Death Count from Socialist leaders in the 20th Century

[QUOTE=joe]you think so?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, that was unreasonably harsh. I'm going to give you a fair chance to show you opinion, how about that.


You say, in direct quotes "stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days" "While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen".

So now I'm giving you a fair chance to validate your opinion: Give us a couple of examples of prominent current socialists who take the moral high ground. This is what you say right, that socialists are taking the moral high ground these days? That's exactly what you say! So it's fair to ask you for some examples.

Next we are going to compare the ideologies of these prominent, moral high ground taking socialists, and compare them to the ideologies of the people responsible for that "government murder", and see how well they align.

This is your chance joe! Prove to us you are not an idiot by giving us some examples of the people you were referring to in your post.

[QUOTE=demons2005]I wouldn't be surprised if a second term Obama joins the list. If he wins people will be very discontent with all the voter fraud that the Dems are intent on protecting and anything can happen. Most armed Americans are conservative. And where is Hitler on that list? I'm sure he's got more than some of them. I love how American liberals ignore the fact that he called his own party socialist.[/QUOTE]

:biggums: :coleman: :facepalm :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[QUOTE=joe]stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days, while capitalism has such a bad name. Capitalism allowed millions more humans to occupy this Earth, millions of people to have cars and food and such. While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen. But hippies (supposed peace makers) wear shirts with socialist dictators on it at anti-capitalist rallies. wtf[/QUOTE]

I just find the black and white logic annoying. People don't realize that some things are socialist driven systems - such as the public school system and healthcare systems (depending where you live). Being a capitalist country doesn't mean every institution is a capitalist driven venture.

And why are you doing a death poll? Do you really think oil companies are not destroying peoples homes and contaminating their water sources? Saying all attempts at socialism is bad is the same as saying all attempts of capitalism are good. Do you really think the privatization of prisons and the overabundance of contracts going towards private weapons contractors are good things? They're capitalist, so they must be right?

[QUOTE=miller-time]I just find the black and white logic annoying. People don't realize that some things are socialist driven systems - such as the public school system and healthcare systems (depending where you live). Being a capitalist country doesn't mean every institution is a capitalist driven venture.

And why are you doing a death poll? Do you really think oil companies are not destroying peoples homes and contaminating their water sources? Saying all attempts at socialism is bad is the same as saying all attempts of capitalism are good. [B]Do you really think the privatization of prisons and the overabundance of contracts going towards private weapons contractors are good things?[/B] They're capitalist, so they must be right?[/QUOTE]
Compared to systematic mass murder or starvation of your own citizens, yes those are great things.

No one is saying capitalism is right. I'm not. Stop putting me in to a box. Stop thinking in terms of black and white.

Just because I say socialist governments seem to commit a ton of huge atrocities towards their own citizens doesn't mean I'm some ardent supporter of capitalism.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Compared to systematic mass murder or starvation of your own citizens, yes those are great things.

No one is saying capitalism is right. I'm not. Stop putting me in to a box. Stop thinking in terms of black and white.

Just because I say socialist governments seem to commit a ton of huge atrocities towards their own citizens doesn't mean I'm some ardent supporter of capitalism.[/QUOTE]
:lol
Nick Young once again starting a thread that he cannot carry

[QUOTE=MetsPackers]The deaths under Mao were a means to revolutionize China, it wasn't going to happen on it's own. Sort of like the guerilla terrorist movements which ended apartheid in South Africa. Mao was much more of a good guy for China than a bad guy. He legitimized China to the rest of the world and was for the people.[/QUOTE]

Mao was horrible when he died China was a third world shit hole. China's recent rise is due to Deng Xiaoping and the capitalist reforms he initiated, like his special economic zones. The only place where you can argue Mao's greatness was from a military perspective. Outside of wars Mao was an incompetent leader.

Mao was also extremely stubborn and selfish, because of collectivization ideals he initiated programs that he knew were resulting in mass starvations (purely man made, in a country China's size with its established thousands of years worth of agricultural expertise, droughts can't explain wide scale famine) and refused to change his failing policies because of his commitment to what he believed to be socialism and his refusal to admit he was wrong. He denounced and removed anyone that objected and basically left the Chinese government with him and gutless yes men who were too scared to tell Mao the truth.

China is about the size of America, droughts can affect a few provinces, but in a country that size you would just shift surplus production from other areas during normal times. Mao put pressure on the communes he created, these communes boasted of ridiculously high yields, they were taxed at these inflated figures, all objections were crushed and people starved quietly in their communes, while local militia made sure everyone kept silent. Mao knew what was going on, he didn't want to admit his collectivized farming system was causing mass starvation of by some estimates 70 million people.

Mao was also kind of stupid in a lot of ways. He initiated his small steel program where he encouraged local communes to make steel smelters in their neighbourhoods, to produce steel. For some reason Mao thought he could catch up to US steel production like this. The result, whole forests destroyed for firewood to melt metal, low quality steel that was unusable, and worst of all the program took farmers out of the field where they were most needed.

