Mediaboss Marketing

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2][dubious discuss] There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

Communist regimes "Communist regimes" refers to those countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist definition (in other words, "communist states") at some point in their history.

Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants.[3][4] The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments:

Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel, that propose communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings have attracted scholarly dispute;[23] this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories.

Klas-Gran Karlsson writes that "Ideologies are systems of ideas, which cannot commit crimes independently. However, individuals, collectives and states that have defined themselves as communist have committed crimes in the name of communist ideology, or without naming communism as the direct source of motivation for their crimes."[24]

According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, the killings done by communist regimes can be explained with the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology Marxism.[25]

"Of all religions, secular and otherwise," Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide."[26] He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths."[26]

In his book Red Holocaust, Steven Rosefielde argues that communism's internal contradictions "caused to be killed" approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more, and that this "Red Holocaust" the peacetime mass killings and other related crimes against humanity perpetrated by Communist leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Potshould be the centerpiece of any net assessment of communism. He states that the aforementioned leaders are "collectively guilty of holocaust-scale felonious homicides."[27]

Robert Conquest stressed that Stalin's purges were not contrary to the principles of Leninism, but rather a natural consequence of the system established by Vladimir Lenin, who personally ordered the killing of local groups of class enemy hostages.[28]Alexander Yakovlev, architect of perestroika and glasnost and later head of the Presidential Commission for the Victims of Political Repression, elaborates on this point, stating that "The truth is that in punitive operations Stalin did not think up anything that was not there under Lenin: executions, hostage taking, concentration camps, and all the rest."[29] Historian Robert Gellately concurs, saying: "To put it another way, Stalin initiated very little that Lenin had not already introduced or previewed."[30] Said Lenin to his colleagues in the Bolshevik government: "If we are not ready to shoot a saboteur and White Guardist, what sort of revolution is that?"[31]

Anne Applebaum asserts that, "without exception, the Leninist belief in the one-party state was and is characteristic of every communist regime," and "the Bolshevik use of violence was repeated in every Communist revolution." Phrases said by Lenin and Cheka founder Felix Dzerzhinsky were deployed all over the world. She notes that as late as 1976, Mengistu Haile Mariam unleashed a "Red Terror" in Ethiopia.[32]

Read the original post:
Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia, the ...

Quinton Figueroa: Re: ''All types of governments

3 years 11 months ago

''All types of governments have greedy people with self-interest'' There is a differance between a corrupt soul that is in self interest to a person who stands for a political ideology that is inherently self interest.

And which political ideology isn't inherently motivated by self interest? In many ways the collectivist ideologies are MORE in favor of self interest than capitalism. They make others do the work so they can get the resources for free. They don't want to do the work themselves. THAT IS SELF INTEREST. If collectivists weren't in it for themselves they wouldn't demand handouts -- they would take on their challenges and misfortunes. If collectivists weren't self interested they would be capitalists! Collectivists are always interested in an easier lifestyle without doing any of the work themselves, that is why they support it. Are you going self interested on me?

And how is self interest bad? What if my self interest makes other people's lives better? What if my lack of self interest makes other people's lives worse? It can go either way. Just because capitalism allows self interest doesn't mean it's bad. If you want to help other people in capitalism you can. You can do whatever you want. Are you afraid of freedom?

''Capitalism doesn't lead to corruption any more than any other form of government.'' Through capitalism, private corporations get more powerful and resourceful than anywhere else, and therefore use this in their media influences and most importantly, sponsorship/political party donations which without a political candidate in america cannot even run for a position without such financing.

So? This doesn't happen in socialism? This doesn't happen in communism? Lol. There is always corruption. Capitalism prevents corruption the best. If the corrupt capitalists aren't providing value and keeping the people happy they go bankrupt and say bye bye to their money.

If a capitalist takes control of the political system that is the people's fault. The people hold the cards. They can stop supporting that business. They can stop buying those products or services. They can choose not the be represented by the morons they put into office. This is called freedom 101.

''Economically capitalism is the best. That is why capitalists fund socialism, communism and fascism'' Talking out your bottom here frankly, there is no factual basis for this what so ever, the only way i could see you reach this conclusion is through americas role as a superpower on the financial market, with the value fo the dollar so strong. Americas role on the world market is simply through natural resources of the vast land and nothing to do with ideology. If anything evidence points towards the opposite for your belief. America is now financially dependant on China buying their goods. It even resorts to raiding other coutnries for oil to keep it's own economy afloat.

I am definitely talking out of my bottom here. But these people aren't:

Continued here:
Communism VS Socialism VS Fascism VS Capitalism Table ...

Stalinism is the means of governing and related policies implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union included: state terror, rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture, cult of personality, and subordination of interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Uniondeemed by Stalinism to be the most forefront vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.[1]

Stalinism promoted the escalation of class conflict, utilizing state violence to forcibly purge society of claimed supporters of the bourgeoisie, regarding them as threats to the pursuit of the communist revolution that resulted in substantial political violence and persecution of such people.[2] These included not only bourgeois people but also working-class people accused of counter-revolutionary sympathies.[3]

Stalinist industrialization was officially designed to accelerate the development towards communism, stressing that such rapid industrialization was needed because the country was previously economically backward in comparison with other countries; and that it was needed in order to face the challenges posed by internal and external enemies of communism.[4] Rapid industrialization was accompanied with mass collectivization of agriculture and rapid urbanization.[5] Rapid urbanization converted many small villages into industrial cities.[5] To accelerate the development of industrialization, Stalin pragmatically created joint venture contracts with major American private enterprises, such as Ford Motor Company, that under state supervision assisted in developing the basis of industry of the Soviet economy from the late 1920s to 1930s.[6] After the American private enterprises completed their tasks, Soviet state enterprises took over.[6]

The term came into prominence during the mid-1930s, when Lazar Kaganovich, a Soviet politician and associate of Stalin, reportedly declared, "Let's replace Long Live Leninism with Long Live Stalinism!"[7] Stalin initially met this usage with hesitancy, dismissing it as excessively praiseful and contributing to a cult of personality.[7]

Stalinism is used to describe period Stalin was acting leader of the Soviet Union while serving as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party from 1922 to his death in 1953.

