General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is your opinion about Marxism?
42 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
It is the science of societal behavior both past and present | |
3 (7%) |
|
It is a totalitarian system that has no place in the world of today | |
1 (2%) |
|
It is a very valuable social theory that accurately explains a great deal of history and current events. But it is far from an exact science. | |
18 (43%) |
|
It is an outdated and utterly flawed theory that holds little if any relevance for understanding the world of today | |
16 (38%) |
|
To be honest, I really don't know enough about Marxism to venture a fair opinion. | |
2 (5%) |
|
One of the things I miss most about Europe is authentic Hungarian goulash soup like you find in those wonderful train station restaurants. | |
2 (5%) |
|
2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |

nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but it does explain some of it.
BainsBane
(55,523 posts)I see it as a form of analysis and school(s) of thought, without the veneer of scientific objectivity your phrasing of that option suggests.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I prefer regulated capitalism.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)democratic socialism with a regulated market economy is the best model we have for a functional democracy that provides a decent life for all of its citizens.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)malaise
(280,723 posts)I love Gramsci's approach to Marxism - hegemony explains reality very well.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)cinnabonbon
(860 posts)You said it very well.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Marxism is not the answer. It leads to inefficient economic models that make everyone poor.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Wealth is really just efficient productivity. That doesn't happen under economic models based on Marxism.
Capitalism serves to keep people productive, and producing based on market demands. It leads to winners and losers. Unfortunately under economies based on Marxism there are few winners.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It enacts a system which makes necessary continuous excess consumption. It is not efficient at all. And it continues to exist only because it has enacted the illusion of need.
"Wealth" is simply the exploitation of labor; the theft of value beyond what is given back to the worker. It's value disproportionately favors the ruling economic class who get away with such theft by creating the illusion among the workers that they are not being exploited at all. Despite reality being to the contrary.
Capitalism is a production of production as well as a production of consumption. It manipulates the desires and needs of individuals to maintain a continuous siphoning off of value from the workers for those who retain control of capital.
This has produced, as Marx himself was in awe of, immense wonders of man and machine. But it comes at a high cost. That cost is the humanity of the exploited and the abundance of natural resources.
The most viable, egalitarian economic models are hybrids of private capital and public programs. These are often referred to as social democracies. And they are different in each country but carry similar philosophy. That is, there are some economic needs that are too important to be exploited by the will of a few ruling parties. Thus, they must be publicly maintained and owned.
These political and economic systems have, contrary to your statements, thrived.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)According to Marxism, in a social democracy, wage labor still exists, commodity production still exists, and the rate of profit still tends to fall. Ceteris Paribus, These factors provide continual pressure on the system to pay workers less, resulting in the eventual dismantling of the vaunted welfare state, no matter how well enshrined it is.
Unless the plan is to eventually subsume the entire economy under state control (which is STILL not worker control, even in a "workers' state", as we've seen), social democracy is just the redirection of state resources to keep the population happy and prevent the overthrow of capitalism.
Production must be done for need/direct demand only, and on a democratic basis for a system to be Marxist.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Do you think that nothing is Marxism unless it subverts the capitalist state by way of radical worker revolution and the total abolition of capital?
There are two major schools of thought within Marxism. The reformists and the revolutionaries. Both are Marxist at their core yet diverge in important principles.
Just as you've said, state control is not necessarily worker control. And worker control is not necessarily state control. You can have worker collectives with all of the underpinnings of Marxist theory which exist within a society that possesses private capital.
Is it the star-child of Marxist theory? Absolutely not. Is it perfect? Far from it. But does it structurally support an extensive amount of Marxist socio-economic theory? Absolutely. And, in my eyes and in the eyes of many others, that is still Marxism.
It isn't the kind celebrated at college pub anarchist debates. But it is Marxist, nonetheless.
Now, if you want to debate the differences between something being "Marxist" and "Marxism," that could be fruitful. And if we come to an agreement that the two are not the same, then I may change my argument.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)Do you think that nothing is Marxism unless it subverts the capitalist state by way of radical worker revolution and the total abolition of capital?
The total abolition of privately controlled productive capital (or the goal of accomplishing this) is necessary for a society to be Marxist. You cannot end worker exploitation unless the workers control the means of production. Leaving significant sectors of the economy in private hands just undermines the whole society.
