WOW - you told the story of Harper bunch with this line: "Fighting the Cold War with yet more memorials is not only anachronistic: it intercepts a debate whose time has surely come, and seeks to co-opt it for crass partisan purposes."
They have shown the world is more then is dreamed of in their philosophy: their legislative agenda is a shambles, their fiscal policies are driving us to ruin without alleviating the stated problem, they are turning Canada over to a bunch of American CEOs with the SPP. They need to redirect attention elsewhere. So Iggy has to become a 'visitor', and the Bloc must be seen as supporting preverts (spelling deliberate).
In the midst of a terrible economic crisis they can take some of the money they saved from exploring the limits of our Constitution regarding woman's rights and build a monument. It is not a monument to 'communist victims' - it is to sanctify what they see as their victory.
Tee Hee Hee .. little do they realize that countries can be defeated or bankrupted - but ideas live on.
(But then, Harper/Flaherty have never had one of their own, so how could they recognize that?)
Thank you, Dr. Dawg. Was hoping you'd apply your skills to the story.
Thank you for the prompt!
Is it just me, or is Jason Kenny morphing into Karl Rove?
I can't see this government supporting a monument to those killed by fascism much less neo-liberalism. Too many 'thinkers' on the Canadian political right have gone to great lengths to minimize the horrors of fascism to want to cast any light on them.
Here in Alberta we had the spectacle of Premier Ralph Klein getting caught plagiarizing his way through a college extension course on Chile and the Pinochet regime. His academic fraud only came to light because of his public musing from his 'research' that Pinochet wasn't that bad and only overthrew the Democratically elected government of Allende because he was forced to by Allende's socialistic ways.
Presumably he's now one of the many of North America's right wingers supporting the military coup in Honduras right now.
Okay, I'll bite.
Where are the concentration camps, gas chambers, gulags, or checas, installed by market-based capitalistic Western nations? (Reeking pits of sulfurous toxic waste don't exactly count.)
Where are the communist nations that have as good a standard of living and domestic human rights record as liberal capitalistic democracies?
One might argue the poor fortune that befell Marx as "Lenin got to him first", but you can make an equally valid argument that the mechanisms of communism facilitate the rise of totalitarian strongmen...
Inu Sensei,
OK, I'll bite.
"But it has specificity, a place and time: it commemorates real people with real names. It's not a memorial that lacks all human reference, in spite of its claims, and becomes just another abstract, ideological weapon of war."
So why not a whole museum, with one exhibit per chapter of
http://www.amazon.com/Black-
Book...#R3Q1O9UO21TURJ
when you suggest:
"One must wonder why this would be the case. Don't the millions of victims of the Axis powers count?"
A large number of the victims of the Axis count as victims of the Communists as well. The case of Poland is particularly instructive, where Hitler and Stalin cooperated in genocide (Engels' "reactionary peoples", indeed). The issue of the legitimation of "holocaust denial" at Nuremberg might even be aired properly.
"There is nothing inherently murderous in the Marxist notion of equality and class struggle"
But that's the way to bet.
SF said:
"Where are the concentration camps, gas chambers, gulags, or checas, installed by market-based capitalistic Western nations?"
Concentration camps were found in British-ruled states while Britain was democratic and free-market.
Gas chambers found in Nazi Germany, which never repudiated market-based capitalism.
Gulags, which are forced labour camps, also appeared in Nazi Germany of course and were used by French and British in their own countries with German POWs; the US ran its own labour camps in occupied Germany. This is not to mention prison labour and chain-gangs in the US.
And the Tcheka were internal security, a la our RCMP and the US FBI, pledged to protect their respective countries from internal dissent.
"Where are the communist nations that have as good a standard of living and domestic human rights record as liberal capitalistic democracies?"
What, you mean like places in South and Central America, South Vietnam, South Korea, present-day Pakistan, etc? Those liberal, capitalistic democracies?
(And I don't even have to mention exploitation. It's easy to spread a modicum of wealth when so much of it is squeezed from workers every day, or gained through swindling and gambling, or extorted.)
KZ said of inherent murderousness in equality and class struggle:
"But that's the way to bet."
Prove it or shut it.
I dare you.
