Murderous Communism

No link. I would point out (as an ardent anti-communist and veteran) that only North Korea, Laos, and (perhaps) Albania or China really meet the label today. And in terms of percentage of innocent civilians slaughtered in the area of concern there are some greater murderers (the Middle Passage, Timur the Lame, and Shoah come to mind).
 
radarmark said:
No link. I would point out (as an ardent anti-communist and veteran) that only North Korea, Laos, and (perhaps) Albania or China really meet the label today. And in terms of percentage of innocent civilians slaughtered in the area of concern there are some greater murderers (the Middle Passage, Timur the Lame, and Shoah come to mind).
Click to expand...

The point was that Leftist dictators and their butchery are paid little attention to, compared to the well-worn Nazi coverage.
 
About "murderous communism" being "little paid attention to". Murder is murder is murder, whether by an individual, a tribe, an ideology, or a nation-state.
 
radarmark said:
About "murderous communism" being "little paid attention to". Murder is murder is murder, whether by an individual, a tribe, an ideology, or a nation-state.
Click to expand...

I wrote "paid little attention to, compared to the well-worn Nazi coverage."

Ponder the Black Book of Communism for a study of the very red, dark side.
 
Read it. I just do not think the coverage of Russia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Former Yugoslavia, or Palestine-Israel are very far behind (in coverage). I just did a "Google Scholar" on "communist genocide" versus "nazi genocide" and got nearly identical hits (55 vs 64 thousand).
 
Recent publication (since 1980 or so) is greater than before, but publication does not mean influence on the average intellectual.
On another site I posted two or so, like this thread and they were deleted as 'propaganda'.

As your typical reaction shows, the very idea of 'murderous' Communism is suspicious or foreign or wrong, depending...
 
I think Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot were as evil as Hilter. Please point out how I doubted the basic claim, that communism was murderous so it warrents a "your typical reaction" aside. What they said at other sites is irrelevent.

I am just saying that you have no evidence (numbers) to back your claim that "paid little attention to, compared to the well-worn Nazi coverage." Nor does your (to you) logical claim that "publication does not mean influence on the average intellectual" (it is hard to impact the average intellectual if the idea is not discussed or published, which mine, the claim that there is little difference between the coverage of nazi versus communist genocide, is).

These are both empirical (data-driven, measureable) claims... how you you validate them?

If you look at the literature (Scholar or Nexus-Lexus) the number of articles is pretty consistent across Germany, China, Russia, Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia (the last two are more recent, so a little less).

The numbers are all within 20-30% of each other across the board.

That this is more than a "little attention" is like saying that the sales difference between GM and Ford (GM ahead by 22% or so world-wide) means Ford will go under.
 
Skull said:
Recent publication (since 1980 or so) is greater than before, but publication does not mean influence on the average intellectual.
On another site I posted two or so, like this thread and they were deleted as 'propaganda'.

As your typical reaction shows, the very idea of 'murderous' Communism is suspicious or foreign or wrong, depending...
Click to expand...

Maybe it was because the only thing you seem to post IS by definition, propaganda. So far I haven't seen any credible references that didn't arise from a biased source. Clearly you have no idea how to build or defend an argument and based on your petulant responses you have neither the cognitive nor the emotional maturity to advance your point of view.
 
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Theodore Dalrymple (pen-name)
[my emphasis]
 
But why does it have to be a communist conspiracy? Why can’t it just be an emergent property of the highly populated and internet connected 21st Century global village?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top