By about 1966 people had finally realized what a fool Mao was, and he lost a lot of power within the government. Capitalist reforms were happening. Mao being selfish held on to absolute power by initiating the Cultural Revolution. Basically destroying a whole generation, and every competent person in the government was removed and replaced by Mao's lackeys. Mao was one of the worst political leaders of the 20th century, he held China back greatly for about 3 and a half decades. At the time of his death China was undeveloped and weak. Mao's only competence was military leadership, specifically guerilla warfare.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Compared to systematic mass murder or starvation of your own citizens, yes those are great things.[/QUOTE]

tell me the part where marx or lenin wrote "systematically mass murder and starve the population." because then you might have a point. what stalin and mao did have nothing to do with the foundations of socialism.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Not at all really, most of the European systems are very much based on capitalism with a couple of social measures sprinkled on top. Fundamentally capitalist though. The reason people refer to it as socialist is because those governments take a small amount of care that their most vulnerable citizens still have access to a modicum of human decency and quality of life. Calling that socialism is a total misnomer. It's incredible how conservatives in America get away with calling that socialism without being taken for complete idiots by 90% of the population.

The states of Mao and Stalin were much closer to the textbook definition of socialism than let's say, modern Denmark. That, there is a reason we have a separate term for Stalin's way of governing called Stalinism, just like we have a separate term for Mao's way called Maoism. Each of them has some very fundamental differences compared to each other, compared to fundamental socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.
One thing is for certain though: under both Mao's and Stalin's rule the de facto power was in the hands on a very small number of people and the states were extremely totalitarian and oppressive. Anyone who says the main cause of their atrocities is something else clearly has an agenda and should be disregarded completely.[/QUOTE]

This :applause:

When people call Western Europe and Canada socialist, they are letting right-wing propaganda win. Canada and Europe are mixed-market economies (just like America) fundamentally based on capitalism. There are socialist elements within it that take tax revenue and use it to provide a social safety net for citizens (America has this as well to a lesser extent).

Marxism is defined by the lack of free markets, presence command economies and the struggle between the working class and the capital class (people who make a living investing capital). Marxism is about removing the upper class and handing over power to the workers, and give them the means of production, allowing them to enjoy the fruits of their labour. This might seem pleasant in theory, but has failed in execution in every instance.

The fact of the matter is humans of fundamentally self interested individuals (this doesn't exclude altruism, just that people need incentives to be productive). Say you take a worker and put him into a soviet factory or on Mao's collective farm. This person might work hard the first day, but eventually he will realize that he gets no benefit from exceeding the efforts of his co-workers, this leads to moral hazard and eventually to low economic growth in all economies based on Marxist principles.

Capitalism is integral to progress, there is not one nation today that is successful whose economic system isn't based on free markets. Command economies always result in shortages of necessary items and surpluses of unwanted items, because people can't predict what society will need and want. Adding in social justice (taking care of the elderly and poor) to the equation does not result in socialism, unlike what fox news tells people.

[QUOTE=miller-time]tell me the part where marx or lenin wrote "systematically mass murder and starve the population." because then you might have a point. what stalin and mao did have nothing to do with the foundations of socialism.[/QUOTE]
Who cares what they wrote, look at what they did, and leave Karl Marx out of this, considering that he was just a philosopher and never a leader, and the thread is called Socialist Leaders of the 20th century.

Your boy Lenin for example, a man who I notice many "socialists" and "communists" seem to prop up on a pedestal for some reason as the golden standard, executed 30,000 of his own citizens, and sent thousands more to prison in Siberia during the Red Terror. What he did speaks louder than anything he wrote down. How come people deify this man as a beacon of moral light? He was a sicko mass murderer just like Che, Fidel and Pol Pot.

I'm not against socialism or communism at all, I'm just against institutionalized mass murder.

[QUOTE=miller-time]tell me the part where marx or lenin wrote "systematically mass murder and starve the population." because then you might have a point. what stalin and mao did have nothing to do with the foundations of socialism.[/QUOTE]


Marx wanted command economies, which inevitably results in more and more power accruing to the state. This leads to totalitarianism, which is what resulted in Stalin and Mao. It's not a coincidence every country that tried to implement communism resulted in a dictatorship. By taking the profit incentive out of the economy, people don't have an incentive to grow and prosper. Personally I think John Rawls got it right, Capitalism with social justice. Allow the capitalists to make their money and tax a reasonable amount of it and provided for the needy in society.

I think you don't really believe in socialism as defined by Marx, I think you want capitalism as practiced by western europe and canada, as opposed to capitalism practiced by America. I agree with you if thats what you want. Obama is not even close to a socialist and definitely a capitalist, despite all of the accusations.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Not at all really, most of the European systems are very much based on capitalism with a couple of social measures sprinkled on top. Fundamentally capitalist though. The reason people refer to it as socialist is because those governments take a small amount of care that their most vulnerable citizens still have access to a modicum of human decency and quality of life. Calling that socialism is a total misnomer. It's incredible how conservatives in America get away with calling that socialism without being taken for complete idiots by 90% of the population.

