Jump to content

Talk:The Black Book of Communism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Stéphane Courtois' status

Stéphane Courtois is not "the" director of research of CNRS. His position may be translated as "senior scientist" — there are many people with the same rank in CNRS. I also do not think he holds a professorship. CNRS positions are not professorships — they include only the research part of an academic professorship, without the teaching part. Perhaps Courtois also holds a part time teaching position somewhere, but I'm not aware of that. David.Monniaux 07:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Shocking facts! Read here to be shocked!

While most of the facts in the following paragraph are shocking and can easily be verified, they're still contreversial, and this is eaasily verified, 'cause some people don't agree. If we site Shocking Facts! (vollume II), we can see that there is much contention on whether these facts are shocking and/or verifiable. Shocked? I know I am. Shocked, shocked, shocked. I'm so shocked I'm shocking.

But I digress. How the (English expletive from the German root "ficken" - to strike) is the line "While most details in the articles of the book are shocking facts that can easily be verified," NPOV, even in the most wild, drug enduced dreams? Seriously. If I put that line into something like Waiting for Godot, people would laugh at me:

"While most details in this article are shocking facts that can easily be verified, there is much contention over whether Godot was the Christian God."

Not only is it in a tone that is entirely un-encyclopaediac, it's obvious point of view. OBVIOUS. It's like the article is saying "Some people disagree with the facts of this book, but they're morons". Since when is it okay for a Wikipedia article to do that? The book, ultimately, is correct: the governments of self-proclaimed "communist" countries have blood on their hands. To argue over numbers is the same as arguing over how many Jews the Nazis murdered: it trivializes a horrific part of history. But this article should be disecting the book as a scholarly work: is it truly an unbiased look at history? What are its sources? Is it accurate, or do people disagree with its conclusions? Let's get our heads out of our asses and stop arguing over who killed who...if we start arguing over whether capitalism or communism killed more peoples, then no one can win, because your putting number value on human life. Act like the meek, intellectual writers you are, and clean up this article! Or I'll kill you! Blah!

Shockingly,

Yossarian 20:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it was not an good sentence. Deleted. Ultramarine 20:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

I have significantly cleaned up the article, and that included trimming down some of its enourmous length, because most of the information from it belongs in the Criticisms of communism article. Many of you might not know the history of this Black Book of Communism article. It was created about a year ago as a repository of criticisms and counter-criticisms of communist states, based around the claims of the Black Book. Now that we have an actual article for those criticisms, we don't need this as a repository any more. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are extremely POV by keeping criticisms but not counter-criticisms. I have restored this and removed the material on capitalism vs communism. Ultramarine 16:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I have for the most part removed both the lengthy discussions of criticism and counter-criticism, limiting myself to mentioning the contentious issues instead. My intention was to restructure the article into the following format: "X is a controversial claim. Critics dispute it, advocates support it." - without going into the details of the argument. A large and visible link to the Criticisms of communism article is more appropriate, IMO. By the way, the last thing I want is for this page to descend into a mess like that over at Criticisms of communism. Therefore, I will begin my edits with the uncontroversial task of restructuring a few paragraphs without any change of content. Please do not revert the whole article; if you must revert, revert only the actual changes of content. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, you selectively keep criticisms but not counter-critcisms. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV Ultramarine 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Really? I find this to be a most unusual accusation indeed, considering the fact that I removed text such as:
"According to critics, most of these are disputable issues, for various reasons. For example, can the death's during the Civil War be blamed entirely on the communist side? What share of the victims of the famine in 1922 is to be attributed to economic policies and what share to natural reasons, such as drought?"
"How many of the people in the Gulag were actually guilty criminals? Can the deportations during World War II be justified by strategic reasons (Potential collaboration between deported populations - Volga Germans, Don Cossacks - and Nazi Germany)? [...] Should the killing of Nazis and Nazi collaborators during war time be regarded as deaths caused by communism? Critics allege that in answering these questions, the book consistently takes the most anti-communist position possible."
What I removed was superfluous speculation about this or that particular crime mentioned in the book. If you take issue with my edits, I expect more from you than a one-sentence comment. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You have deleted many of descriptions of specific crimes and instead inserted unsourced criticisms. Therefore I will restore the prior content but remove usourced statements. Ultramarine 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My view

Hi!

Just came accross this article through some random browsing and thought I'd set out my view as an outsider.

I think the article is not very readable or encyclopedic at the moment. I don't need this critics and "counter-critics" back and forth, I want to know what the book says and then maybe some of the controversy surrounding it in a separate section.

Unfortunately I've never read this book (though I've heard of it) and doubt I can be much help in improving the article.

- Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been saying...every just wants to make it a big political debate though. -- Yossarian 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you only giving the arguments of one side, like excluding the argument that more deaths should have been expected were there were larger populations. Again, remember that Wikpedia is not a soapbox.Ultramarine 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that death tolls are not proportional to population. See here: [1] (you will have to scroll down a little). Also, please note that Khruschev did indeed close down the Gulag system. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Not "exactly" proportional is a weasel term. There is no proportionality whatsoever. And Rummel's views on death rates in the USSR are hotly contested by e.g. Albert Szymanski. I will make the appropriate corrections. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This just gross. You insert your own sources, like the black book of capitalism, bur delete other you do not like. If you dispute Rummel, insert a link. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT YOUR SOAPBOX. Ultramarine 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Will a book do? Szymanski, Albert, Human Rights in the Soviet Union, ISBN 0862320194, page 291: "On the whole, it appears that the level of repression in the Soviet Union in the 1955 to 1980 period was at approximately the same level as in the US during the McCarthy years (1947-56)". I just think that a discussion of Khruschev's human rights record would be rather tangential to the issue at hand, which is why it should be kept at a minimum. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, insert any references in article. DO NOT DELETE MATERIAL SELECTIVELY AND AT THE SAME TIME INSERT OTHER MATERIAL in order to push your political view. This is a gross attempt to turn Wikpedia into your soapbox. Ultramarine 08:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The point, Ultramarine, was that some (e.g. Rummel) suggest that killing continued in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death, while others (e.g. Szymanski) suggest that it did not. All sources, however, agree that the level of human rights violations was greatly reduced after Stalin's death, and that is the only thing the article currently asserts. Nikita Khruschev is given in the article as a mere example, and I simply do not see how it would be relevant to engage in a lengthy discussion about him. Do you consider it absolutely necessary to note the various views regarding the precise level of repression in the post-Stalin USSR? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your source, a book published before the fall of communism and the opening of the Soviet achieves is not very interesting. Please give a recent book, otherwise is it uninteresing. I find it extremly offensive that you include your own preferred sources but delete others. And of course the toll is not exactly proportional, some variance should obviously be expected. Ultramarine 08:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The book is based entirely on Western sources, and I am not aware of any wiki policy concerning "uninteresting" books. The death toll is not proportional in the slightest, as can be easily observed from the figures given by the Black Book and the respective populations of the affected countries. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I advocate removal of all capitalist vs. communist material from this article. This should be in other appropriate articles. Tbe book itself is mostly an acoounting ledger and speaks very little about for example Marxist ideology. Ultramarine 08:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I would we willing to compromise on that and remove the material, at least if you would be willing to leave the rest of the article alone. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I propose this version. Say nothing about ideology. [2] Ultramarine 08:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The controversy surrounding blame and responsibility certainly deserves a bit of coverage, don't you think? That is my only major objection to your version. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I support inserting this and nothing more. Anything else should have source that mentions the book. "The book has also been criticised for a lack of context. For example, it says nothing about deaths caused by capitalism during several centuries, a number claimed by some (for example, the French book Le Livre noir du capitalisme - "The Black Book of capitalism") to be far greater than those caused by communist states. However, this was achieved by counting the crimes of colonialism and imperialism, which are seen by some (perhaps most) advocates of capitalism as being un-capitalist. Likewise, of course, many of the practices of various communist states are seen by some (perhaps most) advocates of communism as being un-communist or state capitalist. Thus the debate can eventually come down to an argument over the definitions of capitalism and communism." Ultramarine 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nikodemos in that there should be discussion about those two main points. I think the best way would be to keep them, then have two counter criticisms from the pro-BBoC view, which are just as lengthy as the two main criticisms of the book mentioned in the artcle. No need to get into long lists of refutations (and lengthy disscusion of Soviet repression belongs in an entirely different article). People can make up there own minds about this stuff. They don't need us to write the debate. Also, I find the version Ultramarine is suggesting to be somewhat inadequete, even by the terms he's setting. All those little choice "modifiers" (like "hundreds of thousands") are NPOV. -- Yossarian 20:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material

There are many weasel statements claiming that critics say or counter-critics say something without sources. I will remove them. Also, this is not the page to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism or communism in general, it should be about the book and what is stated there. Ultramarine 19:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well isn't the book based up on capitalist propaganda and the disadvantages of Stalinism (incorrectly stated communism) and the advantages of capitalism? :

Yossarian, why have you removed factual material such a the list of the ethnic minorites. And please give sources for crticisms. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ultramarine 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And why are you only giving the arguments of one side, like excluding the argument that more deaths should have been expected were there were larger populations. Again, remember that Wikpedia is not a soapbox.Ultramarine 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just working with the most recent versions. The information in the much older versions is almost totally POV in regard to both criticism and counter criticism, so I think it's a good idea to start relatively fresh (plus, the old material is often very poorly written, which I take exception to). The ethnic minorities stuff (which I put back) had more to do with the Soviet Union than communism. I have no problem with that counter criticism, it's perfectly valid. The two main criticisms the article discusses need two strong counter criticisms. No need for this long list of he-said-she-saids ("Communists killed my puppy!" "Capitalists killed my kitten!"). You'll notice, by the by, that I DID remove POV material that was against the book, so I'll ask you not to accuse me of standing on a soapbox. -- Yossarian
PS: I removed the thing about National Socialism and Hitler...I haven't a clue what it's supposed to prove (pro or con)...plus it looks like it was written by a five year old.
Yossarian, why are you selectively removing supporting information? You may not like, no reason for deletions.Ultramarine 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, Ultramarine, I'm removing UNSOURCED information and cleaning up YOUR atrocious grammar. --Yossarian 18:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Simply false. You have for example for no reason removed the well-sourced praise from many mainstream reviewers while inserting your own POV. The statements by authors are in the book.Ultramarine 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If you had bothered to check, I simply moved the review to the links section. --Yossarian 18:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: This needs a source before it can be included:
However, this was achieved by counting the crimes of colonialism and imperialism, which are seen by some (perhaps most) advocates of capitalism as being un-capitalist. Likewise, of course, many of the practices of various communist states are seen by some (perhaps most) advocates of communism as being un-communist or state capitalist. Thus the debate can eventually come down to an argument over the definitions of capitalism and communism.
WHO counted the crimes of imperialism? WHO says they're not communist? SOURCES! --Yossarian
It is extremely POV to insert "The book has been condemned and praised by both sides of the political spectrum", giving no sources for this, and at the same time the remove the praise by many mainstream reviewers. Ultramarine 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you paying attention? I just moved the review to links. If you find my intro POV, change it to something that says it's contreversial...but just that. We don't need a group of reviewers saying how great it is, and then no counter. You just need to say it's controversial.
Just a quick note: Please, PLEASE, do not use the phrase "during several centuries"...PLEASE. The grammar police will have yo ass in a sling...--Yossarian 20:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The book is not based on capitalist propaganda. It is written by leading leftist scientists, based on leftist sources. Due to their leftism the scientists overlooked the studies made by right-wing historians! - Pher

