Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
More have died in the "democratic" Indian experiment alone since 1947 than have in all socialist events ever. To say nothing of that wrought on the rest of humanity by capitalist imperialism.
Was the Soviet Union an Empire?
- Thread starter Shekwan
- Start date
More have died in the "democratic" Indian experiment alone since 1947 than have in all socialist events ever. To say nothing of that wrought on the rest of humanity by capitalist imperialism.
I want cold hard numbers, then maybe I'd be more inclined to believe capitalism has caused more deaths then Marxism.
Gogf
Indescribable
How many people do you think died in the Great Leap Forward?
Well, capitalism has way longer track record and it has influenced way larger part of the world.
Considering that the Republic India was under a socialist government for quite a bit of its existence...
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Fabian socialists.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Please explain why you make distinctions between different varieties of socialism, but nevertheless throw imperialism, laissez-faire and moderated capitalism all under the same umbrella.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm
If you wish to suggest that the British Labour Party be indicted alongside Bolsheviks in the great murderfest of the 20th century, then by all means, continue along this line of thought.
The difference is, of course, that Fabian "socialists" are social democrats.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I was moreso asking you to be consistently differential than consistently general.
Yes, but how did these 100 million people die. Does democracy just somehow induce death?
Or were they killed through forced famine and being shipped out to prisons and forced labor camps?
Indeed. What does
even mean?
Are we comparing life expectancy?
Should we then perhaps compare China against Japan in a similar way?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Etymologically at least, no. The term "Empire" ( "rule or territory of an EMPEROR") was only meant to extend to states that are/were ruled by figures called "emperors". Hence Empire of Romania and so on.
What does that mean, then? The meaning has been extended by analogy, and is done so rather arbitrarily. First 19th century colonial empires calling themselves "empires" after Napoleon discredited its monopoly by the ruler of Germany. Nowadays, we use the term for states that are like 19th century European colonial empires. American propagandists called the Soviets the "Red Empire" and "Evil Empire" (by analogy to these 19th century European empires). The Soviets used similar terms for the US (likewise). The Soviet Union though overthrew an "empire" (state ruled by an emperor) and thought it was replacing one.
The Soviet Union though was multi-ethnic and was ruled by an oligarchy rather than one dictator (after Stalin anyway). It did use military force, though, and colonised regions of more primitive people in Siberia. In those respects it was a European colonial empire, though it was just like America in those. The only critical difference to your ordinary American is that it wasn't a democracy and the peoples it occupied outside its territory thus gave less consent to its domination than America's "allies" gave it.
There is no one answer to the question then. You can argue that it should be called an empire or that it shouldn't.
What does that mean, then? The meaning has been extended by analogy, and is done so rather arbitrarily. First 19th century colonial empires calling themselves "empires" after Napoleon discredited its monopoly by the ruler of Germany. Nowadays, we use the term for states that are like 19th century European colonial empires. American propagandists called the Soviets the "Red Empire" and "Evil Empire" (by analogy to these 19th century European empires). The Soviets used similar terms for the US (likewise). The Soviet Union though overthrew an "empire" (state ruled by an emperor) and thought it was replacing one.
The Soviet Union though was multi-ethnic and was ruled by an oligarchy rather than one dictator (after Stalin anyway). It did use military force, though, and colonised regions of more primitive people in Siberia. In those respects it was a European colonial empire, though it was just like America in those. The only critical difference to your ordinary American is that it wasn't a democracy and the peoples it occupied outside its territory thus gave less consent to its domination than America's "allies" gave it.
There is no one answer to the question then. You can argue that it should be called an empire or that it shouldn't.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
An FDR quote sums up the idea best:
Governments can err, presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the constant omission of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
What does
even mean?
Are we comparing life expectancy?
Should we then perhaps compare China against Japan in a similar way?
It means that India lost 4 million more people a year than China, a country considered during that time to be a place where lots and lots of people were dying. He's simply giving a frame of reference.
I doubt Cheezy knows, for the source he quoted simply doesn't specify.
My question was thus mostly rhetorical.
I suppose it was meant to illustrate the fact that life expectancy at birth has been somewhat lower in India than in China.
Such comparison, however, does not make much sense, imho.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The word "lost" was one I used, not Chomsky. It very clearly means that they died.
Everybody dies at some point...
The question here is how and why.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
I would have thought that The Great War would be the most concrete example of how western capitalism is just as capable of mass slaughter as communist dictatorships.
Similar threads