What I think may be your main point here has been unfortunately deflected by the tiresome leftist compulsion to, if not excuse the widespread horrors of 20th century marxism, at least insist they were: a) excesses of uncontrolled and overly zealous bureaucrats; b) the fault of clever bad people who seized the shop when no one was looking; or c) no worse than the other side's. Ho hum, been there, done that. But if imitation is the best form of flattery, you should be pleased the Cons are taking a page from your book. What is with this modern manic compulsion to put up memorials to victims of every collective misfortune that afflicts the human condition? Victims of fascism, victims of communism, victims of breast cancer, victims of residential schools, victims of tsunamis, victims of poverty, victims of violent misogyny, etc. Plus you can't even go to a concert these days without some shrewd promoter convincing you that by so doing you are fighting this or that injustice or making the world greener. It is good and natural for people to remember those to whom they had some actual personal family or community (writ large) connection--that's how we cherish the memory of our kith and kin, but do people really believe this modern mania is about reverence for the dead or suffering? It's not, it's about scoring political points in a competition to see who wins the gold medal for victimhood, and at some point it becomes sick. The capacity to bereave is not unlimited in any of us and it cheapens the real thing to try to squeeze more of it out in the name of some abstract principle and nameless, faceless people with whom we had no connection whatsoever. You can provide an outlet for ache and memory that is already there with a memorial, but you can't squeeze more of them out by erecting granite stones willy-nilly and daring folks to show they care.
There are already memorials to all these people. They are called graves.
Todd:
Though I was hoping someone a little more mainstream to answer, I'll take what I can get.
Nazi Germany, which never repudiated market-based capitalism. Nazi Germany espoused the Third Way Position which repudiated both capitalism and communism.
The Tcheka were internal Soviet security. So what? The Checas were torture chambers set up by the Republicans (communists) in the Spanish Civil War. They were named after the Tcheka, though, because they were set up by Soviet advisers and used similar methods.
I'm not sure what to make of your list of countries; I expected you to list a few Communist countries that have excellent records of human rights and prosperity. It's especially amusing that you mention South Korea, because nowhere is there a better example of the outcomes of communism and capitalism than on the Korean peninsula.
Considering Pakistan was ruled by the military for the last nine years, and a significant portion of its populace want to overthrow democracy, it can hardly be used as an example of a liberal, capitalist democracy. South Vietnam (correct me if I'm wrong) is part of communist Vietnam, no? And which South/Central American countries are true liberal capitalist democracies?
SF said:
"Nazi Germany espoused the Third Way Position"
We've seen the Third Way in Britain over the past few years; you want to tell me that's _not_ capitalism? And are we now supposed to take simply at face value what fascists say?
"The Tcheka were internal Soviet security. So what?"
And what was your point? That they were somehow nothing like the FBI but were a unique evil, totally without a precedent under capitalism? Please.
"I'm not sure what to make of your list of countries"
Those countries are all regimes embracing liberal capitalism; are they somehow above reproach?
"It's especially amusing that you mention South Korea, because nowhere is there a better example of the outcomes of communism and capitalism than on the Korean peninsula."
If you think there's a better choice between socialism and barbarism, I'd be interested in hearing it.
"Considering Pakistan"
That's why I said _present-day_ Pakistan (and capitalism wasn't ended there just because they had a military dictatorship)
"a significant portion of its populace want to overthrow democracy"
Really? It looks more like a significant portion want self-rule (in the poorer areas to the west, bordering on Afghanistan) and another siginificant portion want democracy period.
You'd better quit getting your news from Fox. They lie.
South Vietnam doesn't exist now, of course, but it certainly was as liberal-capitalist and repressive as, say, Britain before WWI.
As for SA countries, pick any one you like: they're all liberal-capitalist.
I think we have confusion over the meanings of words: "liberal-capitalist" is a descritpion of the bourgeois relations that exist in the country, having nothing directly to do with its politics or (least of all) which party's in power at the moment.
Peter said:
"What is with this modern manic compulsion to put up memorials to victims of every collective misfortune that afflicts the human condition?"
(Don't know why you have to specify it as "modern"; it's only been happening for the past 20 years or so; "post-modern" maybe, with its insistence on ultra-individualism and its floating signifiers.)
Capitalism does a good job of suborning other imperatives under its own aegis.
Todd:
I think we have confusion over the meanings of words...
That's why I said that I'd rather have this discussion with someone who doesn't see everything as a crime of the bourgeoisie.
Part of the definition problem lies in your assumption that anything not stringently communist is by definition capitalist. You also assume that any nation with an election, no matter how free and fair, qualifies as democratic. In fact, you seem to claim that any country ruled by your notion of "bourgeoisie" is capitalist - and, from a previous discussion, that would include North Korea.
You're confusing Third Way (centrism) and Third Position (fascism). Maybe I should have made that more clear.
Tcheka/Checa: Re-read my post. I'm not talking about the Soviet police. I'm talking about the Soviet-style concentration camps run by Republicans/Communists during the Spanish Civil War (called Checas) in which over 100,000 were tortured and killed.