POV, again

This is the first time I have ever, anywhere seen Le Monde Diplomatique characterized as part of the "far left". - Jmabel | Talk 04:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The most common criticism of the Black Book is the charge that it lacks context

The context is:

  • thousands of refugees from non-Communist states were killed during the purges, some transfered to the III Reich. I don't know about extermination of the refugees from the Communist world.
  • many fans preferred to suffer in Paris restaurants Jean-Paul Sartre or keep capitalistic citizenship like Bertold Brecht rather than to be happy in the SU. The Communism was for poor people, who didn't have any choice.
  • 99% of important inventions were made in non-Communist states, the Communist world imitated the capitalistic life, spied the scientists.
  • SU was co-responsible for WWII and many other wars.

Xx236 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This book shows how brutal commies are!

The pictures in it sure the cruel tactics and forced famines among other things that the soviets and others used to kill people and enslave them. Good job Joe McCarthy! YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

This article has a very strange balance

I think too much emphasis is placed on positive and negative reviews of the book. If this really needs to be covered, then I suggest branching a new article called controversy (or something similar) and the black book of Capitalism should have an article of its own. I'm willing to do the work if no one tells me not to. Prezen 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you say "NPOV"...No? Not surprising

This article is an insult. It's obviously slanted, and much of its reasoning is entirely spurious. Where are the facts about the BOOK? WHERE ARE THE FACTS? SANCTUARY! Er...facts...

I digress. My point is, this thing goes on and on about conclusions, but it doesn't provide anything the book said. This article seems to be about how many people communists killed, NOT the Black Book of Communism. If I were doing a research paper on the book, I wouldn't look here. I take exception to the way this was written. It feels like a 3 year old with a good vocabulary wrote it. In terms of just being an article, its a shitty article, plain and simple (forgetting the slant). I propose major cleanup. It needs to actually read like an friggin' encyclopaedia. Even those that agree with the slant of this article must realize how poorly written, and how lacking in information about the DAMN BOOK it is.

Irritably,

Yossarian

Seconded,

Shahar Goldin 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

About the title

"Le Livre noir de..." is a very used title in french, since decades. I think the sentence in the introduction is a mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.99.191.22 (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. I delete that part. --Inbloom2 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"65 and 93 million lives"

An anonymous IP editor have inserted that two the authors "estimated that communism has claimed between 65 and 93 million lives", giving as a source a supposed article in Le Monde. There is not a single hit for these numbers either in English or French Google. If these clams existed, there would certainly have been many hits considering the debate around the book. Instead, they "accused him of overstating the number of victims, since he preferred the higher figure of '100 million' to the more modest figure of 85 million that they were prepared to endorse." [3]. Thus, the always quoted figure of 85-100 million.Ultramarine 09:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I second the assessment by Ultramarine — I tried checking that supposed quote on leMonde's web site (they have an archive dating way back), but could not find it, perhaps due to the fact that particular content is protected. At any rate, absent a verifiable quotation ("you can find Le Monde in good librairies", as someone said in an edit comment, just doesn't cut the mustard), I would not put that unverifed claim in the article. Turgidson 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
From the french article, this quote from Le Monde : "un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif, non clarifié (85 millions ? 95 ? 100 ?), non justifié, et contredisant formellement les résultats des coauteurs sur l'URSS, l'Asie et l'Europe de l'Est (de leurs études, on peut tirer une « fourchette » globale allant de 65 à 93 millions ; la moyenne 79 millions n'a de valeur que purement indicative)." Remember that it's a french book. --Inbloom2 11:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to switch to French, (which, by the way, is capitalized in English), let me give a quote from Laurent Joffrin, "Sauver Lénine?", as it appeared in Libération: L'ennui, c'est que l'argument est un pur sophisme. Notons d'abord que la contestation des chiffres est dérisoire : à 50 ou 60 millions de morts au lieu de 80, le communisme deviendrait-il présentable ? Rappelons surtout que le communisme en actes est un objet politique bien identifié, réuni sous la même bannière, avec la même stratégie, la même idéologie et la même organisation. Ses victimes ont toutes été sacrifiées volontairement sur l'autel de la même révolution, par massacre direct ou par famine. Turgidson 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an opinion of a journalist, not a fact by an historian. --Inbloom2 15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, fine -- I wasn't about to put that quote in the article (I just used it for the purpose of this talk page discussion, to put things in some kind of perspective, before we forget what are we talking about), but I did put a link in the "external links" section, which is chock-full of opinion pieces by various Marxist/Trotskyist/Maoist journalists/activists expressing their POV on the matter, which, sure enough, is aimed at whitewashing the repressions, massacres, and forced famine done by Communists, leading to those tens of millions of victims the "Black Book of Communism " documents. And, while speaking of journalists pontificating on the subject, why do we have that lengthy quote by Marxist journalist Daniel Singer? He was previously presented as a "scholar", but I see no such qualification in the article on him. Absent a strong reason for including that quote in the article (I do not see one), I think that the whole paragraph on Singer's opinion should be deleted, as being utterly irrelevant -- an external link to his article in The Nation should suffice. Turgidson 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article includes a lot more criticism than support. There is a big section that discusses the estimated number of victims. I can see several problems with it. First, this section makes false impression that the entire book is about the number of victims. But it is not. It mostly describes different events as any other history book. Second, this section includes a lot of words but no facts or data. If the estimated number of victims is wrong, what are alternative estimates? Is it 50 millions, 99 millions or what? And if the alternative estimates are different, why they are different? That would be encyclopedic content. As it is right now, the article must be improved by removing undue weight and sections that do not provide any factual information for reader.Biophys 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with this assessment. Turgidson 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A minor point: I still don't like the formulation "the deportation of 2 million kulaks (and so called kulaks) from 1930 to 1932", no matter what the book says (does it really say that, ad literam?) I kind of understand what could have prompted this (the whole bit about how the definition of the word kulak developed, up to the point it included basically "any peasant who has enough to eat"), but still, the sentence needs to stand logically on its own, and, as of now, it doesn't. I mean, why not then, on a previous line, "the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks (and so called Don Cossacks)"? Here is a possible compromise solution -- how about "the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932"? Turgidson 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks very good.Ultramarine 15:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

20 to 60 million?

