Workers refusing to work in Commieland

[Solzhenitsyn]

First the free:
A cartoon version of Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_

http://www.dudegalea.co.uk/books/roadtoserfdom/

Obviously designed as counter-propaganda but it may be a bit above the average Castro apologist's reading level. Such people are advised to have a dictionary handy to refer to such words as freedom-as well as old stand-bys that just don't seem to make it into the Communist sales pitch anymore: firing squad, regimentation, central planning, etc.

It's a bit simplistic, but it illustrates the capitalist beef with Marxism quite nicely. Commies please pay attention to points 15, 16 and 18, in particular. You just might be suprised at what you'll learn.

I'll use page 18 of this tract as a segue into the main topic. What does happen to workers who refuse to work, are lazy, disatisified or incompetent at their jobs in Commieland? Do they still get access to ultra modern heath care and freshly redecorated apartments? Perhaps they receive an all expenses paid vacation to one of the many burgeoning resorts modeled after Lubyanka and Hatchet Hill? Courtesy of the local Chekist travel agency, of course. I was just wondering. The neighborhood PLP office was very vague on the issue.

[poncho]

First you must look at the source: Published by General Motors. Very subtle but underlying message if you join a Union you are communist therefore Un-American.

IMO, those that can work but just sit back and collect a wellfare check should be forced to work for it those that do not jail.

[RedRevolutionary87]

lol also if you notice, this is nationalist socialism=nazism. the party came into power through nationalist wartime fervor. the communist government doesnt exploit nationalism to come to power!

cappies seem to be getting less and less intelegent every day

[IzmSchism]

you guy, you ever see the movie "Reefer Madness"

same type of shit different pile

[Solzhenitsyn]

Quote: from RedRevolutionary87 on 4:26 pm on April 13, 2002
lol also if you notice, this is nationalist socialism=nazism. the party came into power through nationalist wartime fervor. the communist government doesnt exploit nationalism to come to power!

Wrong. It seems that I was right about the reading comprehension of Marxists when they can't even get the gist of a comic book. The government in TRTS came to power by extending wartime economic planning into peace time they made no appeals to nationalism. You're right on the second part: Commies always come to power by organized terror and mass murder.



cappies seem to be getting less and less intelegent every day

Nah, commies are just getting more and more delusional everyday.

Now poncho is somewhat honest. I did metion that it was counter-propaganda but he's correct in thinking that people who fail at work are going to jail in the coming socialist utopia (at least those that aren't shot first).

Ahhhh, pink slips delivered by firing squad and criminal prosecution yet another case of socialism's moral superiority shining through .


(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 8:52 pm on April 13, 2002)

[RedRevolutionary87]

and war is always nationalistic, the policies only came into being because the people thought it was for the good of the country, if you didnt notice the people were using the nazi salute, pleese dont bullshit! i think it is you that can not read!

[Solzhenitsyn]

It's generic tract against all totalitarianism, idiot. When did the Nazis pursue Marxist policies such as a planned economy, wages and executing people who didn't work (15,16,18)? Marxist always say they were capitalists. Which is it?

BTW in the full version Hayek argues that Nazism is just a variant of Marxism.

[Falange]

Communist governments don't exploit nationalism to come to power? Please!

Ever see the film "Red Tractors on the Horizon?"

talk about shit and piles!

Now if only they will come out with a comic book version of "Revolt of the Masses" or "The Cross Is Also A Sword."

[Solzhenitsyn]

I've got a quiz for Marxists: If you are forced to work under pain of imprisonment with no pay what's the term for it?

A) Serfdom
B) Slavery
C) Peonage
D) Socialism
E) D and B
F) All of the above

[antitrot]

Ahhh, Hayek...

...there are two Hayeks. One, the modest and imaginative social theorist... The other Hayek is Hayek the libertarian; Hayek the paranoid and splenetic reactionary; the Hayek who fulminates against his pet hates -- 'the counter culture', 'permissive education', 'dropouts', 'parasites' and so on -- like any dyspeptic ten-a-penny rednecked blimp. This Hayek is unconnected with the former, and should be ignored.
Alan Haworth, in "Anti-Libertarianism: Markets, Philosophy and Myth".

I generally agree with this quote. Hayek ain't all bad.

If you're too lazy to read the ACTUAL Road to Serfdom, then go through this little cartoon thingy. You'll find you actually agree with some of it. The idea when you write a pamphlet or review about a book or paper you support is to outline the points that seem to be almost common sense (obviously so you find yourself agreeing with what's said)... that is what is done here. Just beware of that little ploy when you find yourself going "well duh."

Hayek and other right-wingers have some big critical errors that shine when they write on Socialism or the like...

They've got all the definitions wrong.

Socialism isn't forced wages, forced job roles, and as long as it maintains it's democratic features, it isn't much of forced anything.

Hayek is describing Fascism... little else. Hayek (the first Hayek that is), would tell you the same thing (though it might be a lead to something else).

Anyway, golden rule, know your opposition kids.

[Guest]

Ho hum. First of all, that quote about Hayek says nothing at all.

Second of all:
"Hayek and other right-wingers have some big critical errors that shine when they write on Socialism or the like...

They've got all the definitions wrong.

Socialism isn't forced wages, forced job roles, and as long as it maintains it's democratic features, it isn't much of forced anything."