Many social democrats think a civil society can persist indefinitely so long as you have capitalism and a robust welfare state. They are also often unaware of the pressures inherent in capitalism that cause the destruction of the welfare state (as they must be, to hold the opinion I just set forth.) They lack a clear goal for the long term other than keeping things in "balance".
They are called reformists or social democrats, depending on who you talk to.
Does their approach work? I think it may be possible to defeat capitalism by means of slow reform... provided that reform outpaces the tendency of capitalism to cannibalize all societal resources. Historically it hasn't worked, but then historically nothing has worked. I'm of the opinion that when push comes to shove, the capitalists always get violent. But I can work with reformists. As long as they want to end capitalism, ultimately, and not just moderate it with some giveaways to the workers (which will eventually be taken away.)
Workers' collectives are subject to the same market forces that cause traditional employers to pay their employees less and less. The only difference is that the workers in a collective will be forced to pay themselves less and less.
I'm afraid I'm using other peoples' arguments at this point though. I've only read a bit of "Capital", but it seems to me that if the labor theory of value holds any weight, what I've said in this post is inescapably Marxist.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)1) Perhaps those states weren't following Marxism.
2) Perhaps Marx was overly optimistic, and material conditions did not permit Marxism to be realized at the time. After all, how can you have a dictatorship of an entire social class, rather than of some supposed representatives of that class, in a country like 1917 Russia? What if they had the internet, and the next huge social advancements that are sure to come eventually?
3) Perhaps at least some of these states were formed with good intentions and did their best, but Capitalism managed to hold on to enough wealth and power that it won an essentially military victory. In that case, concluding that Capitalism is a better system is akin to saying "might makes right".
4) Maybe the anarchists are correct and "Marxism" doesn't work, however alternative methods to achieve the same superior economic system exist.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts).... I think Marxism analyzes the PROBLEMS very well. It, however, offers no useful solutions, IMO.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Mostly because theory in the scientific realm means as close to "exact science" as it can possibly be.
On Marxism: conflict theory is one of the best social science theories for explaining the relationship between classes and particularly the failures of capitalism. Communism, though, requires a fundamental change in Western thought and behavior before it becomes truly viable. Same for anarchism.
LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)Makes me very hesitant to call marxism a Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Conflict theory is a theory in sociology. Marxism is a school of thought dealing with solving said conflict.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)great at explaining relationships between classes but some pieces of it are overly simplistic. I think it's a valuable theory though.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)DireStrike
(6,452 posts)How do you compute the value that can be extracted from an unexploited market, then follow that amount through all the machinations of the state that wind up propping up capitalism?
Marx's theories could be falsified with enough data, but means and methods for collecting and evaluating (and verifying!) that data weren't outlined by Marx, or anyone else. Is that enough to disqualify it as a science, when we have other "social sciences" running around with that label, including modern economics?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Contemporary statistical analysis did not come onto prominence until the beginning of the 20th century.
But these kind of theories can never be proven deductively (only mathematics and pure logic are deductive). They can only be shown to have inductive strength and that falls along a continuum.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)deny that there are different versions of Marxism (claim all Marxism is totalitarian or equate all Marxism to Stalinism) while claiming that capitalism has many different, and some more beneficent, forms.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)It places capitalism on an exactly equal footing with communism. Pretty much all the clichéd arguments against communism can now be turned directly back on capitalists.
Unfortunately we can't use their own argument against them consistently - it's petty and won't win in the long term. But it's better than being talked down to in platitudes all the time.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)are using that "crony capitalism" argument. One even said to not confuse the two.
The polar opposite of Marxism is fascism. And American style corporatism is either fascism lite, or it's not lite.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)although 3 could work too, at least in short term thinking.
Since I've become a serious Marxist (dues paying in a Trotskyist group with regular educationals and discussions about ALL facets of the system), the biggest thing that I've noticed is that Marxism leads you to think long term, epochs and eras, rather than just the term of one lifetime. You account for history in your analyses and not just current times and the memory(ies) of the recent past. This also leads to a more objective analysis. As nadin said, it's as scientific as social/political and economic sciences get and much more scientific than many others, especially the macroeconomic sciences.
As to the results of the poll, it just reinforces my belief that DU is MUCH more left than some of our raging discussions suggest. There's a group on here that toe the neo-liberal line (Third Way Democratic Corporatists) who are loud and noisy, but really don't have much influence other than as disruptors.