Less than 800,000 were shot, and the gulag never held more than two million people. Hundreds of thousands of gulag prisoners were also conscripted and died in WWII. There were only 3.4 million German POW's forced into labor. Unless you blame the famines and WWII on the Soviet government, the number of deaths that can be blamed on Stalin's regime could not have been more than five million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahuitzotl (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is simply a matter of sourcing. If a reliable source tells that number of all victims (not only those that have been shot) during the entire period of Stalin's rule (as claimed in the current text) is such and such, this can be cited here. A source cited right now gives various estimates from 20 to 80 millions. If you find other and better sources, you are very welcome to include them.Biophys 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits of introduction

Let's follow WP policies. Please read WP:NPOV. This article is about a book. So, the introductory section should only explain what is that book about. No more, no less, without any judgments, positive or negative. The opinions, positive and negative, are described in separate sections, in agreement with WP:NPOV. If you want to add some criticism, please add it there and support by reliable sources per WP:SOURCE. Please, no OR here. We should also follow "due weight" criteria. This means to allocate an appropriate article space to positive and negative opinions, depending on notability of the reviewers, a scientific or non-scientific nature of sources, etc.Biophys 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the problem here. RR warring does not make much sense. Any real problems, e.g. "undue weight" can be corrected, and in fact I started working in this direction.Biophys 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam according to Oprah

I have moved the following from the page for discussion:

Rod Dreher, columnist for the New York Post makes a similar point, "When the wickedness of the Soviets, or other Communist forces, could not be denied, it was claimed that these people did not represent "true" Communism. They may have actually believed that, but those who would be victims of real Communists, not theoretical Communists, didn't have that luxury."[4]

The article linked is entitled "Islam according to Oprah." The statement in question is some kind of tortured analogy for Islamist apologists, and is not part of a serious discussion of Communism. It should be removed, I think. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

With regard to recent edits of the introduction - please explain what's the problem.Biophys (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you think that anything is wrong, please explain.Biophys (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying a dispute

Vision Thing has asserted a belief that the following sentences should be removed:

A number of critics argue that some or all of the regimes mentioned in the book were not, in fact, Marxist. This is not a new idea: the question of whether the historical communist states represented an accurate implementation of Marxism has been open since the 1930s. [...] The Black Book does not attempt to judge whether such ruling parties were honest in their self-description as "communist".

The reason given for their removal was an alleged lack of sources. But I am a little confused - what sources are requested? Sources proving that "A number of critics argue that some or all of the regimes mentioned in the book were not, in fact, Marxist" or that "the question of whether the historical communist states represented an accurate implementation of Marxism has been open since the 1930s"? I thought these things were widely known, but I can find sources for them if necessary. As for the last sentence, "The Black Book does not attempt to judge whether such ruling parties were honest in their self-description as communist" - what is wrong with it? It is a simple statement of fact to point out that the Black Book does not engage in political or ideological discussion regarding the nature of communist states. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes this fact, so I also don't see the problem. Its a relevant fact. If someone disputes this, then a source would be needed. In any case, looking for a source would be a good idea and put an decisive end to those wishing to remove this fact.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the book was named The Black Book of Communism brings into dispute your explanation that the book doesn't try to judge whether those countries were communist. -- Vision Thing -- 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You can ask Ultramarine if you don't believe me, or you can read the book itself. It is a historical work, not one on political theory. In fact, the editor's attempt to derive a few modest political theory conclusions in the introduction is exactly what caused some of the other authors to criticize that introduction. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is enough to say that "For the purpose of the book, a communist state is defined as a one-party state where the ruling party openly proclaims its adherence to Marxism-Leninism." Let the readers figure out what is implied by that by themselves. -- Vision Thing -- 14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are worse things here. Some critics of the book distort what it claims and then disprove it. For example, this segment:

UCLA professor J. Arch Getty noted that famine accounted for more than half of Courtois's 100 million death toll. ... he criticizes the fact that "a huge number of the fatalities attributed here to Communist regimes fall into a kind of catchall category called 'excess deaths': premature demises, over and above the expected mortality rate of the population, that resulted directly or indirectly from government policy [...] But 'excess deaths' are not the same as intentional deaths."
But Black Book numbers do not include "excess deaths" as described in introduction of the book. So, I think that should be deleted.Biophys (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will check the book the next time I go to the library; in the mean time, I think we should only mention that Getty believes many of the deaths counted in the book, particularly those caused by famine, "resulted directly or indirectly from government policy" and are not the same as intentional killing. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What a one-sided discussion

Somebody here is very much on the defensive against this book, but why? with the many cons and pros, the book itself is not fully decribed, instead there are long explanations why Asian deaths are different from European ones, people dying naturally and a range of other arguments against the book. I would like to know in greater detail what the good book says. I would be interested for example, in the Ukrainian famine, which allegedly killed millions. What did our great leaders and newspapers have to say about this at the time? Maybe I have to get a copy and report back here in a short while. -:)) Until then! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to last edits, please explain what exactly data from the book were challenged and why - per source (I can not read French). If this is simply a slander, it does not belong here. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Aridd, can you please explain what "falsehoods" in the book, what "incorrect data" and what "manipulated figures" author of the publication is talking about? We need some specifics. Otherwise, this is not a good encyclopedic content. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed empirical research claim from counter criticism section in "Argument that the book is one-sided"

