The double standard between Capitalist genocide and Communist genocide

The number one excuse I always here from the right about Communism is "Well Communism was tried, it ended in the death of millions of people so lets never try it again!" yet I never seen anyone say the same about Capitalism, why the double standard? Do you simply ignore the atrocities committed in the name of the free market or have you simply never learned about them? Well, let me educate you a bit than here are a few examples backed up with proof. In Ireland during the mid-1800's (a time when Capitalism was arguably at its most intense point) they had a potato blight which caused a massive famine, at this time Ireland was ran by the British so what did the Capitalist Brits decide to do to help? Read this bbc history article and you will see. This is just one example of how Capitalism purposefully causes the death of millions but im going to go into a lot of depth on this so if you stop reading halfway dont cry when you miss the rest of my proof about capitalism genocide and enslavement of the poor across the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml
"A million people are said to have died of hunger in Ireland in the late 1840s, on the doorstep of the world's richest nation. Ideology (hmm, I wonder which ideology that is? Oh right, free market capitalism) helped the ruling class avoid grappling with the problem of mass starvation. Jim Donnelly describes how."

For the most part the Irish consider this a artificial famine caused by the ruling elite, and rightfully so, because there was enough food to feed the Irish already in Ireland but it was being horded and sold for high prices by the greed ridden wealthy elites. Lets see what the bbc has to say about it so you dont have to take my word on it,
"Thus there was an artificial famine in Ireland for a good portion of the late 1840s as grain imports steeply increased. There existed - after 1847, at least - an absolute sufficiency of food that could have prevented mass starvation, if it had been properly distributed so as to reach the smallholders and labourers of the west and the south of Ireland." Ahh, properly distributed food so the Irish can "free load" off the hardworking rich? Sounds like Communism to me! The right wing is always saying that food stamps is poor people refusing to take personal responsibility and free loading of the "hardworking" rich, well lets look at what the British thought of the Irish receiving free food in place of starvation, "The Irish were portrayed as freeloaders in the British press of the time (Includes picture of an Irish "free loader" carrying a bag of free goods" All of this is in the link I posted above, I recommend reading the entire thing its pretty long and if I post the whole thing it will be a huge WoT.

"Why, then, was an artificial famine permitted to occur after 1847, and why didn't the British government do much more to mitigate the effects of the enormous initial food gap of 1846-47? In answering this question, it is instructive to contrast the role of ideology in the general response to famines today with the part played by ideology in response to the Great Famine in Ireland. Today, wealthier countries and international organisations provide disaster assistance (though, alas, often not nearly enough) as a matter of humanitarian conviction and perceived self-interest. But in Britain in the late 1840s, prevailing ideologies among the political élite and the middle classes strongly militated against heavy and sustained relief. Before examining this issue of ideology in the 1840s and 1850s, however, we should review what the British government might have done to mitigate the natural catastrophe arising from repeated ravages of potato blight..

"First, the government might have prohibited the export of grain from Ireland, especially during the winter of 1846-47 and early in the following spring, when there was little food in the country and before large supplies of foreign grain began to arrive. Once there was sufficient food in the country (imported Indian corn or maize), from perhaps the beginning of 1848, the government could have taken steps to ensure that this imported food was distributed to those in greatest need." Prohibiting the export of grain from Ireland would have gone against the free market, the bbc expounds on this and the other issues in the next section so keep reading.

"Second, the government could have continued its so-called soup-kitchen scheme for a much longer time. It was in effect for only about six months, from March to September 1847. As many as three million people were fed daily at the peak of this scheme in July 1847. The scheme was remarkably inexpensive and effective. It should not have been dismantled after only six months and in spite of the enormous harvest deficiency of 1847." Soup Kitchens? Sounds like Communist breadlines doesnt it. Notice I didnt put a question mark on that question? It was rhetorical because the answer is blatantly obvious.

"Third, the wages that the government paid on its vast but short-lived public works in the winter of 1846-47 needed to be much higher if those toiling on the public works were going to be able to afford the greatly inflated price of food." Higher wages? Sounds like more socialism.