If you took your own critical reading advice you'd know that what Hayek describes is the MOVE from the attempt to institute socialism TO the fascist consequences. This movement, this process, is an empirical historical fact that no modern socialist can deny no matter how much he wishes it weren't true. So socialists have tried (in vain) to assert that historical examples of socialism evolving into totalitarianism were simply coincidences...in Humese, it is a constant conjuction. Hayek and others show, in books like TRtS and its corresponding comic book, that there is a neccessary connection. I've been saying this for quite some time on this board, and now Solzhenitsyn is saying it too. And, Solzhenitsyn, I'll warn you that I've never had this point answered by anyone here. In fact, I've never even seen an honest attempt. What I do keep seeing is commies saying "Nuh-uh...socialism isn't totalitarianism, read Marx, he's not a totalitarian," with varying degrees of smugness (see antitrot). The idea that socialism NECCESSARILY devolves into totalitarianism because of the central flaw (the inability to deal with dissent) is never really addressed by any commie on this site. Ah well.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, this is Reagan Lives.

[Zippy]

Commieland
Is that like Disneyland but without VIP passes?

Zippy.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Reagan Lives:
You are quite correct. Marxists easily forget that on the whole they supported the Soviet Union, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (read Chomsky, Zinn, Debs, Wells, Shaw) until around 1975-80. That's when Conquest, Solzhenitsyn and other dissenters brought the SU's massive crimes to public attention coupled with wide spread news coverage of the Cambodian Hell State. Since then, the disreputable nature of Marxism has become the key issue for Marxist parties in the West.

The overwhelming response has been to deny the historical record in much the same manner as Neo-Nazis. Marxists now simply argue that the SU was not Marxist to begin with and that they alone perpetuate authentic Marxism with varying mixtures of cleverness, fraud and self-delusion. This also explains the cult of personality around lesser known figures like the thugish barbarian Che, mass murderer Trotsky and creepy charlatan Mumia Abu-Jamal.

I seriously doubt that the following points will ever be explained to my satisfaction:

1) What to do about dissent in the coming socialist utopia.

2) How the economy and distribution can be planned without elitist experts, massive centralized bureaucracy and production quotas.

3) When elected factory management and agricultural collectivization ultimately fail to be sufficiently productive as they always have, what are they going to do without resorting to threats of violence or capitalism?

4) If 1,2 and 3 are unanswerable, how the hell can Marxism be called democratic by their standards.

5) If Marxism requires all to believe it, then how are they going to prevent culture from developing anti-socialist tendencies.

6) If Marxism is too abstract to be taught to everyone in its full within a reasonable frame of time, how to prevent power from concentrating in the hands of elitist Marxists theorists if only they can be trusted to fully understand and apply its principles.

7) If it require everyone to believe, than what to do about Marxist heresies arising from sloppy education.

8) If 5,6, and 7 are true problems, how is Marxism not dogmatic and who will control the official dogma if it is dogmatic?

9) If Marxism requires everyone to believe it to be fulfilled then how are things like Islam any different. After all, if everyone believed Islam fully, we'd all be happy too.

Some will no doubt try to explain them away by saying that everyone will believe it thus there will be no dissent. It would be useless to argue with them because that is a dogmatic religious view that flies in the face of reason and history. Which is why when you peel away the thin veneer of economic, social and historical theory, Marxism is just an elitist post-theistic religion complete with a secular utopian apocolypse.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 2:17 pm on April 14, 2002)


(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 2:18 pm on April 14, 2002)

[Moskitto]

Worker Co-Operatives rule.

[antitrot]

If you took your own critical reading advice you'd know that what Hayek describes is the MOVE from the attempt to institute socialism TO the fascist consequences.

Yes, I'm entirely aware of that. There is really no evidence to back up his wacky claims though. Take for example the planners inability to solve a problem. We have to assume two things to make this work. The first is that the planners are a small group of individuals which give no room for discussion on the planning (outside themselves). The second is that people cannot cooperate to solve a problem. If we assume those two things, then Hayek's assumptions are correct. Otherwise, you start finding big holes in such theories. Like that planning should be done on a public level and that people are able to compromise and get along. We wouldn't exist if we couldn't.

This movement, this process, is an empirical historical fact that no modern socialist can deny no matter how much he wishes it weren't true.

If you're trying to say that Socialism degenerated into Fascism, you're dead wrong. Socialism ended up degenerating back into Capitalism. This again challenges Hayek's idea that the people will come forward to demand one person as a fix to all their problems. More then likely, they'll come forward to oust the old planners, and allow in new ones. The creation of a dictatorship out of faulty planning would be a possiblity, but no more then most others. Hayek hasn't based any of this on empirical historical fact. It's based on assumptions that every Socialist revolution claiming Socialism (specifically, I'm referring to Cambodia here), was Socialist or communist. Cambodia never experienced a Socialist revolution.

"We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." (Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by Vickery, p. 288).

So socialists have tried (in vain) to assert that historical examples of socialism evolving into totalitarianism were simply coincidences...in Humese, it is a constant conjuction.

The brief period of revisionist and Capitalist inspired totalitarianism seen in Socialist decay is mild. The funny part is when some old authoritarian trends really stick, they are doing so in free market environments. China is a very good example of this.

