[Blunderov] What I mean to say is that the statement “communism has caused more deaths than capitalism” is specious IMV. There is first of all the problem of proximate versus remote cause. And secondly the problem of taxonomy; which deaths are to be laid at which doors precisely? And who lives exactly lives behind those doors anyway?*  

 

But even if this turns out to be a true statement, what would we learn? If it was the case, for instance, that, say, Islam had caused fewer deaths than had Judaism (per capita and corrected for inflation) would we conclude that Islam is the “better” religion? I don’t think I would, not on just this basis anyway.

 

I can see that I need to clarify my problem with statements such as “Nazism was better than Communism because it killed fewer people.”  My difficulty is with the word “better”. Whilst not exactly an abuse of language it veers dangerously close IMV. When confronted with a choice between two evils, usually one chooses the lesser. One concludes that one has done the right thing. The difficulty is that, all too often, it is also concluded that that “right” thing which has been done is, by virtue of that fact, also a “good” thing. (I’m convinced that it is this precise error that is the worm in the, err, rose of neo-conservatism.)  It is possible with such a system of “lesser evilism” to rationalize almost anything. (It may even be THE most usual mechanism by which that process is advanced if my own experience is anything to go by.) So, my objection to the use of the word “better” in this context is that it is sloppy, misleading, dangerously inexact and conveys no useful information.

 

In closing let me say that the hideous purges of Stalin and the Cultural Revolution (just for instance) are in no way acceptable to me. I do not condone or excuse them at all. I would observe though that man’s inhumanity to man has been a fairly consistent theme down the ages no matter what political systems have pertained at the time.

 

(Nice to see you posting again BTW.)

 

Best regards.

 

* Pol Pot, for instance, dissolved the Cambodian Communist party in 1981. Whether he was ever anything other than a maniac in Communist clothing seems open to question.

 

  

 


From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Kharin
Sent: 09 March 2006 13:45
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn

 

 

[Blunderov] Hmm. I'm not keen on relativism. By this standard one can say of the Nazis that they were better than the Communists because the Nazi body count was lower.   


I certainly agree that these are very different beasts and that comparisons between them are prone to be difficult. But frankly, I'm somewhat bemused by why you find the idea that Communism proved more destructive than fascism (or that the Nazis were better than the Communists to use your phrasing) quite so outlandish that you appear to have phrased it as an inconceivable idea. Of course, communism did endure for much longer than Nazism and accordingly had much more time to do damage. But it does seem to me that there is an important issue at stake, namely that there is a form of holocaust denial that pertains to communism and its atrocities. Bear in mind that it wasn't until 1968 and Robert Conquest's The Great Terror documented the extent of what had happened and even now the names of Stalin's gulags are largely unknown when compared to Auschwitz, Treblinka or Dachau.

 

And what is one to say of China? That it is a triumph of Capitalism or a triumph of Communism?  If the Chinese have any relativists amongst their number they might well argue that the sacrifices of the Cultural Revolution were "worth it" considered against the prosperity and cultural/economic dominance that now prevails.


Hmm, I'm sure they would and do, just as many Turks deny the Armenian genocide and many Russians still yearn for Uncle Joe. But frankly, it's very difficult to see how any substantial argument can be advanced for the great leap forward laying any foundations for China's current growth.
 

 

Taxonomy is a tricky thing. And anyone who performed such an accounting would be likely to discover nothing more useful than their own historical preconceptions it seems to me.


Quite possibly but I would have to again suggest that you give every impression of regarding fascism as beyond the pale as a de facto statement while considering that equivalent statements regarding communism to be at risk of generalisation. Which seems equally subject to historical preconceptions to me.