Talk:The Black Book of Communism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
The Black Book of Communism is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the class scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

By the admission of some of its authors, this book is a crude work of propaganda. For fuller discussion, see Talk:Communism and Talk:Communist state.

I have marked it as being of disputed neutrality for now. Shorne 12:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

" Courtois has also come under fire for his assertion that Nazism was "better" than communism because the former supposedly killed "only" 25 million." This entry needs the direct quote rather than this siomplistic assertion from a non-reader. With a title like The Black Book of Communism, assertions that some of the content is inflated seem too naive to credit. Wetman 15:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article has been stable for a month, but I do not want to take off the neutrality tag until Mihnea comes back and sees the article. Mihnea has done much to make this article better and I think I should wait a bit longer for his reaction. Boraczek 21:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was something I found to be clearly based on a non-neutral point of view which was that colonialism and imperialism were not capitalist because they "reduced the economic freedom of people". Colonialism and imperialism were, in my view, the result of overproduction in domestic markets requiring the state to try to expand its markets by 1. providing opportunities of investing surplus capital overseas and 2. making the colonised countries capitalist so that they could be a new market for all the products being made. In other words, there was a coherent and specific capitalist logic underlying them. This in fact shows that capitalism is not just about "economic freedom", but has its own limitations and contradictions just as classically-formulated communism does. However it is not the case that capitalism ineluctably must incorporate colonialism - one could image a capitalism without it, hence my clarification. Joe.

Although the book is propagandist, there is no logical reason why an article about it should be. I will watchlist this article: it is deeply POV in a number of places, and will eventually NPOV flag it if improvements are not seen. Sjc 07:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Covert persuasion

can the deaths during the Civil War be blamed on "the communists" or should they be seen as any other war casualties? Should the victims of the natural famine in 1922 be counted?

These "questions" are clearly not neutral. In the first question, the highlighted part implies that all other wars were treated in a different way than the Civil War. If you want to defend this phrase, please specify: which wars, how and by who? Otherwise, I assume that this phrase is not substantiated and only serves as an innuendo. As far as the second question is concerned, the real question is of course: was the famine natural or induced by communists? Should the victims of the natural famine in 1922 be counted? is not a question, but rather an answer and a POV, as is Should the victims of the famine in 1922, which was brought about by wrong economic policy, be counted?. I'll remove the first highlighted part and change the second question, so as to make it neutral. Boraczek 19:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prove that the economic policy was wrong and that it was the cause of the famine. Shorne 21:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't argue that the economic policy was wrong and that it was the cause of the famine and I didn't write anything like this in the article, so I don't know why I should prove that. Boraczek 21:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Latest restoration of article

Kind of problematical as not all was bad, but some was simply inaccurate, for example, the statement that the Black Book chronicles the "deaths caused by communism". It does not simply do that but, as the subtitle says, chronicles "Crimes Terror Repression", which I render as the "evils of communism". Adding POV edits with an edit summary that you have NPOVed it does not accurately reflect the changes you have made. Fred Bauder 21:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

If this page is protected pending the resolution of a dispute, then where's the dispute? I think it's about time to unprotect it, and start working from where we are now (reverts are counter-productive). For example, the phrase mentioned above should be edited to say "the perceived crimes of regimes pursuing communism" (without using the bold font, of course). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Excess deaths

I cut the argument saying it could "easily" be argued the opposite that communism has more excess deaths. There was no substantiation. If the argument were "easy" it would be made. The India comparison is persuasive because India was ahead of China in health measures before Mao took over. Blaming Mao for the fact that other countries were ahead of China when China was capitalist and when Mao was not in power yet would be silly. That is why people use the India comparison. There is no capitalist country that can say China was ahead of it until it took up capitalism and surpassed Mao or until Mao took up socialism. So no, the argument cannot be easily reversed. 198.165.90.75 08:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, could you please indicate the source of the information that India was ahead of China in health measures before Mao took over?

Anyway, India was in very different social, cultural, geographical and historical conditions than China. Besides, India was a demographic curiosity - it was the only country that had higher male life expectancy than female life expectancy. The possibility of comparison between China and India is thus limited.

It makes more sense to compare the People's Republic of China with the Republic of China (Taiwan). The former represents the part of China which was taken over by communists. The latter represents the part of China which was taken over by Kuomintang. The former introduced a socialist economy. The latter introduced a planned capitalist economy. The former received economic aid from the Soviet Union. The latter received American, Japanese and other foreign investments. We have no exact demographic data on China in 1950, but it is reasonable to assume that the life expectancy in both states was approximately the same. 30 years later, the difference between the both states was very big. In 1980, People's Republic of China had a life expectancy at birth of 64 years and the Republic of China had a life expectancy at birth of 71 years. The difference is 7 years (!!!). Source: Huw R. Jones, A Population Geography, Harper & Row, New York 1981

As you can see, the argument is more than easy to reverse. Boraczek 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, i don't see that. It is highly illogical to compare the tiny island of Taiwan to China. The mechanics of managing states of such different sizes are too singificant to simpyl gloss over. Similarly, Taiwan, b nature of its opposition to China, it recieved, as you noted, consistant aid from America and Japan, among others. However, China had a much rockier relationship with the USSSR than Taiwan with the US or Japan. Again, here it makes more sense to compare China to India, both states with mixed relationships with superpowers, the USSR in the case of the former and the USSR and the USA in the care of the latter. Finally, i feel that this arguing is perhaps not the best way to spend our time. I would be perfectly happy to differ to the judgement of a Nobel Prize winner then anyone who is likely to be a collaborator on Wikipedia, including myself, at least on subjects such as economics. Zinnling 13:30 16 Dec 2004

I don't think that the size of the state is too relevant in this context. Do tiny islands usually have better life expectancy than big continental states? Well, at least we can find many counter-examples (e.g. the United States and the Bahamas).

In the years 1950-1962 China did receive 1.82 billion rubles of economic aid from the Soviet Union. Taiwan, as far as I know, did not receive any considerable economic aid from the US, Japan and other countries. But its non-communist system encouraged foreign investment. What economic aid did India receive? Did anyone check it before comparing China to India?

As far as I know, Amartya Sen did not interpret the excess deaths as "lifes saved by communism". This conclusion would require some more far-reaching assumptions. Boraczek 21:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Zinnling on the comparisons made between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Taiwan. The Kwomingtang government, which once controlled all of mainland China before the 1949 Chinese Revolution, took as much money as they could before fleeing to the island of Taiwan. In addition, the United States offered help to Taiwan to build up an infrastructure, which is a lot more useful than simply giving Taiwan an inflow of financial aid. The Soviet Union on the other hand, was more interested in making China into a subordinate state rather than an ally. True, the U.S.S.R. might have have given China financial aid of 1.82 billion rubles, but one must remember that 1) 1.82 billion rubles does not mean 1.82 billion dollars. and 2) China's population was already around 1 billion dollars in the middle of the century. If the United States had given aid of the equivalence of 1.82 billion rubles to Taiwan, Taiwan would have indeed benefitted more. In addition, the PRC faced numerous difficulties the moment the new nation was founded. For instance, the war was fought with peasants and extremely outdated technology, and the nation was basically in poverty after the Revolution. Taiwan did not face a great deal of economic difficulty after its formation. In other words, Taiwan had a huge head start in this "race," if you will, and one cannot directly compare results at face value in situations such as this. However, if one were to look at the economic progression of the two nations, they will find that China's living standards (notwithstanding the "great leap forward") have improved significantly over the past 20 years, or even the past 10 years.

However, i respond to Zinnling by saying that: No, size of a country really doesn't matter in a general sense. Things balance out; Big nations may have advantages over small ones (ex:resources), and ditto with small nations (ex:management). The variable that is in disputation is -Financial Aid- and so in this case, smaller nations do benefit more, if statistics such as "life expectancy" is to be presented, where small nations are treated as statistic equals to large ones.

SirCollin 22:56, 18 Dec 2004

  1. I think the effect of small/big state is more complicated than that. We should not forget that Taiwan had to devote a huge part of its financial resources to maintain its means of defence against a potential invasion. It was much more difficult and economically exhausting for a small state like Taiwan to be militarily ready for an attack of a giant like PRC.
  2. In my humble opinion, SirCollin definitely overrates the head start of Taiwan. Besides, we should keep in mind that what weighs here is not differences in situations as such, but rather differences which are not attributed to communism. I could argue about some things SirCollin said, but I won't do it now, as I think it's less relevant at the moment.
  3. SirCollin rightly pointed out that some factors make it difficult to make a comparison between PRC and Taiwan and to interpret the outcome of this comparison. I don't deny that such factors exist. But I want to observe that this argument does not lead to the conclusion that the comparison between India and China is more justified that the comparison between China and Taiwan. To draw this conclusion one would also have to show that 1) the same factors do not come into play when we compare China and India and 2) no other significant factors restrict the comparison between China and India.

