Well, I meant that in a not nasty way. How about slightly over the top? 
I don’t even know where it is, unfortunately. But I took a good look at Rummell’s breakdown (thanks again, Captain Amazing) and I feel confident in analyzing it further.
Firstly, the figure of 4 million is certainly a drastic overestimate. I believe the figure is coming out of the sum on line 190 under “Terror”; someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Most of that total figure comes from the high estimate of 3.6 million in line 182, “Red Terror Dead”. That figure comes from line 80, “Consolidated Red Terror Dead”, drawn in turn from line 77, which consolidates all the estimated in the “General” category of “Red Terror Dead”.
With me so far?
If we look at the two highest estimates of victims of the Red Terror, two things pop out. First - the 1.7 million estimate is from General Denikin, one of the worst White generals and a man with a serious axe to grind against the Bolsheviks. Furthermore, that estimate is for South Russia only - not Russia as a whole, like the other estimates appear to be. Secondly, the 1.5 million claimed by Maximoff doesn’t seem to be supported by anything in the book it’s drawn from. Therefore, it seems safe to say that the claim of 4 million dead in the Red Terror is founded on highly suspect evidence, and that a more realistic estimate of the number of victims of the Red Terror is between 320,000 and 750,000 - as indicated by the low and middle estimates back down on line 190.
Now, as I understand what Rummell is saying, the only deaths that can be directly attributed to the Bolsheviks (and therefore Lenin) are the deaths that fall under the categories listed under “democide”. Those four are terror, deportations, camp/transit, and famine. Deportations are eliminated because there aren’t any estimates for the category. Which leaves us with terror, camp/transit, and famine. Of those three categories, deaths from famine make up a full 75% of the total “democide”. I’d have to read up on the famines of that period to present a fuller case, but I should think that most of those famine deaths were a direct result of the civil war rather than being an atrocity the Bolsheviks consciously committed. So only terror and camp/transit remain. And those numbers pale before anything Stalin did over the thirty years of his regime.
The question, then, is: why the terror and the camps? Who was it directed against?
The population in Russia during 1917-1922 averaged about 154 million people (line 205). The maximum camp population for the same period is estimated at about 60,000. In a country of 150 million that has seen a drastic social change and the forcible expropriation of the country’s wealth from the autocracy and the capitalists, is it totally inconceivable that there might be 60,000 people who would consciously violate the laws of the new order, and whose actions would merit imprisonment? Is it also entirely inconceivable that the famine and sicknesses that overtook the population as a whole might take their toll on the prison population, to the tune of 34,000 of those prisoners, as well?
And what of the terror? In a country racked by civil war, it’s not impossible that a tiny minority of the population (.3%, if my calculations are correct) would take up arms against the new state and try to organize its destruction from within. These, of course, would primarily be those who were in positions of power in the old regime and wished to see their power restored. In war, it’s nothing less than suicide to show leniency to those who would actively destroy your side. I’m certainly not saying that war justifies every act of terror, to be sure. But strong action needs to be taken when the question of protecting the revolution you’ve made from destruction is on the line.
IOW, we should have nuked Afghanistan. And you would have defended it, since everyone who died was clearly “in positions of power in the old regime and wished to see their power restored.”
Regards,
Shodan
So, uh, so far we’ve got Sandino making the assertion that “Rummel is a lying ass” while simultaneously seeming to express acceptance of Rummel’s figures, and claiming, incorrectly, that Rummel holds Lenin personally responsible when it is clear from Rummel’s own words that he does no such thing.
I mean, if that’s what you think passes for a logical rebuttal around here, you really needn’t bother.
I could also raise the issue of why Sandino seems so highly outraged over this particular figure while completely ignoring the question of accuracy of Rummel’s figures for the dozens of other incidents of mass death tallied at his site, but I think I can guess the reason for that.
As for Oltenzero’s considerably more coherent reply, that’s more like what I was looking for. I’m afraid I have to reject the implied argument that the deaths, whatever number they were, don’t really count because the Bolsheviks were just taking out their potential enemies (I mean, it takes some real stones to call something universally known as “the Terror” nothing more than righting the scales of justice), but at least he replies with something resembling facts.
I’m certainly not saying they “don’t count”, whatever that means. Nor am I saying that the Terror occurred because the Bolsheviks were fueled by some sort of revenge fantasy against the old ruling class. This isn’t about righting the scales of justice, this is about fighting a war for survival. Let me try summarizing my argument:
[ol][li] The Red Terror did occur. People were sent to labor camps and executed.[/li][li] The numbers most often quoted are gross exaggerations.[/li] The Red Terror is the result of the specific circumstances surrounding the Russian Civil War and foreign intervention, and can in no justifiable way be used as a condemnation of either Marxism or the Russian Revolution in general.[/ol]
Looks like the board ate another of my posts…grrr. I have GOT to remember to save off before posting. sigh
What are your SPECIFIC objections, Sandino, to Rummell, his numbers and his methodology. Aside from “Rummell is a lying ass” (is that a technical term??) you’ve given zilch. My post in the other thread was pretty light, as I just cited Cecil’s post using Rummell’s info. Captain Amazing (in the other thread) gave a much better cite of Rummells break down of the numbers…did you actually bother reading through it?? Want to specify just what your problem is with all this?
Well, I went through a long ass analysis in my post that was eaten, Olentzero. I don’t have the heart to recreate all that again.
Briefly, I found the relevant sections of Rummells break down of the USSR from 1917-1923 in deaths to be sections 50 (Consolidation Groups/Locality, numbers of ethnic/class types) and 52-78 (In General, listings broken down by various executions, deaths in prison, public terror, etc). Kudos to you for another thoughtful post btw, and for actually READING the cite and slogging through it to come up with some interesting points.
I wish Rummell gave his margin for error on these numbers. I have no idea how accurate they are, though I’m guessing not very accurate (maybe as much as plus or minus 500k?). Again, at a guess, NO ONE really knows, as I seriously doubt accurate records were kept. However, whether the REAL numbers were 2.5 million killed or 5.5 million killed, its still an appalling number of deaths, no?
There IS no justification for such widespread slaughter IMO, though I can certainly see your point that a revolution was happening…I can understand, but not agree that THAT level of carnage was justified. Certainly compared to Stalin, Lennin was a piker…but then, compared to Stalin so was Hitler…and even Mao.
OTOH, I’m not sure that the numbers during the French Revolution (for direct executions or deaths in prison)were much less…and they certainly were no more justified. That lends some support that such things happen during a revolution. Certainly the ones during the American Revolution were less, but then there were less people too, and there were other circumstances that lessened the carnage post revolution (IMO the biggest being we came out of it with a democracy :)…I know I know, I’m prejudiced).
Oh well…not the post I originally intended, but I think I got some of my points across.
-XT
BTW, my last post was in response to Olentzero PERVIOUS post…I’ve been fighting with this stupid board for 2 hours trying to get a post in about this.
From Olentzero
-
Well, I think the first point is a given, unless you are in complete denial.
-
Ok, on what basis do you base this on? How inaccurate are Rummell’s numbers specifically? What do YOU say his margin of error is, or are you saying he’s totally wrong? In either case, do you have a cite for what you feel are the actual numbers?
-
I don’t know about not a comdemnation of the Russian Revolution (I’ll agree that Marxism in general can’t be blamed), but those people WERE responsible. Unless you are saying that the ends justify the means. In which case, lets talk about America and Iraq a bit…
-XT
To further the hijack.
Rubbish. Numerous animals have been shown to kill purely for sport and enjoyment, from dolphins bludgeoning porpoises to death over a period of hours to cats mutilating mice.
Almost all animals kill because they want something and someone gets in their way. Why do you think a pack of wolves will kill and intruder? Do you think they are going to eat it? Do you think that 10 adult wolves are afraid of one skinny, half-starved barely overgrown pup? Why do you think lions will attack and if necessary kill cheetahs to drive them form their kills?
This idea that animals don’t kill for lust, greed or the joy of killing is complete nonsense that would make Walt Disney proud.
Wild Kingdom was not entirely factual.
[Quote]
-
The Red Terror did occur. People were sent to labor camps and executed.
-
The numbers most often quoted are gross exaggerations.
-
The Red Terror is the result of the specific circumstances surrounding the Russian Civil War and foreign intervention, and can in no justifiable way be used as a condemnation of either Marxism or the Russian Revolution in general.
[Quote]
Fair enough if I have misundertood your first reply. xtisme has said pretty much what I would have in return, although I’ll just add that I for one do not see Rummel’s main objective as an indictment specifically of Marxism; I welcome anyone who cares to to provide a factual basis for such a notion, and I’ll consider it.
The point I was trying to make, however imperfectly, is that the OP is apparently claiming that Rummel has deliberately inflated these figures (and, presumably, not others) to make some sort of ideological point, without supplying any facts that would suggest a valid reason as to why they should be disputed.
Lastly, I’ll just mention that this dispute is all very reminiscent of the time our old friend Chumpsky had a go at Rummel in this forum, with equal stridency.
Well I can think of four young women and one handicapped boy who were murdered along with their parents and servants at the direct order of Lenin.
OK, it seems that the point here is being missed. xtisme cited an article by Cecil that claimed Lenin was the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. Would somebody like to justify that Lenin was a mass murderer?
It simply defies comprehension that the leader of a revolution that is defending itself against the combined efforts of 14 capitalist states can be considered a murderer. So, please, explain to me which of the killings you consider to be specifically murder.
I suppose you should also explain why Abraham Lincoln should not be considered a mass murderer, but let’s get the thing about Lenin first.
Well, that brings us up to, oh, er, about 20-30 people, perhaps. Can you account for the other 1-2 million?
By the way, are you suggesting Lenin ordered the executions? I mean that sincerely. I don’t know the answer.
Oh, brother. Here we go again. Why is it that when someone tries to deny the holocaust or claim Hitler was ‘misunderstood’ we rightly blast them, but others can come around trying to mount a defense for a genocidal bastard like Lenin, and get treated with kid gloves?
We’ve gone through this before. Go search for Lenin in the archives - I’ve detailed many of the atrocities that occured on Lenin’s direct orders, including links to execution orders in Lenin’s handwriting. The man was a brutal son of a bitch - one of the worst mass murderers the world has ever seen.
And why do we always have to try to let Marxism off the hook? It is an evil philosophy that leads people to do evil things. Every country that has ever tried to implement it has mutated into a brutal dictatorship. You can blame the weather, or the imperialists, or the individual dictators, but at some point you’ve gotta stop and say, “You know, this whole Marxism thing appears to suck really hard.”
It should come as no surprise that a philosophy that does not recognize individual rights would lead to terror.
And Lenin IS to blame for the famines in Russia during his time (and Stalin for the later ones) because he CAUSED them. This was not an act of nature - it was an act of immeasurable stupidity and cruelty. the forced collectivization of agriculture was a disaster. A decade after the Bolsheviks took over, Russian industrial output was a tiny fraction of its earlier levels. And it’s their fault, just like North Korea’s miserable economy is the Communist’s fault, and the pathetic economy of Cuba is Castro’s fault.
From Sandino
Leaving aside the numbers for a sec, why blame Lenin? Well, because he was in charge. He gets the credit and the blame…just like all other leaders do. Who do most people blame for Iraq? Why GW Bush of course. Who gets the blame for the holocaust? Hitler does. For millions of deaths in China? Mao. So, if xx million died on Lenin’s watch, HE gets the blame. Or are you saying that he WASN’T in charge? That it was done without his knowledge? That the killings didn’t have his tacit approval? Fine. If thats your position, back it up.
From Sandino
Its obvious you didn’t actually go in and LOOK at the numbers, and how they were broken down. Hell, I even gave you the relevant sections!! I urge you to actually go INTO the frigging website and LOOK at the numbers before commenting on this again. THEN come back with your SPECIFIC problems to the numbers, how they are broken down, etc. When you do, you’ll see how foolish the above quote by you sounds. Where as, if you have problems with the numbers, or you think there are specific extenuating circumstances (like friend Olentzero coherently brough up) then you can list THOSE and we can discuss.
From Sandino
Again you sound like a fool. Thats NOT how the numbers are broken down, and if you’d just TRY and open your mind (or at least open the friggin web site) it would be much easier to discuss all this with you. Unless you have specific cites for when Lincoln ordered mass executions of civilians during the Civil war and such executions were carried out. You actually WOULD have a point for limited executions of Confederate prisoners and/or deaths in internment camps (happened on his watch so he is responsible) however, I hate to break it to ya…but he’s not even in the same universe even if we count ALL of them. Hell, even if we count all the BATTLE deaths, and attribute them ALL to him (ridiculous but trying to make a point here), even THEN he wouldn’t get on the mass murderers page.
-XT
So, it’s pure coincidence that there was massive loss of life as Communist regimes came to power and consolidated their control? Coincidence in China. Coincidence in Ethiopa. Coincidence in Vietnam. Coincidence in Cambodia…
Wow, that’s a lot of coincidences.
You may be able to convince me that democratic communism is possible (e.g. Italian and French communist parties). But I would call these pretty watered down. As far as I know, no Communist party has democratically attained power without being in coalition with other leftists, such as Social Democrats. (And, arguably, if they’ll stoop to form a coalition with SDs, they’re lapsed Marxists.)
Communism has only gained and consolidated it’s power through civil war and democide. It is a totalitarian system whose internal logic leads it to democide. Read ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ by Hannah Arendt.
The collectivization of agriculture did not begin until 1929. The Bolsheviks came to power, in fact, on a program of “Land, bread and peace,” i.e. land to the peasants, bread to the workers and peace for all. They encouraged peasants to take over the land held by the brutal landlords, and to distribute amongst themselves. It was this policy that enabled the Bolshevik led working class to prevail in the civil war, as it was what held together the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry.
The famine of 1921 was the direct result of the embargo and foreign intervention. It is sick to blame the Bolsheviks for this.
Quit trying to evade the question. The website gives a table breaking down deaths from all causes, civil war, Red Terror, forced labor camps, famine, and disease.
Please be so kind as to list those deaths that you would attribute to Lenin. You are, after all, claiming that Lenin was the fourth worst mass murderer in history. That is quite a charge, one that I would like, for once, to see somebody back up.
Look, do it like this. Make a list of causes of death from the civil war, red terror, and famine/disease. Then give a percentage that you think Lenin was responsible for.
OK, so are you claiming that Lenin was only responsible for the executions carried out during the civil war?
Let’s get some numbers here. And it wouldn’t hurt to reference some respectable historians, like E.H. Carr, for example.
In fact, the Bolsheviks came to power in the October Revolution, which took a total of 10 lives on all sides. The civil war was a defensive act. Here is the www.marxists.org section on the history of the Russian Revolution. It has a short page giving an overview of the civil war. Maybe you could point out where you disagree with some fact on that page.
Apart from that, though, the only way that the workers can come to power is through a revolution. No state is neutral, but serves a particular class. The oppressed class has to smash the existing state machinery in order to take power.
I don’t know if I can do better than a proponent of Marxism admitting that the existing state machinery must be smashed. You must break some eggs, and such. Lenin would be proud.
Cloaking the advocation of murder in Marxist language may give you a free pass in college. This isn’t college.