"Fourth, the poor-law system of providing relief, either within workhouses or outside them, a system that served as virtually the only form of public assistance from the autumn of 1847 onwards, needed to be much less restrictive. All sorts of obstacles were placed in the way, or allowed to stand in the way, of generous relief to those in need of food. This was done in a horribly misguided effort to keep expenses down and to promote greater self-reliance and self-exertion among the Irish poor." "to keep expenses down" as you can see any excuse will be made to make money even if it ends with the death of millions. Also you notice a similarity between British people telling the poor Irish they need to have greater self reliance and self exertion with what the right wing tells poor people? They tell them the same thing, they act like the only reason poor people are poor is because they are not exerting themselves hard enough and are busy free loading off the government instead of relying on themselves, this is exactly what the British told the Irish as they starved to death. Luckily in America we do have some socialist policies such as food stamps that stop this from happening, but lets not hide the fact that if the right wing could they would remove food stamps in a heartbeat.

"Fifth, the government might have done something to restrain the ruthless mass eviction of families from their homes, as landlords sought to rid their estates of pauperized farmers and labourers. Altogether, perhaps as many as 500,000 people were evicted in the years from 1846 to 1854. The government might also have provided free passages and other assistance in support of emigration to North America - for those whose personal means made this kind of escape impossible." The government providing free passage to other countries and restraining landlords ability to evict their tenants also goes against the free market, which is why the government refused to do it and even the bbc admits this is entirely the fault of free market laissez-faire capitalism as you will see after this final idea to help ease the crisis.

"Last, and above all, the British government should have been willing to treat the famine crisis in Ireland as an imperial responsibility and to bear the costs of relief after the summer of 1847. Instead, in an atmosphere of rising 'famine fatigue' in Britain, Ireland at that point and for the remainder of the famine was thrown back essentially on its own woefully inadequate resources." Now they are going to expound on how ideology was the driving factor in which brought about this decimation of the Irish population.

"What, then, were the ideologies that held the British political élite and the middle classes in their grip, and largely determined the decisions not to adopt the possible relief measures outlined above? There were three in particular-the economic doctrines of laissez-faire, the Protestant evangelical belief in divine Providence, and the deep-dyed ethnic prejudice against the Catholic Irish to which historians have recently given the name of 'moralism'.

Laissez-faire, the reigning economic orthodoxy of the day, held that there should be as little government interference with the economy as possible. Under this doctrine, stopping the export of Irish grain was an unacceptable policy alternative, and it was therefore firmly rejected in London, though there were some British relief officials in Ireland who gave contrary advice.

The influence of the doctrine of laissez-faire may also be seen in two other decisions. The first was the decision to terminate the soup-kitchen scheme in September 1847 after only six months of operation. The idea of feeding directly a large proportion of the Irish population violated all of the Whigs' cherished notions of how government and society should function. The other decision was the refusal of the government to undertake any large scheme of assisted emigration. The Irish viceroy actually proposed in this fashion to sweep the western province of Connacht clean of as many as 400,000 pauper smallholders too poor to emigrate on their own. But the majority of Whig cabinet ministers saw little need to spend public money accelerating a process that was already going on 'privately' at a great rate." As you can see, soup kitchens was too communistic for the free market so instead they simply let the Irish starve to death in unimaginable numbers.


The thread is much longer than I initially thought it would be so I will keep my next points very short and I will expound on them more later during the discussion if you think I didnt back up my view enough here.

Now, letting poor people starve to death isnt really genocide because they arent trying to kill all the Irish they are just trying to make tons of money which obviously will end in death of innocent people, money isnt considered the root of all evil for no reason. Lets look at an actual Capitalist genocide, the Native Americans. There is absolutely no denying America is, and especially back than, a extremely capitalistic country. Free market capitalism is Darwinism in practice, survival of the fittest, so if over 10 million Indians who werent as "smart" as Europeans are to where they couldnt invent cannons and guns have to die so the Europeans and Americans can get more money and land than so be it, that is the Darwinistic/Capitalist view whether you choose to admit it or not. I dont agree with calling survival of the fittest Darwinistic because he also spoke of the evolutionary necessity for altruism but that is the prevailing view of what that word means and its easier to use rather than saying "Survival of the fittest" every time.