Boraczek 12:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] 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

[edit] Further reading regarding the rising mortality in European socialist countries

  • J. Bourgeois-Pichat, L'evolution de la mortalite dans les pays industriales, Seminar on Social Policy, Health Policy and Mortality Prospects, INED-IUSSP, Paris 1983
  • J. C. Chesnais, La duree de la vie dans les pays industrialises, "La Recherche" 1983, no. 147
  • P. A. Compton, Rising Mortality in Hungary, "Population Studies" 1985, no. 1
  • R. H. Dinkiel, The Seeming Paradox of Increasing Mortality in a Higly Industrialized Nation: The Example of the Soviet Union, "Population Studies" 1985, no. 1
  • J. Dutton, Causes of Soviet Adult Mortality Increase, "Soviet Studies" 1981, vol. 33
  • J. Dutton, Changes in Soviet Mortality Patterns, 1959-77, "Population and Development Review" 1979, no. 2
  • P. Jovan, Some Features of Mortality in the 1970s in Hungary, Chaire Quetelet, Louvain-la-Neive 1982
  • M. Okolski, Spoleczno-ekonomiczne czynniki wzrostu umieralnosci w Polsce, referat na sesje naukowa z okazji 30-lecia Wydzialu Nauk Ekonomicznych UW, Warsaw 1984
  • Problemy ludnosciowe, ed. by M. Latuch, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warsaw 1986

Boraczek 23:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also note the increase in poverty, decrease in living standards, and much greater increase in mortality in those same Eastern European countries after they turned to capitalism in the 1990's.

The mortality decreased and the living standards increased in the Eastern European countries in the 1990s. Please check the statistical books if you don't believe me. Boraczek 00:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, I've edited the article in an attempt to present both sides equally, and ended the "living standards" paragraph with "It would seem that the achievements of communist states in terms of living standards and economic indicators depend entirely on what standards of comparison are used." I hope you will find this a good compromise. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find this a quite good summary. I can see that you really tried to make the article balanced and NPOV. But I'm afraid I still have to make some changes in the article. Boraczek 00:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) Boraczek 17:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

particularly since the population of mainland China is far larger, and thus it is more difficult to raise average living standards there than in Taiwan

I think this statement is very dubious. If it was true, then small countries should on average enjoy higher living standards than big countries. I can see no such correlation. Boraczek 00:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this an article about the book or its critics?

Jeebus cripes. Not that you can't mention the critiques. But this article needs a massive overhaul. J. Parker Stone 22:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is an article about the book and the controversy it raised. Boraczek 09:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Necessary deportations

Did I really read this sentence:

"Were the deportations during World War II justified by the need to defeat Nazi Germany?"

What kind of NPOV policy does allow such a kind of sentence? What justifications could there be for such mass deportations? In how far did these deportations help the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany?

Concerning the other criticisms:

- the famine question is similar to the Great Leap Forward question. The impact of bad economic policies (mass collectivisation, price controls, etc.) is widely acknowledged (though there are, of course, dissenters). Some guy (don't remember who...) actually stated that in the 20th century, the worst famines happened to take place in communist states (Soviet Union, China, Ethiopia during its dictatorship).

On the other hand, both Russia and China had had famines on a regular basis for hundreds of years before they became communist states, and the famines under communist rule were the last in that line of historical famines. In other words, the communists ended the cycle of famine in Russia and China. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They definetely ended them with a bang! Seriously: it is obvious if you just know a tiny bit of economics that it's bad economic policies that created the famines in China and the Soviet Union.Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, just like it is obvious to anyone with common sense that the Earth is flat... [/sarcasm].
I see you're out of arguments. Luis rib 23:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- the China/Taiwan question: I'm not sure that Taiwan's development can be entirely be attributed to American help. After all, Taiwan was only one of a handful of successful economies: the Tigers. Take South Korea: after the Korean War, it was completely destroyed and considered to be poorer than most African countries. Yet it managed one of the fastest development paces in world history.

The question was whether the small island of Taiwan can be compared to the huge continent-sized nation of China. It is certainly much more difficult to achieve economic development in China than in Taiwan. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why? Many Communsts argue for the benefits of large scale prodution. Ultramarine 22:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Question to Minhea: how come China manages to develop at break-neck speed once it has implemented capitalist reforms? You don't need to compare CHina to Taiwan; just compare Mao's China to Jiang Zemin's China. Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- the India/China question: it is weird to claim that China saved lifes by raising living standards. After all, we have no idea how China would have developped if it had a Capitalist government. The comparison with India is not relevant since, as it was explained before, India had implemented socialist-style economic policies.

By the same token, it is weird to claim that the communists are to blame for the poor living standards in Eastern Europe - after all, we have no idea how the region would have developped if it had capitalist governments. Judging by the experience of the past 15 years, it would have probably ended up significantly worse off. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You seem to assume that the economic development in Eastern Europe has been bad. Do you have any statistcs to prove this? Ultramarine 22:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have my own experience as a Romanian, and [this archive of CIA world factbook statistics http://www.theodora.com/wfb/] (I should compile a relevant table using their stats, but I'm a little short on time right now - speaking of which, we really should work towards an end to this dispute). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mihnea: you know pretty well that the collapse of Eastern European economies in the early nineties was due to the total malfunction of the communist economies before. The very high growth rates of Eastern Europe now show that capitalism does indeed work in those countries. Actually, those that adopted the most liberal policies (Slovakia and Estonia, for instance) are also those attracting most investment and growing fastest. Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If we can blame the dismal performance of capitalism in Eastern Europe on the evil commies who ruled those countries before, then, by the same token, we can blame any and all economic problems in the first 15 years of a communist regime on the evil capitalists who ruled the country before.
As for high economic growth rates, there are two points to be made: First, the highest growth rates are always in poor countries, not rich ones (much of the third world has higher growth rates than the first world). Second, a high growth rate does not mean a good living standard. In Romania, we've had a growth rate of over 4% in the past four years, but there has been ZERO improvement in the living standards of the majority of the population. The same applies to Slovakia, which is far poorer than its Czech neighbors. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What dismal performance of capitalism? I was in Hungary in 1994 it was just getting capitalist. The countries did not turn capitalist in one day in 1989. The transition was certainly painful, nobody says the contrary. Some countries make BIG mistakes (such as Russia, when it gave everything to the oligarchs). Those that managed the transition the best are those that are now doing best as well. Slovenia actually already managed to get in front of Portugal in GDP/head, I think.
Concerning high growth rates: I was talking of high growth rates compared to other countries with same level of economic development. Of course poor countries should have higher growth rates, that's just obvious. Actually, growth rates of 4 % in Romania are quite low, and should be much higher if the country wants to develop (but again Romania is one of the countries that was slow to move towards capitalism). Concerning poor population: only a fool would believe that adopting capitalism will automatically eliminate poverty. Portugal is capitalist too and has pockets of poverty. What people have to understand is that capitalism is just a word. What counts are specific economic policies, and if the right economic policies are implemented, the country can develop very fast. China and Ireland are excellent positive examples of that, Russia, Brazil and India are excellent negative examples. Luis rib 23:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And the exact same argument could be made on the "transition" to socialism in the Soviet Union. The transition was painful, and the country made BIG mistakes... The book in question is an ad-hoc polemic against the left. Nothing wrong with that, we need debate, but it is no more "fair and balanced" than Fox news...Ronnykj

- concerning the communist states apart from Soviet Union, China and Cambodia: the book does not only look at deaths, but also at other crimes, such as torture and human rights violations. Certainly, Ceaucescu is not known as a murderer. Yet it cannot be denied that torture was widespread in Romania. Also, Ceaucesu planned the organized destruction of Romania's architectural heritage (he succeeded in part in Bucarest). The Book also mentions all these crimes - that's why it is more than a black book on Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

