Indirect capitalist genocide

[Toppler]

As I cannot post links, yet, I'll just write that if you want the source, search for "Regional: Transition 1999: The Human Cost of Transition" on Google;

"Regional: Transition 1999: The Human Cost of Transition

Human Security in South East Europe



The report finds that the countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are paying a high cost for their transition to a market economy. This regional human development report finds that alcoholism, drug abuse and suicides have claimed the lives of 9.7 million adult males in these transition countries since 1990. The report, produced annually in 27 countries of this region, points to a different reality, one where economic growth through market driven policies were pursued to the relative neglect of institutional reform. The second issue is the need to balance the requirements for strengthening the nation-state with policies to respond to aspirations of minorities who found their voice as part of these nations. A third issue dealt with in this report, again very much present in all of the countries ’annual NHDRs, is that thanks to past investment, human development indicators remain better than what would seem consistent with economic data. The report warns that a human crisis of monumental proportions is emerging in the former Soviet Union as the transition years “have literally been lethal for a great many people”. The authors argue for an urgent shift from private consumption policies to investment in people."

9.7 million people guys. And that's just adult males. Show this the next naive Western liberal who think the events of 1989 were a glorious liberation of people from "communist oppresion" and who argue against communism by "stalin killed alot of pppls zomg". In my country the transition was relatively benign and now we are a fairly prosperous country (more than at least 80 percents of the world), but I know that in countries like Kyrgyzstan, Kazachstan etc. many people starve because of their "liberation from communism [actually socialism]". And even here, where most people are relatively well off, suicides and alcoholism are rampant (it is not like these things were not present before the 1989 revolution, but only capitalism causes them to go so rampant), and yes, I have observed them in the society around me many times.

[pranabjyoti]

I must feel sorry, but for some unknown reason, I am feeling happy from inside.

[hatzel]

I must feel sorry, but for some unknown reason, I am feeling happy from inside.

Que? :confused:

Anyway, all these 'studies' just strike me as verging on bullshit. Where's the control group? I mean, if 9.4 million adult males would have succumbed to drink, drugs or suicide in these countries if they had remained nominally socialist, then this is nothing impressive. If 10.8 million adult males would have succumbed to drink, drugs or suicide in these countries if they remained nominally socialist, then this is pretty impressive, but not quite in the way that you were hoping. There is literally no point in just throwing numbers out here and there...sure, 9.7 million (out of a population of what, 350 million?), how does this compare to Germany, Britain, America or Mexico? I can do some research for you, actually...I took Finland, that lovely welfare state, as my example, because I happen to know Finland well, and I know that alcohol-related deaths are the most common cause of death in Finland. If we were to magnify Finland to be the size of the former socialist Eastern Europe, drink and suicide would have lead to about 2.5 million deaths. Still, considerably less than 9.7 million, I'll give you that! Though I hardly think one can compare the Finnish and Russian social conditions, and don't intend to.

However, we could always show up the flip-side. Take Hungary, for example, which is still in the top 10 when it comes to global suicide rates. Here's a nice little graph:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Hungarian_suicide_rate.png/800px-Hungarian_suicide_rate.png

What does this show us? If anything? It sure suggests that Hungary hasn't suffered from the 'fall of communism', if suicide rates are to be taken into consideration. Sure, they have been lots of suicides, many more than in Germany, Britain, America or Mexico, but is this because of the transition to market economy? The figures seem to suggest that, if anything, the transition has reduced suicides (though, as I have no control, I won't claim a definite cause-and-effect relationship between the two)

I'll also just point out that countries like Armenia and Georgia (presumably included in your statistic) have amongst the lowest suicide rates in the world. These countries, though, are of course much lower than Russia's, and it is the large countries, like Russia and Ukraine, which really contribute to this figure. Little countries like Georgia don't even figure in the calculations. Russia's suicide rate, though, is pretty high, as is Russia's alcohol-related death rate. I don't know how high it was in 1960 or 1970 or 1980, though, and I can't be bothered to look that us. However, I don't think these 'naive Western liberals' you speak of would look at Russia and say 'look, a success! What a perfect example of a market economy'. Rather, they'd point to it as a perfect example of post-Soviet semi-dictatorship, corrupt to the core. And one could easily argue that this corruption is just carrying on the Soviet way. Old habits die hard, as they say...