As for picking and choosing countries, I asked if there are any successful communist countries in which the standard of living and domestic human rights equal that of successful liberal capitalist democracies. You are evading the question by trying to find some examples of failed liberal-capitalist states. I don't deny that liberal-capitalist states can fail - it's not a panacea for all of a nation's problems. However, the track record of communism is such that it easily correlates with brutal oppression of its own people.
SF said:
"Part of the definition problem lies in your assumption that anything not stringently communist is by definition capitalist."
I'm sorry if I've been giving that impression, but, no, that's not correct.
A capitalist country is one where, at least for the most part, individuals and/or groups privately own the means of production eg land, factories, machinery, etc., and employ those who don't own this stuff, exploiting them to make a profit.
"In fact, you seem to claim that any country ruled by your notion of 'bourgeoisie' is capitalist"
Well, the bourgeois were the class among which capitalism arose. It's possible in a country that, say, still has most of its population part of a peasant class to have a bourgeois class. It depends on the historical development of the country.
"- and, from a previous discussion, that would include North Korea."
Really? Where did I say this? I think I might have said that NK isn't communist. A communist party is in power there, that's true, and they'd been moving away from capitalism (although, from what little I've read, they seem to be heading back in that direction), but they havn't achieved communism.
This stipulation isn't something I'm just making up arbitrarily; this is what I got from reading Marx's Capital and some of his other material eg Critique of the Gotha Prgramme. He wrote little on what makes a communist society communist, but what he did write was fairly specific: free people in free association working for the betterment of all so they can better themselves. "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" is a pithy way of summing up a real communist society.
Re. Third Way and Third Position: I think my point still stands: Nazi Germany had no problems with private ownership of the means of production ie capitalism as such. And both of those political stances still permit capitalism to go on while perhaps fiddling with reforms that only serve to ameliorate temporarily at best the symptoms of the problem.
It was hard to figure out just what you were talking about wrt "checa" because the name for such places came from the USSR's early domestic intelligence agency, also, and you'd already made mention of concentration camps, gulags, etc. If it's the "unofficial" status of the checas that you're conentrating on, I'll bring up the "extraordinary rendition" that's had people kidnapped and tortured unofficially at the behest of at least one bourgeois democracy.
My point, though, is still valid: such places were and are used by bourgeois democracies.
"As for picking and choosing countries"
I don't think I'm evading your question so much as critiquing its parameters. You used the term "liberal capitalistic democracies", which is a bit confusing. "Liberal capitalism" is the most advanced form of capitalism going today; it has nothing directly to do with "liberal" politics (which is ano
(cont'd)
I don't think I'm evading your question so much as critiquing its parameters. You used the term "liberal capitalistic democracies", which is a bit confusing. "Liberal capitalism" is the most advanced form of capitalism going today; it has nothing directly to do with "liberal" politics (which is another ramification of the adjective "liberal"); you can have one without the other (although the two are linked). In all of the countries I mentioned, liberal capitalism reigns supreme even though the ruling party might not be a "liberal" one. And I wouldn't call any of them "failed states" (whatever that means; it's a highly charged and subjective term).
"However, the track record of communism is such that it easily correlates with brutal oppression of its own people."
Say rather that the track record of communist governments correlates with it. However, brutality and oppression towards a country's own citizens isn't something unique to countries who have communist parties in power, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
I'm not trying to "score points"; I'm being perfectly serious about this. But you've got to help me by being specific about what you're talking about.
Todd:
I appreciate the seriousness - I've noted the change in your tone already.
OK, how many "non-capitalist" countries are out there? How many countries are devoid of ruling "bourgeoisie"? How many countries have actually achieved communism? I can't think of any. (I couldn't dig up your comment on North Korea in a quick search, but it was along the lines of what you are saying here.)
I think we can go on and on about the parameters. It's impossible to draw definite boundaries on what constitutes "capitalist" and "communist", which I concede is a valid point made in Dawg's post. Capitalism is especially hard to define, because free markets always exist in the absence of state control. I define a capitalist liberal democratic state as:
Capitalist: One without undue state interventions in the free market (e.g. excludes Venezuela)
Liberal: I mean this in the classical sense. This indicates that the state holds personal liberty in high regard. Democratic: The state has free and fair elections (excludes some South/Central American states)
Many states don't fit into either categories, such as theocracies (Iran) kleptocracies (Phillipines, Panama) and thugocracies (Zimbabwe)
wrt Extraordinary Rendition, I don't deny that capitalist nations are as able as any other to oppress and brutalize people. But, since some capitalist nations are peaceful and civil for long periods of history, you cannot draw causation between capitalism and brutality. (I also made it clear I'm talking about domestic oppression.)
