Do Communists have collective guilt for crimes against humanity?

[Red Economist]

I decided to put this in the History Sub-forum as it's seem more appropriate.

Three years ago I sat and read about the first third of the "Black Book of Communism". I couldn't finish it was it was simply too horrific. Published in France in 1997, it is a collection of essays which detail the history of state repression in communist countries, and is the original source for the statistic that "Communism killed 100 million people".

The statistic itself is heavily debated but for me that wasn't as important as the fact that as a communist, the book made a strong accusation that communists were collectively guilty of crimes against humanity, not necessarily because they were involved in any of the repressions, but by virtue of supporting the idea of communism and the system of government and that irrespective of individual's persons actions, intentions or ideas, they were necessarily guilty and evil. This has therefore drawn an enourmous amount of my time and energy in trying to respond to this accusation including considering giving up communism all together.

This draws a direct comparison with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust in which the ideology and system of government were considered criminal by definition because it was engaged in a conscious and deliberate conspiracy to exterminate a section of it's own population. The definition of Genocide in international law does not include eliminating people on the basis of social class or political affiliation, and some would argue that was because the Soviet Union was involved in creating this definition at the Nuremberg Trials. what the communists did falls generally under "crimes against humanity" although they were also responsible for several genocides when certain ethnic groups were believed to have the 'wrong' political sympathies.

Slowly I have come to the conclusion that communists do not have a collective guilt, for at least three reasons;

i) The concept of collective guilt is not based on evidence, but the assumption, that communism is innately evil. In order to be collectively guilty, communism would have to deny people individual autonomy and render them passive objects to the will of the state. Whilst individuals are subordinate to the state, they are not inherently so as they are still free in a sense. submission to this system and idea is the basis for guilt and not what is done in service of the state. Communism has been characterized as a 'totalitarian' system of government, but this is because it is assumed that the liberal conception of freedom is the only one which is true and that everything which doesn't fit into this is 'evil'.

ii) The idea that crimes against humanity must necessarily be conscious and deliberate ignores the existence of similar crimes in liberal/capitalist systems of government, who are virtually exonerated because there actions can be attributed to the voluntary and spontaneous acts of individuals, rather than the planned and deliberate intention of the state. This conflict between 'intentions' and consequences means that communists are guilty of crimes against humanity because the individual responsibility of it's leaders is then attributed to those who executed it's orders, whereas because markets are (officially) leaderless, no such responsibility and guilt can therefore be attributed to them.

iii) The last one has been the most difficult as it involves challenging the claim (but not necessarily denying) that there are "crimes against humanity". The central problem is that this concept of crimes against humanity originates from 'human nature'. Our current concept of human rights is derived from 'human nature'. The first issue with this is that human nature is assumed to be universal across all societies and times and therefore so necessarily is the conception of human rights which as a Marxist I'd strongly argue against. The second is this only takes into account the 'human nature' of the victims, whilst ignoring the fact that the perpetrators, even if we accept they are warped, still are members of the human race and therefore tell us something about 'human nature'. if human rights are the product of human nature, so also are human rights violations and that represents a deeply perverse ethical system.

iv) The final one is an extension of the third point, but directly concerns the relationship between atheism and ethics. This isn't really a "crime against humanity" as a "crime against god" as the liberal concept is derived from theological beliefs through Judea-christian ethics regarding the sanctity of human life- and not a secular or atheist concept. As communists are strong atheists who argue god does not objectively exist, it follows that any morality derived from god is also under threat. strictly speaking, there is no higher power to decide that what the communists did was wrong as the highest power and moral authority is the very state responsible for killing so many people.

Given the complex and controversial nature of the subject matter it is by no means are my conclusions fixed so I'm open to hearing your thoughts and ideas on this. Do you think that "Communists are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity?"

[professor]

The answer is easy.
Just put yourself and those you care for on the receiving end.
Now tell us what you think as they hunt you down.

[Darkstar]

Do you think that "Communists are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity?"

No, because communism is not inherently evil.

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the ; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

Technically there shouldn't even be a state let alone one that can oppress people.


However, I do think that some pseudo-communist states (e.g. Mao's China, Soviet Union) are, in fact, guilty of crimes against humanity. I just don't think that present-day communists should automatically be considered guilty by association. I don't agree with much of communist doctrine, but I don't think that communism in and of itself necessitates crimes against humanity.


Fascism on the other hand...

Fascism promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state.[163] The Doctrine of Fascism states, "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."[164] In The Legal Basis of the Total State, Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt described the Nazi intention to form a "strong state which guarantees a totality of political unity transcending all diversity" in order to avoid a "disastrous pluralism tearing the German people apart".[165]

Fascist states pursued policies of social indoctrination through propaganda in education and the media and regulation of the production of educational and media materials.[166][167] Education was designed to glorify the fascist movement and inform students of its historical and political importance to the nation. It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement and to teach students to be obedient to the state.[168]

Fascism can go die in a fire.

[Minimalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_B...accuracies

Some have argued that the book's account of violence is one-sided. Amir Weiner of Stanford University characterizes the "Black Book" as seriously flawed, inconsistent, and prone to mere provocation. In particular, the authors are said to savage Marxist ideology.[17] The methodology of the authors has been criticized. Alexander Dallin writes that moral, legal, or political judgement hardly depends on the number of victims.[18] The trotskyist Daniel Bensaïd argued that a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of colonialism and capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries

It is far more important to determine the motivations of the authors.  True of any book.


Especially the fucking bible.

[Darkstar]

The trotskyist Daniel Bensaïd argued that a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of colonialism and capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries

But Min, Murica was founded as a Christian nation! They couldn't possibly have done anything immoral! 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, no group has 'collective guilt'.  The notion that all people who share the views of psychotics are as guilty as the psychotics themselves is farcical.

'Collective guilt' is the idiotic idea that justified persecution of the Jews for hundreds of years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.  The fact that Stalin and Pol Pot were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of their own people doesn't mean that Communists who had nothing to do with it are also guilty of murder.

Boru

[Minimalist]

But Min, Murica was founded as a Christian nation! They couldn't possibly have done anything immoral! 

Yeah....so I've heard.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed. Collective guilt is immoral.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Reminds me of the story about Andrew Carnegie upbraiding Mark Twain for his unbelief.  In exasperation, Carnegie blurts out, 'But America is a Christian nation!'

Twain (it is reported) calmly replies, 'I know that, Andrew, but so is Hell and we never boast about that.'

Boru

[vorlon13]

God killed Ananias and Sapphira for NOT being good communists so I guess I don't understand the guilt thing at all. Communism is God's preferred way for his Christer peoples to live.

Rejoice in it !!!