[Eamonor]

First of all let me say that I am not a fan of the Nazi's nor am I making excuses for their atrocities, but certain facts about the way Nazism is described, talked about and portrayed in popular culture to this day really bother me. From an early age I was taught. (As I think most of us in the Western World today are) That being a Nazi is the worst thing you can be and Hitler was the most evil person off all time, when their are so many historical figures who are worse. But that wouldn't matter to me so much if it wasn't for what seems to me to be a massive double standard. It's probably pretty obvious that I am referencing the more than 100 million people killed by Communism and the far smaller number killed by the Nazis.
The obvious counter-argument is that the Nazis intended to kill far more people had they won the war and it is simply the fact that they lost that causes the disparity. But there are two main points which still really bug me. First is that Nazism, and Fascism more generally were responses to Communism and while that doesn't excuse anything, the historical record then and now of the carnage and genocide Communism inevitably causes, makes a reaction, however extreme, more reasonable then is usually portrayed.
Add on to that the fact that Nazism was a candle that burned hot and then sputtered and went out after killing 11 million people(that is the official number of civilian casaulties right?) While Communism is still active today after a fashion. (I know some people would say those regimes are not true Communism but in a way no Communist regime can be true Communism). And has killed a ridiculously huge number of people, the climate for public debate today makes it much harder for public figures to be endorsed by, or be seen to support Nazi ideology, than Communist ones. And the more I look into it the more things seem to be skewed, with Donald Trump protestors and Anti-Fa waving Hammer and Sickle flags while I have yet to see a Trump fan waving a Swastika.
If I have missed something obvious please point it out to me as I am always eager to learn and maybe I just don't get it somehow.

[noir]

@Eamonor , are you American or German?

[The Immortal Goon]

Ugh...

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this nonsense. But the point I always want to bring up is that these statistics count famine victims.

Which is fine.

...If you're going to count famine victims in capitalist counties. Which nobody does. Because off the top of my head we get figures like this:

Native American Genocide (at least) 100 million
Atlantic Slave Trade 4 million
Napoleonic Wars: 3 million
US Civil War: 1 million
Bengal famine: 10 million
19th century British India Famine: 165 million
Great Irish Famine: 1 million
Belgian Congo: 10 million
WWI: 16 million
US Latin American policy 1930-87: 6 million
WWII: 60 million
Vietnam: 2.3 million
Rewandan Genocid: 1 million

That's 379.3 million off the top of my head; and I'm sure you'll agree that there have been far more conflicts and famines during capitalism than that. Further, we have to factor in the daily deaths from capitalism (they count the communist figures, so why not the capitalist ones?):

Contaminated water: 8,000,000 a year
Hunger: 7,665,000 a year
Maleria: 500,000 a year
Other Preventable diseases: 3,000,000 a year

Should the day ever come when revolutionary leaders are prepared to sacrifice the lives of those under them as recklessly as the ruling class do in every war, there will not be a throne or despotic government left in the world. Our rulers reign by virtue of their readiness to destroy human life in order to reign; their reign will end on the day their discontented subjects care as little for the destruction of human life as they do.

[MB.]

Let's judge evil by utilitarian numbers calculus the thread number 9000. Is there some factory in the US that cranks out libertarian anticommunists... Oh right, university of Chicago.

[Vasili Blokhin]

Let's judge evil by utilitarian numbers calculus the thread number 9000. Is there some factory in the US that cranks out libertarian anticommunists... Oh right, university of Chicago.

Ironically, surrounded in a crime ridding, poor area. Look like their policies work according to plan.

[Eamonor]

