Lenin and the "4 million killed"

[Shodan]

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…

Wouldn’t the American Civil War be the most obvious counter-example?

It was fought (mostly) by whites against whites, and the end result was to end slavery.

And the twentieth century’s most long-lasting example of a ruling class that denied basic freedoms to those it ruled was the apparatchiki* of the USSR, North Korea, East Germany, and Red China.

Regards,
Shodan

[constantine]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
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

It’s not a “stretch” at all to make this argument and that’s exactly the point. This horrifying conclusion is a direct consequence of the ideology that you espouse. And Lenin, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot and others used precisely this argument to justify marching millions off to slave labor camps and mass graves.

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
**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? **

Justice Jackson put it much better than I ever could:

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 640-41 (1943)

[Dissonance]

*Originally posted by Sandino *
**In addition, the fact that people were executed during a civil war hardly amounts to mass murder. Communists are against the death penalty except for this one situation, because during a civil war imprisonment is no deterrent, as each side expects to win. The Bolsheviks did carry out summary executions, as every army has done. Those who claim that the Bolsheviks were more brutal than other armies on this score simply don’t know anything about war.
It seems to me that the only plausible charge of murder that can be levelled at the bolsheviks is regarding the Red Terror. On this score, conflicting numbers have been put forward. The spartacus site gives figures of between 800 and 6,300 executions were carried out during the terror. Rummell gives as a “low” figure 1,800,000, an obvious falsification. Even if legitimate figures for the red terror are given, and these are counted as crimes, it hardly makes Lenin into a mass murderer on the scale of a Pol Pot or George Bush.

What was the Red Terror? The spartacus site actually gives a partially truthful account. It was the result of sabateurs and counter-revolutionary forces waging their own campaigns of terror against the workers and revolutionary soldiers. The spartacus site, though, laughably refers to the people killed as “socialists.” In fact, these “socialists” had gone over to the side of the White Guard quite openly fighting for bourgeois power. The Bolsheviks were compelled to resort to repressive measures.**

This isn’t actually what the Spartacus site says. It doesn’t give a figure of between 800 and 6,300 exectutions, what it says is:

It is estimated that in the next few months 800 socialists were arrested and shot without trial. In the first year the official figure, almost certainly an underestimate, suggested 6,300 people were executed without trial.

So by the USSR’s own highly suspect numbers, in the first year of the Red Terror it executed 6,300 people without trial. Summary executions on this scale are not par for the course in wars, and are usually deplored. If the Bolsheviks were justified in carrying them out, how does this differ substantially from German counter-partisan tactics in WWII involving either shooting large numbers of hostages in retaliation for attacks on their personnel or simply wiping out villages suspected of supporting partisans? If the difference is that Germany was an aggressive invader, then how are Guatemalan death squads substantially different as they were carrying out executions to maintain their hold on the government?

[Marley23]

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?

Olentzero, if a government has to resort to these kinds of means - controlling the media, stifling expression, eliminating the opposition, etc. - to establish itself, there is something inherently wrong with that system of government.

[Blake]

I’m curious what you’re referring to? Guantanamo?

No, I’m referring to the US military taking completely innocent civilians hostage in Iraq in an attempt to force resistance fighters to surrender.

[Blake]

“American soldiers… have begun imprisoning relatives of suspected guerrillas in hope of pressing insurgents to turn themselves in.”

Tariq Ali: The same old racket in Iraq

[HayekHeyst]

If accurate, Blake, that’s criminal conduct (morally criminal if not legally criminal) and I’m deeply ashamed of it.

[XT]

IF its accurate indeed. A quick google search turned up…the Guardian Unlimited article cited by Blake. Other than that, I saw a lot of articles on hostages in Iraq…held by SH during his reign. Perhaps I simply missed the other stories about the US holding people hostages…I only looked for 5 min. Maybe its a vast conspiricy to keep the word from getting out. Or maybe its too soon, and the major news outlets (not to disparage a fine site like the Guardian Unlimited…snort) haven’t picked up on it yet. Even the BBC has failed to pick up on this landmark event.

Personally, I think its a bit early for ‘shame’ HayekHeyst. First I’d want to see…IF hostages are being taken. What their exact status is. What reasons are being given for such actions by the US. What legal recourse these people have and are excersizing. How long they have been held, and how long they are planning to be held.

Also, its a bit of a stretch from holding someone hostage, to shooting them. I’ll reserve my shame for when someone shows me US soldiers under orders executing hostages or civilians. Right now, I would appreciate something from a bit more reliable source first, before I start drawing conclusions.

-XT

[Blake]

not to disparage a fine site like the Guardian Unlimited…snort

Did you read the article? The original report was form the NY Times. And yes, it is available form numerous other publications.

I don’t know what search terms you were using but if you couldn’t find anything else in 5 minutes you simply can’t use a search engine.