You admit, however, that ...the track record of communist governments correlates with [oppression and brutality]. Agreed. As I've said earlier, I can't think of ANY examples of communist governments that do not have systemic state oppression and brutality. One could then plausibly draw a causal relationship between the two.
Saying that a country never "achieved" communism doesn't seem relevant to me. I believe communism is about as achievable as equality and the eradication of poverty, i.e. you can always work towards it but you'll never get there. The brutality is caused by the progression towards the impossible ideal of communism, not by communism itself. Even Marx admitted that the establishment of communism requires violent revolution and the suppression of dissent before a worker's paradise can be created.
To arrive upon my own conclusions, I considered as examples Communist Europe vs Capitalist Europe of the 60s, 70s, and 80s (I have a co-worker who survived communist Poland giving me first-hand testimony). I also compare the past few decades of Japan and South Korea to China and North Korea (other co-workers who survived communist China).
I also found it useful to make a point about the war that communists use to distance themselves from fascists - the Spanish Civil war. Interesting to note that the communists (who the Mac-Paps fought for) operated death camps there too. And this was not a wa
(con't) And this was not a war measure - they were murdering clergy long before the war started.
KZ said of inherent murderousness in equality and class struggle:
"But that's the way to bet."
"Prove it or shut it.
I dare you."
Todd, I don't have to.
1) If you had quoted me properly you would have included "the Marxist notion of ...".
2) "that's the way to bet" doesn't involve proving anything. It's just a statement that IF another country falls to Marxist revolutionaries (Honduras?), there will PROBABLY be government-instigated mass murders etc., etc. I'd be willing to place a bet on that.
SF said:
"OK, how many "non-capitalist" countries are out there? How many countries are devoid of ruling 'bourgeoisie'? How many countries have actually achieved communism? I can't think of any."
In answer to all three questions, basically, none. The very closest that one country might come to not having a ruling bourgeoisie is probably Cuba. I don't know for sure what the ownership situation is like there, but I do know they've set aside certain zones for hotels and business which, so far as I know, are privately owned (by foreign bourgeois, I'm guessing but fairly sure). North Korea, I think, is heading the same way. I'm pretty sure, though, that what they do is contract out their workers to outside ie capitalist firms, so they seem to be getting hooked up to capitalism as well.
"It's impossible to draw definite boundaries on what constitutes 'capitalist' and 'communist', which I concede is a valid point made in Dawg's post."
I disagree. Although there is no absolutely definitive proscription of what constitutes communism, Marx did give some pretty fair hints as well as what can be inferred from his description of the way capitalism works. Capitalism, however, can be very well defined. The biggest problem is that many people, sometimes deliberately, confuse capitalism with simple trading or just privately owning anything.
"Capitalism is especially hard to define, because free markets always exist in the absence of state control."
Leaving aside what constitutes a "free market", history doesn't bear this out. Not even in the Soviet Union were there no markets; I can't speak for Cuba or North Korea, but I see no reason to believe no markets exist. By and large, the one market that was certainly at least initially forbidden was the market in human labour.
"Capitalist: One without undue state interventions in the free market (e.g. excludes Venezuela)
Liberal: I mean this in the classical sense. This indicates that the state holds personal liberty in high regard. Democratic: The state has free and fair elections (excludes some South/Central American states)
Many states don't fit into either categories, such as theocracies (Iran) kleptocracies (Phillipines, Panama) and thugocracies (Zimbabwe)"
The big problem I see with these definitions is that they're horribly abstract, vague, and timeless ie they take no notice of history, being described as if they were Platonic objects. As such, they're pretty useless when it comes down to trying to figure out just what they mean.
"wrt Extraordinary Rendition, I don't deny that capitalist nations are as able as any other to oppress and brutalize people. But, since some capitalist nations are peaceful and civil for long periods of history, you cannot draw causation between capitalism and brutality. (I also made it clear I'm talking about domestic oppression.)"
Again, these definitions take no notice of history. What capitalist nation has
(cont'd)
Again, these definitions take no notice of history. What capitalist nation has ever been peaceful and civil to its domestic population as a whole? Even leaving aside exploitation, in which the bourgeois state is inculcated, the record of every bourgeois state on the planet has included domestic oppression in many forms, both harsh and less so. Yes, I agree the record has gotten better eg minority rights and women's liberation (both of which, however, can fit quite neatly to a certain degree, within the logic of capitalism itself), but there are certain things which have to do directly with how and why capitalism operates that are still regulated by capitalists with the state's aid.
