TheAgitator.com
Soviet Chic
Monday, August 30th, 2004This weekend, I spoke on panel to a group of kids in the Arsalyn program, which is a kind of honors seminar aimed at getting 16-22 year olds more involved in politics.
Reason’s Nick Gillespie and I held the libertarian banner, NRO’s Jonah Goldberg and two others spoke for the conservatives, and The New Republic’s, Peter Beinhart took issue for the left, along with one other woman who works in the Georgia Statehosue whose name escapes me, and a guy running for the Illinois Statehouse from the Green Party.
The afternoon’s drama came toward the end of the panel, with this skinny kid sitting in the front row, who happened to be donning a bright red t-shirt with the Soviet hammer and sickle. I wanted to call him out from the start. I just felt a little crass about it. But as the panel wore on, it continued to gnaw at me. It dawned on me that I or the lefists on the panel would have had no problem calling the kid out if he’d been wearing a t-shirt with neo-Nazi regalia. And he applauded vigorously when the lefties spoke, and sat on his hands when the rest of us spoke, meaning of course that he wasn’t wearing the shirt with any sense of irony.
So when he finally raised his hand during the Q&A, I decided that –what the hell — I might as well point out how silly he looks advertising a belief system rooted in slavery and murder. He asked an unrelated question, which I think the Green Party guy answered. I then chime din, recommending to the kid that he read Anne Applebaum’s Gulag, the Pulitzer winning book which documents the horrors of the Soviet work camps. He didn’t seem to get it.
So I added, “I know Soviet chic is hip right now, particularly on college campuses. But you really ought to think about the message you send by wearing that shirt. It has all the charm of a swastika.”
With that, Hillsdale poly sci Professor David Bobb added, “you’re associating yourself with the deaths of 100 million people…”
The kid then interrupted Bobb, with obvious agitation, “Yes, I know all about the history of the Soviet Union.”
To which Bobb replied, “Oh, so you know that you’re being insulting.”
Boos and jeers flited up from the crowd.
By the time we had dinner, the kid had thrown a sweater over the t-shirt.
Maybe it was boorish to call the kid out. But there’s something really aggravating about these middle class kids born into the most privileged conditions in all of human history suddenly finding it trendy to carry water for a belief system that murdered hundreds of millions of people, and enslaved billions more.
Me, I just wanna’ smack ‘em a few times.
No way, Radley - every time I see one of my own generation donning Soviet regalia, I find myself wanting to treat them to a few weeks of “re-education camp” and see if they stil hold such a fashionable opinion of the Soviets.
Seriously, calling him out in front of his peers may very well have served as the vital lesson to make him think twice about glamorizing genoide. One punk at a time…
One of TLCs decorating shows (I think it as While You Were Out, but I’m not sure, and even if I was sure I would play dumb as not to admit that I’m an avid watcher) this weekend ran an episode with the head carpenter wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt.
I had the same reaction.
You were right to call the kid out on it Radley. If he’s old enough to be learning about politics he’s old enough to start understanding some truths about communism.
Good on you for calling him out. Had he been wearing it as irony, and making that plain, then well, ok… But to actually advertise some form of support - as minimal as it might really be - for Soviet-style communism is simply awful.
I own lots of old Soviet stuff (I was a Soviet Studies major in undergrad back in the Reagan era and have been to Russia many times) and there is only one item I ever don: I have this great Soviet Navy winter hat that has to be the warmest and most comfortable hat I have ever had. I admit to getting funny looks when I do wear it (which is maybe once a year) but c’est la vie.
Truths about communism?
I’m no expert, but I don’t think that it is communism itself that has genocide/murder as one of it’s core beliefs!
Don’t you mean to be specific about what happened in the Soviet Union? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anywhere that all communism leads to work camps and genocide!
Doug
yep… mmmm…mmmm
crazy kids, he had it coming
I’m no expert, but I don’t think that it is communism itself that has genocide/murder as one of it’s core beliefs!
Don’t you mean to be specific about what happened in the Soviet Union? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anywhere that all communism leads to work camps and genocide!
This is precisely our problem. People view Communism as some sort of noble ideal that was perverted by the men who have tried it. In reality, it’s a perversion of individual rights and human dignity. There is always an iron fist inside the leather glove of collectivism. You can’t tell a man that he has no right to his own wealth, his own labor, or his own creative energies, without breaking him first.