Hayek and others show, in books like TRtS and its corresponding comic book, that there is a neccessary connection.

Well he puts forth some theories about what could happen but these are not much more then blind speculation and generalizing of events.

I've been saying this for quite some time on this board, and now Solzhenitsyn is saying it too. And, Solzhenitsyn, I'll warn you that I've never had this point answered by anyone here. In fact, I've never even seen an honest attempt.

Which point is that? :confused:

What I do keep seeing is commies saying "Nuh-uh...socialism isn't totalitarianism, read Marx, he's not a totalitarian," with varying degrees of smugness (see antitrot).

What I keep seeing is a bunch of kiddie right wingers getting on the internet and calling names without any actual rationality behind their statements. ;) But seriously, I find as many here on the left like that as I do on the right.

The idea that socialism NECCESSARILY devolves into totalitarianism because of the central flaw (the inability to deal with dissent) is never really addressed by any commie on this site. Ah well.

Maybe that's because you can't explain your own claims. Such as "Socialism cannot deal with dissent." It's done it before in a peaceful matter. Or are those "invalid" because... because... er... well I'll let you figure out why they're invalid. I'm sure you'll come up with something interesting.

[antitrot]

Marxists easily forget that on the whole they supported the Soviet Union, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (read Chomsky, Zinn, Debs, Wells, Shaw) until around 1975-80.

Well most Marxists saw the Soviet Union in decay around that time (1975-80). It didn't take allot of looking. Capitalism was being restored there and in China. Any support for it at that point was a "lesser of two evils" deal, I suspect.

Cambodia... ugh, Cambodia. I don't know how you link Pol Pot to Socialism. I don't know how you link Chomsky to Pol Pot. Was opposition to the bombing support of Pol Pot? Furthermore, let's just say one of them did support Pol Pot. Hat, t-shirt, and everything. I mean what the hell? Are anarchists and communists supposed to be psychic now? Here, let me predict the future or maybe I'll just read his mind and see if he's dictator material. Yeah, I do that all the time. We communist psychics... we'll never trick you! Hahahah...

That's when Conquest, Solzhenitsyn and other dissenters brought the SU's massive crimes to public attention coupled with wide spread news coverage of the Cambodian Hell State. Since then, the disreputable nature of Marxism has become the key issue for Marxist parties in the West.

The Soviet Union's "massive crimes" are a big myth but that's another discussion. Conquest is a truly disturbed individual who is right up there with the every day conspiracy theorist. The only reason so many people bought into him is because it worked for the political climate here. Translate a copy of the Great Terror into Russian and give it to someone who has lived through Stalin's time. They'll probably die laughing.

Again we're back to Cambodia. Whatever Pol Pot did he did in the name of his own political ideology, not Socialism or communism. While you're at it, why don't you just call every dictator to ever exist a big communist. I bet Ceaser was a communist too! Uh-oh, you're not going to affiliate me with the atrocities of Rome now are you? :(

The overwhelming response has been to deny the historical record in much the same manner as Neo-Nazis.

No. Historical figures that Conquest and other escaped mental patients... er, I mean phony historians... oops, I mean, uh, right wingers put out are for the most part, rejected by anyone in the historical community. You'll find plenty of people who think the Soviet Union was a dictatorship but you won't go far telling your average rational minded history professor Stalin killed 10/20/30/60/ million people. By the way, if you're looking for numbers that high, try the US slave trade which is documented to account for the death and enslavement of at least 21 million Africans. I suspect it's more.

Marxists now simply argue that the SU was not Marxist to begin with and that they alone perpetuate authentic Marxism with varying mixtures of cleverness, fraud and self-delusion.

Cleverness, fraud and self-delusion... hmmm... sounds like what I could take from most Conservative authors. Since there are many different kinds of Marxists, it's hard to say what one thinks in comparison to the other. Ok, well, you've labeled the claim, now show me what exactly is wrong with it?

This also explains the cult of personality around lesser known figures like the thugish barbarian Che, mass murderer Trotsky and creepy charlatan Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Hyuck, I wish I was as smert* as you! :( Hey, where's Scooter?

(* - purposely spelled wrong for comical value... hey, at least I try)

I seriously doubt that the following points will ever be explained to my satisfaction:

1) What to do about dissent in the coming socialist utopia.

Explained. Reading what I wrote might help raise it to your level of satisfaction.

2) How the economy and distribution can be planned without elitist experts, massive centralized bureaucracy and production quotas.

Just look around the board and you'll find some answers.

3) When elected factory management and agricultural collectivization ultimately fail to be sufficiently productive as they always have, what are they going to do without resorting to threats of violence or capitalism?

First off, what proof of failure do you have? The brief periods of worker management in factories has turned out very high production rates. After all, the green limb is stronger then the dead one (or something Zen-ish like that).

4) If 1,2 and 3 are unanswerable, how the hell can Marxism be called democratic by their standards.

I'm sure they can be answered. I think you've got your head buried too deep in the sand to care if they are though.

5) If Marxism requires all to believe it, then how are they going to prevent culture from developing anti-socialist tendencies.

It doesn't require "all to believe it." Now, obviously it has to have vast working class support, destruction of the old, and so on and so on. For the remaining Capitalists though, I say treat them gently. If they have one bone of common sense left in their body, they'll avoid confrontation with the people. I suspect Capitalists will become in communism what someone calling themselves a Feudalist in Capitalism would be today.