The thrust of the point I wanted to make was that the amount of outrage and negative public sentiment towards something should ideally be proportionate to the amount of suffering. Obviously not the case, and never will be, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for ideals.
Now you probably won't agree with this as it is just from my subjective experience but I see more people complaining about capitalism and the ruling corporate systems Communism opposes than I see people speaking out against Communism.
Now the famine's that you mentioned were terrible, and many of them were committed by Capitalists and backed up by Capitalist ideas, but many famine's throughout history have been caused by mostly environmental factors or human factors not motivated primarily by economic gain, and although Communism's famines were partially caused by environmental factors in most cases there are direct links between Communist policy in pursuit of Communist goals, and the famines. But I also think it is important to distinguish Capitalism as an economic policy some people subscribe to because they think it is what is best for society, and someone who never thought about whether he was a Capitalist or not but just made money.
Because I don't think it is fair to ascribe every non-Communist caused famine to Capitalism as it usually isn't an Ideology, it is simply trade without control of a state for the purpose of personal gain. The only way I can see why you said that all famine's not caused by Communism are caused by Capitalism is if you don't just think of Capitalism as a modern way of describing a political spectrum tilting toward less government control of trade, but as something more primal, Greed, and based on your quote at the end of your post, the way ruling elites maintain a tyrannical and unfair rule over their subjects for personal profit. And if you are using that definition of Capitalism then most Communist dictators would fit that description.

@Eamonor , are you American or German?

I am Kiwi by birth but I am living in Australia

[MB.]

The thrust of the point I wanted to make was that the amount of outrage and negative public sentiment towards something should ideally be proportionate to the amount of suffering

We get it, you're yet another utilitarian whig outraged that communism isn't as vilified as Nazism. Most socialists are Kantian or in someway influenced by the morality of Kant so from this perspective the "amount" of suffering is basically irrelevant.

[The Immortal Goon]

Now the famine's that you mentioned were terrible, and many of them were committed by Capitalists and backed up by Capitalist ideas, but many famine's throughout history have been caused by mostly environmental factors or human factors not motivated primarily by economic gain, and although Communism's famines were partially caused by environmental factors in most cases there are direct links between Communist policy in pursuit of Communist goals, and the famines. But I also think it is important to distinguish Capitalism as an economic policy some people subscribe to because they think it is what is best for society, and someone who never thought about whether he was a Capitalist or not but just made money

So death under capitalism doesn't count because their beautiful feelings didn't always mean to kill millions of people in your opinion, and quite contrary to history.

Take Malthus, a paradigm of virtue in capitalist thought until the very modern era:

instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.

And communists were so mean as to oppose this!

The fact is that the motivation of capitalism is not to save lives, but make money. And we all know this.

We also know that you're trying to find a way to make fascism seem not so bad because it was against communism, and you're going to need to villify communism if you're going to be all edgy in a vague support of fascism.

[Eamonor]

So death under capitalism doesn't count because their beautiful feelings didn't always mean to kill millions of people in your opinion, and quite contrary to history.

I didn't mean to say that deaths caused under Capitalism don't count, what I was trying to say was that it isn't fair to say an overriding philosophy was responsible for the way people acted. Lets say that the world is ruled by people who occasionally kill 6/10ths of the population, and an ideology springs up which says that in order to free people we need to kill 5/10ths of the population. Thats how I view it. Doesn't make the actions right, but saying that Communism is the antidote is patently ridiculous. Also, Tyrannical Rulers are almost never Capitalists, if you are defining Capitalists as traditional businessmen and not just selfish evil people.

And communists were so mean as to oppose this!

Indeed, Trofim Lysenko opposed many such evil practices, such as forcing plants of the same species to be seperate from each other so that they can breathe, and instead encouraged them to be one happy family together, all cosy. I am sure that had nothing to do with the great famine.

We also know that you're trying to find a way to make fascism seem not so bad because it was against communism, and you're going to need to villify communism if you're going to be all edgy in a vague support of fascism.

But that was not my train of thought at all. The way I was always taught history I hated both Fascism and Communism, but when I learnt that Fascism was created to oppose Communism it altered my view, even though I still don't think Fascism is a good system.
If a Mother kills her baby because she hates her children we would take a different view than if a Mother kills her baby just before an invading force bent on rape and pillage breaks down the door.

[Eamonor]

Let's judge evil by utilitarian numbers calculus the thread number 9000. Is there some factory in the US that cranks out libertarian anticommunists... Oh right, university of Chicago.

I don't think that utilitarianism is a perfect moral system, I am a Christian, but I think that the problems with utilitarianism are borne out pretty accurately by Communism.
Also, I don't know anything about the University of Chicago as I don't live in America, but if we can't agree that most University's in the Western world have a liberal, socialist, hell, even Marxist bias, then we are living in such different worlds I don't know if we can continue this discussion.