Collectivism is based on coercion. It is anathema to the cause of liberty. That is why it fails. It is not man’s fault that he is unable to spill all the blood required to make it work.
It’s evil, pure and simple, and people need to understand why before we can fix this world.
Doug,
Try reading F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” for starters.
Bravo, Lord Duppy. I’ve had to explain this to my children, in the middle of Kohl’s.
And, Garth, I have a Russian military winter jacket. I look like a psycho Nazi in it, but it is great for sled riding and football games. I did change the buttons. Those Russians certainly know how to keep warm in the winter.
Way to go Radley …. like you said, nobody would have thought twice about giving the kid shit if it were a swastika.
Richard Pipes has a great little book called “Communism.” It takes about2 days to read. His money quote is at the end. To paraphrase,he says that the common defense of Communism’s atrocities is that you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The problem is that no “omelette” was ever made, Communism always fails in the end, and these are not eggs, they are people.
Really great book
Doug-
Name a Communist Regime that did NOT have murder, fear, and oppression as its key features
Our PC Silence is how such movements collect power. The only way to deal with it, is call them out. The left has been doing this ‘in your face’ politics for generations, now, and I say it’s time we started doing the same.
This story reminds me of those anti-capitalist “anarchists” that love to protest so much.
“There is always an iron fist inside the leather glove of collectivism. You can’t tell a man that he has no right to his own wealth, his own labor, or his own creative energies, without breaking him first.”
Shhh…. don’t let the hippies hear you. They will get all confused by the plain and obvious truth. Excellent post.
Good call Radley - the kid whas probably taught at the university that Stalin was just misunderstood.
Molly\Riggs 2004
What a loser. Doesn’t he know all the hip campus activists are wearing Che t-shirts this year?
He was probably taught by his college professors that intentions matter more than results. One hundred million people killed? So what, at least they tried, right?
“Seriously, calling him out in front of his peers may very well have served as the vital lesson to make him think twice about glamorizing genoide.”
How is Radley calling this kid out any different than a society “poo-pooing” homosexual lifestyles? Just because Radley thinks communism is bad, does that mean that it is intrinsicaly (sp?) bad? Who decides what is good and what is bad? What is truth and who knows it? Seems the centerpoint on the scale of ‘good and bad’ is constantly sliding. Are there any absolute truths when it comes to morality?
Radley said, “Me, I just wanna’ smack ‘em a few times.”
I say, sounds like you already did. Awesome.
And I agree with Bithead. Calling the ignorants out is what it’s going to take.
Communism interferes with the rights of others. Plus, there are objective reasons it is bad. It is not simply “immoral” as deemed by religion.
None of these justifications apply to homosexuality or any of the other Christian conservatives “morals” that I am sure you were thinking of anonymous.
So anonymous here is taking the moral relativist road. Brilliant.
No, really. That was brilliant.
not.
My senior year in high school I wrote a history paper comparing the murderous regimes of Lenin and Stalin. I became so incensed at what I perceived as the Modern Left’s uncritical view of Lenin’s reign and Trotsky’s role that I tried to start a Young Communists club at my high school as a sort of joke. I changed the name to the Young Progressives and had many classmates that were interested. Then the joke got old and I ditched the whole thing.
Ok, for anonymous and others like him (liberals seem to always need someone to define shit for them)
I will - from here on out - I will decide what is right and wrong.
Communism is wrong.
: )
Collectivism is based on coercion. It is anathema to the cause of liberty. That is why it fails. It is not man’s fault that he is unable to spill all the blood required to make it work.
It’s evil, pure and simple, and people need to understand why before we can fix this world.
Posted by: Lord Duppy on August 30, 2004 12:36 PM
In a truly free market, how would one prevent economic injustices without some form of legal “coercion?” Wouldn’t any attempt to legally restrict market forces from committing economic injustices be defined as “coercion?”
Is wrong to secure justice by coercion? If not, doesn’t the idea of “liberty and justice for all” require “coercion” to operate sucessfully in a free society?
Richard,
you are correct. i have read that same essay on the web. coercion in and of itself is not evil. its the necessity of and the degree to which one is coerced where evil is determined.
please, someone smarter and more articulate than me, please help Richard Succar understand this.
i’ll try at little, at least.
in a true free market, the people’s choices change the “product” because when disagreements arise, people stop supporting that offering. they are not then forced to support that with which they do not agree. the “product” either adjusts or is eliminated, not the people.
