Black Book of Communism

[Panjandrum]

Has anyone else read this book? It is a catalogue of the crimes of the communists in russia, chronicalling in considerable detail the terrible evil of that regime. It demonstrates the moral turpitude of the communist movement, and in detailing the crimes of its leaders, shows that they compare quite unfavourably with the 'most eveil man in history', Adolph Hitler. Stalin not only killed far more people than Hitler, he did so with less reason and with greater savagery.

It also counters the lie that the Reds were 'driven' to barbarity by the savagery of the counter-revolutionary White and Green forces during the Russian civil war, by demonstrating that not only was the Red Terror far far worse, but it began before the civil war and continued long after it had ended.

I would urge anyone who holds positive views on the Soviets or on communism to read this book and be enlightened.

[Chacmool]

I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia article does provide an interesting overview. It seems that there has been praise for as well as criticism of the book, and that it is quite controversial. I would be interested to know exactly how broad the range of interpretation of Communism is among the various states mentioned in the book.

It is interesting to note the claim - particularly in the Black Book of Capitalism - that Capitalism has also been responsible for vast numbers of deaths.

[Buffy]

Both are excellent examples of the depths to which intelligent discourse has degraded. Both sides demonize the other.

While communism in practice suffers from a complete lack of checks and balances that sometimes leads to control by megalomaniac schizophrenic sociopaths, the increasing concentration of wealth in the US over the last few years points at exactly why there is a desire by the "masses" to forcibly redistribute it.

I'd doubt that either book would do anything to influence the opinions of the holders of the opposite positions any more than making Dick Cheney listen to NPR or making Howard Dean listen to Fox News would change theirs.

Extremism in pursuit of anything is a vice,
Buffy

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Buffy

[...] leads to control by megalomaniac schizophrenic sociopaths, [...]

I suspect a schizophrenic socio would be of limited effectiveness. Stalin was more a classic sociopath, marked by strong narcissistic elements, a not unusual combination.

[Eclogite]

Stalin was only incidentally and nominally a communist. (Please recall the Soviet Union was never communist. It was stuck on the intermediate stage of Socialism.) It would be more accurate to say that he was, at the time, the latest in a long line of despots who had ruled Russia with an iron-fist for centuries.

None of the Russians I have spoken with believe that Russia is the kind of country where democracy can work. They favour strong, firm leadership. It is interesting that there even seems to be a move to rehabilitate Stalin by ascribing the excesses of control to Beria.

[Panjandrum]

Yes, Ive also heard Russians express such views. I tend to think they are correct, tho I think a strong dictator or oligarchy is the idea governmental solution for any country. Democracy leads to weakness.

[Chacmool]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Democracy leads to weakness.

This is a very harsh and generalised assertion. On what evidence do you base your claim?

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

This is a very harsh and generalised assertion. On what evidence do you base your claim?

Democracy makes it impossible for a strong leader to impose her will on a society for an extended period of time. Removing the potential for strength is effectively the same as promoting weakness.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Democracy makes it impossible for a strong leader to impose her will on a society for an extended period of time. Removing the potential for strength is effectively the same as promoting weakness.

Counter examples: Franklin Roosevelt, Tony Blair. Examples of why democracies tendency to throw out louts is good: Nixon, Carter, Stalin.

So you're implying you'd much rather have Stalin than Roosevelt. Why? Stalin killed millions and starved the rest. Roosevelt took a second rate power and turned it into the world leader, enriching and bettering the lives of hundreds of millions.

Theory is not practice,
Buffy

[Panjandrum]

All governmental systems have the occasional lunatic. One the pro side of authoritarianism, I would cite Frederick the Great, Chinas First Emperor or Suleiyman the Magnificent. On the con side of democracy, I would cite the countless nameless nobodies who achieve nothing but the feathering of thier own nests, including Nixon (whom you seem rather bizzarely to have categorised as anti-democratic).

The problem I have with democracy is not that it is prone to producing 'evil' leaders (it clearly is not) but that it tends to produce 'nothing' leaders, it drags politics down to the lowest common denominator.

I see it a simple choice, between democracy and a bland mediocraty, or authoritarianism, and the highs and lows it brings. While it may be no fun to live under a tyrant, a society under the rule of a benign and competant dictator can achieve truely great things.

Incidentally, you seem to missed the fact that without democracy, Roosevelt and other great presidents could have ruled much longer and imposed thier benign vision on thier societies more completely.