Capitalist Genocide

Every time someone says they favor Socialism/Communism the first thing that is screamed at them is "tried it, millions died so we wont try it again ever!!", so lets look at how many died under Capitalist systems and compare, shall we?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/understanding-the-aggressive-us-stance-towards-russia/5421196
"In 1918, US oligarchs and religious extremist Woodrow Wilson sent about 13,000 young American men to join tens of thousands of others from a Western-dominated axis and illegally invade Russia with intent to commit premeditated mass murder.

“Two years and thousands of casualties [including ~400 US] later,” Blum notes, “the American troops left, having failed in their mission to ‘strangle at its birth’ the Bolshevik state, as Winston Churchill put it.” Churchill further admitted that the Western axis forces were “invaders” who shot Russians on sight, blockaded their ports, sank their ships, and armed their enemies.

The British in Russia in 1918 committed what at the time was considered the ultimate conceivable atrocity: they killed people with chemical weapons – poison gas – as Churchill suggested the British Empire should also do against Iraqi civilians, in the hope of spreading what he called “a lively terror”.

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Chomsky, Gaddis (Professor of military and naval history, Yale), and other historians find, was the real beginning of the US “cold” war against Russia, which has continued essentially without break and is today being spiked by US strongman Barack Obama and his cadre.

Gaddis says the 1917 Western aggressive invasion of Russia was perpetrated to ensure the “survival of the capitalist order” in the face of what was called a “communist threat”. Chomsky notes that by this logic, since the US threatens to – and does – globally enforce what is called “capitalism” (the “capitalist threat&#8221, then anyone who wants to ensure the survival of a different order would likewise “be entirely justified in carrying out a defensive invasion of the US”, and using chemical weapons, or, “if they don’t have the power for that”, committing one-off attacks like “blowing up the World Trade Center” (Chomsky of course says this to expose the hypocritical aggressor’s logic).

By “capitalist order”, Gaddis refers to Western oligarchic top down dominance of society, the system that, while ~100 million deaths occurred worldwide under so-called “communism”, ~100 million deaths simultaneously occurred under so-called “capitalist” India alone. As experts put it, while China was bringing some six hundred million people out of poverty (U.N. stat), an achievement unparalleled in history, “every eight years, India put as many skeletons in its closet” as China did during its years of famine. When the number of people killed under what is called “capitalism” is extended beyond India to the rest of the world, Chomsky notes, “it would be colossal.” In the West, he continues, only the “communist” death numbers can be mentioned. As for the number of “capitalist” deaths, one “wouldn’t talk about them”.

The “colossal” death figures flowing from their system being of no concern and, perhaps, some satisfaction to oligarchs*, and their ever-increasing personal enrichment at the expense of others being of chief import, their “order” had to be preserved, their brutal march of expansion forced onward. Hence, the insolent 1917 Russian notion of a modification to the oligarchic order in which Russians were on the bottom had to be, as Churchill noted, snuffed out immediately. The threat of an internal change in Russia, Chomsky notes, referring to a 1955 US study, was that places like Russia and Eastern Europe generally, the components of the original “third world”, which had long been made to provide cheap labor and resources for the Western oligarchy, were reducing their “willingness” to “complement the industrial economies of the West, which is the job of the Third World.” That, Chomsky says, agreeing with Gaddis and others, was the actual “threat of communism” that was immediately understood and acted on by Western oligarchs in 1917.

Indeed, as racial supremacist Woodrow Wilson, who spokes-headed the US in 1918 when it invaded Russia, secretly noted:

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”

Wilson’s imagery of using armed men to batter in closed doors and physically force the “unwilling” to submit to the desires of “manufacturers” and “financiers” sheds light on the words of Indian writer Arundhati Roy, who said “Those of us who belong to former colonies think of imperialism as rape.”




In India alone more people died under Capitalist rule than all Communist countries combined, yet no one ever talks about this when someone brings up their support for capitalism. Pure propaganda, and most of you have fallen for it, especially the Conservatives at least the liberals are willing to condemn America when they find out about the bad things we have done, Conservatives simply justify it no matter what it was.

This is what people usually say when you bring up Capitalist genocide They cant seem to see the Irony in this and how it applies to Communism just as well. Were the Bolsheviks also not imperialists, racists, and much more? Why is everything they did attributed to Socialism and not the fact they were obviously imperialists, the same justification for the Capitalist genocide? Its a blatant double standard and the hypocrisy is absolutely stunning, but still very amusing

 

In this thread you supported the purging of the Ramonov family in Russia because if the children had grown up, they might have disrupted the Bolshevik socialist revolution.

That's how your type of thinking contributed to historical genocides committed in socialist countries.

How was capitalism involved in the killings in India? Correlation does not equal causation. You might learn that someday.

 

Haha, what a golden thread indeed! You end it by quoting me, and what I say really does destroy your entire argument. So I guess "that people usually" proves you wrong when you post such ridiculous things, but still you keep on posting them? well, well.

As for invading Russia and strangle the bolshevik revolution, that was totally justified and I would support it under most circumstances. Communism is a blight, and should be stopped if it can be. Quite frankly, it's better to kill relatively few russians in the fight to stop communism, rather than to let communism take root which will lead to the death of even more russians and other people. Do a little bit of evil, so that good may come, you know.

 

Not because they would disrupt the Socialist revolution, because they would have disrupted the first Democracy ever formed in Russia, which was by the Socialists. Even if the children didnt do this others would have used them to gain power if a counter revolution was successful, and seeing as how even America joined in on the war this was very likely to happen. The British were gassing the Socialists to defend a Monarchy, the idea that a counter revolution would be successful and these kids would eventually rule Russia as the last Tsars did was VERY likely, somehow the Strength of the Socialists prevailed. You bastards are the ones who created the monsters Lenin and Stalin, not us. In many ways they had no choice but to be monsters because the odds they faced against the Capitalist oppressors who were shooting them on sight.