I just don’t have it right, but that’s my attempt.
For anonymous and anyone who supports the same view, history defines what’s right and what’s wrong.
Take a good look at what has worked and endured. Is it communism? If you think it is then answer this. Why have so many communist states disappeared into history’s trash bin? Why are the few that are left either abysmally hungry and poor (North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba), or are allowing private property and individual initiative in order to get out of trouble (China)?
In the meantime, what nations have endured and grown prosperous?
Some things work and some things fail. Which should a wise man do?.
Roy
Just to add a little to the mix in here.
The interesting thing was that according to Marx (who got his ideas from some other guy who’s name escapes me a the moment) is that communism is the natural result of capitalism. Eventually resources are no longer scarce (because of capilalism’s success) and the result is communism.
Think ‘Star Trek’ and you get the idea.
star trek is not real. its a fantasy just like communism.
interesting thing about that theory is that the result of communism is diminished production and resource scarcity. takes us right back to where we started, doesn’t it? the kindness of the human heart alone is not known as the best incentive.
Well anonymous, we seem to have a general unanimity among rational folks that Nazi Germany’s attempt to wipe out the Jewish people (among others) was generally a black mark on history, and for such any young twit wearing a swastika would be rightly jeered.
Now we take the Soviet regime, directly responsible for the murder of millions (Ukranian famine, anyone?) and tyranny over millions more, but glamorizing this as a fashion statement is the same as one’s choice of lifestyle? Last time I checked, gay marriage wasn’t historically responsible for genocide. But nice try at equivocation, there.
To understand, from a practical standpoint, why communism doesn’t work, I strongly recommend the book Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine, by Jasper Becker. It’s a fascinating and very readable book. It helps you to understand why such huge numbers of people starved to death at a time when liberals in the U.S. were trumpeting Mao’s great achievement - eliminating hunger in China. In fact, Mao achieved something more historic and unprecedented - he managed to throw all corners of China, Tibet and Xinjiang into famine at the same time, an astounding feat given the size and geographic diversity of the region.
The posts here have focused on the Soviet deathtoll, but one can argue that Mao caused as many unnatural deaths as Stalin and Hitler combined (once you add up the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution plus miscellaneous purges and famines). Hungry Ghosts describes what happened when China adopted the methods that led to the Ukraine famine. The descriptions of collectivization help to illustrate why communism is such a horrible incentive system, and so fundamentally unfair, that it’s bound to fail.
The Chinese Communist Party made a sincere effort to apply the modern “science” of Marxism, as they understood it, and Hungry Ghosts vividly describes the results. There’s also a postscript on North Korea, which is still using this science today. If you want to understand why communism doesn’t work, this is by far the best and most interesting book I’ve found to explain the underlying problems.
Radley - just adding my vote to the “right on for smacking him down” column. Your remarks about middle-class snotnoses glorifying totalitarianism (paraphrased) are right on - same thing happened with hippies in the 60s of course.
T
Radley;
You were right to speak up. Qui Tacet Consentit.
Re: Anonymous,
1) How is Radley calling this kid out any different than a society “poo-pooing” homosexual lifestyles?
Homosexual lifestyles hardly ever result in the murder of 100 million people. Calling out the cheerleaders of murderers is a great deal more enlightened than ignorantly bashing that which we don’t understand.
2) Just because Radley thinks communism is bad, does that mean that it is intrinsicaly (sp?) bad?
No. Nor does it make it good if 50% of the population or more think it’s good. If it results in the systematic death of millions of people, it is bad. Please don’t make me explain.
3) Who decides what is good and what is bad?
For me? Me. For you? Hard to say. Probably the fad of the minute.
4) What is truth and who knows it?
Hmmm. Deep. Asking that on blogs is likely to generate lots of meaningful answers. How about: That which is or was, and apparently not very many people.
5) Seems the centerpoint on the scale of ‘good and bad’ is constantly sliding.
Well, that is a puzzle, isn’t it?
6) Are there any absolute truths when it comes to morality?