"You admit, however, that ...the track record of communist governments correlates with [oppression and brutality]. Agreed. As I've said earlier, I can't think of ANY examples of communist governments that do not have systemic state oppression and brutality. One could then plausibly draw a causal relationship between the two."
Yes, one can, but one must be careful about what points are being connected and why. Communist-run states were (now, though, to a lesser degree) a direct threat to the way the bourgeois said the world worked and should work; they and their national governments worked _very_ hard to discredit, harrass, invade, and destroy them where they could. Although not _all_ oppression and brutality can be laid at the feet of a siege mentality and the resulting paranoia, at least a good part of it can be as evinced by such examples as war-time North America and "enemy aliens" who used to be citizens.
Secondly, if you actually read Marx's works, it quickly becomes clear that he never advocated scapegoating or came up with some ridiculous theory that justified the creation and persecution of an "Other" as the answer to the troubles people had. Every reason why capitalism and class societies in general have to go is laid out and explained. With some work, anyone can, at least, follow the logic. Thus, to blame marxism and communism itself as the causer of oppression, can only be done from a position of ignorance or having an axe to grind.
"Saying that a country never 'achieved' communism doesn't seem relevant to me."
If one is arguing that "communism causes" X", then one should be careful about its relevancy to one's argument and refine the argument duly.
"I believe communism is about as achievable as equality and the eradication of poverty, i.e. you can always work towards it but you'll never get there."
Seeing as humans can't accurately predict the future of this kind of a statement, I'll take this as a statement of pessimism, which is something I can't rationally counter except to say that lots of things once deemed unachievable have happened.
"The brutality is caused by the progression towards the impossible ideal of communism, not by communism itself."
Even if communism is impossible,
(cont'd)
Even if communism is impossible, as impossible as Being a Truly Good Person, where is the logic of abandoning trying? This is pessimism, not an argument.
"Even Marx admitted that the establishment of communism requires violent revolution and the suppression of dissent before a worker's paradise can be created."
Let's leave aside the "creating a workers' paradise" stuff; Marx never even hinted that. All that he said is that the abolishment of class society would be a step forward for humanity, same as capitalism abolishing feudalism was a step forward in its time.
As for the violence, Marx logically assumed that anyone in a position of power and prestige in any society would very likely want to keep that position and fight against any threat to it. Even if some bourgeois decided they wanted to give up their positions and abolish capitalism, it would be highly unlikely the entire _class_ would. They would mobilize what they could to maintain the status quo. Of course this would require the oppression of dissent: the dissent being oppressed was the demand to exploit workers and grow wealthy thereby! When the bourgeois fought against feudal absolutism, of course there was going to be dissent from those who owed their position and comfort to feudalism.
(Marx himself, however, pointed out that violence would only be neccessary if the bourgeois refused to yield. If they did see reason, so much the better. He never advocated bloodshed for its own or any putative "good reasons'" sake.)
"To arrive upon my own conclusions, I considered as examples Communist Europe vs Capitalist Europe of the 60s, 70s, and 80s (I have a co-worker who survived communist Poland giving me first-hand testimony). I also compare the past few decades of Japan and South Korea to China and North Korea (other co-workers who survived communist China)."
That's fine. Those testimonies are as valid as any first-hand accounts can be. But any social scientist will tell you that you need also to get more "objective" evidence to get a better description of what happened.
"I also found it useful to make a point about the war that communists use to distance themselves from fascists - the Spanish Civil war. Interesting to note that the communists (who the Mac-Paps fought for) operated death camps there too. And this was not a war measure - they were murdering clergy long before the war started."
OK, first you have to understand that, at the time, communists and socialists were very divided about the Soviet Union and especially Stalin. Not every communist or socialist in Spain supported the SU or Stalin (and Stalin sometimes made sure they didn't get support either).
Second, I've heard of the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade, but I know little else about them. I know they were like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in that they were foreign volunteers who fought against the spanish fascists (and other elements of the Spanish Right) on the
(cont'd)
Second, I've heard of the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade, but I know little else about them. I know they were like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in that they were foreign volunteers who fought against the spanish fascists (and other elements of the Spanish Right) on the side of the Republicans.
Third, the Soviet Union had its own reasons (from what little I've read about them, I disagree) for not standing behind all the communists and socialists (even not standing behind the Republic), very much to do with arguments about theory and praxis (internal to both the SU _and_ the broader community of the radical left).