It's probably time for one of those DU "self identification" polls which would include all stripes of Dems and Progressives. Since I first started posting in '09/'10 (?), these polls have shown a consistent leftward lean. Every one shows more and more identifying as "socialist" or "communist". Heck, there are some on here that identify as "socialist" who actually are pretty right wing. I suppose that means that the word is losing it's negativity at least in some circles.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)that makes so many identify as socialists here. Or just maybe, there are more people here who really are closer to socialism than to any other term.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)on DU and a growing contingent of outright Classic Reds too. And even more that are being influenced by the arguments of the Marxists on DU. That influence is actually shown pretty well in this very poll.
The comment about a poster that was espousing some pretty RW positions at the same time calling themselves "socialist" was just an aside, but it was pretty interesting to me at the time of that thread. I think it probably means that some people are taking the RW definition of "socialist" as their OWN definition. And remember, the RW considers OBAMA a "socialist".
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)They never let you forget it. It just goes to show that 1) they have no idea what the term means, and 2) they are just parroting what is being said by their talking heads. I always ask them what is it about Obama that is socialistic, and they answer by pointing to Obamacare (which is so far from socialistic that I could scream) or they say "he is trying to turn us into a socialist nation", although they cannot point to anything that he has really done or said that would lead them to believe it is true....as if they are mind-readers and know what he is thinking instead of what he is doing.
If Obama is a socialist, then I am......what is further down the scale from communist???? And I really am not that extreme.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Marxism is a science and the number that think it has no relevance.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)It's pretty consistent with similar polls over the last 3 or 4 years. DU is a VERY left-wing place. Not as left wing as me in general, but still pretty darn left. And that's left on economics as well as the social issues.
As I said the only reason we have such big arguments over Third Way political lines between the Democratic Corporatists and the Democratic Socialists is because the Democratic Corporatists have a bigger megaphone and their job is easier. They don't really have to convince anybody here on POSITIONS, all they have to do is disrupt the conversations on positions to make sure they don't get a legitimate hearing. And of course, to make sure we vote for Democrats. Vote for the "D", even if they're neo-liberal Democratic Corporatists.
BTW, do you like my new label for the neo-liberal Dems? I kind of like "Democratic Corporatists". It boils down their policy positions very well.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)They continually act in the most heavy handed manner possible to preserve their position in the democratic party.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)that makes them part of the Democratic Party, ergo "Democratic (Party) Corporatists"
joshcryer
(62,513 posts)All the way along, there were opportunities, and we tried to take them, and often they led us to violence because we didnt know how to avoid it, because we had to redistribute stuff with non-zero marginal cost, because we had to take a thing away from a rich man to give it to a poor man, and the rich man resented it and he fought back, and you cant win that fight, because even when you triumph the very thing you are trying to make gets killed in the struggle. And so, even when we won, we lost. And they wrote great stories about it, from both sides. And some excoriated us for the violence, and some wanted to make us noble for the ambition, and people learned that it was a great romantic episode that never went anywhere. And its different now.
Things have changed. Something is happening which has never happened before, and it changes the outcome of the game. We are exactly where we have always been, with respect to what we want, but the methods of gaining it have changed, and they are now possible in ways that they were never possible before. And the great riddle of romantic socialist politics, the great worry of the French revolution, the great difficulty that has presented itself to every struggle for human equality since the beginning of the struggle, has been lifted in substantial part. Because we now live in a world where we can make enough for everybody with our own hands. Because we are capable of achieving the relationship we needed to achieve: From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.
I have heard all of this vehemently objected to because Karl Marx thought it was a good idea. (Laughter) This is a very peculiar form of argument, characteristic of the United States in the era of the cold war: You cannot want this, because the guy the other fellow likes also wanted it. Right? A very peculiar strategy, one we should no longer take the slightest concern for, for which we ought to be as scornful as it deserves. We are ready now.
That doesnt mean there isnt any work to do. Fortunately there is plenty of work to do. For lawyers, moreover.
But there is good news about it. Because we have been doing it for a very long time, and it has wearied many a loyal person, and it has worn out many a strong one. The difference is: This time we win.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_and_Open_Software:_Paradigm_for_a_New_Intellectual_Commons
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I'm a political moderate (who even supports liberal candidates when they're competitive), with close contacts to the actual Democratic Party leadership who works to elect Democrats at all levels. Just because I don't agree on every policy (certainly not on Marxism), how exactly does that disrupt discussion on a blog set up to promote Democrats?
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Shoe fits and all is for each individual to decide. But I guess it's pretty obvious that you ARE the minority on this poll at least.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)Deep13
(39,157 posts)...as it does not take into account the subjective, capillary nature of power.