Maybe. How about this: “That which minimizes the total amount of conflict, coercion, and violence is good to the extent to which it does so.” Communism fails the test miserably; it is bad. Laissez faire capitalism, while not producing a 0 conflict, 0 coercion, and 0 violence society, comes awfully close, and nobody has demonstrated anything better. Therefore, capitalism is good. I remain open to suggestions, though. A political-economic system is a creation of man, and man remains perfectible. Therefore, it is possible that someone will develop something better than lfc.
Wow–did anonymous just inadvertendly compare buggery to genocide?
I don’t think even Pat Robertson or Rick “Spreading” Santorum would go that far.
BTW, Radley–count me in with the no-sympathy-for-the-kid crowd. If you’re old enough to wear a provacative T-shirt, you’re damn sure old enough to be called to task for it.
A close friend of mine is in a small rather bad band that plays lots of small local bars. Most shows he wares a CCCP shirt, and about got himself killed once. The catch is, he is a Russian Jew, born in Moscow, father ‘dissapeared,’ and his family was literally smuggled out of Russia by Reagans government. Also he is in the National Gaurd, and spent some time in Iraq. In his case it is ironic, but whenever he sees someone else do that, he shows them pictures of his dad, and says how they will never know what happened.
The funny part of this is using the current batch of communist regimes as examples of the failures of communism is about the same as using the US currently as an example of the failures of a laissez faire government.
I would think more libertarians would have a better handle on what communism is from the ‘know thy enemy aspect’.
my roommates and I back in college found an old beater huffy sitting in a dumpster. it was missing some spokes and we had fun running it into the ground, usually by riding it up staircases and into walls. we had run it into a concrete wall, and the fork crown bent, so we had to dent the top tube down to swing the front end out so we could turn the wheel past the down tube.
anyway, we had initially named it the “Asian National Team” bike, because most of the Asian’s we saw riding on campus were riding around on similar bikes. Circa 1970’s peuguot’s and such. well, our one roommate thought that was a bit insensitive, since most of the Asian’s riding the bike’s were mostly graduate student’s from overseas, didn’t have many options, and were poor. plus there was the fact there is no one true “Asian” nation. So we renamed it the “Soviet National Team” bike. We then proceeded to end it’s miserable existence at a mountain bike event, ghost riding it off a set of double’s. Kind of a nice metaphor, don’t you think?
It was red and a lot of fun to ride, especially with the tight angles we worked into the frame, it was very twitchy. We were pretty crude and destructive, but we had fun.
As for wearing a Soviet T-shirt, that would have been sweet. That kind of vintage shit is neat. A true novelty. But then again I’ve never taken myself too seriously, and really wouldn’t consider myself a buff on Soviet history, but the bold red shirt and yellow symbols would have been cool. So Radley would have schooled me, but I would have not claimed to know much about the Soviet Union and its bloody beginnings and lifetime. I would not have claimed to been a Soviet/Communist sympathizer, and would have simply worn the tshirt for the novelty.
There’s something to be said for flying in the face of people who do take themselves too seriously. But to wear it to an event such as the one Radley was at, that means you know what you’re doing, even if you fully don’t understand what it is you’re doing. So Radley rightfully schooled him. Kudos.
My one roommmate had a great polska national team tshirt. We were jealous of its obscurity. What do you want from a bunch of nerdy engineer bike geek types?
Now, as for communism. Right out of school I worked for a guy who was a refugee from communist Poland in the 70’s. He and his family fled there in 76 I think. He had some really interesting stories from living there and travelling to the Soviet Union for work. The one tale that comes to my mind is that his mother is still openly communist. At her age, to be thrust into “freedom” was a bit of a chore. She was used to the government doing EVERYTHING, and her not having to worry about too much. I’m sure at 80 if you were forced out of retirement you’d be pretty pissed, too. I’m not justifying communism, I am just saying, there are other realities that people awake from.
Is communism where we’re headed? Who knows, some signs point there, some don’t. I think Bush is a fascist theocratic skumfuck, but Kerry is no better. I’m voting for Molly.
Oh, and we should not forget the face of this great land we call home prior to Colombus/pilgrim landing. What of the millions of native’s slaughtered for our rights? I mean to say, we all have blood on our hands.
Lee, I’m glad you brought that up. Let’s run with it.