Fourth, the spanish Catholic Church was very much a part of the ancien regime and very much wanted to maintain its status, power, and wealth (true even today). Spanish liberals as well as radicals wanted to get rid of that, seeing the church (rightly) as an organization that, at the very least, would work to impede certain ideas that, nowadays, we find vitally important. Deliberately targetted clergy were more likely than not working with the Republic's enemies (never mind the whole liberal thing about "strangling the last priest with his own guts"). To my mind, that doesn't excuse torture and pointless bloodshed, but to argue that such atrocities somehow must absolutely invalidate what the Republic was fighting for and condemn it to being shunned by everyone (so that the fascists would end up winning) says much for the power of romanticism and illogical behaviour.
KZ said:
"Todd, I don't have to."
Of course you don't; who said you did?
However, not doing so just leads me to suggest your arguments aren't in good faith, and that you're probably just interested in trolling.
"1) If you had quoted me properly you would have included "the Marxist notion of ...".
I figured this: "KZ said of inherent murderousness in equality and class struggle" said the same thing as "the Marxist notion of . . . ."; who else other than Marxists are concerned with this (and I haven't seen anyone described as an anarchist here), so I figured it pointed to me right away.
"2) 'that's the way to bet' doesn't involve proving anything. It's just a statement that IF another country falls to Marxist revolutionaries (Honduras?), there will PROBABLY be government-instigated mass murders etc., etc. I'd be willing to place a bet on that."
I figured that's what you meant: that communism ipso-facto creates violence.
You're wrong, blaming the victim, and ignorant of what you're describing. I dared you even to try to argue otherwise because I don't think you have the requisite knowledge.
OK Todd,
http://www.amazon.com/Black-
Book...#R3Q1O9UO21TURJ
so I don't have the knowledge. Obviously I should acquire it. I'm always willing to learn, though. Could you please start off by explaining where this book is in error?
Particularly interesting would be examples where Communists can be described as "victims".
I haven't bothered to read it because I don't need a score-card, so you'll have to tell me if the book argues that communism or communists did this.
As for communists being victims: Red Hysteria in USA, invasion of USSR by USA, Britain, Poland, Canada, France and a host of other countries, anti-communist pogroms in Germany, communist volunteers to fight in the International Brigades being spied on and jailed, anti-communist purges and killings in post-revolutionary Iran, Taliban being armed by USA to harass and destroy the communist government of Afghanistan, etc.
Todd:
To kick it off, I'd like to point out that I believe Marx in proposing his economic theory was genuinely concerned for the welfare of his fellow man. That being said, he was an idealist, and communism is an impossible-to-achieve ideal. His entire philosophy is predicated on "class struggle", which is easily used by those in charge to create an "other" (bourgeois) to be eliminated or persecuted.
It also assumes that men are capable of running other men's lives for the good of all. Instead, the very process by which one achieves power weeds out any with at least some moral character. This puts immoral men in totalitarian control of the people, since dissent and opposition is not permitted. This is my central theory on why communism breeds oppression.
Since communism is impossible to fully achieve, the violence and brutality that you and Marx admit is necessary to bring the "bourgeois" to heel will never cease. The "bourgeois" (creative class) will always exist, and therefore violent oppression in communist states is inevitable.
"It's impossible to draw definite boundaries ..." "I disagree." I should have said that it is impossible to draw definite boundaries on what constitutes a capitalist and communist STATE, since neither exist in their complete, ideal form. All nations are somewhere on the spectrum between free markets and state control.
"What capitalist nation has ever been peaceful and civil to its domestic population as a whole?" Considering this thread started with a monument to the the "victims of communism", let's for the sake of argument consider outright murder or life imprisonment by the state during peacetime. All communist states have obvious examples of political dissidents (i.e. innocent by free society's standards) being killed or imprisoned for life. On the other hand, capitalist nations in Western Europe and North America have very little of this. The only examples I can think of in Canada are the persecution of Holocaust deniers, and the growing threat of the HRCs. Compare American McCarthyism (longest punishment was 5 years in prison) to Soviet Gulags (hundreds of thousands perished).
...free markets always exist in the absence of state control You still haven't proven me wrong. If the state doesn't tell me where and when to work, then I am free to sell it to whomever I will. If the state doesn't control the supply and price of consumer goods, then a free market for them is inevitable. Basically, a free market exists wherever there is a vacuum of control by the state (or others such as tyrants, brigands, monarchs, or feudal lords).
(cont'd)
wrt Spanish Civil War: The Republicans were obvious proxies of the Soviet Union (sent ~3000 Soviet vehicles and 30,000 international communist troops). The Loyalists were also proxies of Fascist Germany/Italy (~60,000 troops and other military hardware). For the Catholic Church, when one side starts to brutally murder your clergy and torch your churches then it's understandable that you would join the other side. Many Conservatives and Catholics were uncomfortable about joining with the fascists, just as the liberals and socialists were uncomfortable with the communists.
