Most evil person in history?

[PlasmaFrog]

Mankind in a general sense. We are our own very definition of evil. Mankind even created this supposed evil, as with a lot of the other things that we're able to fabricate with out minds.

 

[Flackster]

Caligula. Need I say more?

 

[Michael826]

Gilles de Rais [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_de_Rais]

 

[head desk tricycle]

In terms of damage to the species, I vote for the Persian religious prophet Zoroaster, who was the first to claim that everyone who worships his religion goes to an afterlife of unlimited joy, everyone else goes to an afterlife of eternal torment, and all opposition to his religion is directly caused by a being of pure evil.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.

While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).


The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).

Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.

 

[Tanis]

I'd like to also nominate Jehovah/Yahweh.

The worse mass murder - either directly or indirectly - in all of history.

 

[Travis Higuet]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

Probably not as many as communism.

 

[JWAN]

I would have to say stalin. He killed WAY more people than hitler and he did it over is entire reign then the next guy continued his policies and so on and so fourth until the fall of the Berlin wall and the eventual collapse of the satellite states and then the USSR itself.

The gulags made concentration camp look like summer camp.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

Probably not as many as communism.

Ugh if you're wanting to start a thread about communism please refer to the one that already exists.
But in short: The actual ideals of communism didn't cause any of those deaths, it was the power-hungry assholes who distorted and corrupted the ideals of communism that caused those deaths.

 

[JWAN]

Pol Pot. He killed 2,000,000 people of his country. That isn't as much as Hitler, Stalin or Mao, but keep in mind that was 20% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Yay communism!

 

[RandomNameRandom]

I would have to say stalin. He killed WAY more people than hitler and he did it over is entire reign then the next guy continued his policies and so on and so fourth until the fall of the Berlin wall.

The gulags made concentration camp look like summer camp.

Actually the first post Stalin premier, Khrushchev, rather quickly testified against Stalin's crimes and started a campaign of de-stalinization of course this doesn't really make the Soviet Union any better a place but its good to be more accurate in your points. But, yes Stalin and his policies were absolutely horrible things that should have never existed.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Pol Pot. He killed 2,000,000 people of his country. That isn't as much as Hitler, Stalin or Mao, but keep in mind that was 20% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Yay communism!

Argh, once again these people never followed true communist ideals, and Pol Pot was literally insane he didn't understand that what he did was wrong, he believed he was doing the right thing to his dying breath.

 

[Richard Po]

The most evil person in history probally isn't famous :/

 

[Disva]

God.

 

[Disva]

Or, i guess, Jesus.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.

While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).


The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).

Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.

No as communism is the ultimate goal, but you can only get to it by first experiencing socialism. In communism there is no state, so the state cant own the means of production (the definition of socialism).

About the NEP: isnt that pretty much what I said? What does "limited privatization" mean to you that I didnt articulate in my post?

And as for why I so casually dismiss Lenin's overthrow of feudalism: because he replaced one autocratic totalitarian regime with another, but at least the Czar didnt intentionally starve his subjects to death to get them to comply with his edicts (as Stalin did during the Ukrainian genocide.)

What I said about the NEP was that it was more akin to modern socialism than to the old capitalist system.
It wasn't Lenin's intention to turn the country into a totalitarian regime Lenin actually did want a country founded on Karl Marx's ideals, it wasn't his fault that after his depressingly early death that Stalin took power to turn the country into the hell that it became in fact Lenin tried to stop Stalin and asked in I believe it was his will but it may have been a different official document from him that requested that Stalin never be in a position of power.

 

[Travis Higuet]

Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.

While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).


The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).

Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.

