Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

idendoit

(505 posts)
106. After you had posted false information...
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:09 PM
Mar 2014

...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 1946–48, Michael Ellman writes:

In their ‘black book’, Courtois et al. (1997, pp. 258–64) 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&quot 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&quot .[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]

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What is your opinion about Marxism? [View all] Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 OP
Like all social science, far from exact nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #1
I picked 3, however BainsBane Mar 2014 #2
Not a fan. Throd Mar 2014 #3
As far from an exact science as any socioeconomic theory. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #4
It is almost as obsolete as capitalism FarCenter Mar 2014 #5
marxist economic analysis of capitalism is good. Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #6
I basically agree with this.... Nicely put. NT Adrahil Mar 2014 #11
Well said but when it comes to analysing reality malaise Mar 2014 #13
I agree. I am a social democrat because nothing else works Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #15
+1 cinnabonbon Mar 2014 #90
Capitalism is much better because it's much more efficient LittleBlue Mar 2014 #7
How does it lead to inefficient economic models that make everyone poor? Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #12
It leads to economies that unproductively make the wrong stuff LittleBlue Mar 2014 #16
Capitalism serves to produce at whatever cost, regardless of actual demand. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #17
Social democracies are not Marxist. DireStrike Mar 2014 #58
Social democracies are absolutely reformist Marxism. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #62
This may be a terminology issue. The end goal is what's important. DireStrike Mar 2014 #64
There are alternative explanations for the failure of certain states than "Marxism doesn't work" DireStrike Mar 2014 #40
Groucho or Harpo? Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #8
Shemp dlwickham Mar 2014 #27
those are not the only options, you know Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #33
Awww!!!! Ya beat me to it! LongTomH Mar 2014 #53
I love Marx-a-Lot! Indelible impression. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #65
No option for me. Here's what I think... Adrahil Mar 2014 #9
It is the most important collection of socio-economic theory in human history. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #10
I originally picked 3, but switched to one. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #14
The lack of falsifiability LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #18
Not Marxism, conflict theory. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #23
I agree conflict theory is laundry_queen Mar 2014 #24
It is falsifiable. It's simply difficult to interpret. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #25
Agree, there is so much data and much of it is hidden DireStrike Mar 2014 #41
Marx and Engels lived in a time before modern quantitative analysis... Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #47
The same people who decry Marxist totalitarianism are perfectly OK with corporatist totalitarianism. baldguy Mar 2014 #19
Yeah, I've noticed that too. Those same people also......... socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #21
I like that libertarians are trying the "Crony capitalism" argument DireStrike Mar 2014 #61
YES! I've noticed some of the libertarians on FB....... socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #70
bingo.... mike_c Mar 2014 #51
Pretty interesting results. Of course I picked option 1...... socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #20
It may be a rebellion against the hijacking of the term "socialist" Curmudgeoness Mar 2014 #28
Oh I actually think that there are a LOT of social democrats...... socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #44
Oh, how can I forget that the RW consider Obama a socialist! Curmudgeoness Mar 2014 #48
I honestly didn't know what to expect. I am frankly surprised by both the number who think Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #31
Not me. Nothing surprises me about the result so far of this poll........ socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #45
I don't think they're very democratic at all. Maybe demaGOGIC, based on their tactics here. DireStrike Mar 2014 #60
True, but since I capitalized the "Democratic"........ socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #71
"Marxism leads you to think long term" joshcryer Mar 2014 #75
So, I'm a disruptor? brooklynite Mar 2014 #91
I didn't call anyone out specifically....... socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #96
a revealing poll. nt NoGOPZone Mar 2014 #22
Useful, but a bit old-fashioned... Deep13 Mar 2014 #26
I didn't read any until I was nearly 40. Starry Messenger Mar 2014 #29
Marxism is fatally flawed. kwassa Mar 2014 #30
human nature Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #37
Good at identifying the problem, less so at arriving at a realistic solution. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2014 #32
good observation Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #39
+1 JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #55
Excellent response. sibelian Mar 2014 #56
looked ok on paper, but wasn't in practice... dionysus Mar 2014 #34
I think it is a good discussion to have. Enthusiast Mar 2014 #35
I need some stuff, those of you that have more than I Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #36
So you are against progressive taxation? DireStrike Mar 2014 #42
Karl Marx Is the World’s Most Influential Scholar Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #38
hard to say -- because to a certain extent -- we're all marxists. xchrom Mar 2014 #43
Now see, this is something I've thought (and said before)........ socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #46
A system of dialectical materialism Recursion Mar 2014 #49
Yet another thing Marx was right about: it was offside! DireStrike Mar 2014 #59
I think you're thinking of this clip BelgianMadCow Mar 2014 #97
Yes, the dialectical materialism is somewhat cartoonish and the predictions mostly wrong Chathamization Mar 2014 #80
I Make FANTASTIC Goulash! Dirty Socialist Mar 2014 #50
parsley root? I will have to remember that Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #57
Don't Forget Dirty Socialist Mar 2014 #68
Ha! I had no idea. pangaia Mar 2014 #103
Sometimes useful as an analytical tool, worthless as a source of solutions nt geek tragedy Mar 2014 #52
Hooray for Captain Spaulding! JHB Mar 2014 #54
Marxism is the philosophical system responsible for the greatest death toll in human history kwassa Mar 2014 #63
Claims made by one author of one book. idendoit Mar 2014 #66
50 million in the Inquisition? Oh, please. kwassa Mar 2014 #67
The period mentioned covers 1300 years. Link below. idendoit Mar 2014 #69
Um, your source is a computer scientist, not a historian. kwassa Mar 2014 #72
Neither apparently are the authors of the book you link to. idendoit Mar 2014 #76
wow, you are so clever. kwassa Mar 2014 #77
Don't you wish you were. idendoit Mar 2014 #81
Regardless of the variance in the numbers, Marxism still wins in the death category. kwassa Mar 2014 #84
No one remotely comes close to the Catholic Church. idendoit Mar 2014 #98
sorry, that is an absurd comparison. kwassa Mar 2014 #99
You first. idendoit Mar 2014 #100
It is your assertion to prove. kwassa Mar 2014 #102
You claimed Marxism was resposible for 94 million deaths. idendoit Mar 2014 #104
No, you played games by posting false information. kwassa Mar 2014 #105
After you had posted false information... idendoit Mar 2014 #106
The Inquisition wasn't founded until the 1150s, though Recursion Mar 2014 #82
Matthew White has the best statistics: joshcryer Mar 2014 #74
What part of Marxism was responsible for that death toll? Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #79
The part of Marxism practiced by Communist countries, of course. kwassa Mar 2014 #85
You didn't answer my question. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #86
The application part. kwassa Mar 2014 #88
Would you please elaborate in more than three words? Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #92
well, this dictatorship of the proletariat. kwassa Mar 2014 #95
Isn't it incumbent in these discussions to first establish LanternWaste Mar 2014 #89
Marx was right about almost every fucking thing. joshcryer Mar 2014 #73
My opinion is, Marxism >>>>>>>>>>>>> Capitalism. eom PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #78
I think it fails in almost every way. unreadierLizard Mar 2014 #83
Another in a long line of imaginary forces we predicate our decisions and our lives on. LanternWaste Mar 2014 #87
I passed, but anti-Semitism seems to me - to some extent - closeupready Mar 2014 #93
It's also interesting that Marx is supposedly the anti-Christ, yet Engels closeupready Mar 2014 #94
I wonder how many of the people who responded negatively Warpy Mar 2014 #101
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What is your opinion abou...»Reply #106