They began paying the Indians to grow cash crops instead of food the way they used to, they also shipped these cash crops to Britain and elsewhere instead of staying in India because the free market determined thats where those goods would go because those in the west will pay more for them. The Indians were not dying of starvation until Capitalism was implemented and their lands were all bought up by rich oligarchs who again, told them to grow cash crops instead of food which was put into the global market, instead of in the Indian people. This obviously lead to the mass starvation of the Indian people.

 

You are absolutely full of double standards, arent you? When I say its ok to kill the Tsar and his family because it will save more lives in the future, thats a "no no", but when you kill Communists to "save more lives" its entirely justified

If thats how you want to play than fine, this is a battle you will never win

 

Perhaps you would like to know that my point is that killing the tsar and his family won't save more lives? Making Russia a constitutional monarchy and gradually reforming it towards democracy is what would save lives. Letting the communists do what they wanted leads to hell, as history shows. Russia could've been a tranquil constitutional monarchy like britain and sweden by now if things would have been done as I wanted.

 

Done how you wanted? Tell me, how do you get peaceful Democratic reform when machine guns open fire on you for protesting? Im very curious how you can magically fix this without revolution.

 

Lets see what the thread starter ranks as moral equivalence.

1) Genocide in communist countries where millions are rounded up and killed or have their food stolen by the state and starved to death.

2) "Genocide" in India and other countries where millions died due to flawed farm policies.

Oh yeah, I can see the moral equivalency right there............

 

The first Democracy in Russia was in fact under attack by the Bolsheviks. There has scarcely been one since.

The fact that you still seem to thing that what you have in the former Soviet union is a socialist anything is all I really need to to cease taking anything you have to say seriously.

 

Communism has killed over 100,000,000 people worldwide. That is more than all religions combined. Communism is the single deadliest force in the history of the human race. Only an abject idiot or an unreasonable tyrant could still support it when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against it.

 

If I had to choose between either capitalism or communism I would choose capitalism. That said, capitalism has probably killed more people, but over a longer period of time and a broader population of people. If the US moved to a purely capitalist system tomorrow, then millions would die of starvation every year, and a bloody revolution would soon follow.

 

And you base this on what exactly?

 

More ignorant fallacy from this OP. Communism and socialism kill people outright dead in their tracks by putting them up against a wall and putting a bullet in their heads. There is NO equivalent to "Killing Fields" in capitalism, and in order to fabricate one, the Complex symps have to make all these ridiculous stretches along the lines of "capitalist countries killed people who had sworn to take over the world and put plans in place, including extensive worldwide espionage, to carry it out."

No... equivalence... whatsoever.

 

Bloody minded nonsense capitalism prevents starvation it does not cause it. Governments either by unintended consequence or on purpose cause starvation.

 

What's amusing is that you're a communist. You espouse the belief system of the most laughable anti-dignitaries that ever existed. Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Kim Jong-Un, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro, etc.

The proof is in the pudding, comrade. We can't even keep tabs on how many people attempt to flee communist countries to come to America.

The only sentient beings that would agree with you are colony insects (e.g. bees), dictators, and mama's-boy college kids who smoke too much pot and think Che Guevara looked cool in a beret.

 

I do not support the efforts of the imperialist state, no matter its stated goals. Especially Woodrow Wilson. I view him as the single most disastrous individual in the history of world politics.

 

When you get your communism how will you seize the assets of capitalists if they refuse to give you what they earned?

- - - Updated - - -

The most is a bit much, (Marx, Lenin, Hitler etc.. were worse for example) but he is up there.

 

I enjoy my hyperbole

He made Hitler possible. If anyone I'd put him up against Stalin.

 

Germany set the precedent for the treat of Versailles with the treaty of Brest litovsk

 

The three factors of production are land, labor and capital. Given access to land, labor can create capital, and with the advance of robotics, capital can perform labor. But both capital and labor are worthless without access to land.

Capitalism makes land into private property, which means that those who own land have complete control over all production. Communism gives control of production to government bureaucrats, while capitalism gives control of production to large landholders. The bureaucrats under communism or the landowners under capitalism become the “deciders” and nobody can produce wealth, or even have a spot of earth to live on, without their approval. Buying the approval of a landowner is more than many can afford, and the more productive people are, the more the landowner demands. The historical result of allowing landowners to control production are very similar to that of allowing bureaucrats to control production, and that result is mass starvation.

 

No, capitalism causes a holocausts worth of death and destruction every year, by simply denying people their equal right to use the land that nature freely provided.

Land titles are a privilege created, issued and enforced by government, and remove the natural individual right to use what nature freely provided … so there you go!

 

Again nonsense. Land titles do not cause holocausts. and never have. Strangely it is only in countries in which no one has land titles where starvation is Rampant North Korea, and most of Subsaharan Africa being the obvious examples.

 

Oh but you forget the classic excuses from the left.

"Communism has never been done "right"".

Personally I think that is a ridiculous defense. Communism done "right" would've probably killed 200 or 300 million people..........

 

Nope, it is the truth.

I never said land titles cause holocausts. I said that denying people their natural right to use the land that nature freely provided for them, causes an equivalent amount of death and destruction. You need to work on that reading comprehension.

Those countries do not support equal rights to land, either. There are no private landowners in Hong Kong or China, and we are deeply in debt to those countries. In fact, I predict that one day China will stop supporting the US debt, and then you will really see the wheels fall of the wagon.

 

Same classic excuses as from the right.

“Capitalism has never been done “right””.

I agree that it is a ridiculous defense, from either side. Capitalism done “right” would turn the whole country into a Ferguson Missouri.