What would you not consider battle deaths in Vietnam? Are you asserting that the US conducted no terror campaigns whatsoever while in Vietnam?
So the US did conduct terror campaigns in Vietnam, but the number of resultant casualties was relatively low, and it was done during wartime - seems to me I just got taken to task for providing that explanation for the Red Terror. What makes that argument insufficient for my defense, but sufficient for yours? The fact that the US didn’t do it against its ‘own’ people?
One last time. I’m not rejecting all of Rummell’s figures. But the middle and high estimates rely on a figure provided by Denikin which is demonstrably out of whack with similar estimates, and for a smaller swath of territory to boot. Having rejected that piece of data, I have no argument against his low figure of 320,000 victims of the Red Terror, and 832,000 victims of “democide” overall. Which pretty much matches the 750,000 non-military casualties of US involvement in Vietnam.
No, I know for a fact that the US in fact DID conduct what could be considered ‘terror campaigns’ in Vietnam…as I happen to know several LRRPs who served there. Even there, most would be in the ‘battle deaths’ catagory, and officially ALL SHOULD have been in that category, as it wasn’t official or even unoffical policy to target civilians. However, the reality is, that it DID happen, and I’m not claiming it didn’t.
From Olentzero
Well, thats why, in a later post to Sandino I said this:
From me
While I believe that the targetting of civilians was more wide spread and brutal during the post revolution period in Russia, I conceed that people/countries do what is necessary, even if it means the deaths of innocents. I suppose that, if I’m being honest, the same excuses that America uses for doing what is necessary, can be claimed by the Soviets during and after their revolution. I still maintain that the SCALE of the thing was beyond the pale.
From Olentzero
Well, I realize you don’t reject all of the numbers. You seem to be a pretty reasonable guy to me. You have to understand though, that while I conceed that, based on your earlier post, that the HIGH number may be skewed, without something solid, I for one DON’T accept that the middle number is that grossly in error. Without something solid to go on, except your vague ‘Denikin’s numbers are totally wrong and should be completely rejected’, I can’t in honesty conceed that point. I have to assume, based on the lack of any other solid evidence, that Rummel’s figures are close. Its a point of dispute still, lets say, and by no means has it been resolved…thats all I’m saying.
But you concede the same point for the high estimate. Both the high and middle estimates for the number of victims of the Red Terror use Denikin’s figures for their calculations. And my objection to Denikin’s figures aren’t vague; as you’ll remember from our exchange on page 2, Rummell’s notes specifically cite that Denikin’s estimates are for South Russia as opposed to Russia as a whole. And his estimates for South Russia are four to five times higher than the other estimates for Russia as a whole cited in the other works. Much as I think of Denikin the same way you all think of Lenin, if his estimates seemed in line with the rest of the figures Rummell cites, I’d probably have to accept them barring further research on my own.
Now, as I said - both the high and the middle estimates rely on Denikin’s figures for their calculations. Seeing as how Denikin’s calculations, again, are a)not for Russia as a whole and b)several times higher than the other estimates for Russia as a whole, it ought to stand to reason that any calculations which rely on those figures should be treated with extreme skepticism at best. This is not a vague objection; this is an argument raised on the basis of concrete analysis of the evidence presented. There is something solid to go on in rejecting Denikin’s figures and the calculations based on it - i.e. both the high and the middle estimates. If you accept the objection for one estimate, you’re more or less logically bound to accept the objection for the other. You can’t have it both ways.
Oh, and xtisme, I do beg your pardon - I missed your response to Sandino. I’ve been concentrating more on posts directed to me than the thread as a whole. Had I seen that response I would not have pressed you on that line of questioning.
No worries. LRRP stands for Long Range Recon Patrols, they were the guys that did most of the deep penetration raids that Sandino (and I assume you) were refering too, along with other special forces units.
From Olentzero
Well, I did and still do see your point…however, again, in the absence of solid counter numbers, I’m loosely going with the mean figure. Rummell might have been totally off, but there had to be SOME reason that he chose to use those figures. Unfortunately, neither you (appearently) nor I have the whole story on WHY he used the same source for both figures, or any thing to dispute his raw numbers except your logic and conjecture…thats why I had hoped for some counter numbers or additional cites. While I follow your logic, its just conjecture at this point to me, and part of me is saying that there is more to the story here.
I have to admit, I’ve been strapped at work lately and haven’t really had time to do detailed research…every time I find numbers, they basically trace back to Rummell and his works in some way or another. My hope was to goad Sandino into backing up ANY of his assertions, but he’s just a retoric machine…push his buttons and he simply regurgatates the party line with no content.
From Olentzero
The problem is, from my perspective, I don’t know enough about how Rummell compiled his data to make a call on this issue, or to totally buy your conjecture and logic. Certainly, if it was as cut and dried as you are making it, Rummell wouldn’t have used a tained source for both his high and medium numbers…my understanding of the man is he is highly respected in the historic field. In addition, when looking at other people who use Rummells numbers (which seem to be most sites I’ve seen so far), the majority use the medium numbers. Again, why? There has to be more to the story. For myself, I’m going lemming like with the middle figures…because normally thats exactly how you look at data, using the mean or bell section of the curve. Is it right? I have no idea.
I DO see your point, and don’t blame you for taking the stance you are taking (I’M not accusing you of being in denial), but until and unless some very firm counter data is shown, or until we know more about WHY Rummell used that source in both his high and medium estimates (and exactly how that source was used, as it was two very different numbers), for myself, I’m sticking with the mean numbers. Maybe if this thread lasts to the weekend and I get some time, I’ll try and dig up something that doesn’t come from Rummell at all, and we can compare them and see if that helps any.
If you want to talk about misdeeds committed by the United States Government, I’m all for it. Indeed, I consider it my duty as a citizen to learn as much as I can about these matters. That doesn’t mean I will take what you (or anyone else) says at face value, but it’s a discussion that needs to happen and it’s a shame it doesn’t happen more often.
Because you do not have to convince me that people in power, including people in power in the United States, have done, and will continue to do terrible things.
The difference between you and me is that you agree with Lenin and Marx (and, for that matter, Plato) that if we could only get the right people in power, then we wouldn’t have to worry anymore about injustice, or tyranny, or exploitation. I think if the twentieth century has taught us anything, it is that this view has dangerous, terrifying consequences, and that it has led to misery and horror. Your efforts to exonerate Lenin and put the blame on Stalin fall flat, because it’s the organizing principle that is flawed, not a particular implementation. The problem with the Communist regime in the Soviet Union was not that the “wrong people” (i.e. Stalin and company) “hijacked” the revolution. The problem is that the idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is just as bad as the idea of any dictatorship.
Instead, I agree with James Madison that the key is not to a futile effort to get the “right” people in power, but rather a system designed to protect individual liberty by providing checks on the power that any one person or group can exercise. So I want elections so that the citizens can “throw the rascals” out if elected officials aren’t doing their jobs. And I want an independent judiciary that is looking out for individual liberty. And I want a free press that can criticize the government, and criticize the criticizers, and criticize the apathetic. And I want the freedom to express my opinion without fearing that I’ll be subject to torture, or murder, or enslavement because someone in the government doesn’t like the views I expressed.
New Economic Policy…in the early 20’s, the Communists launched an economic program allowing private ownership and sale of agricultural and industrial goods in order to expand the economy. It was really successful, and popular among the population, but a lot of Communists saw it as a betrayal of the revolution, and by the end of the 20’s, the Soviet Union abandoned the NEP and adopted collectivization of agriculture and a planned economy.
It’s amazing (and depressing) to contemplate the number of dictatorships throughout recent history which have justified mass bloodletting of civilians, on the grounds of solidifying their hold on power in the face of hostile forces.
Stalin’s task was made far easier by the precedents set by Lenin.
“Try not to be so brainwashed.”
There can be no greater betrayal of the workers than to have a derelict and bloodstained philosophy forced upon them by a deluded and disconnected intelligentsia.
Totally mistaken. Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, says that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Lenin demonstrated his commitment to that in practice by pushing the Bolsheviks to fight for leadership in the Soviets during 1917, instead of staging an insurrection by themselves. The “July days” of 1917 saw a number of leading Bolsheviks proposing just that - and Lenin forcefully argued that they would lose if they did so; the workers weren’t with them entirely at that point. If Lenin had actually thought building socialism was simply a matter of getting the “right people” into power, doubtless he would have gladly participated in staging an uprising that July. And would probably have gotten hanged as a result. (I hear you guys in the back sighing “If only…”. Keep it down.)
I hold the same perspective today - socialism can’t be built by electing Reds or having our organization stage an uprising when the time seems right. It has to come from working people, whose experiences have finally convinced them that the only way to fix things, keep them going, and make the world a better place is to take it for themselves.
xtisme - I see your point. To me the counter numbers are the figures Rummell draws from other sources. Granted, I don’t have any idea why he used those numbers either; my guess is there really isn’t a whole lot of published data out there and Rummell used everything he could find for the sake of completeness. Certainly an academically sound approach.
I’m still trying to figure out how he performed the consolidations for those figures. It’s really confusing to see him cough up 4 million for the high estimate using Denikin’s figure, and then come up with 500,000 (or whatever it is, I’m not looking at the moment) for the middle figure, again using Denikin’s figures as part of the calculation. I’ve tried following it and it just won’t come out. If he indicated his caculations somewhere that might have made it easier.
I confess to being totally mystified by this response to my post. I may indeed be “totally mistaken” about your views on this subject but your post only seems to emphasize the points that I made (or at least tried to make) earlier:
(1) that Marx, and Lenin, and you want to see the world controlled by the “working people,” in other words “the right people.” (you and I vehemently disagree about who the “working people” are, and whether Marx, or Lenin, had any legitimate basis to speak for them, but let’s put that aside for the moment);
(2) that Marx, and Lenin and you believe that concerns about elections (with a secret ballot to prevent coercion of the electorate), civil liberties (protected by an independent judiciary), free press, freedom of expression, are beside the point: what matters is that the workers need to start running things–by violence, torture and terror if necessary. Until the workers are running things, all those “safeguards of liberty” that I just listed and that I value (or claim to value, or just think I value because I’ve been brainwashed) are just an illusion anyway. And after the workers are running things then there won’t be any need to be worried about freedom of expression, because once the capitalists are gone, and the state of emergency is over, everyone will be able to express whatever opinion they want and live however they want to live, and come into the fullness of their humanity without fear of reprisal or oppression.
In other words, your view is that once the right people–and you believe those right people to be the working class–looks at the world and then they “take it for themselves” then we won’t have to worry any more about injustice or tyranny or exploitation. I suppose you would claim that once this final state is reached, no one will have power over anyone else, and so there will be no need for concern about anyone misusing power.
As I said before, I think hiding behind this abstraction, and this sunny picture of a perfect world, is a nightmare.
And as I said before, I think the solution to exploitation and tyranny is not to foster the illusion that we can create a society where no one exercises power, or where the right people (whether the working class or anyone else) hold the power, but to create a system of checks and balances and respect for individual liberty.
Yes, Bryan, I chuckled at this as well, because (I have a feeling the guy who posted it doesn’t get it) that IS a deprivation of civil liberties.
Sandino, I know people are peppering you with questions here, but I think someone else posed this question and I saw no response: say Lenin’s not responsible for 3 million deaths. Say it’s a few hundred thousand, or a few tens of thousands. Does that mean it’s no longer a problem? Is 10,000 or 100,000 more palatable? My family and I have this argument a lot with my Communist brother, who deplores Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. but to some extent holds Tito and Lenin up as idols. Is it no longer mass murder if you’re talking five or six figures instead of seven?
And not to defend America or its moronic war in Iraq, but the comments about the ‘assassination’ of Uday and Qusay Hussein are ridiculous. The army offered them a chance to surrender, and they chose to open fire and go out shooting. I don’t approve of killing anyone, but Uday and Qusay were not innocent family members, they were parts (BIG parts) of Saddam’s government, and they were horrible killers, not to mention torturers and rapists, in their own right. I don’t know if Saddam killed anybody personally, but Uday and Qusay did, gleefully at times. And they chose to die the way they did. Saddam has other family that is innocent of his crimes and they have not been targeted- after all, somebody had to bury the two shitbags.
That’s a rather overly broad definition of “the right people”. Most of the time I hear “the right people” argument used, it’s about individuals working within the current political system, i.e. electing a left-wing Democract like Wellstone or Kucinich, and leaving the rest of society unchallenged and unchanged. The socialist revolution will have to be a lot broader and deeper than that.
One thing it’s important to understand about freedoms and “individual liberty” is that they are not some abstract universal truth, handed down from on high or from some Being outside the physical world; they are social constructs. And in any class-based society, those freedoms are limited by the ability of any one class to fight for them. Obviously the ruling class is in the best position to accord freedoms and individual liberty to itself, while denying those same liberties to the classes it rules - at least until those classes organize enough to fight for those freedoms. The whole history of the past three hundred years illustrates this point sharply: bourgeois revolutionaries fighting the monarchy for the right to operate in a free market; women fighting first for the right to vote and then for sexual equality, Blacks fighting for civil rights, gays and lesbians fighting against sexual discrimination.
Of course, under any society, there are individual liberties that come into direct conflict with the way society is structured and run. How many modern-day monarchs claim Divine Right? That was an individual liberty under feudalism. Similarly, the revolutionary bourgeois in France fought hard to eliminate freedom of expression for the monarchists - denying them freedom of the press, the right to stand candidates in elections, and so on and so forth. Simply put, the individual liberties claimed by monarchs were completely incompatible with the structure of capitalist society, based on private ownership of the means of production. Not to mention that the granting of that individual liberty to some denies that same liberty to a far greater majority, since the successful operation of a private enterprise requires the use of a workforce, who depend entirely on the wages you pay them to cover the cost of living, and are therefore effectively denied the right to own their own business, unless they somehow chance onto favorable circumstances.
Is it therefore that much of a stretch to argue that individual liberties now claimed by capitalists will be completely incompatible with the structure of a socialist society? How would it be possible to grant the individual liberty of owning a business or enterprise when socialism is based on the collective ownership of the means of production? Is a commitment to freedom of expression really served by allowing freedom of the press to those who would publish papers screaming “Smash the revolution and restore the old order”? Should a socialist society allow counter-revolutionary candidates to stand for election, and allow the vote to people who would gladly see the revolution strangled?
In short, an abstract commitment to universal freedom sounds wonderful, but more often than not actual material conditions render that abstract commitment meaningless.
Disregarding the thousands murdered via the NKVD under Lenin’s suggestion, we’ll take those four young women and the crippled child. And you know what, Sandino? It doesn’t matter how many states you’re defending yourself from, murder is still murder. The righteousness of cause does not absolve crimes against humanity.
I thought you meant their families? Which in that case- Gaddhafi’s daughter was killed on accident (by most all accounts) and Saddam’s sons refused to be captured, and rather chose to fight. So, an accident and a case of armed resistance. The Romanovs were shot in cold blood, purposefully, without any chance of saving themselves. Try again?