The idea of laissez-faire government is that power is spread widely so that people can, within their means, make their own choices about how they want to spend their lives. This ideal is imperfectly implemented in the US because too many of its citizens are both unwilling to defend their own rights and too keen to clamour for the limitations of others’ rights. Laissez-faire is not a stable situation. However, in spite of the problems, the end result is the country with the most impressive record of liberty and wealth generation around.
Communism seeks to concentrate power in the centre of society so as to allocate resources with the greater good in mind. Unfortunately, because people are still people - even after a good state education, the ones at the top don’t quite use the power as they promised they would. The results? Well, you can see them for yourself.
The strength of an ideology has to be measured in the real world results. If it doesn’t work, the ideas need to be refined or replaced. If you want to discuss the results of libertarian strategies in the real world, I’m sure we’d be more than happy. If you want to make a case that communism would work perfectly if only people weren’t so flawed, you’re probably best making it elsewhere.
Radley Balko,
I was not exactly middle class, but i was one of these youngings that did not care about politics (that was until 9-11). Once i was out of school i started paying attention, partly because of the tax money that was being taken.
Basically what i am saying is that, some people just have to grow up frist. not all teenagers have the maturity to study politics.
Though i think it is great that all the parties got together to brain wash little kids (lord knows they could use some good ideas).
In a truly free market, how would one prevent economic injustices without some form of legal “coercion?” Wouldn’t any attempt to legally restrict market forces from committing economic injustices be defined as “coercion?”
Some people have already jumped on this guy, but since he addressed me, I feel obligated to respond.
To be free is to be free from something. When we say “freedom,” whether we realize it or not, we mean freedom from coercion and fraud. We don’t mean freedom from all moral and legal constraints. “Freedom” could mean that, however, which seems to be how you’re interpreting it.
If by “economic injustices” you mean theft and fraud, then yes, government has the power to prevent and/or punish such offenses because they are attacks upon the liberty of another person.
If you mean that some people are poor, then you’re out of luck. Government can’t give money to the poor unless it takes it from the rich. Yes, this is coercion, and yes, I do condemn it.
Lee-
Studying political ideas can be a bit like nuclear physics - you have to look at the effects of something to learn about it. Throughout history people have fought and died to flee communist countries to live in free countries. How many people flee the US? Last time I looked it was 12 in a year, sometime in the 90s. If people had the right to leave Cuba there would be no one left. If communism was so great why did they have to build a wall around East Berlin? Even given the threat of death people tried to leave communist countries. I think these are pretty telling facts.
Communism is terrible, unless I get to be the oppressive dictator and sole beneificiary.
That is, after all, how it works in practice.
Vote for me for commie dictator and supreme oppressor, crusher of wills, destroyer of ideas…instead of Kerry. I’ll be much more aggressive.
While we’re giving State Communism a well deserved beating, check out the following amusing links:
http://www.geocities.com/craic_pipe/Treachery.html
and
http://www.geocities.com/craic_pipe/Miscalculation.html
As if the US is perfect
I don’t think a single person here is saying the US is perfect. As a matter of fact, many have said the opposite. But, overall, it certainly is a hell of a lot better than any communist country.
richard succer,
are you curious that none of the libertarians on this blog addressed your “coercion” point?
you know i strongly disagree with your politics, but i am curious.
because, and i say ugh, when i admit this, i know where you are coming from and to some extent agree with you.
The USA may not perfect, but it’s more or less worked for most of us who have ready access to a computer and the internet, and have somehow stumbled upon this site.
And as far as the kid being in high school, when do you expect him to figure out that his actions have consequenses, and he has to start taking responsibility for his life? His trendy little commie shirt shows his ignorance if he is unaware of the perfidy of the Soviet Union, and a callous disregard of common sense and tact if he actually is aware. What’s the next fashion trend gonna be in high school, white hoods? Brown shirts and jackboots? Symbols of state-sponsored slavery, oppression and murder shouldn’t get a pass because the trendy kids pick up on them…
I’m all for calling somebody to task on such blatant crap as this, but I have to wonder whether he’s any more ready to understand the libertarian message than the commie one. Likewise for his classmates.
On the other hand, the best assignment I ever had in high school was a report on Atlas Shrugged…
G
Graham,
I wonder if they even assign that one anymore?
MOLLY\RIGGS 2004
You people are brainwashed!
The USA has been around for whoa… just over 200 whole years!
