment rather than demand creates value."

Actually, Dashinvaine, that's also flawed. Demand does not create value, demand simply raises price. Value is created by utility, the usefulness of something to the individual. And that value can be relative.

As an example, a collector's item may be in high demand, and may be sold at a high price, but once the individual has it, what actual value does it have for him? Depending on the item, it might be useful for something, but may only be as useful as an ordinary item of that type, which could possibly have been purchased for far less money. The collector may be able to persuade/deceive another collector into buying it from him at a price comparable or higher than what he paid for it.....or not. Perhaps the market will only have more rational buyers in it, who would pay only a tiny fraction of what he paid originally, or nothing at all.

Food has a lot of value....to someone who is starving. More food has no value, to someone who already has more food stocked than they can possibly eat.
Reply
:icondynamicsynthesism:
DynamicSynthesism Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2014
Actually, value is not created by utility... as your own comments "that value can be relative" clearly indicates. If value was created merely by the ulility of an item, then there wouldn't be any relative aspect in the equation. But the fact is that there are many things that have a very high utility and a very low value--and vice versa.

A good example of this is water. Water has a very high level of utility. You absolutely need it to live. It is highly useful for keeping yourself clean and for cooking other foods... just to name a few of it's highly desirable uses. But unless you live in a desert (or you like to drink bottled water) water has very little value at all. It had such an extremely low value that only a decade or two ago virtually every public building was giving it away totally free, at public drinking fountains. It's still given away totally free at public restrooms. And we can go to any neighbor's house and ask for a glass of water and they wouldn't think twice about giving us one without charging us anything for it. The only reason it has such a low value is because water is so plentiful... (i.e. there is a large supply of it.) In a desert, however, where water is in short supply, that same water that has virtually no value at all in my neighborhood is likely to be more valuable than any other commodity.... particularly if you're thirsty and don't have your own water to tide you over until you can gain access to more.

The value of water, then, is completely, utterly and entirely about supply and demand. Demand is always high--we need to drink (and use) water every day--but supply is even higher. And so water typically has almost no 'value' to most of us. But that same near-zero value commodity may be more valuable than a man's entire fortune, if he doesn't have access to a supply of it. Similarly, there are things, such as diamonds, that have relatively little utility, but an extremely high value. And, in fact, the applications where there is the most utility--such as industrial uses--is precisely where the item has the LEAST value.

Clearly, then, value is NOT derived from utility. Nor is it derived from work investment, as a similar analysis of reality would easily reveal.

Your example of the collector's item is quite clearly deeply flawed. In fact, it supports the opposite conclusion of the one you are trying to support--for you are confusing the meaning of value, demand and price. If the collector paid a high price for the item, then it CLEARLY has value for him. Not only can we surmise that he might be able to resell the item for the same (or possibly even more as it becomes increasingly rare and more desired) but it is likely that he bought the item because he wanted it. He didn't buy the item because he DIDN'T want it. Therefore, he deems the item valuable--more valuable than the money he paid for it or the alternative items that he could have bought with that money. To suggest otherwise is to define value and utility with exactly the same meaning... which is not semantically (or intellectually) accurate.

What we value often has very little correlation with what is useful to us. Most parents love (and value) their children above virtually anything else in their lives. But most parents do not value their children because of the utility they bring to the family. In days past, children could most definitely be an overall asset to the family, as they were frequently used as cheap labor in the fields and so forth. But in todays world, children are almost always a net drain on family resources. They DO NOT increase utility. Thus, if you're conclusions were valid (and consistent) we would be forced to conclude that children have very little value to their parents. But I think it's pretty obvious that most parents would reject this suggestion. Our children are valuable for much the same reason that the collector's item is valuable to him. Because we place an arbitrary 'value' to the thing which has almost nothing to do with it's utility.  

Similarly, your food example shows a clear lack of logical integrity... again, demonstrating the exact opposite of what you are arguing. First, lets totally ignore the fact that the person who has a large stockpile of food can sell that food for other things that he needs or wants... and so the food clearly DOES have value to any sane and logical person. Else the stuff in a grocery store would have no value and there would be no reason for them to stock it so that we can go buy it. But putting that obvious fact aside, the very phrase, "more food" is synonymous with a greater supply of food. You don't have 'more food' if the supply of food you have is less. And supply and demand are always forces that act in unison. It is almost meaningless to talk about one without the other--because (quite literally) an abundance of supply typically decreases demand. The grocer, (who has an abundance of food on his shelves) is not willing to go out and pay the same amount for the food he eats as I am... because his abundance of food makes that food less valuable to him. He only buys food at a volume discount, which is why he can afford to sell it to me. The food has a lower value to him, so he can earn a 'profit' when he sells it to me. His profit is the difference in the value to him and the value to me--minus his costs of providing the food to me. If it weren't for this law of supply and demand, the grocer could not sell his food to me and still make a profit, because every time he did, he would be LOOSING money, so to speak.

On the other hand, because of the law of supply and demand, we both profit by gaining something that we value more than what we've given up. For the exact same principles apply to the money I have as applied to the food the grocer had. I have more money than I can possibly find a use for. In fact, in isolation of it's ability to be exchanged for other commodities, our fiat money has absolutely no value (or utility) at all. Because I have more of it than I can find a use for, it is worth it to me to spend some of it on things that are more valuable to me. But because I earn my money by hard work, I do not have an endless supply of it--therefore, I have to decide which things I value more than others. And I spend my limited funds on those things. That's what creates demand (i.e. value) my willingness to spend my labor (currently in the form of fiat money) on the things I value.

If what I value is readily available at a cheap price from many different sources, then I am willing to pay relatively little for it. If very little is available, then I will pay more to make sure that I can get some of what is available. Therefore, it can accurately be argued that NOTHING really affects price/value except supply and demand.

Now, the thing to understand is that supply and demand are inherently interrelated, just as a percentage is. If 10% of the people believe one thing, then it is a simple deduction to conclude that 90% of the people do not. Thus, although these two reciprocal aspects are inherently related we do not need to state both percentages. In the same way, because demand is invariably influenced by supply, we can speak solely of demand--knowing that the influence of supply is inherently implied.
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014
You are splitting hairs. If something is deemed of utility then there will be a demand for it, and if something is in demand then it is clearly deemed of utility. The utility of a non-functional collector's item may be as a status symbol, or a talking point. These are functions! A Rolls Royce is more valuable than a Transit Van because there is a demand for vehicles that are also status symbols. the fact remains. For all the craftsmanship and excellence and labour and love that goes into the making of a Rolls Royce, it would have no value if there were no demand. 

Someone who is starving generally has no money. Demand has to be coupled with the means to purchase of it has no effect on value. 
Reply
:iconerick288:
erick288 Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2014
I had to leave a comment thanking you for pointing out something too few people realize. No fanatical ideology is perfect but this one is less perfect than most.
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014
That reminded me to add the truth about Che Guevara to the description... 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMLk1…
Reply
:iconbadmon209:
badmon209 Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2014  Student Digital Artist
The black book of communism rears its ugly head again...
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Communism and fascism must be totally exterminated, wiped off the face of the planet till the words themselves no longer exist in the dictionary :D
Reply
Add a Comment: