• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why were Communist regimes so murderous?

Status
Not open for further replies.

justjohn

Member
I was thinking about this today following Castro's death and it made cast a look at communist regimes in the past, from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc and how many people they killed. What is it about this ideology that led to so much misery?

There have been various ideologies in the past that didn't work but I don't think they led to as many killings as communism.
 
By making everyone "equal " you flatten individual worth and identity and commoditize life.

Add a fundamental lie and control by a totalitarian authority and bingo.


Look how easy it is to reduce the personal worth and identity of large groups of Americans.
 
They don't have the "invisible hand" of capitalism to encourage certain actions and discourage others, so they have to be a little more direct.
 
Maybe governments created through lots of violence (against people who are not others) stay violent.

I think there were more peaceful communist countries outside of Soviet influence.
 
Fake communism needs death to keep the rest of the populace in fear while removing any opposition.
 
Seems less the governing style and more those that came to power. It's cliche to say so, but communisms biggest fault is that by and large the folks who attempt it eventually turn corrupt or let the power go to their head where it's essentially a dictatorship.
 
Outside of a few outliers like the Khmer Rouge, I'd say communist dictatorships weren't any more or less murderous than capitilist ones. It was how the governments came to power and held onto it thst mattered, not the type of government they were.
 
Revolutions in general tend to have mass killings.

The French, Russian, Cuban, Cambodian, Chinese, Iranaian, Young Turk

They don't have democratic authority so they establish it through eliminating their enemies. I mean I don't think its any more about communism. Its about control
 
1. Dissonance of any kind is forbid/eliminated
2. No checks and balances on absolute power
3. Absolute power has the potential to corrupt

Idealistically, communism should work. In reality, it never has and never will.
 
I think ideologies like communism require a lack of dissent to keep the status quo. There is little room for a marketplace of ideas in a communist system.

I haven't thought much about it or read into it, but this strikes me as a possibility.
 
The problem with communism is that when everyone's equal, someone still has to be a leader. And that leader tends to be a dictator.
 
Communist regimes used paranoia that capitalist nations will overthrow them as an excuse to consolidate power among an elite ruling class throwing out all the ideals that made people support the revolution to begin with.
 
Any ideology that believes that it will result in a Utopian society can lead to dangerous ethical practices along the way. In the mind of the believers, it is easy to calculate the moral value of the society they wish to build - it is effectively infinitely good. Thus any evils done along the way can be excused because of the eventual good that it is believed will result. In addition, any who oppose the ideology are opposing infinite good for all, and call be viewed as evil, making it even easier to oppress or destroy them.

Beware Utopian philosophies.
 
Maybe governments created through lots of violence (against people who are not others) stay violent.

I think there were more peaceful communist countries outside of Soviet influence.

More peaceful, certainly, but there hasn't been a communist country in history without severe repression. Just because you aren't on the level of Mao's starving or Stalin's purges doesn't mean you can't rack up an impressive death toll and still look good in comparison.

The first part of your comment probably has a bit of truth in it. It's extremely hard to create a stable representative government from a revolutionary one, especially if it's dominated by a few individuals. The story of the USA is atypical given the number of revolutions that have occurred since then. You might want people who are fine with killing their enemies to win you a war, but that's not who you want running your country and taking care of your countrymen.

There's also the inherent issue with a utopia—if it's so perfect, why would people disagree with it? Squelching dissent is probably inherently necessary to maintain control in a way that large groups of people generally can't be. The more top-heavy your government is the greater you have to control things.
 
Because the ideological foundation of their political movements sought to reconstruct human nature into something that it fundamentally isn't. Any time an ideology rejects human nature and strives to implement a more perfect, evolved human & society, there is a massive amount of human destruction.

Famine isn't the same as the holocaust.

Man-made famine is a holocaust.
 
Communist regimes used paranoia that capitalist nations will overthrow them as an excuse to consolidate power among an elite ruling class throwing out all the ideals that made people support the revolution to begin with.

replace the ideological adjectives and you just described almost every country from the last century
 
I believe that big part of it is the way they came to power. The communist sympathizers I deal with are full of hate and more focused on bringing the man down than making a better future for everyone. We had a shot of a peaceful communist regime in Chile, but well...
 
Outside of a few outliers like the Khmer Rouge, I'd say communist dictatorships weren't any more or less murderous than capitilist ones. It was how the governments came to power and held onto it thst mattered, not the type of government they were.

I'm going to say that that's incorrect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

You'll have to come up with a whole lot of deaths from numerous capitalist countries to match these death totals.
 
1. Dissonance of any kind is forbid/eliminated
2. No checks and balances on absolute power
3. Absolute power has the potential to corrupt

Idealistically, communism should work. In reality, it never has and never will.

Revolutions in general tend to have mass killings.

The French, Russian, Cuban, Cambodian, Chinese, Iranaian, Young Turk

They don't have democratic authority so they establish it through eliminating their enemies. I mean I don't think its any more about communism. Its about control

This is the answer. There's nothing inherent in communism that makes it "murderous", though Marxism supposes that socialism can only be reached by revolution rather than reform. But that obviously doesnt mean you have to go slaughtering innocents. The Bolsheviks were revolutionaries and that triggered a civil war, and in a war most contenders naturally throw rights out the window to do anything to win. Following that, they were afraid of losing power and did whatever they felt they needed to do to maintain it, including suppressing other communists who did not want such a violent state. Stalin, in particular, was extremely paranoid and felt that he had to crush all opposition to ensure the security of "socialism in one state" to rapidly develop or else he feared the capitalist world would crush it. Since the USSR became the dominant socialist power, the other socialist revolutions followed it's example.

Really, this is more about state power than communism.
 
The same reason the French Republic and the liberal democracies founded in the 19th century in Latin America kept failing - they were established through force of arms and overturning of the established order. That's way too much change over the course of a generation, so the institutions that are supposed to keep them going are feeble. It creates a space where dictators and strongmen can step in and take control.

The UK established its own democracy and political culture painfully, little by little over the course of centuries. The USA inherited that same culture and still fell into internal revolt and civil war.

Politics is hard guys, and people's ideal world tends to be the same one they grew up in plus a few little tweaks. You can't drag them into any future without a fight.
 
I'm gonna have to agree with Stinkles here; the effect of equality by fiat is to commoditize human life. If people are interchangeable, who cares if a few of them die?

Take that, combine with the tendency of regimes installed by violent revolution to stay that way, and there you go.
 
I don't think it has to do anything with Communism and more so that most governments/rulers are trash. Even counting current governments the number who are peaceful is a minority and if we start including those from the past then that number grows even smaller
 
I think ideologies like communism require a lack of dissent to keep the status quo. There is little room for a marketplace of ideas in a communist system.

I haven't thought much about it or read into it, but this strikes me as a possibility.

There are like five billion variants of socialism and Marxists believe in "ruthless criticism of all that exists". The idea that communists hate dissent stems from the methods that state socialist powers used to crush opposition, not from anything within communist ideology itself.
 
Because they were dictatorships and "communism" was just the way to get support of the people

Communism would ideally be supported by some style of democracy if everybody is considered equal
 
Say what you want about Ayn Rand, you're probably right. But she 100% saw through communism, and knew exactly what she was fleeing from. And it wasn't a no true communist. Communism is rotten to the core and any society that lives by it at some point necessarily becomes a violent repressive country.

“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day – together, and you don’t all get a bellyache – together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you?


(..)

“But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty percent, in that first half year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. We voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay – because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

“Do I have to tell you what happened after that – and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been humans? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money – either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence – it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

“There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

(..)


“Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip lunch just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records – ‘personal luxury’ they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight year old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth – this was ‘medical need’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

(..)

“God help us, ma’am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we’d been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it – for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man’s dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of a law of goodness?

(..)

“In the old days, we used to celebrate if somebody had a baby, we used to chip in and help him out with the hospital bills, if he happened to be hard-pressed for the moment. Now, if a baby was born, we didn’t speak to the parents for weeks. Babies, to us, had become what locusts were to farmers. In the old days, we used to help a man out if he had a bad illness in the family. Now – well, I’ll tell you about just one case. It was the mother of a man who had been with us for fifteen years. She was a kindly old lady, cheerful and wise, she knew us all by our first names and we all liked her – we used to like her. One day, she slipped on the cellar stairs and fell and broke her hip. We knew what that meant at her age. The staff doctor said that she’d have to be sent to a hospital in town, for expensive treatments that would take a long time. The old lady died the night before she was to leave for town. They never established the cause of death. No, I don’t know whether she was murdered. Nobody said that. Nobody would talk about it at all. All I know is that I – and that’s what I can’t forget! – I, too, had caught myself wishing that she would die. This – may God forgive us! – was the brotherhood, the security, the abundance that the plan was supposed to achieve for us!

Complete allegory here:

https://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpr...century-motor-company-atlas-shrugged-part-ii/
 
This is the answer. There's nothing inherent in communism that makes it "murderous", though Marxism supposes that socialism can only be reached by revolution rather than reform. But that obviously doesnt mean you have to go slaughtering innocents. The Bolsheviks were revolutionaries and that triggered a civil war, and in a war most contenders naturally throw rights out the window to do anything to win. Following that, they were afraid of losing power and did whatever they felt they needed to do to maintain it, including suppressing other communists who did not want such a violent state. Stalin, in particular, was extremely paranoid and felt that he had to crush all opposition to ensure the security of "socialism in one state" to rapidly develop or else he feared the capitalist world would crush it. Since the USSR became the dominant socialist power, the other socialist revolutions followed it's example.

Really, this is more about state power than communism.

The same reason the French Republic and the liberal democracies founded in the 19th century in Latin America kept failing - they were established through force of arms and overturning of the established order. That's way too much change over the course of a generation, so the institutions that are supposed to keep them going are feeble. It creates a space where dictators and strongmen can step in and take control.

The UK established its own democracy and political culture painfully, little by little over the course of centuries. The USA inherited that same culture and still fell into internal revolt and civil war.

Politics is hard guys, and people's ideal world tends to be the same one they grew up in plus a few little tweaks. You can't drag them into any future without a fight.

I think this is the issue with these discussions. It's complex. It's not just Communism versus Capitalism. It's deeper than that since we're talking not just about economics, but how countries govern Let's not forget that trade and commerce existed Capitalism. The difference is that Capitalism seeks to reinvest those profits into more endeavors.

This is the reason why today's VC's don't really care about living in the the most opulent palaces, like monarchs of old, but to reinvest their money into other opportunities.
 
My sense is that if you look at the big picture, authoritarian regimes writ large were murderous; communist regimes were not especially murderous among those. In terms of departures from the authoritarian mean, I think communist regimes were worse in some regards due to failed or mixed collectivist agriculture policies causing death by famine. In particular I'm thinking Cambodia, China, and the USSR, the latter two of which have huge raw body counts.

I think collectivist agriculture is probably the thing that communists most directly have to grapple with as being caused by communism rather than a byproduct of authoritarian governance. Of course there are counterexamples of collectivization of agriculture (Cuba faired fairly well) and there are non-communist land seizure programs that have led to food insecurity due to reduced production capacity (see: most of post-colonial Africa), so it's still a pretty complicated argument.
 
The same reason the French Republic and the liberal democracies founded in the 19th century in Latin America kept failing - they were established through force of arms and overturning of the established order. That's way too much change over the course of a generation, so the institutions that are supposed to keep them going are feeble. It creates a space where dictators and strongmen can step in and take control.

This seems a much more apt explanation for why things go wrong. Same reason the recent rapid nation building in the wake of toppled regimes across the Middle East consistently fail so spectacularly. Same thing with the "shock treatment" approach of privatizing Russian institutions overnight after the Soviet dissolution which made the 90's a living nightmare for them.
 
For a multitude of reasons.

Obviously, to start with the worst case: Stalin, the reasons were partly that Bolshevism as an ideology was tainted with violence and conspiracies. Soviet Communism started out with a crisis (War), and never escaped this ideology of Total War (perpetual emergency/crisis) almost until the end. It was an ideology of continuous and total emergency (the blockades, the hostility from the West initially after the Revolution, WW2 etc. Add to that that under Stalin this ideology got mixed with a personality cult, where total power where given to a man who's psychological constitution couldn't have been a worse fit for an absolute leader. Stalin lacked anything resembling empathy, to a pathological degree, and also suffered from paranoid delusions. So this was the figure that his band tried to impress, by showing absolute devotion to the cause by performing absolute atrocities.

The story about China and other communist regimes are pretty similar. Communism have more or less always developed as a state of emergency total war ideology (everyone is against us (which to some degree is right of course)), and for me this probably the most important reason why it has always ended up in corrupt, authoritarian regimes. Total emergency, total war, everyone is against us: this leaves room for total power to the absolute leader for the absolute cause. Not a healthy situation to run a country by, or to live under for sure.

Basically the world has never witnessed a state where communism/socialism have been allowed to develop naturally (if that is even possible), it has always developed during some deep profound crisis, and never really managed to leave the War ideology parts behind.
 
They tried to jump start communism in inadequate conditions. The United States in the early 20th century was ripe for a Communist revolution based on how marx saw it going down. Russia wasn't modern enough and the world wasn't ready, so instead of the dominoes falling like they expected the world was against them. Isolation breeds fear. Fear leads to violence
 
Say what you want about Ayn Rand, you're probably right. But she 100% saw through communism, and knew exactly what she was fleeing from. And it wasn't a no true communist. Communism is rotten to the core and any society that lives by it at some point necessarily becomes a violent repressive country.



Complete allegory here:

https://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpr...century-motor-company-atlas-shrugged-part-ii/

This is the correct answer.

This isn't a contest. Authoritarian regimes all had staggeringly high body counts no matter the mask they were wearing.

So we've gone from "All sides are equally bad" to "It's not a contest!"

Communist regimes have killed more people than any other regime type. That's not a coincidence, and people in here are ignoring just how staggeringly huge the death toll is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom