Announcement

**GreyGeek** · Sep 06, 2011, 07:21 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674076082

Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.

"Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience—in the China of "the Great Helmsman," Kim Il Sung’s Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin’s destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu’s leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao’s Red Guards.

As the death toll mounts—as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on—the authors systematically show how and why, wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century.

Nearly 100 million deaths. These are not from wars against external foes. These are counts of acts committed by Marxist leaders on the people in their own country!

Joshua Muravchik, in his book "Heaven On Earth", made the following comments:

Communism was always the dictatorship over the workers, not of the workers. While socialism in Europe gained considerable worker support, socialism in the United States had relatively little worker participation.

At its height in the 1970s, "roughly 60% of the earth's population found itself living under socialist rule of one kind or another." No other popular idea - secular or religious - ever spread so far so fast. Despite immediate and persistent failures to fulfill its promises, "no amount of failure dampened socialism's appeal."

Joshua's father was so mad at his son's switch to conservatism he wrote his own critic of his son's book:
Socialism in my life and my life in socialism

I am sitting at Wave Hill, a little gem of a park and botanical garden overlooking the Hudson River and shepping notches (Yiddish for reaping the pleasure and pride from something your son or daughter has done) over Josh's new book "The Rise and Fall of Socialism." Wave Hill which was once the home of Mark Twin and later that of Arturo Toscanini is now owned by the city and developed by the city university for everyone's recreation, pleasure and cultural enrichment. It seems an ideal spot for me to think about what socialist-type institutions (whether predating the socialist movement or growing out of conscious socialist initiatives and ideas) now contribute to my life at age 85. Predating the socialist movements were little public parks like this one and giants like Central Park; also public library systems (three in the immediate vicinity of my home) and, of course, the postal service. They all have the key socialist characteristics of operating for use not profit and being equally available to all.

Thinking about my personal finances, Miriam's and my income comes primarily from Social Security. It is supplemented to a degree by our union negotiated pension checks. We live in a nice apartment which we are able to afford because of NYC "rent stabilization." Our health bills in 2001, with my four hospital stays and oxygen needs were about $60,000. Fortunately this is picked up by Medicare. The possibility that either of us might need long-term medical care would be a serious problem if it were not for Medicaid. Each of these government or nonprofit labor-management benefits can be credited in large part to socialist initiatives and beyond that the, spread of socialist ideas. I mention those directly benefiting us, but for the general population I could have included unemployment insurance, workmen's comp, paid vacations, public schools and more. It is very satisfying to realize I am only one of the millions of Americans who are enjoying the fruits of the socialist efforts. The Bush White House and a House majority is seeking to repeal, restrict starve or otherwise limit all of these benefits except education in order to pay for tax cuts for the most affluent. But I believe the voters won't let them do it and even now the pressure from the, grass roots is for more not less.

Now it occurs to me that I have lived both ends of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." The benefits above was "receiving according to our need." For over 50 years we contributed "according to our ability," Miriam as a social worker at WY Legal Services and at International Rescue Committee. I worked wherever my socialist beliefs led me. This included building labor unions and supporting laws that equalize economic, opportunity. It meant educating and legislating to end racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination. It included supporting democracy and combating dictatorship with special focus on opposing those who promoted or defended dictatorship in the name of the very causes which socialists advocate. Socialist economic goals focus on an end to exploitation and a decent material life for all. My job was educating and mobilizing unions and the Jewish community in behalf of various measures that contribute to these ends.

Some might ask, why do you credit these benefits to the socialist movement? Do you think they wouldn't have come without you? Weren't there others who participated in bringing them about? The answer is that sooner or later a movement would probably have developed for each of these changes and yes there were others who joined in and helped bring them about, but to an amazing degree socialists either in organized fashion or as an amorphous group were the initiators, the front line of most of these efforts. Picking at random from a vast number of examples we find the founding of the

NAACP; half the names on its charter were SP members, black or white; socialists were the founders and builders of many American unions: the autoworkers, the teachers, the government workers, the sleeping car porters. With the heavy influx of immigrants came the United Hebrew Trades' and earlier the German Trades' and Labor Assembly.

The earliest campaign for public housing was organized by socialists led by Dr. Rabinow in the late '20s; the key socialist campaign issue in NYS '30 election was unemployment insurance; socialists did the fund raising for the socialist led Southern Tenant Farmers' Union and its successor the National Farm Labor Union. Our impact was epitomized by Franklin D. Roosevelt who, after initiating the New Deal whispered to Norman Thomas "Norman, I stole your platform."

Whether you believe or hope that socialism is dead or that the one thing that our poor battered world needs right now is a vigorous and creative social democratic movement, I, for one, am happy that I will be seeing all of you on May 1." And if I were not such a confirmed atheist I would say to the initiators of this event. "God Bless You."

Manny Muravchik

**woodsmoke** · Sep 06, 2011, 09:48 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

GG I stand in awe of the depth of your knowledge.

hats off emoticon thingy here!

woodsmoke

**bsniadajewski** · Sep 07, 2011, 06:03 AM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

From what I know, liberalism and Socialism are different. The difference lying in the respect for human rights and individual initiative

**arochester** · Sep 07, 2011, 06:57 AM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

i invite comments that the "regular people" of the country do indeed have hot and cold water and spacious closets...

I can't speak for everyone in China, but my daughter teaches university in Beijing and her flat has hot and cold water and spacious closets

Here is a picture, taken in Beijing. (She's the one on the right!)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...911111740.png/

**GreyGeek** · Sep 07, 2011, 03:01 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

Originally posted by bsniadajewski

From what I know, liberalism and Socialism are different. The difference lying in the respect for human rights and individual initiative

There are several forms of liberalism, which from the Latin means "of freedom". The WikiPedia has an excellent article on the topic.

The question is "What kind of freedom"? Beginning with its definition by the philosopher John Locke, who described "Classical Liberalism', liberals pushed for free markets and civil freedoms. Classical liberalism morphed into, among others, Liberal democracy and Social liberalism. Both include pluralism, but Classic liberalism has plurality of groups and Social liberalism uses "diversity", which is race based pluralism. Social liberalism has also added the welfare state. In the US our form of Liberal democracy is called a constitutional republic. Other forms include a constitutional monarchy, a presidential system or a parliamentary system. But, over the years, it has morphed into Social liberalism, which has modified, some say hijacked, the meaning of "diversity" to marginalize or exclude some races and religions. Fascism arose in reaction to the economic difficulties of the 1930s and criticisms of Liberalism. Also attacking Classical Liberalism, John Maynard Keynes defined Modern Liberalism. He was apposed by economist Ludwig von Mises, a Classic Liberal, who wrote that completely free markets would eventually straighten out the markets, a hands-off approach.

Liberals have always shied away from Communism because it always resulted in totalitarianism, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", which Muravchik pointed out was always "of" the people not "by" the people. FDR was a Social liberal, as Muravchik's father so eloquently pointed out. Sometime around 1945-1950 Social Liberalism became synonymous with Socialism, which had been synonymous with the welfare state, which had become synonymous with Communism. Manny Muravchik, a confirmed Atheist and Socialist, made no bones about equating it to Socialism and Norman Thomas, who ran for President on the Socialist ticket six times. Upton Sinclair, author of "The Jungle", ran for the office of Governor twice. The first time, on the Socialist ticket, he got 60,000 votes. The second time, running as a Democrat and using the slogan "End poverty in California", he got 879,000 votes. Sinclair wrote to Thomas that "Americans will take Socialism but they won't take the label". Thomas and Sinclair called equating Socialism to Communism as "The Big Lie". However, when one compares the planks of the Socialist Party with those of the Communist Party of the USA, or other "Progressive" parties, and those in the Communist Manifesto:

First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax.
Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS
Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (modern name: Unions)
Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

one has to ask how the comparison is not valid?

