I have stood by and watched as screwballs have bandied around figures of people that the US is directly or indirectly responsible for killing of between 10m and 20m. None of this is supported. The only website I found that tried to substantiate this included all the war dead in any conflict the US was involved in. For example apparently the North Koreans, and the Chinese bear no reaponsibility whatsoever for the millions of dead in Korea. Similarly Sadam Hussein was totally blameless for the first gulf war.

The other non conflict related figures was admittedly guesstimates, but still exceeded estimates by human rights organisations.

The totals killed by communists in their own countries, with no conflict, and simply to put down dissent is closer to 100m. The 20m I quoted for Stalin was only for the purges in the 1930s.

WmTrevor,
I've been researching materialism and idealism, in various contexts, for three years and they tend to be mutually exclusive. On the one hand idealism gets nothing done--it's like a bad conscience; on the other hand when it gains sufficient momentum it can overthrow the society, or the sinner. Idealism of that sought can then all to easily tend to tyranny, since it has absolute conviction on its side, thus "The problem is what other people do."
This is one reason why Marx never pontificated about communism; the challenge is not to idealise the perfect society (idealism is the enemy in whatever guise), but to reform the present one. This goes on more or less automatically in a democracy--to a point only, window dressing, political correctness. But what does one do if the society is fundamentally-bad (built on and "dependent" on inequity and unsustainable practices?) Capitalism cannot be reformed; it's not a matter of micro-economics, capitalism per se is the problem.
You say "Be excellent to each other…", but how can we be in a system that is fundamentally competitive, mercenary and unequal? To be excellent to each other among our peers is all well and good, but in the present system it's patronising or condescending or obsequious or disingenuous etc.
Where the conservatives get it wrong is that in a system where we are all equal in the first instance--material wants--there is infinite scope and impetus for "genuine" individuality and diversity.
As it is the precious libertarian individual is nothing more than a delusion, a commodity, his individual distinctiveness dormant or a caricature.

According to Marx a mode of production continues until it's no longer viable and then it's overthrown. But he underestimated capitalism and I think it'll collapse long before it's overthrown.

SM,
I can't imagine anyone defending Stalin or Mao etc. But they didn't preside over socialist or communist societies. In a capitalist world they succumbed to idealism and paranoia and were mere tyrannies. When the capitalist pyramid finally collapses it will have been responsible for more death and misery than all the other travesties put together.

Squeers,

"Stalin or Mao ... didn't preside over socialist or communist societies."

What level of self delusion is required for that statement?

socialism:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Communism:

A classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community.

Stalin and Mao presided over text book communist / socialist societies, and either had to ruthlessly enforce them or covert to capitalism to lift their societies out of poverty.

As for the collapse of capitalism, there is no indication of it happenning any time soon.

You have my complete attention, Squeers.

>>Where the conservatives get it wrong is that in a system where we are all equal in the first instance--material wants--there is infinite scope and impetus for "genuine" individuality and diversity.<<

How so?

First of all, in what kind of society do you envisage people having "equal material wants"? Isn't this the antithesis of how humans operate, some happy to live in a commune and barter dope for food, others who see this as no more than a living hell?

What happens to "equal material wants" when one exercises one's individuality and diversity - would that not cause it to collapse in upon itself? And exactly how would you prevent the situation where person A, exercising their individuality and diversity, opens a shop selling shoes? That would be patently represent inequality of material want, compared for example to someone who preferred to, for example, barter dope for food.

Would you therefore not need to legislate equality, thus negating the whole point?

What you describe represents a process of "reverse development", in which society as we know it, and have benefitted from as people, eventually ceases to exist.

Interesting comment - "commodification of almost anything imaginable (including water, soil, and now the atmosphere)". Commodification is obviously not a new thing, but our food, data about ourselves, our labour, and everything we use (even the electrons that run our internet and power) are commodities, and many of these things are just as vital as air and water - just seems like a logical progression for them to become commoditised also.
However, water, air, iron ore, oil, etc, are natural resources and belong to the people. The sooner the wealth generated from these commodities (all of them), is returned to the people, the better, rather than lining the pockets of exceedingly wealthy individuals and companies. Of course, those of us at the bottom of the heap all would like to see a change in the commodification of everything, but until it's too late, I expect this will not happen.
People (in a small way) are starting to reclaim some control over whether they use commodities or not, by growing their own food, producing their own electricity, catching their own water, etc. but there is only so far we can go. The average city house block is not sufficiently large to grown enough food for an entire family, water tanks and treatment systems, and batteries for storing generated power, are expensive, and therefore, without some commodification we would not survive in our current world, and for many generations into the future, I expect.
I understand the author has the luxury of living in a beautiful part of the country and may be able to live relatively self-sufficiently, or in a community that can support this, but we also need to keep in perspective how our lights stay on at night, how our mobile phones just magically work (most of the time), where our petrol comes from, the steel and bricks and sawn timber to build our houses, and the list goes on... These are all commodities and unfortunately, since we (as a society) have lost much of the ability to do things ourselves (from scratch), we can't live without them...

Of course I don't talk of absolute material equality, Pericles, and our material requirements and comforts would vary, for sure, and ideally be accommodated to a point. I have no desire to live exactly the same as the next man, or to live in your evocative caricature of a commune. I'm not talking about homogeneity, just a fair and equitable share of "renewable" production and resources. Let's not forget that we're not only idealising here; that every family and every society ultimately has to live within its means--on what's available and what can be husbanded.
You like the example of worthless dope-peddlers, but how are the exploiters of dynastic wealth or unfair advantage, generally, any more morally upstanding? The dope peddler is a paragon in comparison.
You're arguing within the context of the capitalist system, as though its anti-morality was the inevitable backdrop against which we must project alternative societies.
I'm thinking of a society not remotely similar to capitalism, where by mutual consent one is not permitted to attain undue wealth and influence, and thus where "exercising their individuality and diversity" means just that; individuality as genuine talent/distinctiveness in whatever attainment it might be, and not in accumulating wealth and leverage, or keeping up with the Joneses.
Yes you would have to have a few rules, a cap on personal-wealth and assets, for instance (I remember you agreeing on this point once), but this needn't be severe, in fact only within the bounds of what's both sustainable and modest according to social norms and common decency.
I foresee such a society would be far less regulated than this one, which regulates every inanity while it overlooks the enormities.
Yes I'm talking about deconstruction, but also reconstruction.
Though I admit it's academic and I'm a pessimistic realist.
In one respect only I'm free; I dare to think critically and argue constructively.