EDIT: by he way, the meaning of the word 'genocide' is in the name. Geno-cide. Murder of a gens. This wouldn't really be deemed a genocide, unless there was some specific aiming of this towards a particular group. And still, you can't have an indirect genocide. I'm pretty sure that intent is a pretty key point in deeming something a genocide. Accidentally killing everybody isn't a genocide, it's just stupid. I'm sure the supporters of the Soviet Union will fall back on that when defending the Holodomor. 'It wasn't a genocide, because nobody intentionally decided to kill all the Ukrainians, the famine was accidental'. Well, maybe that was 'indirect genocide' too, due to poor crop management (i.e., by taking it all away and giving it to the loyalist Russians, rather than those pesky Ukrainians)

[Dire Helix]

I'm sure the supporters of the Soviet Union will fall back on that when defending the Holodomor. 'It wasn't a genocide, because nobody intentionally decided to kill all the Ukrainians, the famine was accidental'. Well, maybe that was 'indirect genocide' too, due to poor crop management (i.e., by taking it all away and giving it to the loyalist Russians, rather than those pesky Ukrainians)The use of the term "Holodomor" puts you into a tight company with right-wingers of all kinds. The famine in early 30s wasn`t a genocide of any kind regardless of why it started or how many lives it claimed. If that`s how we determine what`s genocide and what`s not then the pre-1917 Russia was one endless genocide, because according to the official tsarist statistics more than 15 million people perished as a result of famines in 1896-1915(likely even more since tsarist statisticians only counted "Orthodox Christian souls"). And before any accusations are thrown around, I`m not a supporter of Stalin and his policies.

The notion that only Ukrainians suffered from the famine is a wonderful lie too. My grandmother lived in central Russia in early 30s and she used to tell me how they had had to collect certain edible grass and make food out of it in order to survive. Too bad she`s dead now. I would`ve told how she must`ve missed out on all those food provisions expropriated from Ukrainians in favor of Russians.


However, I don't think these 'naive Western liberals' you speak of would look at Russia and say 'look, a success! What a perfect example of a market economy'. Rather, they'd point to it as a perfect example of post-Soviet semi-dictatorship, corrupt to the core. And one could easily argue that this corruption is just carrying on the Soviet way.Yeah, the "*insert any former socialist country here" is screwed up now because of the communist rule" is a common excuse used by free market apologists these days(Russian liberals go even further and blame all of Russia`s current problems directly on Lenin). But 20 years ago they sang a completely different tune, which was more in line with: "Give up central planning and immediate prosperity will be given to you".

[hatzel]

The use of the term "Holodomor" puts you into a tight company with right-wingers of all kinds. The famine in early 30s wasn`t a genocide of any kind regardless of why it started or how many lives it claimed.

