I also couldn’t help but notice your list keeps trying to misrepresent some events. I already mentioned the 1945-1950 Polish “ethnic cleansing”. Rummel’s numbers also attribute deaths from mismanagement and industrialization and civil war to the ideology of communism, which is…dishonest.
I do my own research, not relying on any one resource. The fact that Rummel has a degree in Political Science, not history, is meaningless and has no bearing on his credibility. These types of arguments are standard Communist ploys, see the below video.
The second section of "The Communist Manifesto" is a long-winded and repetitive advertisement for communism, in which every argument takes the form of a hideously distorted strawman caricature of capitalism, followed by his model of communism and the accompanying implicit message of: "there- isn't that better?".
He describes communists by saying that "" In other words, they're selfless and they have no ambitions for power whatsoever. And if you believe that, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. The reality of communism is that every communist revolution in history has been precipitated by a small group of people who gave themselves enormous power while trampling upon the rights and freedoms of the people. Neo-marxists defend this ugly history by saying that a "true" communist would not commit the sins of Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc., but they fail to realize that communism seeks to take power from the masses , by replacing free markets (which are controlled by the masses) and competing corporations (which the masses can punish, reward, or even destroy) with government monopolies, which the public has no power to directly control (to say nothing of punishing or destroying them if they are displeased with their performance).
(1) “It all traces back to Christianity,” meaning that the charge that the Jews killed Jesus (see #45), thus making them guilty of deicide (killing God) has so permeated Western history and culture that “Christian” anti-Semitism provides a link between all manifestations of anti-Semitism. But this theory is seriously flawed. How do we explain pre-Christian anti-Semitism? And does Christian anti-Semitism adequately explain Islamic anti-Semitism? And what of Christian philo-Semitism, a direct result of the testimony of the very New Testament that allegedly produced worldwide anti-Semitism?
Many defenders of Marx will argue that the problems stated areproblems for Cohen’s interpretation of Marx, rather than for Marxhimself. It is possible to argue, for example, that Marx did not havea general theory of history, but rather was a social scientistobserving and encouraging the transformation of capitalism intocommunism as a singular event. And it is certainly true that when Marxanalyses a particular historical episode, as he does in the 18thBrumaire of Louis Napoleon, any idea of fitting events into afixed pattern of history seems very far from Marx’s mind. On otherviews Marx did have a general theory of history but it is far moreflexible and less determinate than Cohen insists (Miller). Andfinally, as noted, there are critics who believe that Cohen’sinterpretation is entirely wrong-headed (Sayers).
In 1936 the Communists joined CSP, as part of the Popular Front strategy of the ComIntern. In some states, like Kerala and Orissa, communists came to dominate CSP. In fact communists dominated the entire Congress in Kerala through its hold of CSP at one point.
JP Narayan and Minoo Masani were released from jail in April 1934. Narayan convened a meeting in Patna on May 17, 1934, which founded the Bihar Congress Socialist Party. Narayan became general secretary of the party and Acharya Narendra Deva became president. The Patna meeting gave a call for a socialist conference which would be held in connection to the Congress Annual Conference. At this conference, held in Bombay October 22-October 23, 1934, they formed a new All India party, the Congress Socialist Party. Narayan became general secretary of the party, and Masani joint secretary. The conference venue was decorated by Congress flags and a portrait of Karl Marx. In the new party the greeting 'comrade' was used. Masani mobilised the party in Bombay, whereas Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya and Puroshottam Trikamdas organised the party in other parts of Maharashtra. Ganga Sharan Singh (Sinha) was among the prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress Party as among the founders of the Congress Socialist Party. The constitution of the CSP defined that the members of CSP were the members of the Provisional Congress Socialist Parties and that they were all required to be members of the Indian National Congress. Members of communal organizations or political organizations whose goals were incompatible with the ones of CSP, were barred from CSP membership. The Bombay conference raised the slogan of mobilising the masses for a Constituent Assembly.
Founded in 1934 as a socialist caucus within the Indian National Congress. Its members rejected what they saw as the anti-rational mysticism of Mohandas Gandhi as well as the sectarian attitude of the Communist Party of India towards the Congress Party. Influenced by Fabianism as well as Marxism-Leninism, the CSP included advocates of armed struggle or sabotage (such as Jayprakash Narayan and Basawon Singh (Sinha) as well as those who insisted upon ahimsa or nonviolent resistance (such as Acharya Narendra Deva). The CSP advocated decentralized socialism in which co-operatives, trade unions, independent farmers, and local authorities would hold a substantial share of the economic power. As secularists, they hoped to transcend communal divisions through class solidarity. Some, such as Narendra Deva or Basawon Singh (Sinha), advocated a democratic socialism distinct from both Marxism and reformist social democracy. During the Popular Front period, the communists worked within CSP. Basawon Singh (Sinha) along with Yogendra Shukla were among the founder members of Congress Socialist Party from Bihar.
The issue of Marx and morality poses a conundrum. On reading Marx’sworks at all periods of his life, there appears to be the strongestpossible distaste towards bourgeois capitalist society, and anundoubted endorsement of future communist society. Yet the terms ofthis antipathy and endorsement are far from clear. Despiteexpectations, Marx never says that capitalism is unjust. Neither doeshe say that communism would be a just form of society. In fact hetakes pains to distance himself from those who engage in a discourseof justice, and makes a conscious attempt to exclude direct moralcommentary in his own works. The puzzle is why this should be, giventhe weight of indirect moral commentary one finds.
Anon, I think we can lay this issue to rest “free trade” Anarcho-Capitalism/Communism and Libertarianism, Objectivism, Anarchism, Classical BS, whatever you want call it are the same thing.