The very last sentence of the article read:

"Supporters of capitalism, on the other hand, argue that capitalist nations have the least poverty, based on the empirical research surrounding the Indices of economic freedom.[12]"

I removed empirical from in front of research and qualified who the "empirical" researchers where, the conservative Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.255.202 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark Tauger's Debunking

Tauger's debunking if THE BLACK BOOK's chapter on the famine of 1932-3 deserves to be noted.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/soviet.htm

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Chapter%20for%20Roter%20Holocaust%20book%20b.pdf

Tauger illustrates how THE BLACK BOOK overlooks what was already published research and data from the Soviet archives in an attempt to create the misimpression that the famine occurred amidst an adequate crop. Tauger points out common factual errors that have some popularity, such as the claim that the Soviet government exported 1.8 million tons of grain in 1933 while the famine was ongoing. In fact, only 300,000 tons of this were exported before the plentiful crop of 1933 had been obtained. Tauger's research has generally served to point out the genuine errors made by Soviet leadership when coping with the famine. Specifically, they failed to realize that plant rust had caused a crop failure and so reacted to the problem as if it dervied from social causes (e.g., kulaks) and didn't grasp in time that the source of the famine was a very genuine and serious crop failure caused by rustic plant disease. But the classic Cold War picture of this famine as something which the Soviet government deliberately created as part of a war on Ukrainian nationalism is thoroughly busted by Tauger's research. This should be a part of any review of THE BLACK BOOK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems

  • The main subject of the article is the number of victims, which is maybe 1% of the contents of the book.
  • See also quotes mainly articles about non-academic authors/book, even fiction. It should rather list articles about historical events.
  • Discussion if the Holodomor was intentional is secondary. The hunger was the result of Soviet system and the system was responsible. If the Soviet system was evil or didn't work was a secondary problem from the victims point of view.
  • Some of the authors were Trotskyists, which was a more precise description than a Communist.Xx236 07:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with your first and third points. This is not a book about the number of victims. Besides, the criticism about "one-sidedness" is simply ridiculous. This is book about "communist" regimes, not about "capitalist" countries. Just imagine: someone wrote a book about trees but criticized for not writing about animals. How about deleting "one-sidedness" part as irrelevant?Biophys 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

> The hunger was the result of Soviet system and the system was responsible.

This has been largely debunked by Mark Tauger. Collectivization did improve agricultural output and was not harmful in itself. The famine was caused by an outbreak of rustic plant disease which no one understood at the time. While one can criticize the Soviet leadership for failing to consider such possibilities and instead assuming that some type of social agent was at the root of the food shortage, it's hard to recognize the same errors repeating themselves in Right-wing drivel. The people who ramble about the system being responsible generally don't show any interest in the archival data which shows that crop failure was caused by plant rust. They're more interested in deriving an ideological talking point. That actually is very similar to the way that Soviet officials just naturally assumed that counter-revolutionaries must be at the root of the problem. For the record though, it is well-established that collectivization resulted in an increase of crops. Mark Tauger discusses all of these issues in his piece on STATISTICAL FALSIFICATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.156 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP problems

I removed poorly sourced and absurd accusations of antisemitism made about one of the authors.Biophys (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Courtois' outrageous diatribe on the Holocaust provoked charges of anti-Semitism is undeniable. You have not removed "poorly sourced" accusations but have committed vandalism by arbitrarily deleting material with a citation of a scholarly article. The source is clearly cited for you to verify the content. ABarmenkov (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this (that the Holocaust was "actively commemorated" thanks to the efforts of the "international Jewish community" and that a "single-minded focus on the Jewish genocide...has prvented an assessment of other episodes of comparable magnitude in the Communist world") a quote from the Black Book or from some other work by Courtois? Regarding the second sentence (Courtois' argument that communism was on par...) I find it completely suitable for the article as it deals exactly with the comparison of Communism and Nazism. Alæxis¿question? 08:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Courtois and coworkers tell:

"The "genocide of a "class" may well be tantamount to the genocide of a "race" - the deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a result of the famine caused by Stalin's regime "is equal to" the starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by the Nazi regime".

On that ground, ,s>a non-notable Russian propagandist accuses authors of ...antisemitism. This is a clear BLP violation, and it will be removed.Biophys (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Omer Bartov a "non-notable Russian propagandist"? Please see his CV. The magazine where his article was published is also not a Russian but American magazine [5]. Alæxis¿question? 15:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Who he is does not matter. First, this claim is irrelevant. The claim is not about the book, and it does not even dispute the comparison of Nazism and Communism. Second, the claims of "antisemitism" should be justified better. If this continues, I will bring the matter to BLP noticeboard and to attention of administrators.Biophys (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, this article tells too much about reception, but it does not tell enough about book content. Maybe I will try to fix that.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait for the third opinion then. I myself think that Bartov's article satisfies WP:RS and therefore can be used in this article. Alæxis¿question? 16:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Omer Bartov's article a valid source of the info for this article?