The USSR cut off funding of the CPUSA in 1989, which was $3 million in 1987, because the CPUSA was against glasnost and perestroika. When the USSR dissolved in 1991 the CPUSA held its convention and attempted to resolve the issue of whether the Party should reject Marxism-Leninism. The majority reasserted the party's now purely Marxist outlook, prompting a minority faction which urged social democrats to exit the now reduced party. The Social Democrats are the ones with the icon of the fist holding a red rose. The Principles of the Social Democrats are not as blunt as those 10 planks written by Karl Marks, but when you shake off the evasiveness and tricky wording and compare it to the actual actions taken by its leaders you end up with something similar to the Chinese Constitution, which guarantees free speech and religion. What they didn't write was that speech which disagreed with the views of the Communist Party leaders was "subversive" not free, and hence illegal. Thus, you have Liberals (Social Democrats, Progressives, etc...) advocating the secret ballot, except when it comes to workers voting for or against unions in factories where they work. In that situation the secret ballot isn't "fair". Instead, they advocate the "Card Check", in the form of a bill before Congress called, euphemistically, the "Employee Free Choice Act". One has to ask how a choice can be freely made when a group from one side can visit employees homes and intimidate them into signing cards or face retribution from union members who were informed as to how they voted.

All one has to do to see the relationship between the various organizations on the Left is to examine the Congressional Progressive Caucus members, history, and supporting webpage: ProgressiveCongress.org, and their links, and Google "Progressive".

See the key word "Progressive"? In the past Leftist believed that society was gradually moving, naturally, from Capitalism toward a Socialist State, believing that the shift was scientifically predetermined, or the social-welfare state was the culmination of society. The word “progressive” means moving forward and onward. Society was moving forward and onward toward a higher state; and political progressives would be in the vanguard of persons pushing for that change. Most still hold that as an article of faith.

I agree with many of the planks of Progressives from a theoretical POV. Who wouldn't want someone else to pay for housing, feeding and clothing them, if it were legal and ethical? But, when the "from each according to his ability" isn't enough to meet the "to each according to his needs" you have a serious financial problem. Someone has to get the short straw. In Sweden, people my age wear signs while in the hospital demanding that they not be euthanized. That's a pretty short straw.

And, I just don't like that one of the causalities along the way, besides the secret ballot, is the Constitution.

**bsniadajewski** · Sep 07, 2011, 06:04 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

As Data would say..

Intriguing!

And speaking of communism/socialism/capitalism/etc., there is a discussion over at slashdot entitled "Marx may have had a Point", refering to a blog here.

**GreyGeek** · Sep 07, 2011, 06:44 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

I read that article about Marx possibly being right. The comments section was one of the best I've read in a long time. Some excerpts:

I did not know democracy was about people being equal. Who are we fooling? People are not equal. But people can all have an equal vote. That is what democracy is about.

Communism/socialism has never been tried.The Leninist models were state capitalist no more communist than Bismark's Germany,Roosevelt's New Deal or Britain's nationalisation programs supported by left and right and centrist political parties as methods of restoring infrastructure and channeling funds in times of crises.By equating the failed experiments of Leninism with anything envisaged by Marx you do him a disservice. Capitalism is a class-based society which can only operate for the benefit of the minority who own and control productive resources, as rich individuals or through private corporations or the state.

One might consider the idea that communism cannot intersect with any significant nation state without morphing into something undesirable. The undesirability of said systems begin with the sort of totalitarian regime which MUST come into existence in order to force citizens to behave in a certain way.

Communism can not work in a modern, industrial or post industrial economy because there is no incentive for anyone to excel. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" only works until those with ability get burned out working their fingers to the bone to provide for other and never see any additional reward. So, in an active communist economy the able quickly learn to do no more than their neighbor and the economy flounders.

Capitalism certainly has it's flaws. The monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries are a testament to that. The 50's and 60's were a highpoint for equality in the US, largely due to the efforts of labor unions and to the Great Depression destroying so much wealth, thereby leveling the playing field. But, I don't believe that in today's global economy it is possible to go back to the heady industrial economy of the mid 20th century. At that time the US was the only healthy economy in the world.

high-point for equality in the 50s & 60s? Try after the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

But then, the comments delve into Open Source development and if it is Communistic or not. Picking up on the statement that there is " no incentive for anyone to excel.", they continue:

'there is no incentive for anyone to excel'Ok, mr. Todd. Why do think open source projects work?

