[PEN-L:9476] Rummel dismantled on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PEN-L:9476] Rummel dismantled on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:24:15 -0400

Would it surprise you to learn that I have downloaded and printed the
online version of Dr. Rummel's tome, Lethal Politics? I don't know if it is
the same as the printed version, but I assume, since it is linked to his
academic website, that old Doc Rummel wouldn't have allowed it to go up if
it didn't reflect the substance of his printed work. I haven't read the
whole thing thoroughly, but I've read enough to come to the following
preliminary conclusions, based on my admittedly cursory reading (subject to
revision if and when I have time to give it a more thorough read):
1) Rummel is clearly not a statistician, and the sloppiness of his methods
show that he didn't consult one, at least not routinely or in depth. This
is obvious from both the method he uses and his own inadvertent statements
in the text. His method consists of taking widely (I would say wildly)
varying estimates from sources he regards as "authoritative" and averaging
them. I saw nothing that indicates how he decide how much credence to give
these vastly differing estimates. He also uses categories that clearly are
greatly overlapping, but makes no attempt to compensate for the overlap.
(I'm no statistician, but the errors are so glaring that I am forced to
wonder how Rummel could have missed them).
2) Rummel desperately wishes to prove his basic thesis that government
sponsored internal repression has killed more people than war. This is his
a priori bias, and it colors his analysis throughout, and renders him
susceptible to making (or using) huge estimates as components of his
totals.
3) Since Rummel provides much of the data he used, and makes statements
that inadvertently show how his bias affected his conclusions, I cannot
conclude that he is dishonest. The only reason I suspect any possible
deliberate dishonesty (as opposed to credulousness and self-delusion), is
the glaring nature of some of the errors. I am a layman, and yet I spotted
them without much trouble. Nonetheless, his own inadvertent statements (as
well as his apparent inability to grasp their full import) tend to
exculpate Rummel of deliberate fakery, while convicting him of
credulousness and apriori bias in the first degree.
I will now demonstrate what I have stated above.
On the third page of the chapter entitled 61,911,000 Victims: Utopianism
Empowered, second full paragraph down, Rummel makes the following
statement:
"In sum, the Soviets have committed a democide of 61,911,000 people,
7,142,000 of them foreigners. This staggering total is beyond belief. But,
as shown in Figure 1.1, it is only the prudent, most probable tally, in a
range from an highly unlikely, low figure of 28,326,000 (4,263,000
foreigners); and an equally highly unlikely figure of 126,891,000
(including 12,134,000 foreigners). This is arange of uncertainty in our
democide estimates -- an error range -- of 97,808,000 human beings."
Incredible. This statement demonstrates, concisely and clearly, everything
I stated above. Let's start with a priori bias. Rummel characterizes the
low estimate (28,326,000) and the high estimate (126,891,000), as being
"equally unlikely." Killing 28 million people requires a stupendous, if
horrific, effort of political will and organization. yet a figure more than
four times that amount is only "equally unlikely?" Let us leave aside the
fact that this high figure is greater than the 1910 population of the
Russian Empire (120 million), the present day population of European Russia
(120 million), and more than half the present day (1992) population of the
former USSR (223 million). Only an extremely biased scholar could claim
these two figures are "equally unlikely," and not instead conclude that his
component estimates are virtually useless. But that isn't the worst, even
in this one paragraph. The last sentence demonstrates the worthlessness of
his chosen method. The error range (97,808,000) is larger than his
"estimate" (61,911,000). I don't have to be a statistician to know that
when your estimate is smaller than your error range, your method is about
as good as a ouija board -- wait, I take that back: the ouija board has the
advantage of being less laborious and more fun. So does a divining rod.
But Rummel goes on, sealing both his conviction on grounds of credulousness
and his acquittal on charges of fakery. In the very next paragraph, he
exclaims:
"Just consider the error range in Soviet democide, as shown in Figure 1.1.
It is larger than the population of 96 percent of the world's nations and
countries. Actually, if France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, and Switzerland were blasted clean of all human life in a nuclear
war, the human toll would be less than just this range in the Soviet's
probable democide -- the range, and not even the total murdered."