My final point is that I admit capitalism will directly cause inequality. In fact, that's the entire driver of capitalism - one is motivated to work, take responsible risks, and be creative to make a better life for himself and his family. Checks and balances exist via democracy, and entrenched interests are eliminated by (classical) liberalism.
(understanding this post was not directed to me, nevertheless, here goes...)
Red Hysteria in USA As I said, the harshest punishment was 5 years in prison
invasion of USSR by USA, Britain, Poland, Canada, France and a host of other countries When exactly did this happen?
anti-communist pogroms in Germany caused by fascism, not capitalism
communist volunteers to fight in the International Brigades being spied on and jailed When the Soviets are organizing armed brigades in enemy countries during the Cold War, is this a surprise?
anti-communist purges and killings in post-revolutionary Iran Anything to do with a theocracy? Iran is the furthest thing from a liberal democratic state.
Taliban being armed by USA to harass and destroy the communist government of Afghanistan This is another argument entirely, the use of proxy wars to protect one's own country. Which is why I specifically talk of domestic oppression.
At any rate, even if you could prove that communists are occasionally victims does not absolve communism of being a perpetrator.
Thanks, Scary Fundamentalist, for nailing most of it.
Clearly, Todd is either a satirist or proof that there is still a working Comintern transmitter somewhere.
SF said:
"That being said, he was an idealist, and communism is an impossible-to-achieve ideal."
Pessimism.
"'class struggle', which is easily used by those in charge to create an 'other' (bourgeois) to be eliminated or persecuted."
While it's far from impossible for any tool to be used wrongly, the bourgeois are not "Othered" in marxist theory; they are cursed and reviled for what they do, but they aren't, as a rule, turned into things that have no humanity (hence the implication of a modicum of protection). Jews were Othered by fascism; capitalists or feudal lords have never been by communists or marxist theory. The bourgeois occupy a social position that has little to do with them as individual persons. Class struggle against capitalism is about eliminating this social position and its attendant social power; eliminating individual capitalists or other members of the ruling class (while it can happen and has happened) is largely pointless as any other individual can simply step into that social position once again.
"Instead, the very process by which one achieves power weeds out any with at least some moral character."
This statement is really at odds with reality and perhaps with what I assume to be your conservatism (it's almost anarchist in character).
By your words, you have just said that no politician, no business-owner, no manager, no cop, in fact, nobody who has any authority over others can be a moral individual; they are, effectively if not clinically, psychotics. Do you really believe this?
"This puts immoral men in totalitarian control of the people, since dissent and opposition is not permitted"
Pessimism again, and, if you read a bit about the Russian Revo, you'll see that dissent and opposition were allowed (for a while).
"the violence and brutality that you and Marx admit is necessary to bring the 'bourgeois' to heel will never cease"
Remember what I said about violence earlier?
And, yes, it can cease: all it requires is a majority in Parliament and a law.
"The 'bourgeois' (creative class) will always exist, and therefore violent oppression in communist states is inevitable."
First, the bourgeois are _not_ the creative class. All they do is kick in money and extract more than what they paid for. I've never liked that term since I first saw it a few years ago simply because it's so vague.
Second, the bourgeois haven't always existed. They are part of history and can just as easily go the way of the dodo.
Third, remember what I said above.
"I should have said that it is impossible to draw definite boundaries on what constitutes a capitalist and communist STATE"
Sorry, but that doesn't alter what I said earlier: a capitalist state can be very well defined.
"All communist states have obvious examples of political dissidents (i.e. innocent by free society's standards) being killed or imprisoned for life."
That statement was reasonab
(cont'd)
"All communist states have obvious examples of political dissidents (i.e. innocent by free society's standards) being killed or imprisoned for life."
That statement was reasonably OK until I reached your parenthetical explanation of "political dissident" (not to mention "free society").
You think that anyone who was killed or locked up for life by a communist government for political reasons would ipso facto be found innocent in a bourgeois country (presumably for the same kind of act)? That none of them could be people who wanted to subvert the state because they were acting as agents for someone else, wanted to bring back feudal absolutism, or desired to see the return of bourgeois exploitation? I can see your statement as being true for the first and last examples simply because the citizens of a bourgeois country, by and large, would likely see nothing wrong with trying to subvert another country they've been taught to hate; the second point finds parallels with the USA and what we here call "Empire Loyalists" ie people who most certainly would have wanted to see the end of the American republic and the return of despotic monarchy. However, even a bourgeois country would execute or imprison indefinitely if the crime for a "political reason" were heinous enough. And if we shift focus slightly, I think even you can agree that any government (and quite likely many of the country's citizens) will take a dim view of anyone trying to destroy "The System".