User:Biophys insists on removing two passages sourced to the article by Omer Bartov from this article. Omer Bartov, Brown University Professor, criticised the authors of The Black Book for equating Communism and Nazism in his article in Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. What do you think about the acceptability of this source? Alæxis¿question? 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. I do not dispute validity of this source per WP:RS. I am telling it provides irrelevant information, and it is not sufficiently reliable to insert obviously wrong slander about a living person.Biophys (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Bartov is by no means the only one who questioned Courtois' statements about Holocaust:


This is from the final report[6] of Wiesel Commission. Alæxis¿question? 05:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) See also this review. I'm not insisting on including all this critique into the article but to ignore it altogether would be wrong. Alæxis¿question? 05:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Communist regimes have victimized approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million of the Nazis" There is no any way to interpret this as "a charge against the Jews". A "critic" who claims such nonsense is basically a defamer. Most important, this is all irrelevant to the subject of this article. In your last reference you cited a web cite of a theological college.Biophys (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with using a theological college site? That's not important though, there's plenty of refs so one less wouldn't matter. "There is no any way to interpret this as "a charge against the Jews"" is only your opinion and just like my opinion (that, e. g., to say that the Holocaust was "actively commemorated" thanks to the efforts of the "international Jewish community" is not very appropriate) is completely irrelevant to the article. We have a few scholars criticising one aspect of this book. That's quite enough to place their critique to the article. Alæxis¿question? 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialist India and communist China?

I think calling India "capitalist" is a bit misleading. The argument refers to agriculture, so it suggests that India is a clear example of a country with capitalist agriculture. In fact, the government of India introduced a planned economy imitating the planned economy of the Soviet Union, encouraged collectivisation, favored small peasants at the expense of wealthier proprietors, forbade national free market for grain (which was distributed by the state) and didn't allow any foreign investments in the agricultural sector. Hence, the Indian agricultural policy was closer to socialism than to pure capitalism. What is relevant here, though, is that India, unlike China, was not ruled by communists. Boraczek 22:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Except for West Bengal.

I think it should be pointed out that the research, and comparison between India and China made by Amarty Sen, was actually used by the authors of the book, to blame the 30 million dead in Chinas famine on "communism". It should then be nothing but fair to use the other half, cited in the article, to show that on other areas, China saved 100 million lives. Anything else would be hypocritical.

An other interesting comparison is between tehe "socialist" Indian state of Kerala and the rest of India. Kerala is far better off in life expectancy, child mortality etc.

When the book itself uses statistical comparisons to prove the failings of "communism", then critics of "capitalism" must be allowed the same. One could also mention similar reduction of life expectancy in Russia after the bloschevik revolution in 1917, and after the "capitalist" revolution in 1990.

-Ronny

India was socialist. So you are fighting whether communist socialism kills more people than socialist socialism. The answer is not important. What is important is that both are hideous. - Pher

Way to be NPOV, Pher Children of the dragon (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction and Conclusion

Introduction and Conclusion briefly summarize content of the book and its main ideas. Let's not treat them as something separate.Biophys (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

What was wrong with this? Alæxis¿question? 08:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the ref was incorrect. Can you please verify it and indicate pages? The last time it was inserted by someone who I suspect to be a sockpuppet of a banned user.Biophys (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Below are last paragraphs of the Weiner's review:
"Yet, even setting aside the heated debates of whether the famine of 1932/33 that took as many as 5 million innocent lives mainly in Ukraine was a premeditated genocide by the Stalinist regime or the catastrophic outcome of incompetent, arrogant, and callous authorities, the fact remained that the peasants-as a sociological category-were not targeted in toto for extermination as were Jews and other racial-biological categories in the Nazi world. Those who force the Soviet-Nazi comparison ought to acknowledge that even though communist regimes had the capacity to launch genocidal cam- paigns, they did not end up operating death camps. When Stalin's successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution. The problems with the authors' flawed comparison are not merely intellectual. Intentionally or not, their argument opens the door for all kinds of apologetics. This is a sad outcome for a country that until recently excelled in avoiding its murky wartime past. Communism deserves to be buried, but not by those whose writing and methodology so closely resemble its basic tenets."
As we can see, the statement is supported by the source.
Alexander Dallin in his reviews writes: "But then the moral, legal and political judgments hardly depend on the number of victims"
As we can see, the sources support the proposed text. If Biophys has some doubts, the burden of evidence rests with him, so it is him who must provide a ground for his conclusions. The references are given in a correct way. The sources are the journal articles, so the first and the last pages should be given in that case (only for books the exact page is needed).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Since Soviet citizens killed by the invading German army in World War II numbered almost 25 million, Courtois's claim implies that almost no Jews from Central or Eastern Europe were killed and is therefore tantamount to Holocaust denial.

Really? What if we changed the above sentence to "Since six millions of Jews died in the Holocaust, Courtois' claim implies that fewer than 20 million Soviet citizens were killed by the invading German army in World War II, and is therefore tantamount to Soviet-deaths denial"?

Shorne, you wouldn't know what Neutral Point of View means if it bit you on the ass. From false assumption to false implication to false inference, this is just intellectually dishonest of you. If you have a place where Courtois counts the death Nazism caused and where he *clearly*, explicitely doesn't include any Jewish deaths, (not UTTER UTTER CRAP where you use your own judgement to tell us what he "implies"), let us know. Aris Katsaris 04:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine. They deny the Soviet deaths. I don't care what you say: the claim of 25 million is Nazi propaganda. Still, I accept your criticism, and I have toned the article down a bit. Shorne 04:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's much better. Now, if I'd read the book I might have more objections but since I haven't read it, I'll leave now this article for the rest of y'all to play in. :-) Cheers from me. Aris Katsaris 04:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A "compromise" between a blatant slander and nothing is a toned down slander. And I think Wikipedia is not a place for slanders of any kind. Courtois's estimate of the death toll of nazism is 25 mln and he obviously included the extermination of Jews. You don't have to agree with his estimate, but implying that Courtois denied the extermination of Jews is only an unsubstantiated slander. Boraczek 10:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek, it is rather strange for you as a Pole to implicitly lend support to Courtois by referring to the users critical of him as "slanders". Plausibly, the Nazi occupation of Poland and murder of Polish Holocaust victims are more acceptable in your view. 141.84.69.20 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why is the communist apologetics and whitewashing of crippling repression against peoples, longer than any other part of the article? Including the part about what the book contains. The article is a mess and is entirely unbalanced. - Gennarous (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please make corrections yourself? That would be more constructive than to insert POV label. What is the difference between "political" and "civil" repressions? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference is, politicial repression is when communists repress political figures who refuse their ideals. While civilian repression is the active repression of the everyday people, such as the crippling man-made famines mentioned in the book. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So, you think there are "Due weight" problems. Let's fix them.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I made a few changes to reflect you concerns. Feel free to correct.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