6) If Marxism is too abstract to be taught to everyone in its full within a reasonable frame of time, how to prevent power from concentrating in the hands of elitist Marxists theorists if only they can be trusted to fully understand and apply its principles.

Well, I think Marxism requires time to learn. That's the job of revolutionaries. If they can't get such a task done, they're already failing as revolutionaries.

7) If it require everyone to believe, than what to do about Marxist heresies arising from sloppy education.

See question 5.

8) If 5,6, and 7 are true problems, how is Marxism not dogmatic and who will control the official dogma if it is dogmatic?

See question 4.

9) If Marxism requires everyone to believe it to be fulfilled then how are things like Islam any different. After all, if everyone believed Islam fully, we'd all be happy too.

Not necessarily. If everyone was a Capitalist Muslim, you would still have a degree of suffering. It's the economics that count.

Some will no doubt try to explain them away by saying that everyone will believe it thus there will be no dissent. It would be useless to argue with them because that is a dogmatic religious view that flies in the face of reason and history.

No, not everyone has to agree. Obviously that's not an answer. To compare however, I'm going to be entirely honest. The first Capitalist who fulfills my market utopia with several billion dollars will have me cursing Marx in a heartbeat. Likewise with Socialism and the poor. But the situation adjusts from place to place, ya know? An Ethiopian child might instead say: The first Socialist who gives me something to eat besides this bowl of mush will have me carrying a red flag in a heartbeat.

Yeah, so I could go into the Capitalist freedom vs. freedom argument here but why bother. If you don't have the idea by now, I'm probably wasting my time.

Which is why when you peel away the thin veneer of economic, social and historical theory, Marxism is just an elitist post-theistic religion complete with a secular utopian apocolypse.

Uh oh, I don't think that's Marxism you're peeling...

[RedRevolutionary87]

it doesnt need to be planned! the people ask for what they need, and then they ar given the means to produce this, then this product is split equaly amongst the population!

[Solzhenitsyn]

Well most Marxists saw the Soviet Union in decay around that time (1975-80). It didn't take allot of looking. Capitalism was being restored there and in China. Any support for it at that point was a "lesser of two evils" deal, I suspect.

They sure did see their Socialist Utopia collapse.

Cambodia... ugh, Cambodia. I don't know how you link Pol Pot to Socialism. I don't know how you link Chomsky to Pol Pot. Was opposition to the bombing support of Pol Pot? Furthermore, let's just say one of them did support Pol Pot. Hat, t-shirt, and everything. I mean what the hell? Are anarchists and communists supposed to be psychic now? Here, let me predict the future or maybe I'll just read his mind and see if he's dictator material. Yeah, I do that all the time. We communist psychics... we'll never trick you! Hahahah...

Pol-Pot served as Secretary of the Cambodian Communist Party from 68-75. In fact, he had been a member of said party since '46 and his entire worldview and politics were developed while he was in it.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
Chomsky supported the Khymer Rouge even after their monsterous crimes became public knowledge. He even denied them because of his 'no enemies to the left' theories.


The Soviet Union's "massive crimes" are a big myth but that's another discussion. Conquest is a truly disturbed individual who is right up there with the every day conspiracy theorist. The only reason so many people bought into him is because it worked for the political climate here. Translate a copy of the Great Terror into Russian and give it to someone who has lived through Stalin's time. They'll probably die laughing.

The Politburo in their own words on the Great Ukrainian Famine:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/k2grain.html
Why didn't you mention my namesake? He really didn't live through it?
Well how about this then: http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/d2presid.html
A letter from people who lived during Stalin's reign of crime and madness to a commie newspaper (which was in turn handed to the NKVD). They certainly died; though not from laughter I suspect.


Again we're back to Cambodia. Whatever Pol Pot did he did in the name of his own political ideology, not Socialism or communism. While you're at it, why don't you just call every dictator to ever exist a big communist. I bet Ceaser was a communist too! Uh-oh, you're not going to affiliate me with the atrocities of Rome now are you? :(

The khymer rouge acted like commies, talked liked commies, murdered like commies, collectivized the economy like commies, were members of communist parties and were supported by other communist states. Coincidently, they also called themselves communist notwithstanding your selective quote; therefore I demand that you prove them wrong.

No. Historical figures that Conquest and other escaped mental patients... er, I mean phony historians... oops, I mean, uh, right wingers put out are for the most part, rejected by anyone in the historical community. You'll find plenty of people who think the Soviet Union was a dictatorship but you won't go far telling your average rational minded history professor Stalin killed 10/20/30/60/ million people. By the way, if you're looking for numbers that high, try the US slave trade which is documented to account for the death and enslavement of at least 21 million Africans. I suspect it's more.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
Gives his methods and resources. Soviet Union = 65 Million killed. Sidebar: Those numbers you cite are absurd because further importation of slaves were banned by the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified. U.S. slave trade with Africa was non-existant.

I suppose you mean to include the slaves in the state-sponsored plantations in the West Indies. Also, where was the only place in the world were people were willing to sell their kindred into slavery in 1600-1800? Subsaharan Africa. The fault was half-theirs.


