User talk:Sj/Mass K caused by C

Preserved from Mass killings under Capitalist regimes, a response to Mass killings under Communist regimes and a discussion about creating similar pages for every governmnent type.

This is not a coat-rack.

The creator recently added sources that tried to taint different groups of economists to mass killings using guilt-by-association. The topic of this article is not "Mass killings by economists" or similar, but "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes". Please restrict the article to be about that.

All the other problems with the article remain, let's not add more problems. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The text was added back with no explanation. As usual, you refuse to engage in constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well isn't that a lovely ad hominem, As usual, you refuse to engage in constructive debate. I re-added the text you had deleted without adequate explanation, and then added to it. I've only just seen this talk page. Anyway, I have to ask: is it your contention that because there is no Capitalist Party (in name...!), no political act can ever be attributable to capitalist (or "free market") ideology? But anything ever done anywhere by a self-proclaimed Communist is due to that Communist ideology? If not, then how exactly is an act to be attributed to this ideology? Or do you wish to claim that this ideology has never been responsible for having any effect on the world? What on earth is your position? Is there any rational argument to be had from you about this, or do you prefer to proceed merely on an apparently emotional basis? Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not my contention. My position is that we should follow WP:POLICY. That's it. I have no other positions.

Or do you wish to claim that this ideology - It seems to me that "this ideology" refers to capitalism. And that's probably the basic place where you go wrong, because capitalism is not an ideology at all. It's an economic system, more precisely it's the private ownership of the means of production. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Unless you are a Marxist, in which case capitalism is a historical stage, as well). --OpenFuture (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you that an economic system requires a supportive political system to sustain it? As to ideology, its adherents prefer to call it "free markets", "free trade", etc. Anyway, regardless of whether it's occurred to you, there is much literature on the role of the state in creating (primitive accumulation again) and maintaining a capitalist system. Private ownership of the means of production is not somehow a default state. Rd232 ^talk 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, most things have occurred to me. Please stop making such comments.

Free market and free trade are different things from capitalism, and they are *also* no ideologies. The ideology is called liberalism or libertarianism, and they want both. Capitalism is only one thing however: Private ownership of the means of production. Capitalists are generally not particularly interested in free markets, because that means free competition. Neither do they like free trade, because that's again competition. Those who like free markets and free trade are *traders*, not capitalists.

Now free trade and free markets require capitalism to work, but not the other way around.

It's ironic that I have to explain to you what capitalism is. This may sound a bit harsh, but shouldn't you have figured that out *before* creating this article? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad - I thought you'd understand that a public ideology of "free markets" and "free trade" needn't actually entail creating them. Of course it's generally an excuse to do what capitalists want (eg primitive accumulation). But whilst optional in authoritarian capitalism, in vaguely democratic capitalism, the ideological figleaf is essential. You may argue that it's not ideology if they don't believe it - but the thing is, most of them do. (The key is, the rich and powerful don't just want to be rich and powerful - they also want to feel good about being rich and powerful, i.e. that they deserve it.) Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you'd understand that a public ideology of "free markets" and "free trade" needn't actually entail creating them - So now the article is suddenly not about capitalist regimes, or cause by capitalism at all, but about free trade and free markets and mass killings? Aha. Again the article is WP:COATRACK. Once again: Capitalism isn't an ideology. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The best source in the article so far (and finding it has taken away from other non-WP tasks I should have been doing...) is Farid (2005). Key quote: "Second, that the killings are crucial to the expansion of capitalism in Indonesia. Using Marx's concept of 'primitive accumulation', it attempts to show that the mass killings and arrests, the expropriation of people from their houses and lands, and the elimination of working-class political formations, are integral parts of an economic strategy of the New Order." The same sort of Marxist arguments certainly have been made for other cases, both colonial and non-colonial. Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

and finding it has taken away from other non-WP tasks I should have been doing - Then maybe you should not have created this intentional disruption then? It's not only time wasting for you, it's time wasting for everyone. And you can fix it: By submitting this article for a speedy deletion as the article creator. hey presto, no more waste of time. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No thank you. It's not like I can get my time back. Still failing WP:AGF on the alleged pointyness I see. Rd232 ^talk 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but this article will continue to waste our time, and at least you could prevent that. And sorry, it's a bit hard to assume you created this article with good intentions, when you yourself used it as an example to make a point before creating it. I can assume any amount of good faith, but if you disprove it, sorry.... I continue to assume good faith in everything else you do, but the creation of this article was clearly intentional disruption to prove a point. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That isn't an ad hominem (please look it up), that is a criticism of your editing practice. There's a difference.radek (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK fine, I know it's not technically ad hominem, since it's not an argument. Perhaps you'd prefer to characterise it as "being an arse"? I was trying to be polite. Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway. Most of the so-called "mass killings" under so-called "capitalist regimes" (no sources provided for either) are "sourced" to the book Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. This is a highly partisan and biased book that has been severely criticized in the press and academia (not to say ridiculed) on both the left and right. As such it is not a reliable source, except for what Klein's own ideas and opinions are. Since essentially the whole article (or at least the "meaty part") is sourced to this book, it is essentially becoming a POVFORK of the article Shock Doctrine - which treats the book and its contents in an encyclopedic manner, unlike here, where Klein's radical views are presented as gospel truth. Basically, the source - and any text that it cites if alternative sources can not be found - needs to be removed.

Again, this is in addition to removing stuff simply because it is irrelevant to the subject of the article.radek (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh FFS. Currently (a day after creation?) the sources are Shock Doctrine, a peer reviewed academic article on Indonesia, and Karl Marx, who wrote ""‘The discovery of gold and silver in the Americas, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production’ (1967: 751). Through such varied forms of violent expropriation, capitalism was born, ‘dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt’ (1967: 760), but having achieved the consolidation of ‘the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few’ (1967: 762)." This is a fork of the Shock Doctrine?? Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Really this would have been better had you worked on it in userspace mate. At the moment it is a hodgepodge of stuff, would you consider moving it to userspace and working on it there? At least then there will be no pressure on you nor distractions such as people arguing over content mark nutley (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Farid article may be a reliable source. But other than that the use of sources such as Klein and quotes from Marx, just doesn't bode well for the sourcability of this article. I second the suggestion that this be moved to your userspace where you can work on it and then present Wikipedia with an article that isn't so obviously flawed.radek (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just added Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, and quotes from Marx indicate strongly how much Marxist (and probably non-Marxist) literature there must be - that Wikipedia-editing Americans are completely and utterly unaware of it should shock nobody. I appreciate the suggestion to move it to userspace - but this would make it my responsibility to improve, and I don't have the time to do any more (I'm stopping now, and leaving it to its fate). Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, I think there's enough here now to indicate how this could be developed further. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American either, and resent the implication. You really need to assume less things about the people who don't agree with you. It would probably make it easier for you to listen to us as well, if you have less assumed prejudice about us. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a book by "a self-defined international socialist and "Marxist-Environmentalist"" - another ideological propaganda tract representing an extremist views. Not reliable. Quotes from Marx are fine, but they are not a source. I don't know what "Americans" you talking about, AFAIK nobody has stated their nationality here, and even so, so what? A complete red herring.radek (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't dismiss those sources so trivially - merely being a socialist or Marxist (the horror! boo! hiss!) does not make them "ideological propaganda tract[s] representing ... extremist views". Mike Davis (scholar) and Naomi Klein are not nobodies, and nor are these the only sources. (As for the American aside - the average Wikipedian is American. I'm not, and I don't think you are; anyway I'm pretty sure you understand my point.) Rd232 ^talk 19:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

True, Klein and Davis are not nobodies, notability does not imply reliability however. LeBron is notable, but you wouldn't use him as source for this article. In fact, Davis' book was published by a non-academic publishing house, essentially the publishing house of the New Left Review, of which he is an editor making it for all intents and purposes self-published. I'm removing him from this article.radek (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Davis is enough of a scholar that the publication issue you raise doesn't matter. The book has been cited by academics, and positively reviewed. A summary of the thesis was also published in a peer-reviewed academic paper, "The Origin of the Third World" (2000) (google it). Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But at least we can stop pretending that you guys are playing fair. You'll dismiss anything you can without much (if any) substantive argument, and find an excuse to delete what you can't dismiss. Anything but engage with the possibility that maybe there is a literature that makes a worthwhile argument, even if you disagree. Rd232 ^talk 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable what? Davis may be a scholar (a degree in Creative Writing I believe) but that does not make this work a reliable source. It is essentially self-published, by a fringe press. Judging by material in his Wikipedia article, aside from the hagiographic aspects there (which really should be fixed) it actually looks like he has been severely criticized, even by those on the left. I'd have to look up the paper. But the book is not RS. And no, this isn't refusal to engage - this is engagement. Engagement and critical evaluation of sources.radek (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"essentially self-published" - I don't think so. Davis is on the editorial committee of the New Left Review[1] (not "an editor"), and the current relationship between Verso and NLR is unclear, but "self-published" is in any case a ludicrous claim. Rd232 ^talk 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again you fail WP:AGF, and you are utterly wrong. We can discuss the reliability of Davis as a source, but note that the argument Radek makes is stronger than the argument against Rummel. Rummel is at least not an editor of the publishing house that published him. So playing "fair", you say? Which rules are we going to go by? Yours and the others at Mass killings under Communist regimes or WP:POLICY? With your rules, Davies goes. In fact, this whole article goes. With WP:POLICY, Radek makes a reasonable case, and you don't agree, so you discuss it here, and on WP:RS/N if you can't reach an agreement. With your rules, this article, if not deleted, must have SYN and POV tags forever, and I don't have to explain why. With WP:POLICY rules, they only stay until I no longer can find any problems with the article. So who exactly is not playing fair? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"the argument against Rummel"? You seem to be under the misapprehension that I was involved in debates about the Communist article. (If I was, your memory's better than mine.) Rd232 ^talk 23:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't relevant who was involved. The question is what "rules" to "play" by. I propose WP:POLICY.

Radek: A sources reliability is not defined of how much you agree with them. "another ideological propaganda tract representing an extremist views. Not reliable." It doesn't work like that. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but "ideological propaganda tract representing an extremist views" are generally NOT reliable.radek (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, generally not. But it's not an argument in itself. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Flip flop

This may be somewhat inappropriate to point out, but to see people who were dismissing these objections elsewhere to now raise all of the same points -- especially complaints about the article being heavily reliant on isolated and disputed sourcing -- is enlightening. BigK HeX (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between the academic and reliable sources in the MKuCommunism article and junk like The Shock Doctrine (what next, Rush Limbaugh as a reliable source?) of this article. Note that I said that the Farid article may be reliable.radek (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just your opinion at the moment. If you want to be constructive, look for other sources on the topic. Less usefully, if you really want to attack the Shock Doctrine, bring sources. Klein, Davis and Farid are all academics. Rd232 ^talk 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Klein is not an academic. If you want to learn about the Shock Doctrine, read this: [2]. And before your political position screams "Cato!", forget for a moment that it's published by the Cato institute and read it with open eyes. That report clearly shows that the Shock Doctrine is wrong in every important way there is. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And more importantly for this context: She has a lot of sources, but misinterprets them a lot. If The Shock Doctrine was a Wikipedia article it would be littered with and . So go to her sources instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

True, Klein isn't an academic, my bad. FWIW, glancing at the Chile sourcing, the biggest source seems to be Valdes' "Pinochet's Economists". Anyway, I don't have time to engage in more detail (I shouldn't have spent as much time on this as I have!), but I was going to remark (as I've just noticed) that Benjamin Valentino, a major source in the Communist article, doesn't even have a WP entry. Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of the more minor injustices of the world is that academicians are generally not as well known as various ideological pundits. But yes, someone should do an article on him.radek (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Could you please justify adding the "may stray from the topic of the article" tag to the Indonesia section? This I've gotta see. Rd232 ^talk 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that was an edit mistake. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Source removal

For those wondering about the CN tags in the Chile and Indonesia sections, it's due to OpenFuture editing them out, [3], with edit summary "You can't use Naomi Klein as a source, she is notoriously unreliable. Finf her sources instead." Klein's source for Chile was Valdes' Pinochet's Economists, but I've had enough of this "delete the source" game - I won't bother adding it. Rd232 ^talk 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, it would be a waste of time, as that whole text is off topic anyway. Now it's not only off topic, but onsourced. Can I remove it now without you putting it back? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Germany

Revisionism aside, defining things out of existence, Germany was most certainly capitalist. The end version would have to be a summary of the Economic section of the Nazism article, rather than merely a trimmed version, but Germany gets a mention, no question. It's only a matter of time before people who are not serial NPOV violators show up, OpenFuture. I can wait. Anarchangel (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Germany was most certainly capitalistdidn't acknowledge private ownership of the means of production, much of production directed by government. It was a specific system, turns out there is an article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How can you say germany was a capitalist system? The Nazi party ran all the industry. They were nowere near capitalist mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That article clearly shows that Nazi Germany was not capitalist. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I could not get access to [4], but here is the translation into Russian. A quote:

В то же время нет никаких оснований утверждать, что тоталитарные капиталистические режимы нацистской Германии и имперской Японии, если бы им суждено было уцелеть, уступали бы демократическим государствам в экономическом плане.

— Azar Gat, Foreign Affairs

(Igny (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

I'd be wary of a single sentence pulled out of context from a single source. Someone feel like ponying up the funds to get the full article?radek (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely capitalist. Remember, capitalism is not an ideology at all. It's an economic system, more precisely it's the private ownership of the means of production. TFD (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And by that definition Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist since the state owned a large share of industry (and directed the remainder). Please actually read the comments and source links before commenting.radek (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also the uncomfortable fact that the Nazi party was the "National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party". So if we go by the criteria suggested earlier by Claritas, that we treat parties according to their self-identification, the killings under Nazis would rather belong in that OTHER article, not this one. More seriously, whether or not the Nazis were "socialists" or "capitalists" has been a (pretty pointless) argument between various factions on the left and right since, well, since the 1930's. Here, I agree with MyMoloboaccount that essentially they were "neither".radek (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Government ownership of some industry and control of industry to obtain war objectives is capitalism. Unless you believe that only a libertarian paradise that has never and can never exist is the only type of capitalism. In many capitalist countries, governments own schools, hospitals, roads, sidewalks, parks, government buildings, uncultivated land, telephone lines, railroads, subways, etc. TFD (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I added in among other things U. S. genocide of the indigenous population. I hope that the fact the government owns Amtrak and the fed still means they can be considered capitalist. TFD (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I finally got the access. So here is some quotes

• Authoritarian capitalist great powers played a leading role in the international system up until 1945. They have been absent since then. But today, they seem poised for a comeback.
• But the reasons for the triumph of democracy, especially over its nondemocratic capitalist rivals of the two world wars, Germany and Japan, were more contingent than is usually assumed.
• Nor did the totalitarian capitalist regimes lose World War II because their democratic opponents held a moral high ground that inspired greater exertion from their people, as the historian Richard Overy and others have claimed.
• There is no reason, however, to suppose that the totalitarian capitalist regimes of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan would have proved inferior economically to the democracies had they survived.
• They defeated their nondemocratic capitalist adversaries, Germany and Japan, in war because Germany and Japan were medium-sized countries with limited resource bases and they came up against the far superior -- but hardly preordained -- economic and military coalition of the democratic powers and Russia or the Soviet Union.
• ...whereas the nondemocratic capitalist powers, Germany and Japan, were defeated because they were too small. Contingency played a decisive role in tipping the balance against the nondemocratic capitalist powers and in favor of the democracies.

Everywhere Germany and Japan were referred as undemocratic authoritarian capitalist regime. (Igny (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

You can debate if Nazi Germany was capitalist until you are blue. It's a useless debate, started by the presumption that capitalism is relevant to mass killings, and as such will never end as the starting point is wrong. It's also irrelevant, as even if you did reach an agreement it would be synthesis. What this article needs is a coupld of WP:RS that discusses mass killings, and makes capitalism a and mass killings under capitalism a separate topic. Without that, this whole article is just OR, SYN, COATRACK and POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"the presumption that capitalism is relevant to mass killings". It's not a presumption, it's an argument. Whereas you beginning by presuming that capitalism cannot have any relevance. Rd232 ^talk 11:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a presumption, it's an argument. - Thank you for admitting that the whole article is a POV pushing piece of WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalist collaboration with mass killings

Should we also include a section about mass killings in Communist regimes that had the active support and encouragement of capitalist regimes, including Stalin's purges, the Holodomor, mass killings in China and Cambodia, and the killing of anti-Tito forces? TFD (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh?radek (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is all documented. I thought that as an expert of mass killings under Communist regimes you would be aware of it. Which one confuses you? TFD (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So apparently, according to TFD, the mass killings by Stalin, the Holodomor etc. were all really "Mass killings under CAPITALIST regimes". I think this illustrates how hopelessly non-sourcable this article is if these kinds of mental gymnastics have to be invoked to provide article content. This has reached a level of absurdity and ridiculousness that sets a new standard for POV pushing on Wikipedia.radek (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The U. K. was aware of Holodomor and kept it out of the press so that they could buy cheap grain, and this was written about by Malcom Muggeridge. (See: Malcolm Muggeridge#Moscow). The Americans were aware of Stalin's show trials and justified it in Mission to Moscow. TFD (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So?radek (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we also include a section about mass killings in Communist regimes that had the active support and encouragement of capitalist regimes? TFD (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we should delete this article but move some of the more useful content to Mass killings under colonial regimes.radek (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

How does this article differ from Mass killings under Communist regimes. I see a symmetry. We even have the The Black Book of Capitalism. TFD (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

With the difference that one is about mass killings, and the other not. And one is a reliable source who has entered mainstream scholarly discussion, and the other not. The Black book of communism has hundreds of citations in Google scholar. The black book of capitalism has exactly zero. Again the question here is which set of rules to go by: The "deletionists" at "MkuCr" or WP:POLICy. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"the black of capitalism" has exactly zero GScholar hits because it doesn't exist. Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme has 18 hits. Rd232 ^talk 09:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"The black book of capitalism" also has zero hits. "Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme" has two citations. [5] The first of the two is critical, and the second inclusion in a histography. (It's also mentioned in other articles, but as far as I can see that's not citations, but also lists of literature, and most of those publications doesn't seem to be scholarly articles either). So sorry, The Black Book of Capitalism completely fails on all accounts of WP:RS. It clearly is not a reliable scholarly source. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I like how America now suddenly has been reduced to one person. Apparently Malcolm Muggeridge now *is* the americans"...

Muggeridge was a communist who moved to Moscow and fell for the show trials. "The americans" if we by that mean something reasonable, like the US foreign department, was fully aware that the trials were show trials. How you come to think that they somehow are complicit in these show trials is completely beyond me. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice I said "U. K." not "U. S." and Muggeridge turned against Communism because of Holodomor, just as the editor of The Black Book of Communism would later. TFD (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, my bad. I got them mixed up. But the fact is that what I said is mostly true for Davies. He was sympathetic to the Soviet regime, and was evidently taken in by the trials, and believed in them. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

