Jump to content

User:AmateurEditor/mkucr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terminology

[edit]

Communist regimes Communist regimes refers to those countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist definition (in other words, communist states) at some point in their history.

Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants.[nb 1][2] The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments:

Genocide Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR,[3] anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.[4] However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated. Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled genocide or auto-genocide and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases. In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent."[5][nb 2] According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the term Communist Genocide part of today's vocabulary.[6] Genocide is a popular term for mass political killing, which is studied academically as democide and politicide.[7]

Politicide The term politicide is used to describe the killing of *****groups that are not covered by the Genocide Convention.[8] It includes the mass killing of political, economic, ethnic and cultural groups.[7] Manus I. Midlarsky uses the term politicide to describe an arc of mass killings from the western parts of the Soviet Union to China and Cambodia.[nb 3] In his book The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century Midlarsky raises similarities between the killings of Stalin and Pol Pot.[10]

Democide R. J. Rummel coined the term democide, which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder.[11] Unlike politicide, randomly conducted and non-targeted mass killing are included. Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago have shown the significance of the differences between the democide and politicide data-sets in that statistical analyses based on them can produce very different results, including whether or not regime type is a significance variable.[7] Helen Fein has termed the mass state killings in the Soviet Union and Cambodia as "genocide and democide."[12]

Crimes against humanity Klas-Göran Karlsson uses the term crimes against humanity, which includes "the direct mass killings of politically undesirable elements, as well as forced deportations and forced labour". He acknowledges that the term may be misleading in the sense that the regimes targeted groups of their own citizens, but considers it useful as a broad legal term which emphasizes attacks on civilian populations and because the offenses demean humanity as a whole.[13] Jacques Semelin and Michael Mann believe that crime against humanity is more appropriate than genocide or politicide when speaking of violence by Communist regimes.[14]

Classicide Michael Mann has proposed the term classicide as the "intended mass killing of entire social classes".[15]

Repression Stephen Wheatcroft notes that, in the case of the Soviet Union, terms such as the terror, the purges, and repression are used to refer to the same events. *****He believes the most neutral terms are repression and mass killings, although in Russian the broad concept of repression is commonly held to include mass killings and is sometimes assumed to be synonymous with it, which is not the case in other languages.[2]

Mass killing Ervin Staub defined mass killing as "killing members of a group without the intention to eliminate the whole group or killing large numbers of people without a precise definition of group membership. In a mass killing the number of people killed is usually smaller than in genocide." Referencing earlier definitions[nb 4], Joan Esteban, Massimo Morelli and Dominic Rohner have defined mass killings as "the killings of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under the conditions of the essential defenselessness and helplessness of the victims".[18] The term has been defined quantitatively by Benjamin Valentino as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants", where a massive number is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less.[19] This is the most accepted quantitative minimum threshold for the term.[18] He applies this definition to the cases of Stalin's USSR, the PRC under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, while admitting that mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa.[nb 5]

Holocaust The United States Congress has referred in legislation to "an unprecedented imperial communist holocaust"[20][21] and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation established as a result of that legislation refers to this subject as the "Communist holocaust".[22] The term Red Holocaust has been used by German historian Horst Möller; American academic Steven Rosefielde has published a book on this subject titled Red Holocaust.[23][24] According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the term Red Holocaust part of today's vocabulary.[6]

Sources and excerpts

[edit]
  • "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa." ..."Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." ..."I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social change they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments."
- Benjamin Valentino, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, in a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" in his book "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cornell University Press.
  • "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees. Later regimes consciously adapted their practices to the perceived successes and failures of earlier ones. The Khmer Rouge used China and the Soviet Union (and Vietnam and North Korea) as reference societies, while China used the Soviet Union. All addressed the same basic problem - how to apply a revolutionary vision of a future industrial society to a present agrarian one. These two dimensions, of time and agrarian backwardness, help account for many of the differences." ..."Ordinary party members were also ideologically driven, believing that in order to create a new socialist society, they must lead in socialist zeal. Killings were often popular, tha rank-and-file as keen to exceed killing quotas as production quotas. The pervasive role of the party inside the state also meant that authority structures were not fully institutionalized but factionalized, even chaotic, as revisionists studying the Soviet Union have argued. Both centralized control and mass party factionalism were involved in the killings." ..."This also made for Plans nurtured by these regimes that differed from those envisioned in my sixth thesis. Much of the Communist organization of killing was more orderly than that of the ethnonationalists. Communists were more statist. But only the Plans that killed the fewest people were fully intended and occurred at early stages of the process. There is no equivalent of the final solution, and the last desperate attempt to achieve goals by mass murder after all other Plans have failed. The greatest Communist death rates were not intended but resulted from gigantic policy mistakes worsened by factionalism, and also somewhat by callous or revengeful views of the victims. But - with the Khmer Rouge as a borderline case - no Communist regime contemplated genocide. This is the biggest difference between Communist and ethnic killers: Communists caused mass deaths mainly through disastrous policy mistakes; ethnonationalists killed more deliberately."
- Michael Mann, UCLA sociologist, in a chapter called "Communist Cleansing: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot" from his book "The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" published by Cambridge University Press.
  • "Dynamics of destruction/subjugation were also developed systematically by twentieth-century communist regimes, but against a very different domestic political background. The destruction of the very foundations of the former society (and consequently the men and women who embodied it) reveals the determination of the ruling elites to build a new one at all costs. The ideological conviction of leaders promoting such a political scheme is thus decisive. Nevertheless, it would be far too simplistic an interpretation to assume that the sole purpose of inflicting these various forms of violence on civilians could only aim at instilling a climate of terror in this 'new society'. In fact, they are part of a broader whole, i.e. the spectrum of social engineering techniques implememted in order to transform a society completely. There can be no doubt that it is this utopia of a classless society which drives that kind of revolutionary project. The plan for political and social reshaping will thus logically claim victims in all strata of society. And through this process, communist systems emerging in the twentieth century ended up destroying their own populations, not because they planned to annihilate them as such, but because they aimed to restructure the 'social body' from top to bottom, even if that meant purging it and recarving it to suit their new Promethean political imaginaire." ..."'Classicide', in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of 'fratricide' is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of 'politicide', which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as 'genocide' because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann."
- Jacques Semelin, professor of political science and research director at CERI-CNRS in Paris and founder of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, in his chapters "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body" and "Destroying to eradicate: Politicidal regimes?" in his translated book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide" published in english by Columbia University Press.
  • "The modern search for a perfect, utopian society, whether racially or ideologically pure is very similar to the much older striving for a religiously pure society free of all polluting elements, and these are, in turn, similar to that other modern utopian notion - class purity. Dread of political and economic pollution by the survival of antagonistic classes has been for the most extreme communist leaders what fear of racial pollution was for Hitler. There, also, material explanations fail to address the extent of the killings, gruesome tortures, fantastic trails, and attempts to wipe out whole categories of people that occurred in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The revolutionary thinkers who formed and led communist regimes were not just ordinary intellectuals. They had to be fanatics in the true sense of that word. They were so certain of their ideas that no evidence to the contrary could change their minds. Those who came to doubt the rightness of their ways were eliminated, or never achieved power. The element of religious certitude found in prophetic movements was as important as their Marxist science in sustaining the notion that their vision of socialism could be made to work. This justified the ruthless dehumanization of their enemies, who could be suppressed because they were 'objectively' and 'historically' wrong. Furthermore, if events did not work out as they were supposed to, then that was because class enemies, foreign spies and saboteurs, or worst of all, internal traitors were wrecking the plan. Under no circumstances could it be admitted that the vision itself might be unworkable, because that meant capitulation to the forces of reaction. The logic of the situation in times of crisis then demanded that these 'bad elements' (as they were called in Maoist China) be killed, deported, or relegated to a permanently inferior status. That is very close to saying that the community of God, or the racially pure volksgemeinschaft could only be guaranteed if the corrupting elements within it were eliminated (Courtois et al. 1999)."
- Daniel Chirot, Professor of International Studies and Sociology at the University of Washington, and Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College and Director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, in the chapter "Why Genocides? Are they different now than in the past?: The four main motives leading to mass political murder" in their book "Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder", published by Princeton University Press.

Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/FAQ

[edit]
This section is here to provide answers to some questions
that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously
been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

General Concerns and Questions
Q1: Why does this article exist?
A1: This article exists because, according to a rough consensus of Wikipedia editors, the topic is found in high quality secondary sources and meets Wikipedia policy requirements. This consensus was established by the two most recent deletion discussions, which can be found above, under "Deletion discussions".
  • Related Talk discussions: [2]
Q2: Isn't this title biased; why isn't there also an article for "mass killings under _________ regimes"?
A2: Each article must stand on its own merits, as justified by its sources. The existence (or not) of some other similar article does not determine the existence of this one, and vice versa. Having said that, there are other articles such as Anti-communist mass killings which also exist. This article has a descriptive title arrived at by consensus.
Q3: Why is the word "Communist" capitalized in the title, even though the Manual of Style says that only the first word in a title should be capitalized?
A3: In this case, the word "Communist" is a proper noun, relating to specific regimes, rather than the philosophy of communism.
  • Related Talk discussions: [20]
Q4: Why can't I edit this article?
A4: Persistent edit warring led to the full protection of the article under a unique set of discretionary sanctions explained above, at the top of this talk page. Edits to the article first require a rough consensus to be established here on the talk page, as defined in the details of those sanctions.

Notes and references

[edit]
Footnotes
  1. ^ Valentino p.9 . Mass killing and Genocide. No generally accepted terminology exists to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)[1]
  2. ^ Williams p.190 . ...the majority of deaths resulted not from direct execution, but from the infliction of 'conditions of life calculated to bring about [the] physical destruction' of a group, in the language of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)[5]
  3. ^ Midlarsky p.310 . Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)[9]
  4. ^ In the Encyclopedia of Genocide (1999), Israel Charny defined generic genocide as "the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defenselessness and helplessness of the victims."[16] In the 2006 article "Development, democracy, and mass killings", William Easterly, Roberta Gatti and Sergio Kurlat adopted Charny's definition of generic genocide for their use of "mass killing" and "massacre" to avoid the politics of the term "genocide" altogether.[17]
  5. ^ Valentino p.91 [1]
References
  1. ^ a b Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 91–151. ISBN 0801472733.
  2. ^ a b Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930–45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319–1353
  3. ^ Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge; 2 edition (August 1, 2010). ISBN 041548619X p. 137
  4. ^ Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259–2291
  5. ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Security Studies: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-42561-2.
  6. ^ a b Rousso, Henry & Goslan, Richard Joseph (Eds.) (2004). Stalinism and Nazism: History and Memory Compared. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-803-29000-6.
  7. ^ a b c Wayman, FW; Tago, A (2009). "Explaining the onset of mass killing, 1949–87". Journal of Peace Research Online: 1–17.
  8. ^ Harff, Barbara (1988). "Toward Empirical Theory of Genocides and Politicides: Identification and Measurement of Cases since 1945". 32: 359–371. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ^ Midlarsky, Manus I (2005). The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 310. ISBN 9780521815451.
  10. ^ Midlarsky, Manus (2005). The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 321. ISBN 0521815452.
  11. ^ R.J. Rummel. Death by Government Chapter 2: Definition of Democide
  12. ^ Fein, Helen (1993). Genocide: a sociological perspective. Sage Publication. p. 75. ISBN 9780803988293.
  13. ^ Karlsson, Klas-Göran (2008). Crimes against humanity under communist regimes – Research review (PDF). Forum for Living History. p. 111. ISBN 978-91-977487-2-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Semelin, Jacques (2009). "Destroying to Eradicate". Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide. Columbia University Press. p. 318. ISBN 0231142838, 9780231142830. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  15. ^ Mann, Michael (2005). "The Argument". The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0521538548, 9780521538541. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  16. ^ Charny, Israel (ed). (1999). Encyclopedia of Genocide, Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.
  17. ^ Easterly, William, Roberta Gatti and Sergio Kurlat. (2006). "Development, democracy, and mass killings", Journal of Economic Growth 11: 129-56.
  18. ^ a b Esteban, Joan Maria, Morelli, Massimo and Rohner, Dominic, Strategic Mass Killings (May 11, 2010). Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich Working Paper No. 486. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1615375
  19. ^ “Draining the Sea”: Benjamin Valentino, Paul Huth, Dylan Balch-Lindsay. Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare. International Organization 58, Spring 2004, pp. 375–407
  20. ^ [1] The US Act of Congress (1993) establishing the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation uses the term "Imperial Communist Holocaust"
  21. ^ Rauch, Jonathan (December 2003). "The Forgotten Millions: Communism is the deadliest fantasy in human history (but does anyone care?)". The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
  22. ^ http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php
  23. ^ Rosefielde, Steven (2009). Red Holocaust. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-77757-5.
  24. ^ Möller, Horst (1999). Der rote Holocaust und die Deutschen. Die Debatte um das 'Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus' [The red Holocaust and the Germans. The debates on the 'Black Book of Communism']. Piper Verlag. ISBN 978-3492041195.

References and further reading

[edit]