Your examples seem to be pointing towards a disparity in severity of punishment more than anything else. Remember that we're dealing with societies in very different circumstances and that we're dealing with generalities, not specific cases. Let's imagine something like spray-painting some "objectionable" political slogan on something public. That might get some jail-time in 20th century America; it'd more likely result in a fine for defacing property (if you were black and in the South, your life could be at risk, even from the cops). In America during it's Revolutionary War, that might earn someone physical punishment, certainly more than a fine (imprisonment might be an option). In post-WWII Italy, the perp might be "killed while trying to escape police". In 1950s Poland, that could land the perp some time in jail for "hooliganism". In the USSR during the Civil War, it could easily result in summary execution by the cops. How about a dissident blowing up a building and killing many people? Chances are, no matter where it happened or when, the perp would get a _really_ stiff sentence. If you're going to compare the punishments meted out for "anti-social" behaviour by communist governments and bourgeois ones, you've got to first control for time, place, and culture.
Did the Soviet Union ever go too far in its punishments throughout its history? I can undoubtedly find plenty of examples; I also bet I can find examples in which y
(cont'd)
Did the Soviet Union ever go too far in its punishments throughout its history? I can undoubtedly find plenty of examples; I also bet I can find examples in which you'd be hard-pressed to disagree that the punishment this person got was reasonable. But I don't think a compelling argument can be made that communist governments are utterly _exceptional_ in the punishments they mete out.
"You still haven't proven me wrong."
Here's what you said:
"free markets always exist in the absence of state control"
Again, depending on how you define a "free market", it's entirely possible to have "state control" (again, depending on definitions) and free markets; that was my answer to you.
You seem to have a very Manichean idea of the relationship between "free markets" and "state control", that a "plus" for one axiomatically means a "minus" for the other. In fact, both concepts can co-exist quite nicely.
Your examples confuse and mash together many disparate ideas. Let's talk about just the selling of "free" labour. Apparently, for you, a free market in labour necessitates the state not directing whatsoever the conditions of this sale. Nowhere in history does this happen. Ever. There have always been some form or another of controls on the sale of labour, whether the state originated them or simply codified existing cultural norms. Your "free market" in labour can apparently only exist in some time when there is literally no state to speak of. In such a time, I think one would hard pressed to find a market in labour at all: everyone would be "working for himself" ie hunting and gathering at a subsistence level or be part of some patriarchal hierarchy whose culture would preclude the sale of "free labour".
"The Republicans were obvious proxies of the Soviet Union"
Do you know that, right now, many communists and socialists are (wrongly) calling all the protesters against the Iranian government "proxies of the USA"? You're doing people a disservice if you automatically assume them to be simple puppets.
"For the Catholic Church, when one side starts to brutally murder your clergy and torch your churches then it's understandable that you would join the other side."
There is that.
And there is also the point I mentioned earlier about the Church having a huge amount of influence, wealth, and power in Spain and the willingness to use that to try to block anything they didn't like happening eg giving up their monopoly on teaching, not having a direct say in who would be ruler of the country, probably losing the land and rents that had been theirs since the Middle Ages.
And there is also things simply getting out of hand.
"In fact, that's the entire driver of capitalism - one is motivated to work, take responsible risks, and be creative to make a better life for himself and his family."
For discrete individuals, this is more-or-less correct. However, when consi
(cont'd)
"In fact, that's the entire driver of capitalism - one is motivated to work, take responsible risks, and be creative to make a better life for himself and his family."
For discrete individuals, this is more-or-less correct. However, when considering classes within bourgeois society, the description falls apart: not everyone can be a capitalist. There must always be workers to exploit or the system comes to a crashing halt.
"Checks and balances exist via democracy, and entrenched interests are eliminated by (classical) liberalism."
Sort of. The entrenched interests of the ruling class are never held up as something "special" but rather are simply assumed as what constitues "normal".
As for my argument with KZ, if you check the thread, you'll see that we're talking about the existence of communists as victims, not the severity of what they went through or who did it.
As for the invasion of the USSR by bourgeois states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rus...ssian_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
All...ssian_Civil_War
"caused by fascism, not capitalism"
Did capitalism magically disappear while fascists were in power or even before? The capitalists and federal german government during Weimar Germany had absolutely no problem with fascists attacking radical workers' organizations; they stood to benefit as well.
"Soviets are organizing armed brigades in enemy countries during the Cold War"
Not talking about the Cold War.
"At any rate, even if you could prove that communists are occasionally victims does not absolve communism of being a perpetrator."
True.
Who was arguing this?
Commenting by HaloScan