While capitalist states have used brutal methods to conquer territory and have used slavery, genocide etc. as tools, is there any specific source that draws a direct connection between capitalism and mass killings? In the case of indigenous people for example, the Americans first tried enslavement, which was largely unsuccessful, before attempting genocide. Even then deportation and assimilation were also used and even preferred. But how does this differ from say the Roman Empire? And how does one explain that not all capitalist regimes did this? For example genocide was never carried out in Ontario, despite an indigenous population. 01:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, which "Americans" are we even talking about here? I assume "Americans" are the "Europeans" which moved to the Americas in the 17th and 18th century. Despite what some editor tried to claim somewhere there was no "United States" in the 17th and 18th centuries. By the time that the United States got established the genocide of the Native Americans in North America had been pretty much completed (90% of pre-European contact population having been dead by then). The states responsible were the Spanish, Dutch, British and French, none of which, at that time can be considered "capitalist" (I can sort of... just "sort of"... see how this could apply to the United States of the 19th century). "Capitalism" was more or less a post-Industrial Revolution phenomenon (this is actually the classic Marxist definition, see for example Maurice Dobb) hence it just cannot apply to any states prior to the 19th century. Again, this is text for Mass killings under Colonial regimes, which is a legitimate (potential) article, while this present article is just nothing but an attempt to make a WP:POINT.radek (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So John Locke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with capitalism and colonial Americans were not really Americans and the mass killings of Seminole, the Beotuk, the Sioux, the Apaches never happened. And the Bank of England, the New York Stock Exchange and the Hudsons Bay Company are pre-capitalist. I am quite prepared to discuss this article but could you please stick to historical facts. TFD (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read American Indian Wars. Here is an example of American behavior during those wars: "On November 29, 1864, Colorado Volunteers attacked a peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho village camped on Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado. Under orders to take no prisoners, the militia killed and mutilated about 200 of the Indians, two-thirds of whom were women and children, taking scalps and other grisly trophies of battle." In fact Americans continued the strategy they use against American Indians in many of their later overseas wars, e.g., in the Philipines and Vietnam. TFD (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is so absurd that I cannot assume there's any Good Faith left in this discussion. It's red herring after red herring after false analogy after false analogy after ad hominem after unicorns are realz cant you see! It's typical of editors who are here to push a POV agenda but cannot round up sources to support their views. I have no intention to waste my time responding to ridiculous claims - especially when any kind of good faithed attempt at discussing things just result in more and more ridiculous statement from the other party as if somehow if the ridiculous statements are made even more ridiculous this will force moderate editors to compromise on the "only slightly ridiculous version". Sorry. Not a game I want to play again. Have fun on your own.radek (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well when do you think America, Britain, etc. became capitalist countries? TFD (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what he thinks. What you need is a couple of sources that discusses mass killings under capitalist regimes, so you can show that mass killings under capitalist regimes is even a valid subject. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

His comment was that Britain, U. S. etc. were not capitalist countries which I find doubtful. There are plenty of sources about mass killings under capitalist regimes, South American death squads, the Holocaust, genocide against indigenous people, Eastern European progroms, etc. But maybe your point is they are not really capitalist. TFD (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, my point is that your "plenty of sources" doesn't seem to exist. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plainly legions of sources about these various historical events: mass killings, which occurred in a capitalist context. Harder to come by are sources explicitly linking the events to capitalist ideology, but those exist as well, as I've demonstrated with a couple of examples. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Harder to come by are sources explicitly linking the events to capitalist ideology - There exist no capitalist ideology. You need to find sources that explicitly link them to capitalist regimes (whatever that is). as I've demonstrated with a couple of examples. - Which examples are that? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"There exist no capitalist ideology" - well I don't know how to respond to that (One Market Under God?). Anyway, examples were clearly Firad and Davis, besides Marx and Luxemburg quotes as indicative of a likely broader Marxist literature. Once again: this article is a day old and you want to delete it immediately, without giving reasonable time for various Wikipedians to collaborate in searching for sources. Why? What's so terrible about giving it more time? Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Your "answer" to that capitalism isn't an ideology is to refer to a book about market fundamentalism. Do you see the error there?

2. The only thing indicative of there existing literature on this subject is somebody actually finding literature on the subject. Which nobody has.

3. It is a factually incorrect, unsourced, likely unsourcable, off-topic, POV-pushing, OR/SYN POS that was created as intentional disruption to make a point, by somebody who didn't even know what capitalism is when he created it and refuses to even look for sources, despite being told before creation that likely no sources exist. Is there anything that is *not* terrible with this article? Honestly? --OpenFuture (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I answered that further above somewhere: "free markets" is (part of) the ideology of capitalism. Another one is "trickle down". Much of mainstream economics is essentially ideology with added maths. As a whole the ideology is essential to justifying the (highly unequal) private ownership of the means production, the often barbarous means used to defend and extend that ownership, and to justify the consequences. I'm sorry this is such news to you. PS your "no sources" mantra looks thinner with every source found - including TFD's below, exactly as I predicted and you baselessly rejected. Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I answered that further above somewhere: "free markets" is (part of) the ideology of capitalism. - There is no ideology of capitalism. capitalism is not an ideology. We'll need to repeat this until that sticks. You have misunderstood what capitalism is. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. It's a mode of production, not an ideology. What you asy above makes as much sense as saying "track are a part of the ideology of train". --OpenFuture (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're free to disagree, but making blatantly falsely analogies (physical infrastructure as ideology) helps no-one. PS The most effective ideologies are those that have people believing they are not ideologies at all. Like all socioeconomic formations, private ownership of the means of production requires political and cultural justification which obscures the true nature of the system and of its consequences, and especially of alternatives to it. If you object to the word "ideology" for that, find another. PPS "We'll need to repeat this until that sticks. " - mm, the Goebbels theory of propaganda. A key part in propagating any successful ideology, especially one that is currently hegemonic. Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Please continue to argue like this, because then I don't to say anything more. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, do you think there are no sources for the Holocaust, genocide against indigenous people, South American death squads, the Irish famine, Hiroshima, Dresden, the Belgian Congo, etc.? Do you think that the NWO made them up? TFD (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed causes

How can we have a proposed causes when it hasn't even been established that there is such a topic as "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes"? And none of the proposed causes section actually refer to any mass killings. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of documentation about mass killings under capitalist regimes. Look at all the mass killings listed in the article. Do you deny these killings took place? TFD (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there actually one single source with the following words? Mass killings took place under capitalist regimes? Or a similar derivation of such? What we actually have here is wp:or taking a source which says a system is capitalist, and then wrapping that up with other sources whic htalk of mass killings. Is there even such a thing as a capitalist regime? mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see The Black Book of Capitalism, which was published by a respectable French publishing company and has contributions from many noted scholars. The appendix states that capitalism was responsible for killing at least 100 million people in the 20th century alone. TFD (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a junk source, do you actually have something reliable? For instance they actually count the dead from the first and second world wars. Those wars and nothing to do with capitalism at all. If this is the best you can do you should give it up now mark nutley (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The black book of capitalism is not a book about mass killings under capitalist regimes. It's a book full of diverse (and incorrect) criticism against capitalism written by a diverse group of people. most of whom are not scholars. It is not an academic publication, and has gotten exactly zero scholarly citations on Google scholar. So it's neither relevant to this article, nor a reliable source. You only got tricked into believing that, because it sounds similar to the Black book of Communism, who is written by scholars, and has received scholarly citations. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The black book of capitalism returns 2 hits on Google scholar,[6]nd Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme shows 18 hits.[7] Historians, economists, sociologists, geographers and lawyers contributed. Do you have a source that this is junk science or is that your opinion? While the book is not "about" mass killings, neither is the Black book of Communism. However it does draw a connection. TFD (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hits, yes. Citations, no. It's 0 vs 2 for citations, which is the relevant measurement here. I don't need a source that it's junk. Remember the discussions about Rummel on MkuCommR? Right, it's *you* that has to show it's a reliable source. Not me. And sorry, 1 critical citation and one inclusion in a historiography doesn't cut it. It's exactly the kind of junk fringe POV pushing nonsense you accuse Rummel of being. And yes, the Black Book of communism *is* about mass killings. And it draws the connection. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have begun to read about this. Obviously one of the possible consequences of the pursuit of self interest is mass killings, but here is a link to a book that discusses it.[8] Also, there is no doubt that the events in this article occurred they are well-documented and I do not wish to go about proving them. Just click on the links to the articles. TFD (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of the sort of thing I was telling OpenFuture I expected to find, on the basis of the Marx/Luxemburg quotes. In the (premature, ongoing) AFD circumstances, I've added a bit to the article. Rd232 ^talk 02:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha, but the name of the article is "Mass killings caused by Capitalism" not "Mass killings cause by self-interest". So again. WP:COATRACK. You need to stop conflating everything you think is bad into one thing. Self interest is not free trade is not colonialism is not liberalism is not capitalism is not fascism is not mass killings is not anti-communism and so on. These are all separate concepts. So stop finding sources talking about mass killings and colonialism because they don't help you. You need sources about mass killings and capitalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think you should stop assuming what other people believe. You also seem to be using a very narrow definition of capitalism. See if you can help to find sources that improve the article. TFD (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you are wrong in everything you say. I assumed nothing. I don't use a narrow definition, and I have looked for sources. There aren't any. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are mistaken. You said "everything you think is bad" which implies that you are assuming that you know what I believe. Also, you say capitalism is not self interest, free trade, colonialism, liberalism, fascism, mass killings or anti-communism. That limits the scope beyond any definition I have seen. By the way, you may wish to widen your search beyond books and articles you would normally read. TFD (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

you are assuming that you know what I believe. - The comment was not made to you.

That limits the scope beyond any definition I have seen. - Well, now you know.

By the way, you may wish to widen your search beyond books and articles you would normally read. - More personal attacks from you. I'm not surprised. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, what you're saying is that "capitalism is private ownership of the means of production". Fair enough. However you also seem to imply that if the logic of a system built on that principle leads to mass killing, the principle is somehow not at fault. Perhaps if you explained more fully how the buck always stops somewhere else, it would be easier to get somewhere. Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing I noticed in reading literature about mass killings, is that although mass killings have been carried out throughout history and by a variety of regimes, that only capitalist regimes have committed mass killings that have been universally accepted as genocide. That explains the creation of new terms to explain mass killings, e.g., democide, politicide, classicide. The concept of genocide of course would never have occurred to pre-capitalist societies, because they had not developed the concepts of nationality and race. TFD (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop this kind of gratuitous OR, regarding things you "noticed" or that "occurred" to you? Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. If you really think these observations are noteworthy send them to a publisher but don't put them on the talk page here because it just distracts from an already confusing discussion.radek (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

They most certainly had both these concepts, but not under those names. Rather the concept of genocide didn't appear before capitalism, because only under the moder capitalist society has the idea arisen that trying to kill off an entire people could somehow be wrong. During all earlier history it has been seen as something you brag about and a good reason to build large stone carvings detailing the campaign. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

However you also seem to imply that if the logic of a system built on that principle leads to mass killing, the principle is somehow not at fault. - No, I seem not to imply anything like that at all. In fact, had it been brought up to discussion, I would claim the exact opposite, that the principle definitely *is* at fault. What I do "imply" or rather say straight out is that you will not find one single reliable source that shows that capitalism causes mass killings. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you the same thing I keep telling Mark: you're asking for verification of the unverifiable. You simply can't prove (using a Reliable Source that "shows") that either Capitalism or Communism is responsible for any given case of mass killings. What you can do is report the views of people who attempt to do so, and clarify the opposing arguments. As I keep saying, a unified mass killing would allow clarification of this debate much better than having separate Communist/Capitalist articles, whilst merely deleting the Capitalist one without transferring the content somewhere else sensible amounts to censorship. Remember that we find space in Wikipedia to document every Pokemon; we can find space for these views too. (I've made these points in different ways a dozen times; I'm now unwatching all relevant pages since clearly the message is not getting through.) Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

without transferring the content somewhere else - Like I keep saying, transfer (some) of the content to Mass killings under Colonial regimes. For other content we already have articles (for genocide under the Nazis, or killings in Indonesia or the Chilean coup) - so no content would actually be removed.radek (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's unverifiable, that means the article should be deleted. You can't have an article called "Mass Killings caused by Capitalism" without showing that Capitalism causes mass killings, because then the pure existence of the article is POV. That's the reason the "Communist genocide" was renamed to "Mass killings under Communist regimes" see? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose Move

To Mass Killings caused by Capitalism Couple of reasons for this, one there is no such thing as a Capitalist regime. Two as there no such thing as a Capitalist regime then no mass killings could have occurred under them :) If we move it to my proposal i think there will be a better chance to find sources, and less chance of OR and Synth arguments. Thoughts? mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

fine by me. Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok moved it, lets point this out on the deletion page and then give the article some time to expand mark nutley (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please move the article back until the AfD is completed. 12 minutes notice of a move does not allow for adequate input but more importantly it renders the AfD invalid. TFD (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Done mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Caused by capitalism? Hah! Good one, Mark! --OpenFuture (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi`s

[9] Seriously? Personally i think it is sick to use the deaths of millions just to try and prove a point but lets look at it. The Author and publisher seem to be academic in nature. However the author is quoting (i assume quoting) from previous works by Communists, who will of course blame all the worlds ill`s on capitalism. So i would argue this is not a reliable source given the partisan nature of what is being quoted mark nutley (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about "reliable sources", which is a fairly arbitrary Wikipedia concept. It's about representing a substantive and significant body of thought linking various mass killings with capitalism. To put it in Wikipedish terms, we can't reasonably verify that any mass killing is due to Capitalism (any more than we can do so for Communism in that article) - but we can in an NPOV way fairly and accurately reflect the range of views that exists on that topic. This is why I called for an approach emphasising historiography over history in dealing with these matters. Because that's what Wikipedia - quite reasonably - does when there aren't right or wrong answers ascertainable: it reports views. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not right man, the Nazi`s were not capitalist at all, in fact according to The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938 R. J. Overy, Economic History Society they had a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist. Your use of communists to cite this information is giving undue weight to what is an obviously partisan source. I request you remove the content. mark nutley (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the weight is undue it is because it's early days, and no attempt has yet been made to establish a discussion between different points of view, including eg Overy's. Your AFD is a prime cause of this, since it puts the onus on trying to find enough sources to justify the thesis the article is about - a thesis which no doubt is disagreed with by many, but one which nonetheless deserves to be documented and discussed, not deleted. PS I emphasise about, because it would be foolish in the longer-term to replicate the Communist article error, which is to make the article argue that thesis rather than report it. PPS the merge with mass killing (of both this and the Communist article) I keep advocating would make it easier to appreciate the distinction, and to implement the appropriate approach. At the moment both articles structurally are at heart lists, which implies verifiability rather than opinion, which is fundamentally wrong in both instances. Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It was AFD`d because it was pointy. You should have worked on it in your userspace, not in mainspace. Now i have presented a source which says the nazi system was not capitalist, you have presented partisan sources from people who hated both nazi`s and the concept of free enterprise. It is most certainly undue to use those sources. Now i have tried to help you out here, even suggesting a name change which would help the article survive. But you are using a terrible source to blame the holocaust on capitalists. That is wrong on so many levels it shocks me and i hope you feel a little bit of shame for not only using it but for defending it`s use. I ask again, given the source i have presented will you please remove that content mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to remove a significant point of view you profess to find morally reprehensible. WP:NOTCENSORED. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to complain about WP:UNDUE since the entire article is about the point of view that capitalism can be held responsible for some cases of mass death, and the application of that view to the Nazi case falls squarely within this topic. I suggest you re-read WP:UNDUE. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is undue to give so much weight to partisan sources, and i have presented a source which clearly says the nazi`s were not capitalists. mark nutley (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All major writers agree that Nazi Germany was capitalist. I realize that libertarian writers (e.g., Hayek) disagree but that is a fringe view. TFD (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So the Nobel prize winning Hayek is "fringe" but political pundits like Klein or obscure self published academics like Davis are reliable. Right, way to stand things on their head.radek (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is since long completely clear that TFD views everyone that he doesn't agree with as "fringe" and "neoconservative" or "libertarian". It's patent nonsense and can simply be ignored. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not even the issue. Fringe views are supposed to not dominate the main article of a topic, but are allowed their own article documenting them, if they're sufficiently prominent. This is why I referred Mark to WP:UNDUE, which apparently he has still not (re)read. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all is what undue says, and communists berating nazi`s and capitalists is par for the course and as such is a minority view. TFD please provide your sources which say the nazi`s were capitalists and that the opposing view is a minorty mark nutley (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) from WP:UNDUE, since Mark declines to read past the first paragraph:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points.

Rd232 ^talk 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, published by Cambridge University Press (1996): "Marxists and non-Marxists have clashed over whether capitalism was the driver or merely the motor of either or both dictatorships."[10] Sorry that it does not comment on fringe views, it just ignores them. TFD (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how you think that proves your point? One source saying "No satisfactory framework uniting the two and explaining their similarity's and differences has yet emerged" Does not advance your position. If anything it proves my point. mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The "two" referred to are "Nazism" and "Fascism". No satisfactory framework uniting Nazism and Fascism and explaining their similarities and differences has yet emerged. The quote I provided shows that Marxists considered fascism a reaction by capitalism to the threat posed by socialism, while non-Marxist scholarship rejects that view. TFD (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That`s what i just wrote, so your source does not say the nazi`s were capitalists. Mine however says they were not. So please explain how you think your source actually advances your position? mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, published by Cambridge University Press (1996): "Marxists and non-Marxists have clashed over whether capitalism was the driver or merely the motor of either or both dictatorships."[11] The word "both" refers to Fascism and Nazism. By the way, what source did you provide that said Nazi Germany was not capitalist? TFD (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::This one The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938 R. J. Overy, Economic History Society Please read the full thread before jumping in next time :) You quote the same thing, it makes no sense as the same source says neither side agree, that can`t be used to advance your argument. You need a source which says nazi`s were capitalists mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So that says that Marxists and non-Marxists disagree over whether capitalism had anything to do with either Fascist or Nazism or both. And? And I believe that non-Marxism is still generally considered to be the mainstream, non-fringe, non-extremist position.radek (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No they disagree over whether capitalism was the driving force behind fascism or merely the motor, not whether fascist states were capitalist. Marxists saw fascism as "the final form of capitalism", where capitalists use repression in order to prevent Communist revolution. Non-Marxists see fascism as just another type of capitalist government. Both see Nazi Germany as capitalist. That is clear from the text. Could you please tell me where you are getting your view that Nazi Germany was not capitalist? TFD (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No your source clearly says "No satisfactory framework uniting the two and explaining their similarity's and differences has yet emerged" that follows directly on from what you are quoting. That means nobody in this source have agreed as to weather or not they are consider capitalist. And it certainly does not say they are, were my source clearly states the were not mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not the meaning of the sentence, which is obvious from reading the paragraph, and if you are unable to understand what is clearly written then this conversation is futile. TFD (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) That is the meaning of the sentence, your twisting of it is pointless. And another source Richard Overy "If german capitalism bears any responsibility for the victory of Nazism it lies in the failure of capitalism "[12] so not actually capitalist. mark nutley (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here? Why are we (well some of us) attempting to find a definitive answer to this question (implicitly to exclude even mentioning the 'wrong' ones), instead of merely reporting the range of views that exist on the matter? This article documents a minority view, and the capitalist/Nazism issue which clearly falls within the topic can be debated within that, whichever view is majority or minority doesn't actually matter in terms of inclusion/exclusion, which is the subtext for this thread. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have in any case placed the disputed paragraph at WP:NORN to invite other editors to comment. TFD (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is going on? I'll tell you what: You created an article that has no basis in reliable sources, about capitalism, without knowing what capitalism is, with a title where it's not clear what should be included and not. Which is gonna cause never ending fights about what should be included. The article can't be sourced and it can't be made POV. That's what's going on. It's a lost cause. I understand it hurts, but swallow your pride and go on and do something useful in Wikipedia instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The views documented in the very young article are clearly worth mentioning somewhere on Wikipedia. Problems with the title do not require article deletion, and I've talked about merging repeatedly as a way to address the topic as a whole better; so thank you my pride has no stake in the existence of this particular article. I note again, as above, that reliable sources have certainly been provided for the existence of those views (the view that capitalism is responsible for X), as opposed to sources proving the unprovable (that capitalism is actually responsible for X). Of course any notion that the Communist article can do the latter is an illusion, so it would appear to be double standards to delete an article documenting one set of views whilst insisting on the maintenance of the other. Rd232 ^talk 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. This is not X it's "Mass Killings". Marx and Luxemburg's views that Capitalism is the cause of everything bad does not count.

2. As above, the article name is "Mass Killings caused by Capitalism". Then you can not in the article have both sides of the view, you need to show that there is academic consensus that capitalism caused these mass killings, which you yourself admit isn't going to happen. The article must be deleted or renamed for that reason. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. "Marx and Luxemburg's views that Capitalism is the cause of everything bad does not count." - count as what? I said above that I'm not expecting verification to be possible - so are you saying that their views on this subject are so unimportant that there is no space in Wikipedia to document them (along with others' views in that tradition, on this topic)?

2. I can accept a renaming would be advisable; I've argued that myself and accepted the first suggestion that came along. The article should not attempt to be List of mass killings caused by capitalism, because that implies factual verifiability. A move to, say, Marxist theories of mass killings caused by capitalism would be inelegant but a better sense of what the article should be trying to do (whilst unfortunately excluding non-Marxist theories, which brings us back again to the Merge I keep arguing for). Exactly the same argument applies for the Communist article. Feel free to rename both this article and the Communist one in some constructive manner to avoid the impression that either can be a verifiable List of-type article. Rd232 ^talk 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't found any Marxist theories of mass killings. Again, Marx and Luxembourg blaming everything that is wrong in the world on capitalism is not a "theory of capitalist mass killings". Calling them that is OR. That you accepted the first suggetsion of rename that came along, even though it's obviously POV and also obviously factually incorrect (capitalism has not caused one single mass killing, and could not cause it more than a pillow could) just serves to yet again prove that you unfortunately started an article on a topic that you are not particularity well acquainted with. You started it because your ideological blinders made you assume that capitalism is as guilty as communism. But that just shows that you really understand neither. But fine, it does not matter, the AfD will end in a couple of days, I have little doubt of the outcome. -- OpenFuture (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that just proves I was right to unwatch the topic and should have resisted the temptation to peek again... Your triumphalism at having the article deleted rather than constructively renamed is as disappointing as it is distasteful. I'm tempted to ask where you think the Late Victorian Holocausts argument should be documented, besides on the book page itself. What topic does it form part of? Because that's the topic I was trying to write an article about. I'm just curious if you have a straight answer, but I doubt it. If you do, drop it on my talk page. (Excuses you needn't bother me with.) Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask where you think the Late Victorian Holocausts argument should be documented, - What argument do you mean "The book's main conclusion is that the deaths of 30-60 million people killed in famines all over the world during the later part of the 19th century were caused by laissez faire and Malthusian economic ideology of the colonial governments. (My emphasis). Where do you find the word capitalism in that sentence? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well last I checked Laissez-faire had something to do with some form of capitalism. But anyway, if you're hung up on the word "capitalism", some blurb quotes from the publisher website: "Davis argues that the seeds of underdevelopment in what later became known as the Third World were sown in this era of High Imperialism, as the price for capitalist modernization was paid in the currency of millions of peasants' lives." (publisher) “Eloquent and passionate, this is a veritable Black Book of liberal capitalism.” — Tariq Ali.[13] And incidentally, also on that page is praise from Amartya Sen, you may have heard him. Well known Marxist, he. PS So are you saying that Mass killings caused by laissez-faire or Marxist theories of mass killings caused by colonialism would be acceptable to you? Rd232 ^talk 15:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Doh, I've only just realised you didn't answer my straight-forward question: "What topic does it form part of? Because that's the topic I was trying to write an article about." Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course any notion that the Communist article can do the latter is an illusion - there's many academic authors such as R. J. Rummel who directly link Communism as the reason for mass killings which took place under Communists governments. In this article we simply have political ravings of Marx, Luxemburg, and other Communists, regarding Capitalism and it's "evil" world in general, and also their insight into topics such as Colonialism. Doesn't cut it. Lt.Specht (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What the Germans themselves actually thought about capitalism: "Stalin and Hitler were both anti-capitalists. Neither dictator accepted the unrestricted economic individualism, the free market and the profit motive that defined the contemporary capitalist system...", "...For Hitler, modern capitalism was responsible for holding nations to ransom in the interests of a cosmoplitan, parasitical class of rentiers. 'The economic system of our day,' he told one party leader in 1934, 'is the creation of the Jews.' He recommended 'a radical removal...of all unrestricted economic liberalism.' 'Capitalism,' he explained to Mussolini a decade later, 'had run its course.'", "...Economists, not all of them National Socialists, deployed the term 'the managed economy' (die gelenkte Wirtschaft) to describe an economic form that was neither clearly capitalist nor communist...'" More on the stuff here, The dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless they did not abolish the capitalist system and appointed Hjalmar Schacht as economics minister. TFD (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"what the Germans themselves actually thought about capitalism" prompted me to look at de:Nationalsozialismus#Verh.C3.A4ltnis_zum_Kapitalismus. Can't do justify to that nuance in a swift translation, but what jumps out at me is (a) Hitler accepting private property because it fitted his Social Darwinistic world view (b) the party's anticapitalism as disguised anti-semitism; (c) the extinction of the party's socialist wing 1930 - 34. The German Wikipedia section concludes by presenting the militarisation of Nazi Germany as moving away from a market economy; without thought of comparison with wartime Britain or US. FWIW. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Original 2010 page + deletion

This page was created during a 2009 AfD discussion about Mass killings under Communist regimes. The older page w/ better refs was kept; the reactive page w/ few refs was deleted.

---

Mass killings of non-combatants have occurred under several forms of government, including capitalist ones.

Terminology

"Capitalist regimes" refers to those countries which operate a capitalist economic system.

Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants. Under the Genocide Convention, the Crime of Genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.

The term "politicide" is used to describe the killing of political or economic groups that would otherwise be covered by the Genocide Convention. Manus I. Midlarsky uses the term "politicide" to describe an arc of mass killings from the western parts of the Soviet Union to China and Cambodia. In his book The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century Midlarsky raises similarities between the killings of Stalin and Pol Pot.

R. J. Rummel coined the term "democide", which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Jacques Semelin prefers "crime against humanity". Helen Fein has termed the mass state killings in the Soviet Union and Cambodia as the "genocide and Democide".

Michael Mann has proposed the term "classicide" to mean the "intended mass killing of entire social classes."

Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago have shown the significance of terminology in that, depending on the use of democide (generalised state-sponsored killing) or politicide (eliminating groups who are politically opposed) as the criterion for inclusion in a data-set, statistical analyses seeking to establish a connection between mass killings can produce very different results, including the significance or otherwise of regime type.

Proposed causes

Non-academic Marxist and Communist sources

In the Marxist view, primitive accumulation of capital is a key element in the development of capitalism, and is linked with colonialism.

Karl Marx wrote in Capital Volume I, "‘The discovery of gold and silver in the Americas, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production’ (1967: 751). Through such varied forms of violent expropriation, capitalism was born, ‘dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt’ (1967: 760), but having achieved the consolidation of ‘the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few’ (1967: 762)."

Rosa Luxemburg in The Accumulation of Capital, expanded on this. "MILITARISM fulfils a quite definite function in the history of capital, accompanying as it does every historical phase of accumulation. It plays a decisive part in the first stages of European capitalism, in the period of the so-called ‘primitive accumulation’, as a means of conquering the New World and the spice-producing countries of India. Later, it is employed to subject the modern colonies, to destroy the social organisations of primitive societies so that their means of production may be appropriated, forcibly to introduce commodity trade in countries where the social structure had been unfavourable to it, and to turn the natives into a proletariat by compelling them to work for wages in the colonies. It is responsible for the creation and expansion of spheres of interest for European capital in non-European regions, for extorting railway concessions in backward countries, and for enforcing the claims of European capital as international lender. Finally, militarism is a weapon in the competitive struggle between capitalist countries for areas of non-capitalist civilisation. ... In addition, militarism has yet another important function. From the purely economic point of view, it is a pre-eminent means for the realisation of surplus value; it is in itself a province of accumulation."