Cleverness, fraud and self-delusion... hmmm... sounds like what I could take from most Conservative authors. Since there are many different kinds of Marxists, it's hard to say what one thinks in comparison to the other. Ok, well, you've labeled the claim, now show me what exactly is wrong with it?

Here's a brief argument including a demolition of a Communist favorite, the 'doctor analogy':
http://www.communistvampires.com/truecom.htm
Also, you clearly did not read the first paragraph were I state 'marxists on the whole' nor have you grasped the central core of my argument that any attempt to create socialism leads to totalitarianism.

Explained. Reading what I wrote might help raise it to your level of satisfaction.

No and No.

Just look around the board and you'll find some answers.

None that are realistic or not wishful thinking.


First off, what proof of failure do you have? The brief periods of worker management in factories has turned out very high production rates. After all, the green limb is stronger then the dead one (or something Zen-ish like that).

You also demonstrate an complete lack of knowledge about economics.
Collectivization always fails because
needs and conditions cannot be forcast with any degree of reliability. Central planning relies on unrealistic production quotas without regard to conditions and needs. Thus it can't produce effiecently; goods are produced that are not needed and needs go unfulfilled because goods were not produced in sufficient quantities. Socialism also rewards workers who shirk work by not paying them in porportion to their actual contribution. If the worker managed plants were productive, why didn't they last?
1) They were unproductive.
2) Letting people control anything is an anathema to Marxist ideology.

I'm sure they can be answered. I think you've got your head buried too deep in the sand to care if they are though.

Not likely in my lifetime, in fact, not ever.

It doesn't require "all to believe it." Now, obviously it has to have vast working class support,

Which is why support can only be brought about and entrenched through systematic terror by eleminating people who dare oppose it and with massive agitprop campaigns.

destruction of the old, and so on and so on. For the remaining Capitalists though, I say treat them gently. If they have one bone of common sense left in their body, they'll avoid confrontation with the people. I suspect Capitalists will become in communism what someone calling themselves a Feudalist in Capitalism would be today.

You implicitly state that Non-Socialists (e.g. capitalists) will be terrorized into submission. What if there is widespread resistance to socialist policies like the kulaks and cossacks?


Well, I think Marxism requires time to learn. That's the job of revolutionaries. If they can't get such a task done, they're already failing as revolutionaries.

Exactly, the fanatical avant-guard communists will controll the whole affair.

See question 5.

Agreed

See question 4.

"


Not necessarily. If everyone was a Capitalist Muslim, you would still have a degree of suffering. It's the economics that count.

*fffft* Strike One!

If everyone were Muslim they'd be just happy at the bottom because Islam would say their low position is the natural order. Economics wouldn't come into play.

Care to take another swing at that one?


No, not everyone has to agree. Obviously that's not an answer.

You state earlier that everyone will have to agree that values their life.


To compare however, I'm going to be entirely honest. The first Capitalist who fulfills my market utopia with several billion dollars will have me cursing Marx in a heartbeat. Likewise with Socialism and the poor. But the situation adjusts from place to place, ya know? An Ethiopian child might instead say: The first Socialist who gives me something to eat besides this bowl of mush will have me carrying a red flag in a heartbeat.

I'm going to say this one time and one time only: Your billions of dollars are waiting for you. The only thing you have to do is contribute products, services and/or ideas worth billions to the market.
For my own part, I'm still waiting for a socialist country to offer me a 25,000 sq ft. mansion on the beach with 6 sports cars. Your communist friend Mengistu Mariam already tried rice handouts. It failed even though he thoughtfully included a bullet in the head along with many bowls of rice.

Yeah, so I could go into the Capitalist freedom vs. freedom argument here but why bother. If you don't have the idea by now, I'm probably wasting my time.

Agreed, It's best you don't bother because it's no contest. Capitalism wins hands down even with one arm tied behind it's back (England, France, Germany).

Uh oh, I don't think that's Marxism you're peeling...


So marxism isn't marxism? What a clever paradox.


(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 11:25 pm on April 14, 2002)

[reagan lives]

"The first is that the planners are a small group of individuals which give no room for discussion on the planning (outside themselves)."
Is this even a contested "assumption?" Do you have a better idea?

"The second is that people cannot cooperate to solve a problem."
Take a political science class sometime. Pay attention when they talk about collective action problems.

"Like that planning should be done on a public level and that people are able to compromise and get along. We wouldn't exist if we couldn't."
Planning cannot be done on a public level in large-scale societies, and people are not able to compromise and get along. So we have governments that compensate for this and allow our continued existence.

"If you're trying to say that Socialism degenerated into Fascism, you're dead wrong. Socialism ended up degenerating back into Capitalism."
This is a new one. I think you should be careful not to animate abstract concepts. I'm not trying to say that "socialism" "degenerated" into anything, because socialism is an idea, and therefore does not do thing like degeneration. What I am saying is that every attempt at socialism, whether they meet your standards or just their own, ultimately resulted in brutal authoritarianism. Whether the path between the two is the one that Hayek describes or a variation on that theme is highly irrelevant.

"The brief period of revisionist and Capitalist inspired totalitarianism seen in Socialist decay is mild. The funny part is when some old authoritarian trends really stick, they are doing so in free market environments. China is a very good example of this."
First of all, China is not a good example of that. The "authoritarian trends really stuck" long before Deng Xiaoping and his quasi-capitalist reformation. You seem to be talking out of your ass here. The authoritarianism of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Cuba have no connection whatsoever to capitalism. Even the wackiest wahoos on this board don't try to assert this.