Clever reading of my quote should tell you that I did actually say that. I said that we can't call this suicide and drink thing a genocide, as the title of this thread does, because it's not something enacted with explicit intent to kill a specific people. In the same way that kind of fucking up the whole collectivisation and food management stuff isn't genocide, even if it does leave millions of people in what is effectively a massive farm starving to death (which would be the meaning of 'Holodomor', I don't see any reason why I shouldn't use this word, though if we prefer I can call it 'the widespread deaths caused by famine in Ukraine in 1932-33', it's just not as catchy). I just happen to be a bit of a critic of the good ol' USSR, hence I'm hardly going to try to nullify the deaths of millions of people, whoever and wherever they were, by putting it all down to an accident of nature, when it fact it could easily be put down to the powers that be letting working people starve in what was supposed to be a workers' state. Not believing that it was, I consider this whole thing endemic of the situation and the shortcomings of the Soviet Union, particularly with regards to its peripheral areas. You are actually proving my point, as you are saying, obviously, that this was not a genocide, because there was no specific intent to kill the Ukrainian people. Much like the coming of capitalism to the USSR didn't come with some intent to kill some specific people, hence I was debating the legitimacy of calling this a genocide. If this is a genocide, then the Holodomor was, without question, a genocide, though I'm sure that the OP, as a seeming defender of the USSR, might argue that the Holodomor wasn't a genocide, thus this can't be, either, not by a long stretch. Thank you for proving my point, I'm very grateful :)

Still, this has nothing to do with the actual topic, so I have no idea why we're discussing it...


Yeah, the "*insert any former socialist country here" is screwed up now because of the communist rule" is a common excuse used by free market apologists these days
As we're discussing suicide (and other things) post-1991, I think that my adorable little graph actually shows something, and is more relevant to this than merely picking on one or two little points and calling everybody right-wing free market apologists. Fact of the matter is that statistical evidence suggests that, in Hungary as an example, the suicide rate has decreased since the fall of the Soviet-style regime there in 1989. Empirical evidence supports this claim, thus I'm arguing that the OP's claims, suggesting that suicide and alcohol / drug abuse is spiraling out of control in post-Soviet Eastern Europe may not necessarily be based on fact, rather on a narrow-minded and simplistic cause-and-effect relationship. As we are supposed to believe that the fall of Soviet socialism and the implementation of a capitalist system (or, let's say the official declaration that they have implemented capitalism, I think we'd be stupid to believe that capitalism didn't exist in pre-89 Hungary) has caused an increase in these issues. Without actually looking at figures to the contrary, or addressing them.

The OP and the article don't go as far as to address why, as I pointed out, Georgia and Armenia have some of the lowest suicide rates in the world. Were they not also 'ravaged' by the fall of the Soviet Union, and all driven to drink and drugs and suicide? It seems not. So what's the difference between Lithuania and Georgia? Between Russia and Azerbaijan? The fact that these countries don't all seem to have followed the same pattern suggests to me that the OP's vague claim, effectively 'the collapse of the Soviet Union caused widespread drink and drug abuse, and dangerously high suicide rates', is bullshit, because the Soviet Union fell in Georgia, too, and in Armenia, and if the natural response to the fall of the Soviet Union was suicide, we'd surely see these rates skyrocketing in all former Soviet countries, no? Nor does it address why, as the graph shows, suicide rates in Hungary increased year-on-year between the 50's and the 80's, whilst under the Soviet yoke. Using the OP's simplistic logic, we are well within our rights to suggest that Soviet rule caused the doubling of suicide rates in Hungary. Or why else was it so high? And why else would it drop so dramatically since the loosening of the Soviet grip on the government? That's the point here...

[Toppler]

I do consider the Holodomor as genocide. So is this too.

[Dire Helix]

Thank you for proving my point, I'm very grateful

You`re welcome.

The line about crops given away to "loyalist Russians" implies there were genocidal undertones in Soviet policies in regards to handling the famine, which in reality wasn`t the case. And again, the use of the term "Holodomor". You may be unaware of its meaning in Russian and Ukrainian, but the word clearly implies people were deliberately being starved to death.

And for the record, I don`t consider the millions of deaths that occurred post-1991 as a result of widespread depression and increase in drug and alcohol consumption to be genocide or a deliberate intent on the part of free market reformists either. So, there`s nothing to debate here.

[hatzel]

The line about crops given away to "loyalist Russians" implies there were genocidal undertones in Soviet policies in regards to handling the famine, which in reality wasn`t the case

I was just being a naughty badass mofo and providing both (quasi-satirical) extremes of a potentially stupid argument, to mock them both simultaneously. :)



I do consider the Holodomor as genocide. So is this too.