Influence of national cultures

Some authors called American exceptionalism and the Cold War general reasons for barbarity.

Capitalist regimes where mass killings have occurred

Cambodia and Laos

• Operation Menu during the Vietnam War

Chile

• 1973 Chilean coup d'état and aftermath

The Chicago Boys were a group of young Chilean economists who trained at the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, or at its effective offshoot in the economics department at the Catholic University of Chile. The training was the result of a "Chile Project" organised in the 1950s by the US State Department and funded by the Ford Foundation, which aimed at influencing Chilean economic thinking. The project failed singularly to do so, with the Chicago Boys' ideas remaining on the fringes of Chilean economic and political thought until the 1973 Chilean coup d'état on 11 September 1973, when what became known as "The Brick" would form the basis of the new regime's economic policy. "The Brick" was a 500-page plan for the junta economic program, prepared in conjunction with the coup plotters; 8 of its 10 principal authors were Chicago Boys. Although the coup was described as a military coup, Orlando Letelier, Salvador Allende's Washington ambassador, "saw it as an equal partnership between the army and the economists".

China

• late nineteenth century famines under British (non-colonial) economic and military influence (see Late Victorian Holocausts and "The Origin of the Third World"; see also more details on similar case of India in section below)

Colombia

• right-wing death squads and associated Colombian parapolitics scandal

Europe

• Ireland - famines under British colonial rule, such as the Great Famine (Ireland). Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845–1849 that no issue has provoked so much anger and embittered relations between England and Ireland as "the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation." Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine. "Dr. Kinealy's research proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sufficient food in Ireland to prevent mass starvation, and that the food was brought through the worst famine-stricken areas on its way to England. British regiments guarded the ports and warehouses in Ireland to guarantee absentee landlords and commodity speculators their "free market" profits."
• Holocaust and other mass killings by Nazi government - according to writers including Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon, which applied the thinking of Rosa Luxemburg on imperialism to Nazism, "regarding it as the culmination of both colonialism and capitalism. Nazism was intra-European colonialism. In his famous Discourse on Colonialism of 1955, Césaire saw liberalism and capitalism as the essence of Nazism, which was less genocidal than exploitative and generally murderous. Writing fifteen years after the end of the Second World War, Fanon, who drew heavily on Césaire, connected colonialism, capitalism, and Nazism in the same way: 'Deportations, massacres, forced labor, and slavery have been the main methods used by capitalism to increase its wealth, its gold or diamond reserves, and to establish its power. Not long ago, Nazism transformed the whole of Europe into a veritable colony.'"

India

• India - famines under British colonial rule (see Late Victorian Holocausts and more details in section below)

Indonesia

• Indonesian killings of 1965–66.

The Indonesian killings saw the killing of half a million or more people, some 4-500 through targeted "shooting lists" (with progress reported to the US Embassy), most through sweeps of the countryside. Farid (2005) argues that "First, that the killings are in fact a case of state violence despite of the efforts to make it look like spontaneous violence. Second, that the killings are crucial to the expansion of capitalism in Indonesia. Using Marx's concept of 'primitive accumulation', it attempts to show that the mass killings and arrests, the expropriation of people from their houses and lands, and the elimination of working-class political formations, are integral parts of an economic strategy of the New Order."

United States

• genocide of indigineous population

Inclusion of famine as killing

The journalist and author Seamus Milne has questioned whether deaths from famine should be considered equivalent to state killings, since the demographic data used to estimate famine deaths may not be reliable. He argues that, if they are to be, then Britain would have to be considered responsible for as many as 30 million deaths in India from famine during the 19th century, and laments that there has been "no such comprehensive indictment of the colonial record".

Daniel Goldhagen argues that in some cases, deaths from famine should not be distinguished from mass murder: "Whenever governments have not alleviated famine conditions, political leaders decided not to say no to mass death - in other words, they said yes." He claims that famine was either used or deliberately tolerated by the Soviets, the Germans, the communist Chinese, the British in Kenya, the Hausa against the Ibo in Nigeria, Khmer Rouge, communist North Koreans, Ethiopeans in Eritrea, Zimbabwe against regions of political opposition, and Political Islamists in southern Sudan and Darfur.

In Late Victorian Holocausts (2000), Mike Davis explores the impact of colonialism and the introduction of capitalism during the El Niño-Southern Oscillation related famines of 1876-1878, 1896-1897, and 1899-1902, in India, China, Brazil, Ethiopia, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and New Caledonia. It focuses on how colonialism and capitalism in British India and elsewhere increased rural poverty & hunger and how economic policies exacerbated famine. The book's main conclusion is that the deaths of 30-60 million people killed in famines all over the world during the later part of the 19th century were caused by laissez faire and Malthusian economic ideology of the colonial governments. Davis argues that "Millions died, not outside the 'modern world system', but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of Liberal Capitalism; indeed, many were murdered ... by the theological application of the sacred principles of Smith, Bentham and Mill."

"Davis explicitly places his historical reconstruction of these catastrophes in the tradition inaugurated by Rosa Luxemburg in The Accumulation of Capital, where she sought to expose the dependence of the economic mechanisms of capitalist expansion on the infliction of ‘permanent violence’ on the South". Davis argues, for example, that "Between 1875–1900 — a period that included the worst famines in Indian history — annual grain exports increased from 3 to 10million tons", equivalent to the annual nutrition of 25m people. "Indeed, by the turn of the century, India was supplying nearly a fifth of Britain’s wheat consumption at the cost of its own food security." In addition, "Already saddled with a huge public debt that included reimbursing the stockholders of the East India Company and paying the costs of the 1857 revolt, India also had to finance British military supremacy in Asia. In addition to incessant proxy warfare with Russia on the Afghan frontier, the subcontinent’s masses also subsidized such far-flung adventures of the Indian Army as the occupation of Egypt, the invasion of Ethiopia, and the conquest of the Sudan. As a result, military expenditures never comprised less than 25 percent (34 percent including police) of India’s annual budget..." As an example of the effects of both this and of the restructuring of the local economy to suit imperial needs (in Victorian Berar, the acreage of cotton doubled 1875 - 1900), Davis notes that "During the famine of 1899–1900, when 143,000 Beraris died directly from starvation, the province exported not only thousands of bales of cotton but an incredible 747,000 bushels of grain."

Notes and references

Footnotes

References

See also

• Genocides in history
• Mass killings under Communist regimes

External links

• "Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century". Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century.

Category:Democides Category:Genocides