Stalinism usually denotes a style of a government, and an ideology. While Stalin claimed to be an adherent to the ideas of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx, and hence purported that his policies were merely a style of government, critics say that many of his policies and beliefs were different or in direct opposition to those of Lenin and Marx.[9] Stalin's idea of Socialism in one country, and his turn to overt centralization were all in stark contradiction to the theories put forth by Lenin or Marx.[9]

From 1917 to 1924, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin often appeared united, but had had discernible ideological differences. In his dispute with Leon Trotsky, Stalin de-emphasized the role of workers in advanced capitalist countries (for example, he considered the U.S. working class as "bourgeoisified" labour aristocracy). Also, Stalin polemicized against Trotsky on the role of peasants, as in China, whereas Trotsky's position was in favor of urban insurrection over peasant-based guerrilla warfare.

While traditional Communist thought holds that the state will gradually "wither away" as the implementation of socialism reduces class distinction, Stalin argued that the state must become stronger before it can wither away. In Stalin's view, counterrevolutionary elements will try to derail the transition to full Communism, and the state must be powerful enough to defeat them. For this reason, Communist regimes influenced by Stalin have been widely described as totalitarian.

Soviet puppet Sheng Shicai extended Stalinist rule in Xinjiang province in the 1930s. Stalin opposed the Chinese Communist Party, and Sheng conducted a purge similar to Stalin's Great Purge in 1937.[10]

Stalin blamed the Kulaks as the inciters of reactionary violence against the people during the implementation of agricultural collectivisation.[11] In response, the state under Stalin's leadership initiated a violent campaign against the Kulaks, which has been labeled as "classicide".[12]

See the original post:
Stalinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like so many others over the past three years, Ive written about President Obama and made claims about his socialistic ideas and way of government. But after reading Republican presidential candidate Ron Pauls statement that Obama is more fascist than socialist, I began to wonder just who is right and what best describe the man that wants to overthrow the American government.

Since Ive been using the term socialism quite extensively, I went to the dictionary to get a precise definition. According to one dictionary it gave the following two definitions for the word socialism.

Socialism - 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Next, lets take a look at the definitions of communism and fascism and then we will compare them to Obamanism (sounds eerily similar to abomination).

Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

When I examine these three definitions and compare them to Obamanism, I would have to say that at this moment, it is a transition between socialism and communism headed toward fascism.

Since taking office, Obama has managed to have the government take control of healthcare, student loans and has exerted control over the financial and housing markets. At one time the government took partial control over the auto industry and is currently trying to take control of the Internet. His stimulus packages have placed the nation in a financial crisis that is primed for a complete government takeover.

Thus, the transition from socialism to communism seems well on its way. However, the manner in which Obama conducts himself fits more into the definition of fascism as stated by Ron Paul. Obama clearly sees himself in a dictatorial role. He is already suppressing opposition by taking action against nearly 800 websites that have posted negative articles about him. He also starting to exhibit the belligerent nationalism and racism as he shows favoritism to blacks, Muslims and illegal Hispanics while at the same time taking action against law abiding American citizens such as Border Patrol agent Diaz.

Read this article:
Socialism, Communism or Fascism: Which Best Describes ...

Communism, though recently associated with corrupt totalitarian states such as China and The Soviet Union is one of the natural states of human existance, the idea of living in a self-sustaining group that cares for its members, like they did in the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age), which is increasingly hard in the modern world. Most families live in A SORT of communism, as parents USUALLY don't make the kids work for what they eat.

Many societies, such as the Shakers in America, the Incas in Peru, the Essines in Israel, and many Early Christian groups, have practiced forms of communism. But Communism with Das Kapital C didn't come about until the mid 1800s when Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, which stated that Society was always going through transitions (the last two being Feudalism, and Capitalism), and that now was the time for a transition into a Socialist economy, which would lead to a classless society, which he called "Communism". Marx recognised the effectiveness of Capitalism, but saw that it was only another step in this chain.

One of the most contraversial points about Modern Communism is that it is vocally Athiest, as Marx had said "Religion is the Opium of The People." This is because Marx's father was forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity in order to get a job in a largely anti-semitic country. Because of this, the young Marx decided that religion was fleeting, and was a tool of the opressor to bind the people. Despite this, many religious-based communistic societies have existed.

In the early 1900s, in Russia, long after marx's death, the Tsar Alexander II had declared war on Japan. Russia, after a devistating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, and heavy losses in World War I, the people were ready for a new government. Many looked to Marxism. These were lead by intellectuals such as Vladamir Ulyanov "Lenin", and Leon Trotsky. They called themselves the Bolsheviks, and pelieved that the Proletariat, The workers, must triumph in an armed revolution. In 1917, the Tsar was deposed, and followed by a capitalistic Provisional Government. This didn't cut it for the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks soon gained control of Russia. At first, the new Soviet Union seemed like a genuine Marxist state, but soon an upstart named Josef "Stalin" "The Man of Steel", began his deadly regime, which effectively ended the idea of a just Communist state.

the same thing was played out all over the world in places like China, and Cuba. Corrupt dictators hijacked Communistic ideals and used them for their own personal good.

So thus the great notions of Communism will forever be tainted by the terror of corrupt dictators.

Communism: As long as people will strive to rule over others, there will be no true communist state. -me

Continued here:
Urban Dictionary: communism