"Well he puts forth some theories about what could happen but these are not much more then blind speculation and generalizing of events."
Oh, you mean like the last statement of yours that I quoted?

"Which point is that?"
Jesus, I hate repeating myself. The point, like I said in the post of mine that you butchered and selectively ignored, is that collectivist societies are not equipped to tolerate dissent. This is the source of their authoritarian natures. I've explained this many, many times.

"Maybe that's because you can't explain your own claims. Such as 'Socialism cannot deal with dissent.' It's done it before in a peaceful matter."
As I just said, I've explained this many, many times in this forum. Solzhenitsyn has done it almost as many times in the last two days. It's like this: socialism is based on concentrated contributions and diffuse rewards. Everyone works to their ability, everyone recieves according to their need. This is fundamentally DIFFERENT from "IF everyone works to their ability, they will recieve according to their need." What happens to me if I decide that I don't want to work? Or if I disagree with the planners on how many hours I should work? Or which job I should do? Or what my "needs" are? What happens when I disagree to the point where I refuse to work? Do I still reap the benefits of society? These issues have NEVER been resolved peacefully by ANY socialist system EVER, and I would challenge you to provide examples of your wild assertions. The Soviets under Stalin came up with an efficient answer to this problem...a bullet to the head of the dissenter. This point has never been addressed by an socialist supporter on this board. I expect you'll just dodge the issue again...this is what I was talking about in my last post.

[Moskitto]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
Gives his methods and resources. Soviet Union = 65 Million killed.

try this link http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm#n.4

Just because Rummel says the USSR killed 65 million doesn't mean they did. Werth said that Conquest exaggerated and only estimates 20 million in the Black Book of Communism . Also 50 million+ deathtolls in male targetted killings (as corvee labour is) doesn't leave much of a fighting population in a country with a 157 million population which will be invaded in 4 years.

[Solzhenitsyn]

The one of the biggest killers the Soviet Union employed was state sponsored mass famine. That's is an EO killer. Hell, even notorious Stalin apologist Walter Duranty put the number of dead killed during the Great Ukrianian Famine at 12-14 million. Also many killings commited by Stalin involved Soviet POWs that were repatriated to the SU and ethnic groups like the Germans and Poles that Stalin wanted exterminated. Also the Cheka and NKVD had district death quotas. The Cossack repatriation killed at least 500,000 according to British sources. The 1920-21 Famine. etc.

Lenin killed quite of few of the 65mil. Of course we'll never know, but the Russian Government has stated that the number is at least 45 million and should be revised higher as new figures and documents become available. Hell, there are some Russian researchers quoting figures in 120 million killed by the SU. Your boy's figures don't even count for the 3 great famines combined: 5 million, 8 million and 3 million.

[Moskitto]

here's annother link

http://www.anticommunism.org


Soviet Union - 20 million


Your boy's figures don't even count for the 3 great famines combined: 5 million, 8 million and 3 million.

Courtois figure for Hitler (25 million) doesn't account for the Russian front (22 million), Jewish Genocide (6 million) and Slavic Genocide (5 million) Infact, nor does Rummel's.

And as for Stalin, 20-8-5-3=4 4>0

Annother thing that might interest you is this population:deaths ratio chart.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/warpcent.gif

(Edited by Moskitto at 10:18 pm on April 15, 2002)

[antitrot]

They sure did see their Socialist Utopia collapse.

What's with you and the word "utopia"? It isn't helping your argument any. I explained what was Utopian and what wasn't. Argh, pull your head out of your ass!

Pol-Pot served as Secretary of the Cambodian Communist Party from 68-75. In fact, he had been a member of said party since '46 and his entire worldview and politics were developed while he was in it.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
Chomsky supported the Khymer Rouge even after their monsterous crimes became public knowledge. He even denied them because of his 'no enemies to the left' theories.

Even if he was, the Cambodian Communist Party wasn't in power, the Khmer Rouge was.

Heh, jim.com, the same the guy who tried to say Catalonia was a blood bath because of the CNT/FAI by cutting quotes apart to his liking. A trustworthy individual he is!

The Politburo in their own words on the Great Ukrainian Famine:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/k2grain.html
Why didn't you mention my namesake? He really didn't live through it?
Well how about this then: http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/d2presid.html
A letter from people who lived during Stalin's reign of crime and madness to a commie newspaper (which was in turn handed to the NKVD). They certainly died; though not from laughter I suspect.

Well if we're going to toss links around:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embas...13/sov-hol.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/sov-hol.html)

Did famines happen? Yes, obviously. But they were not "engineered." About 1932 there were massive crop problems not only in the USSR, but also in India and the USA, where the "Dust Bowl" crisis forced people to abandon farmlands and migrate West en masse.

I suspect those documents are fabricated. Having studied Soviet history for some time now, I cannot find any credible evidence those ever existed and I have access to many archives of Soviet documents.

The khymer rouge acted like commies, talked liked commies, murdered like commies, collectivized the economy like commies, were members of communist parties and were supported by other communist states. Coincidently, they also called themselves communist notwithstanding your selective quote; therefore I demand that you prove them wrong.

Well so did some wacky Christian cults here in the states. The idea of a "commune" is nothing new and was around long before Marx.

So, besides the fact they said they WERE NOT communists, what other proof do you need? I'm gonna borrow a little from a PLP article on Pol Pot...

On Marxism-Leninism: "The first public admission that the 'revolutionary organization' was Marxist-Leninist in its orientation came in the memorial services for Mao Zedong held in Phnom Penh on 18 Sept., 1976" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 55, note 28).:
"They [Kampuchean spokesmen] claim that the CPK is a Marxist-Leninist Party, but say nothing about the writings of these two men." (Chandler, p. 45)

On the need for a revolutionary party: "The most striking feature of the idea of revolution entertained by the Khmer Communists... was that it was unexpressed. In the 1960s, opposition to government policies and calls for an anti-imperialist stand, made up the platform of the left wing ... In fact, revolution and the existence of a revolutionary party were not only played down in propaganda, they were completely hidden truths, revealed only to the enlightened few who could achieve senior positions in the apparatus [i.e. mainly the ex-student radicals]. (Thion, in Chandler ed., p. 16, emphasis added).
It was not until September 27, 1977 that the existence of a "communist party" was even publicly revealed, in a Pol Pot speech (Chandler, p. 37).

On the working class: "Though tiny, it [the Cambodian working class] existed, scattered in the towns. But instead of cultivating it, the Khmer Communists proceeded to liquidate it as if it were a decadent legacy of the past..."(Thion, p. 27-8).

From all this we can conclude the following:

[list]
Pol Pot & Co. were not communists. In this sense they are no different from the Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Ronald Reagan, or any capitalist.
Unlike the Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese of that time and other revisionists, phony communists, Pol Pot & Co. boasted that they were not communists.
The influence of a pro-Vietnamese faction meant that some Marxist terminology was used, at least up to 1977. After that time the KR abandoned any talk of communism.
[list]

The Pol Pot group also sometimes described themselves as communists between 1975 and 1977 in an attempt to get help from China. For example:

"Pol Pot's tribute to the crucial role played by Mao Zedong's thought in the Cambodian revolution, contained in a speech in Beijing on 29 September 1977, was not re-broadcast over Phnom Penh radio" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 45).

Mao and the Chinese Communist party had won millions of peasants to a communist, pro-working class line, whereas the Pol Pot group had tried to win the peasantry to an anti-working class line. What China -- and, equally important, the U.S. -- like about Pol Pot & Co. is their genuine hostility to Vietnam, not their phony praises to Mao.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
Gives his methods and resources. Soviet Union = 65 Million killed. Sidebar: Those numbers you cite are absurd because further importation of slaves were banned by the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified. U.S. slave trade with Africa was non-existant.

I suppose you mean to include the slaves in the state-sponsored plantations in the West Indies. Also, where was the only place in the world were people were willing to sell their kindred into slavery in 1600-1800? Subsaharan Africa. The fault was half-theirs.

I think you would like this (http://www.davidicke.com) website. He even goes on to prove it was all a Reptilian plot to impregnate Slav women! :o

But seriously, this "65 millions dead" stuff is the kind of crap that is not only spewed by highly irrational professional anti-communists, but on a more common level, the same folks who think the UN is trying to take over the world and building concentration camps in the US.

I'm trying to find some population statistics for Russia but I suspect 65 million would have been around half, if not three quarters of the entire Russian population.

By the way, a link: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embas.../7213/lies.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/lies.html)
It even specifically deals with Solzhenitsyn

Here's a brief argument including a demolition of a Communist favorite, the 'doctor analogy':
http://www.communistvampires.com/truecom.htm
Also, you clearly did not read the first paragraph were I state 'marxists on the whole' nor have you grasped the central core of my argument that any attempt to create socialism leads to totalitarianism.

Communist Vampires? :cool:

As for the breaking down the analogy, Mr. Sipos makes a few big fallacies himself. Scare tactics, straw man arguments and opponents and mass generalizations. Along with this are just plain dumb historical errors.

1) "P's analogy is false because the vast majority of doctors do follow the "core ideology" of the Hippocratic Oath, at least to the extent that they do not pillage and rape and kill. But the OPPOSITE is true of Communism. EVERY society self- identified as Communist (and always initially approved by the Western Left) has practiced repression and murder -- often on a genocidal scale." - Fallacy: You could call it allot of things. From one perspective, it's an appeal to ignorance (since all communist countries have been responsible for someone's death, all communists must be murderers), from another, it's just a broad and hasty generalization.

2) However, a murderous doctor is an aberration -- whereas murderous Communism is the norm. - Fallacy: I'd say another hasty generalization.

3) Communism exploits envy, and instills hate, by claiming that the "haves" have it because they stole it. The "haves" are oppressors, even murderers. How do you deal with a thief, an oppressor, a murderer? You punish them. You may even be justified in killing them. Under Communism, this is not murder, but "revolutionary justice" against the "criminal exploiter class." - Fallacy: Straw man argument. He distorts the entire idea so he can shoot it down.

Yeah, well, you get the idea. For everyone else: Get a book on basic logic or take a class on it and then re-read this. You'll find the guy is just full of it.

No and No.

That's conclusive.

None that are realistic or not wishful thinking.

You could win an award with statements like that! What award that would be... well... heh... nevermind.