Starry Messenger
(32,376 posts)When I finally did I was stunned to find how very accurate the descriptions were for things I'd observed about life and society, but never had the vocabulary to describe.
For people who say that Marxism has no "solutions", I say you have a small understanding of the process of Marxism. Marxists have existed in the US since the days when Marx was alive and were very much in the mix of labor, progressive and anti-racist movements. It isn't just about making some quantum leap to a new social order.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Marx failed to realize how self-interested people are.
Most people work hardest when it rewards their immediate self-interest, not as part of an altruistic idea. We humans are basically too narcissistic and selfish. Most of us can be somewhat altruistic, but usually only for awhile. This is why people are more capitalistic than socialistic.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)is why we are still here, amongst the living species on the planet at this point in time. That we are pretty much shielded from the brutality of a world without order and the daily, no, hourly need to survive has allowed us the privilege of being ignorant of this fact. Dissolve all order, all governments tomorrow and see how civilized and altruistic we really are. I agree with your reply kwassa.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,722 posts)Pure Marxism--while I'm not a subscriber--I have no real problem with.
Sovietism I do. But I maintain that the Russians used communism mainly as a means to resurrect the flailing Russian Empire in a more relevant form, and that the Soviet Union was really less about communism than it was about Russian imperialism.
Which is true up to today, literally, today.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)JustAnotherGen
(34,344 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)I'd add only that revolutionary movements repeatedly fail by replacing oppressive legal structures and individuals instead of undoing the toxic mythology that allowed them to flourish in the first place.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)A real evaluation not some right wing whitewash.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)please make a donation
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Karl Marx has been decried by mainstream economists and news outlets as dead, irrelevant and/or outdated. A new study published by the worlds most reputed scholarly journal, Nature, once again shows that despite the hue and cry of naysayers and those who would revise history, his specter cannot be exorcised.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/karl-marx-is-the-worlds-most-influential-scholar-180947581/
xchrom
(108,903 posts)that's just how influential what he wrote was.
i'm not sure any one has been more accurate.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Some of the most classic, ECONOMIC Marxists around are the big capitalists. Of course they don't want anybody to know that, but they use Marx's economic insights to get a leg up on the competition.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)One that is prone to being completely misread if you don't know Hegel (hint: if you don't believe in a phenomenology of humankind, you're not a Marxist).
That said, I loved the Monty Python sketch where he wins the quiz show.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)And the stuff that is compelling about Marxism isn't unique to it for the most part. I can't say I have much use for it.
Dirty Socialist
(3,252 posts)The "secret ingredient" is parsley root.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Dirty Socialist
(3,252 posts)To peel the root and cut it in half down the middle lengthwise. Take it out of the goulash when done cooking.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)My mother used to make goulash (and chicken paprikas). She passed away in 1975 and I have only had real goulash 3 times since then..in Budapest and Vienna in..1981, and in NYC, maybe in..the early 1990s.. a place on the upper East Side.. maybe on 2nd Ave.
Oh how I miss that taste....
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JHB
(37,565 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Nothing beats the total murders in Communist countries at any point in history.
USSR, China, Cambodia, etc.
Death toll of 94 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
idendoit
(505 posts)The carnage of 'communism' was indeed horrendous. But the figures claimed are in the same ballpark as the claims of 50 million claimed by the Inquisition for heresy between 606 CE and the 19th century.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Source that one, if you would.
There weren't remotely that many people in Europe then.
idendoit
(505 posts)link:www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.doc
kwassa
(23,340 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Plaisted
How about something more peer-reviewed? and the peers must be historians.
I would point out that the Inquisition only happened over a couple of hundred years, too.
García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 15601700about 2%the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, it is likely that the toll was much higher, keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed. (For comparative purposes, the number of people executed for "witchcraft" in Europe during about the same time span as the Inquisition is estimated to total 60,000.).[81]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls
idendoit
(505 posts)Read all of what you linked to and note that there is far more criticism than praise by their peers. That's why I compared that poorly prepared article I presented to the book you cited. Neither of them should be taken seriously as scholarship.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I think. What was your point, again?
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao
Mao
40 million dead
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin
Joe Stalin
20 million dead
idendoit
(505 posts)Guinness Book of World Records:
Although nowadays they don't come right out and declare Mao to be the Top Dog in the Mass Killings category, earlier editions (such as 1978) did, and they cited sources which are similar, but not identical, to the Glaser & Possony sources:
On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65.