The states of Mao and Stalin were much closer to the textbook definition of socialism than let's say, modern Denmark. That, there is a reason we have a separate term for Stalin's way of governing called Stalinism, just like we have a separate term for Mao's way called Maoism. Each of them has some very fundamental differences compared to each other, compared to fundamental socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.
One thing is for certain though: under both Mao's and Stalin's rule the de facto power was in the hands on a very small number of people and the states were extremely totalitarian and oppressive. Anyone who says the main cause of their atrocities is something else clearly has an agenda and should be disregarded completely.[/QUOTE]


I said the closest thing not that they are socialist. However, is not accuarte because i obviously forgot to mention some of the socialist regimes in south america, Africa and the arab world.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Sorry, that was unreasonably harsh. I'm going to give you a fair chance to show you opinion, how about that.


You say, in direct quotes "stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days" "While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen".

So now I'm giving you a fair chance to validate your opinion: Give us a couple of examples of prominent current socialists who take the moral high ground. This is what you say right, that socialists are taking the moral high ground these days? That's exactly what you say! So it's fair to ask you for some examples.

Next we are going to compare the ideologies of these prominent, moral high ground taking socialists, and compare them to the ideologies of the people responsible for that "government murder", and see how well they align.

This is your chance joe! Prove to us you are not an idiot by giving us some examples of the people you were referring to in your post.[/QUOTE]

You can think whatever you want about me, it's not about me. You see the numbers, millions and millions of people dead under socialism. Or is it communism? Or is it maoism? To me it's the same umbrella. All of these systems derive from a rejection of human freedom, and a glorification of state power. One way or another, one dictator or another, one "ism" or another- that's the problem.

The moral high ground I'm referring to doesn't belong to one person- it's many people. When I say government shouldn't intervene with health care, I apparently "just don't care about the suffering poor people!" When I say public schools shouldn't exist, "I think only the rich should be educated." Say foreign aid props up dictators, I don't care about 3rd world suffering.

The moral high ground is taken by the socialist argument in all of these cases. It's become righteous to support government charity, to the point that arguing for free markets has become stained. Supporters of capitalism are "blind ideologues." Supporters of government charity are "compassionate lovers of humanity." That's what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=joe]You can think whatever you want about me, it's not about me. You see the numbers, millions and millions of people dead under socialism. Or is it communism? Or is it maoism? To me it's the same umbrella. All of these systems derive from a rejection of human freedom, and a glorification of state power. One way or another, one dictator or another, one "ism" or another- that's the problem.

The moral high ground I'm referring to doesn't belong to one person- it's many people. When I say government shouldn't intervene with health care, I apparently "just don't care about the suffering poor people!" When I say public schools shouldn't exist, "I think only the rich should be educated." Say foreign aid props up dictators, I don't care about 3rd world suffering.

The moral high ground is taken by the socialist argument in all of these cases. It's become righteous to support government charity, to the point that arguing for free markets has become stained. Supporters of capitalism are "blind ideologues." Supporters of government charity are "compassionate lovers of humanity." That's what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]

So essentially you are saying socialists are taking the moral high ground, but you have not a single example of a socialist taking the moral high ground?

Surprise surprise. I asked for an example to reinforce you opinion. An example of the "many people" you are referring to. You can't give any. Zero. You are a clueless shill. You have no idea what you are actually saying. Nothing to back up anything. You just parrot whatever the **** you heard yesterday.

[QUOTE=LJJ]So essentially you are saying socialists are taking the moral high ground, but you have not a single example of a socialist taking the moral high ground?

Surprise surprise. I asked for an example to reinforce you opinion. An example of the "many people" you are referring to. You can't give any. Zero. You are a clueless shill. You have no idea what you are actually saying. Nothing to back up anything. You just parrot whatever the **** you heard yesterday.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for not keeping a list of every person who I felt was taking a socialist moral high ground position. I should have known that one day, LJJ would ask me that oddly specific question, and prepared accordingly. Shame on me. :(

[QUOTE=joe]Sorry for not keeping a list of every person who I felt was taking a socialist moral high ground position. I should have known that one day, LJJ would ask me that oddly specific question, and prepared accordingly. Shame on me. :([/QUOTE]

No, don't put this back on me buckwheat. You aren't getting away with that.

"Socialists, the people with the same ideologies as those guys responsible for all that government murder, are taking the moral high ground these days". That's what YOU said. Yet you don't know of any. That's no specific question, that's asking about the core reasoning behind you opinion. YOU say the socialists are taking the high ground. Where the f[COLOR="Black"]uck[/COLOR] are they? You have no idea, there is simply nothing there. Empty. Just like everything else you post.

So there you have it: the Insidehoops village idiot strikes again. Congratulations on reinforcing the very low opinion everybody here already had of you.