You also demonstrate an complete lack of knowledge about economics.

Thanks, but I prefer my insults in person.

Collectivization always fails because needs and conditions cannot be forcast with any degree of reliability. Central planning relies on unrealistic production quotas without regard to conditions and needs. Thus it can't produce effiecently; goods are produced that are not needed and needs go unfulfilled because goods were not produced in sufficient quantities. Socialism also rewards workers who shirk work by not paying them in porportion to their actual contribution.

Wrong! When the early 5 year plans were created in the Soviet Union, it was the job of the peasants, workers, etc. to help draw up the plans through their trade unions. The union workers then reported from a local level what they think will be necessary and that is incorporated into economic plans, including the 5 year plans. All were reviewed every year, quarterly and adjusted accordingly. That's pathetic you didn't know that! Any central planning would be far from a static affair!

If the worker managed plants were productive, why didn't they last?
1) They were unproductive.
2) Letting people control anything is an anathema to Marxist ideology.

They didn't last because they couldn't hold out against the Capitalists. The resistance in Northern Italy near the end of WWII (the resistance had already liberated Norther Italy) was running worker managed factories. They didn't last because the Italian government decided they didn't like the idea of worker managed factories and put an end to it.

So worker managed factories didn't work, huh? Hmm, some historical or economical proof of this would be nice? Ahh, that's right, there isn't any. Worker controlled factory management in the Soviet Union was a big key to the high production rates and quick industrialization. Also, where do you figure in point 2? Oh, you based on that on your own false, disproved, historical assumptions. Riiight!

*covers head* Sorry, you're just shoveling quite a bit of bullshit over there!

Not likely in my lifetime, in fact, not ever.

You know if you keep your head down there long enough someone is going to kick you in the ass.

Which is why support can only be brought about and entrenched through systematic terror by eleminating people who dare oppose it and with massive agitprop campaigns.

Uhh... you figure this... how?

You implicitly state that Non-Socialists (e.g. capitalists) will be terrorized into submission. What if there is widespread resistance to socialist policies like the kulaks and cossacks?

I did? :confused: Well, no, that's not what I meant. I do see how you could mis-interpret that though.

In case you don't remember, Kulaks were rich peasants who organized resistance to collectivization because it threatend their profits and even attempted to starve the country by doing things like burning crops. They were the ones organizing the terror.

Exactly, the fanatical avant-guard communists will controll the whole affair.

Again, I don't know how you managed to take something like what I said there and get what you did out of it. Taking notes from everyone's favorite anarcho-capitalist, Jim, huh?

*fffft* Strike One!

If everyone were Muslim they'd be just happy at the bottom because Islam would say their low position is the natural order. Economics wouldn't come into play.

Care to take another swing at that one?

Depending on a little something called INTERPRETATION. Regardless, people would still be suffering in their low position, they would just accept their suffering as natural.

By the way, if you're trying to do a buzzer it's "bzzzt" not "fffft"! :angry:

You state earlier that everyone will have to agree that values their life.

No, I don't. Are you dyslexic or something?

I'm going to say this one time and one time only: Your billions of dollars are waiting for you. The only thing you have to do is contribute products, services and/or ideas worth billions to the market.

Right, say I did and someone bought me out. Just shit luck, huh?

For my own part, I'm still waiting for a socialist country to offer me a 25,000 sq ft. mansion on the beach with 6 sports cars.

...and Capitalism does? Hey, so can the lottery. Your chances are probably better with the lottery.

Agreed, It's best you don't bother because it's no contest.

No contest to what? You? Capitalism? Hahahahah, no. It's wasting my time because I could give you all the evidence on earth and you'd suggest looking on another planet.

Capitalism wins hands down even with one arm tied behind it's back (England, France, Germany).

Those are more along the lines of welfare Capitalism but see it how you will. You're going to anyway...

(Edited by antitrot at 4:05 pm on April 15, 2002)

[Solzhenitsyn]

http://www.anticommunism.org

Courtois figure for Hitler (25 million) doesn't account for the Russian front (22 million), Jewish Genocide (6 million) and Slavic Genocide (5 million) Infact, nor does Rummel's.

In case you haven't heard, the Soviet Union was responsible for a great many of the 22 million deaths they reported at the end of the war. Like the deportation of the Poles, Germans, Pontic Greeks, slaughter of the Cossacks, Russian POWs, etc, etc, etc.

And as for Stalin, 20-8-5-3=4 4>0

Nice try, but the link you posted in your first post put the death toll of Stalin at 10 million.

Annother thing that might interest you is this population:deaths ratio chart.

Sorry, that's casualities vs. population for some of those I suspect. If we were to believe his total that would be more deaths than the reported strengths of the armies combined. Perhaps they are also including the Russian Civil War and the Bolshevik invasion of Poland.

[Moskitto]

Nice try, but the link you posted in your first post put the death toll of Stalin at 10 million.

Try this link http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

Stalin - 20 million.
Hitler - 15 million
Mao - 10 million

This is after removing atrocities where the blame is dubious.

Also elsewhere on the site, this guy specifically says "Stalin killed 20 million, 30 million tops" Not 10 million.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Moskitto - Damn, your right. Point conceded.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 4:31 pm on April 16, 2002)

[Guest]

well if only 20 million were killed....wtf