Ironically, surrounded in a crime ridding, poor area. Look like their policies work according to plan.

Well being poor is never great but if the area is being rid of crime that is one example of the policies working.

[The Immortal Goon]

I didn't mean to say that deaths caused under Capitalism don't count, what I was trying to say was that it isn't fair to say an overriding philosophy was responsible for the way people acted. Lets say that the world is ruled by people who occasionally kill 6/10ths of the population, and an ideology springs up which says that in order to free people we need to kill 5/10ths of the population. Thats how I view it. Doesn't make the actions right, but saying that Communism is the antidote is patently ridiculous. Also, Tyrannical Rulers are almost never Capitalists, if you are defining Capitalists as traditional businessmen and not just selfish evil people

I get it: if you ignore Malthus, and any other capitalist you don't like, you can make up whatever crazy facts you feel like!

That must be so much more convenient than living in the real world.

[Eamonor]

I get it: if you ignore Malthus, and any other capitalist you don't like, you can make up whatever crazy facts you feel like!

That must be so much more convenient than living in the real world.

I don't see how I am ignoring evil Capitalists, I am simply saying that Communism is evil, and just because it sometimes opposes evil in no way makes it good. When I make the point that Fascism opposes Communism I'm still not trying to say that that automatically makes Fascism noble, but you seem to think that because some Capitalists are evil that justifies anything. Also I wonder how aware you are of the influence wealthy Capitalists had in funding Communism to support their own ends.

[Potemkin]

Also I wonder how aware you are of the influence wealthy Capitalists had in funding Communism to support their own ends.

Which wealthy capitalists? Name them please.

[Donna]

The Rockefeller and Rothschild families supported the Bolsheviks. Why? They effectively wanted the same thing: communism in Germany. They viewed Germany as a bulwark against the spread of illumined/masonic/tolerant ideas and co-opted the Communist movement to this end.

[Vasili Blokhin]

@Donald As America quietly supported Pol Pot right?

[The Immortal Goon]

The Rockefeller and Rothschild families supported the Bolsheviks. Why? They effectively wanted the same thing: communism in Germany. They viewed Germany as a bulwark against the spread of illumined/masonic/tolerant ideas and co-opted the Communist movement to this end.

[Donna]

It is not belief per se, but insight.

[MB.]

Manly hall also thought Atlantis was real.

[LeshkaG]

But that was not my train of thought at all. The way I was always taught history I hated both Fascism and Communism, but when I learnt that Fascism was created to oppose Communism it altered my view, even though I still don't think Fascism is a good system.
If a Mother kills her baby because she hates her children we would take a different view than if a Mother kills her baby just before an invading force bent on rape and pillage breaks down the door.

If the fascism was created only to oppose communism why fascists have destroyed 5 000 000 Jews and several million others? The fascism destroyed people on a racial sign.

I don't see how I am ignoring evil Capitalists, I am simply saying that Communism is evil, and just because it sometimes opposes evil in no way makes it good.

I consider ''communism'' too was evil in USSR after the revolution of 1917 when there was a class fight, fight for power, many mistakes have been made. Around 20 years. But after World War II, 40 years, 1950-1991 in the USSR weren't the evil. All country lived with the soviet ideology, there were no political repressions.

[ThirdTerm]

The redeeming quality of Soviet-era Communism was anti-racism that has been handed down to today's anti-fascist activists. The Soviet Union promoted Eurasianism, the fusion of Slavic, Turkic and Asiatic peoples under Communism. In terms of the number of people killed, Nazism and Communism were equally evil. But on ideological terms, Nazism was much worse and Imperial Japan didn't endorse the racist ideology despite being an ally of Nazi Germany and rescued thousands of Jews fleeing Europe.

"This Eurasianist doctrine has been attractive to many intellectuals and politicians because it offers an understanding of the collapse of the Soviet Union and restores Russia's troubled historical and political continuity," stated Laruelle. At a May 4, 2009 Kennan Institute discussion of her book, Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press: 2008), Laruelle explored Eurasianism's expansion beyond purely academic circles, into a catch-all vision for Russia.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publicatio ... ogy-empire