Open source projects work because the contributors gain value from their contributions. It might not be monetary, but it is still value, and that counts.

Because people want to do the work. No one if forcing them to. There is always an element of choice.

Open Source projects are hardly communist. In fact many of them tend to resemble a free market more closely than a lot of nominally capitalist economies. They also depend heavily on the peer review which is common in academia (long regarded as a bastion of left-wing, pinko thought by right wingers). Linux for example has succeeded largely because it has been embraced by huge companies like IBM and Google because it allows them to cut costs and maximize profits. Of course the full story is far more complex. It's almost as if the full scope of human interaction is far too complex to be modeled accurately by our simple economic theories.

1: Because the large projects are supported by one or more corporation. The corporations are involved because it reduces their cost of goods, or to increase the market size of their proprietary software.

2: Small open source projects are targeted to small nooks in the markets and are supported by people that use the software, the contributors to those projects are either hobbiests who have jobs that pay, or are consultants that make their money by offering to deploy, teach, or customize the software.

3: Money is not the sole means of reward in the world.

The US government was authorized to implement a constitutionally limited democratic republic -- not a democracy. It failed. Instead, we ended up with a corporate oligarchy.

and the comments continue. Very good exchanges from all sizes without the usual insults and personal attacks.

I leave you with my favorite two:

Does anyone else see what I see here? These are religious arguments, not economic arguments. They're not even rational arguments. "True communism has never been to tried. This is really state capitalism. " "This is not true capitalism, this is socialism." These arguments are no different from saying that the only true Christianity is the Eastern branch of Presbilutheranism. Congratulations economists, you now have your own competing religions.

“How rich is the United States? Our poor are richer than the richest in India.” "The bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants."The top earners are not only exploiting the lowest earners they are organizing them and lifting them up. Controls on capitalism are helping to do this (like minimum wage) but on the whole it is evident that our our way of life returns better results. For many reasons, like our compassion for the poor (values derived from personal ideologies), we have a more effective system. You may argue that we need to do more but it seems that helping the people around you in the microcosm seems to be much more effective and has far fewer unintended consequences than in the macrocosm.

It seems less important that we have a specific economic system and more important that we have values. No matter the system, people who do not treat those around them with love will will slowly gain and abuse their power. These people will consolidate their power overtime. The reason capitalism may be more effective is that it takes longer to consolidate power. Each system is doomed to failure if the nation is not a majority of compassionate loving people.

**bsniadajewski** · Sep 07, 2011, 07:43 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

Yes, but it does get you thinking.

I just though of a quote from a earlier U.S. President (Hoover I think) that said something like "The only problems with capitalism are capitalists". (Correct me if I got that wrong, please)

**67GTA** · Sep 08, 2011, 04:42 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

Capitalism certainly has it's flaws. The monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries are a testament to that. The 50's and 60's were a highpoint for equality in the US, largely due to the efforts of labor unions and to the Great Depression destroying so much wealth, thereby leveling the playing field. But, I don't believe that in today's global economy it is possible to go back to the heady industrial economy of the mid 20th century. At that time the US was the only healthy economy in the world.

This is the main thought that plagues me these days. Capitalism works when the gov. stays out of it, and a few big players don't control the system. Capitalism also requires morals and compassion to work. I guess this is one of it's flaws. Now the gov. and global corps. are in bed together and have everything upside down. We have a global consumer based economy instead of the more sane gold standard that we had when the country was "healthy". I also don't believe that we can ever get back to the "good old days". With that in mind, where do we go from here? The current system is unsustainable. It has to crash globally at some point.

**bsniadajewski** · Sep 08, 2011, 05:46 PM

Re: socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

True, but there has to be some regulation to make sure there aren't a few players controlling the system and thatr morals/ethics and compassion are involved. I, personally, don't want a completely laissez-faire system. That could be bad news.

Announcement

socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

socialism/communism/theBlob/HouseHunters/bathroomsink/context/farm/Parieee

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment