T Nation

Communism Wins Over Fascism...


...if your determining factors don't include cannibalism.


Here is an excerpt:




Are we talking about the starvation in the 1920`s?

Its well knowned that cannibalism occured in Russia during the starvation.

but then again, similar horrible acts happened in irland during the famine in the late 1840`s
In a capitalist context, does this mean that fascism beets capitalism?? ( retorical question, no need to answer ).


I don't remember anyone starving someone over capitalism or putting them in gas chambers or doing experiments on them for the sake of capitalism. And, this isn't about Capitalism this is about America's fascination with Communism and hatred of Fascism although they had similar (or Communism had worse) effects on their people, should read the article instead of trying to attack capitalism, even though I'm not defending capitalism here. I am talking about communism and fascism here, stay on topic and maybe read the article.


The irish famin happend in a capitalist context and the markedliberalist policys made it even more severe, How is this not on topic, arent we talking about famins here? How come a famin in a socialist context is the fault of the said ideology, but when it happens in a capitalist context it doesnt. fucked up logic or is it me. And people have actually been killed in the name of capitalism, ever heard of pinochet? So this is most definitly relevant to the topic. Actually in this scenario, economic fascism( mixed economy ) wins, The where no famin in nazi germany or fascist italy and the economic model in northern europa from the post war era are also been famin free and that model have many similaritys with the economic part of the fascist ideology. But the fascist ideology are more inhuman than socialism and liberalism( economic ) combined, because it worship warfare, racism, national sjovenism, anti-feminism and they have no respect for neither democracy or humanrights. Liberalism/capitalism and socialism are both ideologys that in theory wants a more humanist, democratic and liberal society. Thats why the ideas of socialism and communism are generally more liked than fascism, but I dont think you find many that looks at stalin or hes reign of terror in a positiv light, maybe a nut here or there.


Pinochet killed "in the name of capitalism"?



He was a free-market-capitalist, nuff said.

Do you think the red army said "in the name of marx and lenin" before they killed someone?

please be consistent. If a famin is to blame on socialism, its also to blame on capitalism when it happens in a capitalist context. Offcourse both are stupid claims, because they are both just a bunch of ideas, ideas doesnt kill. People do.


There was no capitalism or free market involved in the Irish Famine. Quite the opposite in fact.


Well I guess our sources are polar opposits, after what I read it had alot to do with free-market-capitalism. And the book was not a study book from the party.


Well what they did in the name of communism is destroy the kulak class, nationalize all farms and so further and so on.

What is of course the direct consequence of communism are the famines that break out when someone at the top has some seriously fucked up ideas on how to run a farm, see Russia and especially China.


The famine had nothing to do with capitalism but with the potatoe blight.

Now the laissez faire attitude of the British government back then made them avoid any helpful measures, but unlike in communist countries the famine was not caused by the state.


Let me guess you haven't taken the time to read the article yet?

No, we're talking about cannibalism under Stalin and the love of communism and the hate of fascism. The article mentions capitalism once, saying it's not defending it. Get over it.


And the lack of measures from the government helped to bring the death numbers sky hig. They could have saved alot more if they wherent infected with laissez fair attitude.

The russian famin in the 1920s happened during the NEP era. the nationalization of the agro-cultural sector happened later. I am not saying that sentral control over farming is not stupid, because it is, but before we pin the famin on the ideology. We should maybe recognize that famins where more usual in pre-industrial Russia. It happened before in the 1890s btw before any socialist had entered any office in Russia. Same with China, famins where not rare there. So then we can ask: Did they have a famin because of a socialist government? or was there some other reason or reasons? or a mix of them.
One way to look at this is that they didnt have famins like that later after had become industrialized.


First of all they had famines later and second yes, they could have saved more.

However, neither they nor capitalism caused those deaths, whereas you can point to specific communist policies that caused famines that killed dozends of milllions of people.


you are right brother chris, I should have read the article.

I jumped to the conclusion that you where talking about the famin in russia, not ukraina.

Still this ukrainian episode is wery similar to what happened in Irland. The irish wouldt had a famin
if the british had let them keep the grains to eat for themself, instead the british kept the graintrade
beetwen irland and britain going and the irish farmers had just rotten potator to eat. sounds familiar?



The British did not help them with grain shipments in order not to fuck up the markets, the Irish were just unlucky that their potatoes caught a disease.

The Sowjets however went in, took all the grain, livestock and farm equipment so that the Ukrainians would starve.

1 -> lack of help, 2 -> planned effort to get rid of Ukrainians.


the fear of "fucking up the market" led to people dont having anything to eat. Dont you see that
this is just another example of how fucked up decisions based on ideology is.

ps. the grain where produced in ireland by irishmen, but you dont care about that. because a
fat british lord had the property and therefor you must take his side.


Not at all the libertarian view of land ownership in a feudal society is a tad more complex than that, however that is also not a free market.

What you are trying to do here however is trying to equate not helping someone with actively harming him.

Now that is possible if you subscribe to utilitarianism or or any other consequentialist ethic however you might be surprised to find that if you take that ethical system to the hilt you end up with gas chambers and the occasional culling of the weak.


It's not talking about the 1920's.
The point isn't that the purest of evil occurred out of necessity. It occured because it was evil and they like it...


I suppose it might have something to do with taking away farms, taking away the crops for Ukraine to eat, placing them in random ass spots in the wilderness, selling the crops instead of feeding the people so that the state can buy foreign capital to help with the utopia.