In April 1971 the cabinet of the government of Taiwan reported 39,940,000 deaths for the years 1949-69.
The Walker Report (see below): between 32,2500,000 and 61,700,000.
Which is correct?
Dictionary of Military History (1994): 41M
Wallechinsky: 40-55M
Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978): 55M
Hammond: 55M
Guiness World Records: 56.4M [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=46252]
Sivard, Ruth Leger, World Military and Social Expenditures 1986 (11th ed.): 38,351,000 (1939-45), not incl. 1.8M in Sino-Japanese War (1937-41)
Brzezinski:
Military: 19M
Civilians, "actual byproduct of hostilities": 20M
Civilians, Sino-Japanese War: 15M
Hitler's murders: 17M
TOTAL: 71M
Rummel:
European War Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
Sino-Japanese War Dead (1937-45): 7,140,000
War-related Democides
Hitler: 20,946,000
Stalin: 13,053,000
Japanese: 5,964,000
Chinese Nationalist: 5,907,000
Allied Bombing: 796,000
Croatian: 655,000
Tito: 600,000
Romanian domestic democide: 484,000
Chinese Communist: 250,000
Hungarian democide in Yugoslavia: 78,000
[TOTAL: 48,733,000]
[TOTAL (1937-45): 84,609,000]
My Estimate: 65.6 million
Anywhere between 40-80 million? You can't make even the remotest viable claim that any of these numbers are close to accurate. Necromancy is easier.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)which is my point.
idendoit
(505 posts)They have been maiming, torturing and killing since they became an official state religion at the Council of Nicaea.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Find something remotely respectable to substantiate that.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
idendoit
(505 posts)I countered that the figure is about as plausible as the claim that the Catholic Church was responsible for 50 million deaths. Both claims are supported only by contradictory evidence, therefore not provable by that evidence.
You clearly need to read more carefully.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and when challenged claimed it as your strategy.
You never posted it as an argument until that challenge.
So, since you wish to play tricks rather than have a rational discussion ..... I think I am done, as I am completely aware that you have nothing to offer in this discussion.
idendoit
(505 posts)...by a bunch of totally discredited authors with outright lies from the Black Book of Communism.
Criticism
Historical inaccuracies
The authors of the book have been criticized for historical inaccuracies. Concerning Nicolas Werth's section about Russia, Professor Peter Kenez of the University of California wrote about what he says are historical inaccurate statements[11]
Werth can also be an extremely careless historian. He gives the number of Bolsheviks in October 1917 as 2,000, which is a ridiculous underestimate. He quotes from a letter of Lenin to Aleksandr Shliapnikov and gives the date as 17 October 1917; the letter could hardly have originated at that time, since in it Lenin talks about the need to defeat the Tsarist government, and turn the war into a civil conflict. He gives credit to the Austro-Hungarian rather than the German army for the conquest of Poland in 1915. He describes the Provisional Government as "elected."
Estimated number of victims
Left-wing[12] French journalist Gilles Perrault, writing in an op-ed in Le Monde diplomatique has accused the authors of having used incorrect data and of having manipulated figures.[13] On the other hand, some of the estimates given in the Black Book have been deemed "too conservative". For example, regarding the Soviet famine of 194648, Michael Ellman writes:
In their black book, Courtois et al. (1997, pp. 25864) do discuss the famine. The number of victims they give, however, while correct (at least 500,000) is formulated in an extremely conservative way, since the actual number of victims was much larger.[14]
Two of the Black Book's contributors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, sparked a debate in France when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois's statements in the introduction about the scale of Communist terror. They felt that he was being obsessed with arriving at a total of 100 million killed. They also argued that, based on the results of their studies one can estimate the total number of the victims of the Communist abuse in between 65 and 93 million.[15]
In his review of the book, historian Jean-Jacques Becker also criticized Courtois' numbers as rather arbitrary and as having "zero historical value" (Fr. "La valeur historique est nulle" for adding up deaths due to disparate phenomena (Fr. "additionner des carottes et des navets", i.e. adding apples and oranges). Becker went further and accused Courtois of being an activist (Fr. "combattant"
.[16]
Argument that the book is one-sided
Some have pointed out, that the book's account of violence is one-sided. Amir Weiner of Stanford University characterizes the "Black Book" as seriously flawed, inconsistent, and prone to mere provocation. In particular, the authors are said to savage Marxist ideology.[17] The methodology of the authors has been criticized. Alexander Dallin writes that moral, legal, or political judgement hardly depends on the number of victims.[18] It is also argued,[19] that a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of colonialism and capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Disputing the "terror-famine" thesis
Historian J. Arch Getty noted that famine accounted for a significant part of Courtois's 100 million death toll. He believes that these famines were caused by the "stupidity or incompetence of the regime," and that the deaths resulting from the famines, as well as other deaths that "resulted directly or indirectly from government policy," should not be counted as if they were equivalent to intentional murders and executions.[20]
Mark Tauger disagrees with the authors' thesis that the famine of 1933 was artificial and genocidal. Tauger asserts that the authors' interpretation of the famine contains errors, misconceptions, and omissions that invalidate their arguments.[21] However, the historian James Mace wrote that Mark Tauger's view of the famine "is not taken seriously by either Russians or Ukrainians who have studied the topic."[22] Moreover, Stephen Wheatcroft, author of The Years of Hunger, claims Tauger's view represents the opposite extreme in arguing the famine was totally accidental.[23]
Disputing the comparison of Nazism and Communism
Although Vladimir Tismăneanu argued that the Black Book's comparison between Communism and Nazism was both morally and scholarly justifiable,[24] others have rejected the comparison.[25]
Werth and Margolin rejected the equation of Soviet repression with Nazi genocide. Werth said there was still a qualitative difference between Nazism and Communism. He told Le Monde, "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union",[20] and "The more you compare Communism and Nazism, the more the differences are obvious."[26]
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, there's that...
joshcryer
(62,513 posts)In case you want a future source that isn't marred by criticisms of the Black Book of Communism. Particularly revisionists who don't believe forced famine actually happened or the Great Purge or the Red Terror, etc.
For me I think capitalism has probably killed far more people if you count those who never made it to even live a normal life thanks to globalization and inequality (ie, clean drinking water, immunizations, etc). But communist states are almost certainly responsible for democide (the willful deprivation of ones own citizens to the point of death) than any other state, bar none.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Are you about to tell me it is not the one true Marxism?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)What part of Marxism caused the death toll. I'm not trying to bury you. I want to know what part you believe is responsible for the death toll.
What mechanisms of Marxism caused the 94 million deaths?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Some sort of brief yet technical explanation would be much appreciated.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Dictatorships answer to no one, tend towards absolute power, and in several Communist countries oversaw the murderous destruction of all dissenting voices, or even those suspected of dissenting. As I said in an earlier post, I think Marx had a very poor understanding of human nature, and of what motivates people. Humans are more self-interested than altruistic, and will work much harder for their personal good than for the common good. This is revealed as well in the track record of the Communist dictators who pursued their own personal power at all costs, as much as it is in capitalism.
The stages in Marx's view of how society will evolve, from class conflict, to socialism, to a classless stateless Communism is a rather high-flown piece of magical thinking. People don't work that way. Marx had an idealistic and impossible utopian concept, but it is not grounded in anything close to reality.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Isn't it incumbent in these discussions to first establish whether those deaths were one of the necessary tenets of a particular form of government, or if the relevant deaths are the ends of a specific interpretation or simply a rationalization to achieve a goal that may or may not be part and parcel of that form of government?
For example, Capitalism does not specifically spell out anything related to Manifest Destiny, however the rationalizations and justifications used for Manifest Destiny were predicated on capitalism.
One could answer the questions quite easily by asking the question: What specific tenet of the form of government instructs, without room for error, X (in this case, X being massive violence)?
joshcryer
(62,513 posts)He was wrong where it counted the most.
Application.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)unreadierLizard
(475 posts)Marx thought that human beings would produce and build a prosperous society because they -wanted- to, not because they had incentives to do so. Marxism completely fails to account for the human element of society. We need incentives to want to push forward - be it money or food and shelter in the ancient times.
Marxism also has the beliefs that individual rights are "subservient" to the collective, which I don't believe is true either.
And BTW I'm not in favour of corporatism any more then I am Marxism.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Another in a long line of imaginary forces we predicate our decisions, our lives, our passions and our families on.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)at the heart of many of those who are blindly opposed to critiques formulated by Jewish people, such as Marx, or Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)is relatively unknown, even though the two of them formulated Marxism together. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Marx was born Jewish and Engels Christian.
Warpy
(113,131 posts)have ever kicked and clawed their way through anything more than the Manifesto.