For example simply putting (“US troops” relatives Iraq) into Google news search returned the same fact from ABC Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1007144.htm) and the Singapore Times (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,224672,00.html) and the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001809675_iraqtactics07.html). Those are all reputable news services, and ABC Australia is considered the most reliable news service for SE and the Southern Pacific and not given to printing fabrications.

At some point you will need to accept that this is happeneing, unless of course you have evidence that allthose news services are lying or being misled. Although of course you won’t.

[Blake]

The original NY Times article which for some reason a Google search couldn’t locate, despite the fact that uses exactly the words quoted in the original article. Simply searching ( “relatives of suspected guerrillas” source:new_york_times) turns it up as the first hit, unsurprisingly.

A REGION INFLAMED: STRATEGY; Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq...

[XT]

Well Blake, since I’m in denial and all I suppose there is no point in talking to me. However, before I make an INFORMED judgement (I read through all your cites btw, thanks for finding them…my own search didn’t turn up any of them), I think I need a bit more to go on than what I’ve seen so far. Maybe YOU can make such a harsh judgement call based on, what? 5 paragraphs of actual (and unique) data in the 5 cites you gave? However, me being in denial and all, I’ll need just a touch more. Some, you know, details, might help.

Let me drop the sarcasm bit for a sec and just say that I’m NOT denying anything at this point. I’m simply saying that, so far, I haven’t seen enough to make a judgement call one way or the other. When someone says that the US actions equate to those of former communist countries, and they use as an example what you’ve cited…namely the US is taking ‘hostages’ and enclosing villages and such, I need a bit more details to go on before I am willing to see the similarities.

From US linked to Israeli military tactics, ABC Online

US forces already have toughened up in Iraq, arresting relatives of insurgents and destroying buildings used to plan attacks against allied troops.

Earlier this week the commander of US forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, said his troops had begun cordoning off Iraqi villages with barbed wire as the Israeli army does in the Occupied Territories.

Thats the grand total in the ABC cite. Very powerful. Now, what does it really mean? Damned if I know. The most info that I saw so far was in the NY Times article though so…

From Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns, NY Times

The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories.

So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too.

In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.

“If you have one of these cards, you can come and go,” coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. “If you don’t have one of these cards, you can’t.”

<snip>

The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender.

Bit more here, but still seems pretty thin…but then, I’m simply in denial, right? It seems to me, being an unreasonable sort of in denial kind of guy, that this is simply an extension of martial law. I see nothing INHERENTLY wrong with what I’ve read so far, depending on HOW they are doing it, and some other factors, though again, it seems to me to be pretty light on details and facts.

How does one get an ID card to be able to travel in and out of the villages that have been enclosed? Can anyone get one? Why were these specific villages enclosed? For fun or was there a reason? Where are the ‘hostages’, what is there status, what legal recourse (if any) do they have? How are they being treated, where are they being held and under what conditions? How many have been arbitrarily or summarily shot so far? Tortured? Raped? Woops, forgot…this isn’t about one of the communist countries. Scratch that. To continue then…What is the time table for keeping these draconian measures going? Are there certain events that will trigger a lessening of them? Events that will call for more harsh treatments?

Maybe you, Blake, can simply look at a few lines of info and make your razor sharp opinion/judgement, and equate such actions to those of the various communist powers in the past. I’m sure you are infallable. For instance, you know that the civilians taken ‘hostage’ are ‘completely innocent’ (hell, you probably know all their names and favorite colors too)…and you infered that from your cites or maybe from some other process so far undisclosed. And you are able to extrapolate these actions to correlate to actions taken by communist countries in the past. Amazing.

For myself, I’m more a plodder (and unreasonable, don’t forget) so I would need just a bit more to go on before I can make an INFORMED opinion. To me, it seems there is a war on…so some liberties in a DEFEATED nation that is still fighting on, would be, um, prudent. No? Maybe if you could get some hard numbers on the actual body count due to executions, tortures and deliberate starvations of Iraqi’s that might help some.

BTW, dropping the sarcasm which actually wasn’t directed towards you but just in general frustration of this whole sorid subject, I thought it was strange that the BBC didn’t have an article on this…nor MSN, CNN, etc. It was also strange that I couldn’t get a good hit on google, and I have to admit I thought that it was the NY Times and The Guardian Unlimited only that was running this thing…so ya, I kind of DID dismiss it initially, you were right there. The Guardian isn’t my idea of an unbiased news group, so I usually check with the BBC and the American news organs to cross validate stuff.

As to your last statement, about ‘all’ the news groups lieing…I’ll withhold judgement on THAT until I SEE all the news groups reporting it. ABC, NY Times and The Guardian Unlimited do not constitute ‘all’ the news groups IMO. At a guess, the OTHER news groups might just be waiting for additional information before reporting the story…no?

-XT