What justification do you give for classing this as a genocide? What specifics about it mean that it deserves that billing, and how are you defining 'genocide' in any case?

[sologdin]

definition of genocide in the rome statute is basic:



For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.



genocide convention is very similar. (when raphael lemkin coined the term, it had a much more expansive meaning, NB.)

all that said, the ukrainian famine is within the scope of neither: nulla crimen sine lege, &c.

that said, the rome statute's definition requires proof of four separate moving parts: a) an enumerated act b) with the specific intent to destroy (i.e., where not only the act is intended, but also the prohibited result) c) a protected group d) as such.

the fourth bit is tricky, but it basically it means that the protected group's destruction in whole or in part was intended because the group is the group, i.e., the group's identity as a national, ethnic, &c. group is intrinsic to the destruction, rather than incidental.

assuming for the sake of a hypothetical that the genocide statute is retroactive (sadly it is not), the allegation of a ukranian genocide is a hard row to hoe--however, it is no defense to say that the stalnists failed to kill other ukranians within their jurisdiction because the rule only requires destruction in part.

is there evidence, however, of intent to destroy the ukranians as a group? i would like to see it. certainly there is evidence of indiscriminate cruelty in the USSR, or incompetence, of willful disregard for the safety of citizens, or numerous other crimes. seizing grain and selling it on the world market at a profit, which appears to be one of the reasons for the famine of the years at issue, amounts to rational smithian practice. capitalists therefore declare it to be virtuous; i name it crime, though it is not within the genocide statute, unless all capitalism is within the scope of same--and this is not possible as the law is written. capitalists have no intentions; they have merely appetites; they are animals, sufficient to provide a defense to the specific intent element of any genocide indictment.

[hatzel]

Breeze

We're not talking about Ukraine, we're talking about this apparent 'indirect capitalist genocide' :) However, your little definition there does say 'with intent to destroy', thus rendering the concept of 'indirect genocide' totally paradoxical...hence the OP will either have to abandon claims of it being indirect, or of it being a genocide...

[sologdin]

not talking about Ukraine

oh, i must have misunderstood the discussion, above, mentioning the holodomor as being either talking or about the ukraine.


your little definition

an oddly dismissive way of phrasing it, as it is neither mine nor trivial.


either have to abandon claims of it being indirect, or of it being a genocide

agreed. genocide is not indirect. the term usually is used to invoke a similarity with undisputable genocides, such as against native americans or jews. to that extent, it is an expansion of the legal sense to a vulgarizer's emotive one--to the non-professional, genocide is any mass death situation. to the professional, on the other hand, mass death is not required--under disjunct (a), "members" must die,. i.e. two deaths; the other disjuncts require no deaths.

there's no need to indict for genocide when mass murder is sufficient; there's likewise no need to mess with the genocide convention or accuse anyone of murder when many excess deaths are caused by certain economic conditions. the deaths are the indictment; no further legal process is necessary.

[Kiev Communard]

is there evidence, however, of intent to destroy the ukranians as a group? i would like to see it.

Well, actually the measures usually cited as constituting the Holodomor (forcible requisitioning of grain, for instance) were generally conducted by the soldiers and police officers, who were themselves mostly ethnic Ukrainians, and, as RedScare1917 already mentioned in this thread, the Russian peasantry was affected by the forced "collectivization" (in fact, statization) of agriculture as well, so the claim of "genocide" is rather shaky, especially taking into account the fact that it is usually advanced by the proponents of different brands of Ukrainian far right, whose ideological predecessors were clearly implicated in genocidal activities against Jews and Poles living in Ukraine during WW II.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Whether it was genocide or not, the deaths in the Ukraine were morally reprehensible.

However, so were the deaths in various famines in British India and Ireland. Just as many if not more died in those tragedies. The last was in British Bengal during WWII.