Both Capitalism and Communism can be found in nature, we did not invent these systems despite what we think. Humans have not escaped the bounds of nature, we are products of nature and what we do is pretty damn natural despite what we call it. Capitalism is survival of the fittest, Communism is Altruism. We all know what survival of the fittest is and there is absolutely no denying its heavy tie to Capitalism, in the 18/1900's Capitalists embraced this idea openly and called it Social Darwinism. We know survival of the fittest has its place in evolution and our genes because if you survive by being selfish than you are more likely to spread your genes, if there is only one piece of food left and two starving monkeys, the one who forcefully takes the piece of food is likely to be the one who survives and spreads his genes whereas the monkey who gives his last piece of food away is going to die of starvation thus ending his bloodline and taking those genes out of the gene pool. So, why is altruism in our genes in the first place, why hasnt evolution seeded it out and eliminated it? The answer is because its not JUST about survival of the fittest, its about survival of the species. Even if you die, as long as you helped someone of your species than your species is far more likely to live on and spread its genes. Its a very simply concept, we all should understand evolution by now but sadly evolution has a atheist connotation, and so does Communism, so many Capitalists out of their hatred for the "Godless commies" refuse to even learn about evolution for the simple fact Communists embrace the idea openly.

If you read this much than I want to thank you even if you completely disagree with me, at least you listened to what I had to say and we can have a serious conversation about this.

 

Another dumb OP.

In "genocide" INTENT matters. Because that is part of the definition. As the thread starter acknowledges, the British had no intention for the Irish to die. On the other hand communists routinely used mass murder of particular groups as an instrument of policy.

 

Neglect may not have intent in it but the outcome is the same. Besides, the OP mentioned the native american genocide, which certainly was intentional.

The ability of powerful small groups to affect the world economy as they can today, and the possible results of laissez faire policy combined with it, should make most of think twice.

 

Exactly, I specifically mentioned how I acknowledge it was not intentional but the Native American genocide was, but im not shocked he didnt read the whole thing before saying something stupid.

 

Try reading before you post, it usually helps.

 

"Communism is Altruism. "

A most unsupportable assertion, seems to us.

Communism, by its nature, has to be totalitarian, maintained by brute force. Altruism is fine and good, one of the better facets of human nature, but it don't come at the end of a barrel.

The key part of capitalism, that most of these analyses gloss over, is the FREE part of free markets. People do best when they are free to choose, what to do with their economic means, their talents, their associations. Being forced to do stuff is most repugnant, or should be, to free citizens.

 

Id' say communism is altruism, combined with a naive and idealistic understanding of the world and mankind.

 

The deaths of native Americans was not genocide either. Most died of diseases brought over from Europe. Even if Europeans had come to America as enlightened pacifists, in all likelihood native Americans would've died off just the same.

 

Wasn't this the time of the Great Compromise? You know when the Corn Laws were there that made it illegal to import wheat, thereby making it so the Tories could have in effect a monopoly on bread? Doesn't sound very much like the free market at work as much as the government regulating wheat.

 

Capitalism isn't really an ideology like communism is, it's just the natural state that every society past the bushman level comes up with sooner or later, so attributing things to "capitalism" is sort of stupid.

 

This is just a hit piece against capitalism stemming from socialist/progressive bigotry and intolerance.

The difference is capitalism does not enslave people for political reasons and torture them. The deaths by communists are a direct result of oppression from authoritarianism.

Capitalism does not do that, although I'm sure you'll argue otherwise. Plus, capitalism is not a government system, it is an economic system, and any deaths from it is not a direct result of oppression.

Capitalism was never meant to be an oppressive system. It was meant to give people a way to make a good living for themselves and have a higher quality of life.

What people are actually whining about is Corporatism, which is driven by greedy people who care for nothing but money.

People who make hit pieces like this do not understand capitalism and how it works.

 

Well yeah, that's fair and all that, until the rubber meets the road. To be administered on the scale of millions, the altruism kind of runs out. And the totalitarian sets in.

 

Government regulating? What's the worst that could happen?

... in fact that's why some of us want the government to not have so much power.

 

So you dont think the English government should have done anything to help those huge numbers of starving people right on their door step all in the guise of "freedom"? Its sad to see the word freedom because a word used for simple propaganda such as this.

When people are starving while the ruling class is over indulging than yes its certainly time to force them to be more equal. Do you honestly believe all Irishmen who starved were simply lazy and looking to free load off the British government? You have a horribly warped mind of the lower classes.

 

You keep bringing up totalitarianism as if its some sort of hallmark of Communism which is a blatant lie, Karl Marx himself wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln congratulating him on ending slavery and helping to ease the suffering of the working classes, of course it can be totalitarian if its misused but the same goes for capitalism. Here is a recent example, corporations want the "freedom" to be able to discriminate based of religious grounds luckily the socialist democrats have been pushing back hard against that but if the right wing had their way, and this is undeniable, they would be able to discriminate based on any ground they chose with or without religion, all under the guise of "freedom", the freedom to discriminate. Right now its a "what if" because the democrats have been keeping the right wing in check for the most part, but during the Gilded Age this was not so much the case. In my history class we learned about how little towns would sprout up alongside the newly built railroads and there were very very few jobs to get, basically just a grocery store and a railroad worker and the stores were so heavily monopolized especially in these little towns that people literally had no choice who they would work for thus giving them no choice on how much money they would make keeping them in a perpetual state of poverty making extremely low wages. Corporations controlling all wages and all prices of goods is totalitarian, a totalitarian government is better than a totalitarian corporation because at least the government is a representation of the people and the corporation is a representation of a small family of extremely wealthy people such as Walmart.

 

That's what happens when economic factors combine with government, one company is going to be favored above others. Or in this case, the deaths and mass migration of the Irish.

 

bombing of unarmed civilians is intent, re: Iraq , Vietnam - so capitalists are just as bad

 

Exactly, and we went in Vietnam and Korea specifically to fight and kill Communists, does that makes us any better than them? Of course not. We also gave the Indonesians a list of over 5000 names of Communists living in their country who were unarmed and non-violent, the Indonesians went and slaughtered them all and praise America even to this day about how we have the Freedom to be Gangsters, that is literally word for word what they say its all on video.

 

Agreed.

Capitalism is what you get when you do not implement authoritarian, fascist, central planning.

-

 

Capitalism is not a government system so trying to compare capitalism to communism is apples and oranges. It takes government to massively violate the rights of others.

 

deliberately killing civilians during a military conflict is not genocide unless it is done for the express purpose of killing particular members of a certain ethnic (or other type) of group.

In fact, given that military forces cannot function without civilian support, you can easily argue that deliberately targeting civilians in order to win a war is not only legitimate but morally justified.

At any rate since the Korean War, the United States military has gone out of its way to avoid killing civilians.

 

So when the Communists killed Civilians during war they were justified? Or are you being a hypocrite and only allowing this "pass" for capitalist countries?

Also what do you think war is? Unless you are fighting America the odds are you are fighting a specific ethnic group, if you are at war with Poland than you are going to be fighting Polish people. You put in parenthesis (or other group) after talking about killing particular people, do you realize a country can easily be considered a group? Look at the definition for genocide, it doesnt have to be ethnic if you are killing both Civilian and Military personnel that is indeed genocide. "Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing members of the group;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

It includes national groups, so if you kill an entire part of the Polish people just because you are at war it is still considered genocide. If you are attacking the military that is one thing, but if you begin attacking the entire nation than it becomes genocide plain and simple. When we are at war I do not support the war and I am an American citizen, I do not believe I deserve to die so the Christians can have their Crusade in the Middle East, which George Bush called it on camera. Its not right to attack Civilians because there is a very good chance they do not even support the war.

 

Under capitalism if someone wants to impede on the free market do you not send in the police with weapons? Its definitely a governmental system.

 

If capitalism were a government system then China instituting some capitalism would mean they are not communist anymore. No, capitalism is not a government system. To say so is to admit to an absurd understanding of what government is.

 

lol no, it would very simply mean they have a mixed economy, which most nations have. Its communist in some areas and capitalist in many others.

So you dont think GOVERNMENT police enforcing a capitalist system has anything to do with government? What kind of semantics are you playing? This is ridiculous