You neglect the fact that without the owner, the factory wouldn't be there in the first place. The workers you talk of could have gotten together, pooled their resources, and opened up a factory in which they were all co-owners, and yet they did not. If not for the hated capitalist, there would be no factory, and there would be no jobs. Your hatred of wealth success and power is borne of a ignorance of how those things are created. You speak of equitable distribution of resources as if those resources fell from the sky. What we have is what we've created for ourselves. If you dislike the terms of your employment, you are free in a free market system to "sell" your labor elsewhere. If you think you know how to run a factory, or any other business for that matter better than the people who are running them now, then do it. Get in the market and compete. Nobody is stopping you. I just don't understand where this philosophy of entitlement comes from. What makes you think you have any right at all to what another has shed his blood and sweat for? If labor union owned factories are in all ways superior, then the free market would reflect that. Their overhead would be lower, the quality of their products greater, and the price to consumers more affordable. Unfortunately for the true believers of the left, those things are almost never true. And when they are, congratulations, you've just successfully competed in a free market. What makes you think your state regulated economic equality will be more "fair"? In a capitalist system, wealth and power can be earned by anyone. When wealth and power are controlled by the state, it's all about who you know. Only "party" members, and friends of those in power have access to wealth and power. Your argument that these are abuses of communism is tired, and irrelevant. If they are abuses, then they are inevitable abuses. I defy you to identify for me a communist revolution in all of human history where these so called abuses have been absent. Those with power in communist systems NEVER live the same as those without it. People like you get all starry eyed talking about the great communist utopia that's just around the corner, if only we give it another chance. If only smart people with no hidden agenda can oversee the next communist revolution, it will work out. This time it will be different. It won't be. Communism sounds fair, and ends in mass graves, because it tries to make humans into something they are not. Humans are not ants, and they never will be, thus communism will always fail, hopefully before the mass graves part. Capitalism sounds unfair (to people like you) but in reality, it gives everybody the chance to make the best of their situation. Nobody is guaranteed success in every endeavor, but nothing stops you from trying again. Not everybody has to be an owner in capitalism. Employers need employees. The left's problem with capitalism isn't that it's not fair, but rather that it is. Capitalism is even forgiving in its fairness. Fail once, and you'll get another chance. Fail at that, and you can have another. Nobody is stopping you. The left will never admit that of course, because the left doesn't understand fairness despite their endless use of the word to flog their political opponents. Fairness is when you get what you have earned. You reap both the benefits, and the consequences of the choices that YOU make. It is unfair to expect those who made good choices in their lives, and worked hard, to drag the dead weight of those who expect others to feed clothe and shelter them in the name of fairness. You think I am against charity? You would be wrong. I give, because I can, and because I like to help people. When the product of my labor is confiscated, there is no charity as nothing was given. When I give, it must be because I choose to do so. When I give because I must, then it is not generosity or altruism that motivates me, but rather the preservation of myself. Whether the thief is a knife wielding punk on a street corner, or a representative of the IRS makes no difference. Another point of clarification, I am not against taxes collected pursuant to the execution of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress as laid out in the constitution. But when money is collected to buy the votes of the entitlement class, then it is not a tax, because no such tax is authorized by our constitution. It is theft.

 

[Travis Higuet]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

Probably not as many as communism.

Ugh if you're wanting to start a thread about communism please refer to the one that already exists.
But in short: The actual ideals of communism didn't cause any of those deaths, it was the power-hungry assholes who distorted and corrupted the ideals of communism that caused those deaths.

The ideals of communism ALWAYS lead down the same road. They go against human nature, thus humans resist. When they do, the strongman arises in the name of "the people". It's really amazing how many millions of people have been killed by socialist leaders in the name of "the people". More amazing still is socialism's disciples just carry on, preaching the glory of toiling tirelessly with no hope of improving your life.

 

[infohippie]

Dick Cheney? Karl Rove?
...Julie Bishop?
Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with Julie Bishop. Or possibly Eric Abetz.

 

[Travis Higuet]

Pol Pot. He killed 2,000,000 people of his country. That isn't as much as Hitler, Stalin or Mao, but keep in mind that was 20% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Yay communism!

Argh, once again these people never followed true communist ideals, and Pol Pot was literally insane he didn't understand that what he did was wrong, he believed he was doing the right thing to his dying breath.

This is what runs through the minds of all communist leaders. They ALL think they are doing the right thing. They ALL believe that if they can just change people's thinking, that things will improve, and they ALL in the end resort to brutality, because asking nicely for every single person in a country to be enslaved to every single other person just never quite seems to have the desired effect.