The point was that most of the "crimes of communism" happened under three very specific communist regimes, rather than being distributed equally among all communist states. Therefore, the book's claim that communism in general has caused 100 million deaths is disputable. To make a comparison, if 3 capitalist regimes cause 90 million deaths and all the other capitalist regimes put together kill just a little over 4 million people, can we blame those 94 million deaths on capitalism in general? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is very logical that most crimes happened in China and the Soviet Union: those countries were by far the largest communist countries! So there should be no wonder that those countries concentrated most deaths. Cambodia, on the other hand, is an extreme example. Destruction of cultural goods was concentrated in Romania. Personality cult has reached its peak in North Korea. Ethiopia's famine (to which the Mengistu governemnt was totally indifferent) was also epic, given the country's population. True, other communist states were less violent, but human rights violations were common in ALL of them. That's why Communism is exceptional: all the countries that adopted it violated them in some way. There is no single example of a communist state that did not commit wide-spread human rights violations. Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you're interested in death tolls measured as percentages of the total population rather than absolute numbers, please see this article. You will find that, far from supporting your case, these statistics actually show the crimes of Stalin and Mao to have been far less bad than they first appear. Mao killed tens of millions, but this was such a small part of China's huge population that he doesn't even rank in the top 25 killers of the century. In fact, only two communists do - Pol Pot and Stalin. Other communist regimes aren't even worth mentioning - keep in mind that besides Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all the other communist leaders put together killed less than 4 million people (out of a total population of hundreds of millions in the countries they ruled, this accounts for less than 1%).
As for human rights, it could easily be argued that all capitalist countries violate human rights in one way or another as well. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the first part of your argument: yes, as a percentage point there were worse dictators. Cambodia comes second, though, in your list. But there have been books written on most of those other brutalities too. This book just concentrates on the Communist countries, that's all. Concerning human rights violations, your comment is not true: not all capitalist countries violate human rights, on the contrary! Many capitalist countries are actually involved in preventing human rights violations all over the world. Think about the Scandinavian countries, for instance! Or Belgium, which allowed its courts to persecute human rights violations committed outside the country. True, some capitalist countries do commit human rights violations (the United States, for instance, or Israel vs the Palestinians). But most human rights violations are committed in dictatorships, which are not necessarily capitalist (Iran, Myanmar, several African countries). Also, all Communist states were dictatorships - which explains why human rights violations were wide-spread. Luis rib 23:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-External links: they are almost all against the book, apparently. In how far is that NPOV? The negative view of the book that transpires in this article also doesn't seem to be shared by the Amazon reviewers, which give the book an average of 4/5 stars.

As for my own opinion about the book: I actually found quite good, even though I have to agree that sometimes it adopts a rather extreme tone. Still, most of the figures seem to have been well researched. Luis rib 22:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Luis. I agree with most of them. As far as the NPOV policy is concerned, I think it requires that we report on the main (and reasonable) arguments raised by the critics. That is why I would leave the questions concerning the deportations and the famine. I think they do not imply that the critics are right, they just present the dispute around the book. As regards the external links, I think the solution would be to add more links.
You also posed a question I forgot to mention on this talk page. I think the statement that the book attempts to catalog deaths resulting from the pursuit of communism is not accurate. Maybe it would be better to give an exact quote from the book to desribe its aim.
Besides, I think the article should mention that the most part of the criticism comes from the left wing. It would help to signal that the controversy about the book has a political background. Boraczek 09:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life expectancy

however, I had to re-add my observations on east vs. west and east vs. south america

The argument at hand is about mortality and life expectancy. The comparison between Eastern Europe and South American can be made, of course, but in terms of life expectancy. Talking about relatively good performance of those same Eastern European economies when compared with their counterparts in capitalist South America is simply irrelevant to this article - what does it have to do with inflating the death toll of communism? As regards life expectancy, some South American countries, namely Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, achieved higher life expectancy rates than Eastern European countries. Boraczek 23:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a paragragh about whether these countries were actually communist or not. I was surprised this criticism wasn't in the article already as it is probably the most common one i come across regarding this book. - Dog Johnson

Thanks. Boraczek 10:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should also be noted that, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, life expectancy in Russia plummeted after the fall of the Soviet Union:

"Age-adjusted mortality in Russia rose by almost 33% between 1990 and 1994. During that period, life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years" "he striking rise in Russian mortality is beyond the peacetime experience of industrialized countries, with a 5-year decline in life expectancy in 4 years' time. Many factors appear to be operating simultaneously, including economic and social instability, high rates of tobacco and alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, depression, and deterioration of the health care system. Problems in data quality and reporting appear unable to account for these findings. These results clearly demonstrate that major declines in health and life expectancy can take place rapidly. "[1] AndyL 11:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A short abstract about life expectancy in Russia in the 1990s: [2].

Generally, the mortality raised in Eastern European countries during a short period of transition (early 1990s). Later, the trend reversed. In Central European countries (for example Poland) mortality rates of 2000 returned to those from the 1960s (before the increase in mortality began) and kept rising. In the former USSR countries the increase in mortality in the early 1990s persisted for a longer period (4 years in Russia) and was more drammatic. Life expectancy has been improving since the mid-90s, but it didn't reach the highest level of the Soviet Union yet. Boraczek 12:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [3] (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. [4] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] Added Criticism

I added criticism to the material, methodology, and motives employed by the authors of the "Black Book of Communism". This article has been rather tame in showing criticism of this work by respected scholars.--Ploughman 26 January 2007, 00:42 (UMT)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)
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: [5] -- Nikodemos 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There's an article about it here. Aridd (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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." [6]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."[7]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)