Exactly what are we supposed to conclude from this? Why, those Soviet
commies must have been unbelievable monsters -- look at the error range
they caused in my estimates!! They must have truly been genocidal (excuse
me, democidal) butchers to cause me to find such wide ranging death toll
estimates! Just imagine how many people they REALLY must have killed in
order to create such a wide disparity in available statistics!
But let us turn to Table 1.1. On the horizontal axis, Rummel lists the
following democide components: terror, deportation, camps, and famine.
Rummel makes a good case for separating deportation and camp deaths in the
text, and mentions that he includes transportation deaths in both
categories. But I could find nowhere an explanation of what he meant by
"terror," or why "terror" is separated from camps and deportations. While
famine might be clearly a separate category, but in the case of the USSR,
given the claims that famine was an instrument and result of "terror," this
is not at all clear. Isn't transportation and existence in the GULAG
considered part of "terror?" It would certainly terrify me! "Terror" is not
a method of killing -- it is a description of a general policy or period of
repression (which certainly includes killing). Indeed, on the vertical side
of the table, the "Great Terror" of 1936 is listed as a period in which all
the horizontal categories occured. We are told that, during the Great
Terror of 1936, that 3,280,000 people died in the camps (or en route),
65,000 from deportation, and 1,000,000 from "terror." Yet most other
periods mentioned on the vertical side show more deaths from "terror" than
the Great Terror of 1936. Clearly, "terror" is a category that is partially
overlapped by famine, and perhaps almost totally by camps and deportations.
"Terror" is supposed to account for 8,298,000 deaths overall. This is
assuming the figures are correct in the first place, which I am not, and
have dealt with above. There are other examples, this being merely the
first one I found. I will relate them if you ask.
Essentially, what Rummel did was to compile hearsay estimates, do sloppy
statistical work, and plow ahead to a conclusion that the data couldn't
support. The only legitimate coclusion that he could have come to was that
no conclusion was possible regarding probable death tolls in the USSR,
based on the figures he had. But who wants to publish a book with such an
anti-climactic ending?
BTW, the figure of up to 10,000,000 killed, given by Otto Pohl in this
thread, is the most common figure I heard when I was associated with the
Trotskyite movement. I don't know what these figures were based on, but
clearly they were closer to the mark, and formulated with greater caution
than either Rummel's estimate, or the estimates he based his work on. A.J.
Philbin
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
Follow-Ups: [PEN-L:9478] RE: Rummel dismantled on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky From: Max B. Sawicky
References: [PEN-L:9458] DeLong's statistics From: Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:9457] Re: Re: Re: a warning from the nanny From: Henry C.K. Liu
[PEN-L:9454] Re: Re: a warning from the nanny From: Rod Hay
[PEN-L:9466] Re: DeLong's statistics From: Brad De Long
Prev by Date: [PEN-L:9475] speaking of Utopia Next by Date: [PEN-L:9477]
DeLong's statistics Previous by thread: [PEN-L:9471] Re: Re: DeLong's
statistics Next by thread: [PEN-L:9478] RE: Rummel dismantled on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky Index(es): Date
Thread
Thread context: [PEN-L:9457] Re: Re: Re: a warning from the nanny,
(continued) [PEN-L:9457] Re: Re: Re: a warning from the nanny, Henry C.K.
Liu Wed 21 Jul 1999, 21:58 GMT [PEN-L:9458] DeLong's statistics, Louis
Proyect Wed 21 Jul 1999, 22:33 GMT [PEN-L:9466] Re: DeLong's statistics,
Brad De Long Wed 21 Jul 1999, 23:42 GMT [PEN-L:9471] Re: Re: DeLong's
statistics, Henry C.K. Liu Wed 21 Jul 1999, 23:54 GMT [PEN-L:9476] Rummel
dismantled on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, Louis Proyect Thu 22 Jul
1999, 00:24 GMT [PEN-L:9478] RE: Rummel dismantled on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, Max B. Sawicky Thu 22 Jul 1999, 04:27 GMT
[PEN-L:9479] Re: RE: Rummel dismantled on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,
Henry C.K. Liu Thu 22 Jul 1999, 01:49 GMT [PEN-L:9480] last warning,
Michael Perelman Thu 22 Jul 1999, 02:44 GMT [PEN-L:9482] Re: last warning,
Henry C.K. Liu Thu 22 Jul 1999, 02:48 GMT [ Other Periods  | Other mailing
lists  | Search  ] On Thu, 22 May 2003 03:36:51 -0400, llevitt
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Rudy Rummel <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:17:19 -1000
> To: H-NET List on the History and Theory of Genocide
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The Greatest Source of Democide(Rummel)
>
>
> What is the greatest source of democide?
> First, I should note that by democide I mean to define the killing
> by governments as the concept of murder defines individual killing in
> domestic society. And it is focusing on this democide, rather than the
> genocide that is one of its components, which uncovers the true
> dimensions
> of mass murder in the world.
> Since democide is a government activity or policy, we must consider what
> type of governments are the worse murderers. Is there a political factor
> that discriminates between mortacracies--governments characterized by
> murder--and those who may kill incidentally or situationally? Yes,
> totalitarianism. Almost without exception, totalitarian governments are
> or
> have been mortacracies.
> There is much confusion about what totalitarian means in the literature.
> I define a totalitarian state as one with a system of government that is
> unlimited constitutionally or by countervailing powers in society (such
> as
> by a church, rural gentry, labor unions, or regional powers); is not held
> responsible to the public by periodic secret and competitive elections;
> and
> employs its unlimited power to control all aspects of society, including
> the
> family, religion, education, business, private property, and social
> relationships. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union was thus totalitarian, as
> was
> Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, and U Ne Win's Burma.
> Presently, North Korea is a prime example.
> Totalitarianism is also an ideology for which a totalitarian
> government is the agency for realizing its ends. Thus, totalitarianism
> characterizes such ideologies as state socialism (as in Burma),
> Marxism-Leninism as in the former Soviet Union, and Nazism
> (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei--National Socialist
> German
> Workers' Party; although racist and nationalist doctrines dominated,
> economically all become subverted to the party, as under communism; as
> Hitler said: "We are socialists"), and Italian fascism. Other versions
> dot
> the modern world, such as the socialist Baathist Party that ruled Iraq
> under
> Hussein and still rules Syria.
> Not all totalitarianism is socialist. Theological totalitarianism,
> for example, characterized the Taliban, does so for revolutionary Moslem
> Iran since the overthrow of the Shaw in 1978-79 and Saudi Arabia. Here
> totalitarianism is married to Moslem fundamentalism.
> In short, totalitarianism is the ideology of absolute power.
> The worst of the totalitarian governments, however, by far have been the
> socialist. Socialist self-righteousness, desire to radically reconstruct
> the
> fundamental institution of society (throwing out the institutional
> evolution
> and cultural learning of generations), the belief that those who disagree
> are evil, and that one must "break eggs to make an omelet," have led to
> monumental democide, as for example by the Soviet Union (about 61 million
> murdered), Mao's China (about 35 million), and so on for all the
> communist
> regimes, as well as the nationalist socialists like Germany (21 million),
> state socialist like Burma, Baathists like Syria and Hussein's Iraq,
> socialist Libya, and so on.
> By my count (Statistics of Democide at
> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF) for 1900-1987,
> totalitarian regimes murdered about 138 million (communist regimes about
> 110
> million out of 169 million overall governments. Democracies murdered 2
> million (149 thousand domestic, mainly due to the Spanish Civil War).
> Some, mainly on the left, argue that my figures for communist systems
> are way too high, while being too low for democracies, especially like
> the
> United States. Okay, cut in half all my estimates for communist systems,
> and
> double those for democracies. That leaves the communist murdering 55
> million
> versus 4 million for the democracies. We can even go further and do this
> again, and the conclusion remains the same--nondemocratic socialism is
> one
> of the great threats to human life. In other words, as far as democide is
> concerned, the major danger, by far, is from the nondemocratic far left,
> the
> major ideological source of mortacracies.
> Be clear, regimes on the right, such as the absolute monarchies and
> non-socialist fascists like Chiang's Nationalist government of China (10
> million murdered) and Japan's WWII military government (6 million), also
> commit major democide, but overall much less than those far on the left.
> R.J. Rummel
> Professor Emeritus
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills
>



--
Michael Pugliese

"Without knowing that we knew nothing, we went on talking without listening
to each other. Sometimes we flattered and praised each other, understanding
that we would be flattered and praised in return. Other times we abused and
shouted at each other, as if we were in a madhouse."
-Tolstoy