A lot of the stuff in this section strikes me as versions of ad hominem arguments, and/or logically flawed. True, many of the statements are now sourced, but a lot of the sources are along the lines of "X has said." Well so what? Just because somebody said something, doesn't make it true. What's needed is a logically sound argument to buttress a criticism, and very few actual arguments are canvased. Pretty much the whole of this section seems to me little more than varieties of special pleading.Theonemacduff (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Critics

Critics, including the majority of historians, consider Courtois's claims to be vastly exaggerated, poorly documented; they have also noticed outright errors, such as misplaced decimal points that multiplied some numbers by ten.

I wonder if I could see some substantiation for the highlighted phrases. Boraczek 14:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the 'misplaced decimal points' were caused by an error in the translation from French to English, Harvard Press corrected it in susbsequent printings, but either way, it didn't effect the overall mathematics of the death toll.Mattm1138 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A majority of historians? Yeah, sure thing. Because someone went and asked every professional historian in the world and was thus able to determine that a majority of them dispute the numbers in this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Content

Although this section is supposed to describe the book's content, it describes exclusively the content of the Courtois' introduction, which is the worst and the most controversial part of the book. I suggest to replace it with a short summary, and to ficus on the content of the book itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Black Book of Capitalism."

Why has no-one written such a book? Would it take too long? Under the present world economic order which is presumably supported by those who hate 'Communism' so much there there is one preventable death from hunger every four seconds. This has been so for the last ten years at least. Do the maths and this comes to far more corpses than were ever produced by Mao or Stalin and these people are dying *now* not 50 years or so ago. Do we have to accept this? Is any attempt to create a fair and less unequal world going to be met with shrill cries of 'Communism' by the reactionaries of this world? SmokeyTheCat 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, people are dying from hunger in North Korea and Cuba at an alarming rate. Why is the capitalist...oh, shit, they're Communist governments. Guess that kind of takes your pathetic, evil point and shits on it huh? Communism killed 100 million people, and leftism killed many more (Nazism being, of course, National SOCIALISM), but hey, a few more won't hurt. 72.144.60.229 09:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware that there is no hunger anywhere in the world outside those two countries. I was also not aware that there were any people dying from hunger in Cuba. Where do you get this amazing information from? Bear in mind that 24,000 people are dying from starvation every day (outside Cuba and North Korea). How many years does it take for capitalism to kill 100 million people at this rate? Let's see... Approximately 11 years and 5 months. Unless you want to argue that not all deaths by starvation that happen under capitalism are capitalism's fault. Which leaves open the possibility that not all deaths by starvation that happen under communism are communism's fault, either. -- Nikodemos 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
NO people are dying of starvation in Cuba! The United States of America, Israel and Eritrea are some of the countries where most people are starving, and what ideology do they have? CAPITALISM! If we look on the US' model, of course, many people are dying in a country that have as a basic prinsipe that if you are "lazy", you deserve to be poor. "Lazy" may also mean that you are INJURED! SO you shall be PUNISHED because you're INJURED! In NORTH KOREA, people die of hunger because their government doesn't care about them, only the military and themselves, that's right. But in Cuba, they got a REAL Socialist/Communist government without capitalist elements within it (such as North Korea and Romania for example), and no people die of starvation here. 188.113.91.110 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (A young communist unsigned)
Do you know what Communism is? You fucking murdering anti-Semite shitheads need to stop fucking posting here, and let the dead rest. Get the fuck out, Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.130.13 (talk • contribs)
On another note, there is a Black Book of Capitalism. It was published in France in 2002, but, of course, it was never translated into English: [7] -- Nikodemos 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There's an article about it here. Aridd (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The comment from Nikodemos is absolutely ridiculous. Bear in mind that 24,000 people die of starvation a year? Aside from the fact that you provide no source for that number, it is ridiculous in the extreme to claim that every one of those deaths, if it didn't occur in N.Korea or China, somehow occurred in a "capitalist country". I would be willing to bet the vast majority of those starvation deaths occur in Africa. I hate to burst your bubble, but most of the poorest countries in Africa have been run into the ground by Marxist kleptocrats. Robert Mugabe would be a perfect example. Sorry, but the assertion that every starvation death in the world outside of N. Korea and China is in a capitalist country is pathetic and absolutely laughable.
Also, those in the comment section criticizing the Black Book seem to unaware of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the famine in the Ukraine that killed millions was deliberately manufactured by Stalin. It was deliberate, period. It wasn't just an unforeseen byproduct of the implementation of collectivism. This has been agreed upon by the vast majority of historians of the subject for quite some time now. Whichis why the comparison to people that die of starvation in capitalist countries is completely inapt. Moreover, the criticism of the deliberate nature of the famine presented in the article should be presented with some rebuttal evidence bolstering the position of the authors of the Black Book. Sorry to burst the bubble of those arguing here, but the deliberate nature of the Soviet famines has been beyond dispute for quite a while now.

I feel this article could use a POV clean up- the reviews in favour of the book are all lumped on top, there are more of them than reviews critical of the book, and the reviews critical of the book are quoted in a much longer swath, making them less appealing to read. Shahar Goldin 14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ViktorAnyakin asked me to explain why I removed the Holodomor denial link. The reason is because the section in question is not about Holodomor denial, it's about whether or not the famine was deliberate or to what extent, which is another issue. The problem with adding the Holodomor denial link to this section is that it implies the people cited in the section are Holodomor denialists, when AFAIK nobody has accused them of such. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. I just thought that Holodomor denial is relevant in this case and might be of interest for a casual reader. But I am not insisting in this case. Thanks--vityok (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is devoted to the introduction only

The main part of the article is devoted to the introduction written by Coirtois, although it has been highly criticized. By contrast, the best part of the book, the Werth's chapter on the USSR has been totally ignored, and his opinion has been moved to the "Criticism" section (as if he was not a contributor). The balance must be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine Werth was moved to the criticism section as he was critical. I was considering rewriting the article but a you have now turned up I`ll give it a miss, it`ll jut become another battlefield. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky

Here's a paragraph on Chomsky's opinion of the book:

Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky, for example, writes that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated the excess of mortality in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of medical resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of

My understanding is that during this period, India was aligned with the Soviets and had a closed and highly controlled economy. Democracy, sure, but not capitalist.142.157.2.31 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

'Criticism' section

I'm sure this has already been addressed, but it's absurd that the 'Criticism' subsection of 'Reception' is longer than the rest of the article. Surely it can be pared down a bit. Why is it so hard for editors to keep their politics out of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.211.245 (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the reviews on the Black Book you will find that the amount of criticism is far greater than of support. Although the BB is popular among lay readers, the scholars as a rule do not share this attitude. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This is probably the most detailed book on the general subject of communist repressions (900+ pages). Please correct if I am wrong, and there are better books about this general subject (there are many and possibly better books about communist repressions in individual countries). No wonder, the book became a subject of condemnation by left-wing historians and journalists. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
According to one of the review, it is both the most infuential and the most controversial book about Communism, therefore extensive discussion of criticism is quite necessary. Regarding condemnation by left-wing historians and journalists, we do not didive sources onto left, right and middle. We divide them by reliable and non-reliable, by mainstream, minoruty and fringe. If mainstream sources criticise the book, this criticism needs to be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of quoted sources do not tell anything about "Black book". This is WP:SYN. Some others, like "feedmag" seem do not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Re "we do not divide..." what royal we is that? Certainly the political affiliation of a source of criticism (or praise) is crucial context to understanding the geopolitical/historic perspective being rendered. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky redux

The section mentioning Chomsky should be removed. Firstly I highly doubt what he said about China and India is true (has he heard of the 15 million to 40 million dead in the great famine. Sure shows you the benefits of communism) but India was by no means a particularly Capitalist country. Also the period the high growth in the period he mentions (the 1980s), can be a attributed to the liberalization of China's economies by encouraging practices associated with capitalist countries such as foreign investment and some private ownership.

Another strange criticism is Alexander Dallin's assertion about Vietnam. The 1 million figure refers to those killed by the Vietnamese governments in democide not in war. There is more than enough evidence to prove that around 1 million were killed. This could actually be an under count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but Wikipedia is essentially an extreme left-wing blog. The propaganda here is much more pernicious than that of, say, Conservapedia. Note that one of the editors on this page has claimed that "capitalist" Europeans killed 15 million Native Americans. In reality, this figure was invented by anthropologist Henry Dobyns and has been completely discredited (David Henige, Numbers From Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998, pp66-87). Modern scholarship suggests that more than 90% of the American Indians died of disease, not war or massacre (Noble David Cook, Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650 Cambridge University Press, 1998, p206). An excellent and moderate summary can be found at: http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
Why is this relevant? Simple. Conservatives and capitalists on the Right generally present very modest claims, give their opponents the benefit of the doubt, and use methodology prone to underestimation rather than overestimation. The far Left, by contrast, is willing to fabricate any number of distortions, engage in gross demagoguery, and invent extraordinary lies in order to brainwash and manipulate the public. Why did human rights violations in Chile receive 8 times more media coverage in the US than those in Khmer Rouge Cambodia in the seventies (see Sophal Ear's research in The Khmer Rouge Cannon)? Does anyone recall the Stockholm Conference of 1979, when the world's leading intellectuals called for the restoration of the Khmer Rouge? Why are Che and Ho Chi Minh praised by leftists despite their mass murders? It's obvious that, for the Left, the standard of evidence for "capitalist" crimes is extremely low to nonexistent, whereas "proving" Communist crimes beyond any shadow of unreasonable doubt is unrealistically difficult or even impossible. Just say that all deaths from poverty, primarily in third world socialist countries, are caused by people making voluntary exchanges in the free market. Assert that socialist India, then in a formal alliance with the USSR, was actually an extreme example of laissez-faire, and that any difference in conditions between it and China can only be explained by too much freedom. Announce that all forms of tyranny except Communism are capitalist, and that America and Israel are ultimately responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world.
All of the figures in the Black Book are underestimates. That's right--every single one. Nobody on the Right wants to exaggerate. R.J. Rummel's decades of research, taking every available estimate (as of 1987) of deaths by cause (camps, famine, executions, deportations, slave labor, genocide) under Communism and averaging them out, is the most reliable source on this matter. I would suggest checking out his website and all of its research, but the following table will give you an idea of how many people were actually killed by the Communists (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF). Even Rummel was too conservative. He originally estimated that the Communist Chinese killed 35 million people in democide, and another 43 million in famine. More recent scholarship has convinced him that all of the deaths were democidal. The Gulag alone accounts for more than 20 million Soviet deaths given the number of prisoners and the most conservative figures for the death rate; Stalin's successors killed around 10 million people.
Also see the Top 200 Chomsky Lies, to understand the scale of the Left's propaganda machine, and note that Chomsky himself denies that Mao "intended to kill anyone".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Amir Weiner, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452
  2. ^ Alexander Dallin, Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Black_Book_of_Communism/Archive_3&oldid=866561396"