What makes you think your great great grandchildren aren’t going to be the next victims of some crazy, oppressive government? Holy shit… if GW and Santorum had their way they’d probably gag me and burn me at the stake for being an athiest!
All of you are condeming communism based on specific examples… it is your own beliefs that are causing you to view it in such a light.
Stop being so egocentric! I’m not pushing moral relativism, it is just that just because you can point to failed communist regimes does not mean that all communism is or would be doomed to fail.
Doug
Che Was an Evil Man
As an old crank, many fads irritate me (trucker hats balanced askew on the empty heads of young men in
To Doug -
No, a few examples by themselves don’t prove that communism is bad. But when has it ever worked? It has been tried many times and has led to repeated catastrophes. This should tell us something.
Besides, the arguments here go beyond examples. The fundamental, underlying communist system is bad. Capitalism uses a combination of incentives and punishments - produce wealth, and you’ll be allowed to keep a proportion of it (income tax below 100%); rob from others, and we’ll punish you. It’s not a perfect system, but it at least tries to get rid of the free rider problem and give people an incentive to produce.
Communism rules out all incentives (for the vast majority of the people), by trying to disconnect output and consumption. Thus, with no incentives, the system has to rely on A) constant, excessive monitoring (big brother is watching) and B) horrendous punishments for those that are caught, to make up for the fact that many will not be caught “cheating”.
Communist regimes are inevitably repressive, because they rule out all incentives and thus have to rely on harsh punishments. Even with the constant monitoring and punishments, the economy declines because being watched and threatened can make people do the minimum, but it doesn’t spur them on to do their best. Capitalism, by accepting some income inequalities, is able to offer rewards that encourage people to excel.
The book Hungry Ghosts by Jasper Becker, which I recommended earlier, talks about the reaction of the peasants to communes. They figured out quickly that the food they received did not depend on their work. Before, they had only one or a few cows, and if they didn’t feed and care for their cow(s), their family could die. Now, the cows belonged to everyone, and hence to no one in particular, so no one fed them. The peasants figured out that communism is a fundamentally unfair system, because it’s incomplete. The system doesn’t measure effort, and thus it doesn’t give anyone an incentive to go to extra effort.
And, keep in mind, people under capitalism are allowed to work “for the common good”. There’s nothing to prevent or ban idealism in a capitalist system. But the system doesn’t rely on good intentions, because that leads to a free rider problem that ends up discouraging the vast majority, because most people feel that it’s basically, fundamentally unfair that their effort should go entirely unrewarded.
In other words, Doug, to get back to something you said earlier:
yes, all communism inevitably leads to work camps and genocide (or similar extreme repression). Communism relies on slave labor, and you can’t keep the slaves in line without such measures. As we’ve seen, you can’t even force people to remain in a communist country without threatening death.
Doug, you’re quite right that real world failures aren’t the only reason. The much more important reason is that the ideology is flawed in its assumptions about human nature. People aren’t willing to work selflessly for the greater good, and the concentration of power will neither make things more efficient nor less corrupt. When real people are slotted into the system, nothing works properly, and when nothing works properly the ruling party will always try to cling to that power by any means possible.
The fact that communism has never worked is the strong supporting evidence, but the case against it is rooted in the flawed ideals.
All communism IS doomed to fail, and with any luck no more opportunities will come up to demonstrate this.
Bernard hit the nail on the head.
Marx made some assumptions about human nature that just do not work (working for the greater good is one of them). Another is that one of the crucial elements for communism to work is the elimination of scarcity. Marx depended on capitalism to be wildly successful in order for communism to work.
Using the current batch of communists regimes as examples of communism is the same as using The Inquisition as an example of Christianity.
But Marxism is an incomplete system, if scarcity is eliminated. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” doesn’t tell you what to do with the surplus. Communism is most likely to work in small, isolated societies barely on the verge of survival (because survival depends on the ‘common good’). Look at native American tribes that largely got rid of private property (you could take someone else’s possesions if you felt that you needed them). Old people would go off into the wilderness to die rather than burden the tribe, because they knew how precarious the tribe’s survival really was.
I don’t see how communism works better under surplus, because dividing the excess guarantees corruption and magnifies the injustice of it all. Besides, even if communism is implemented under surplus, the nature of the system will soon eliminate it, although Party leaders will have some fun in the meantime.
Why is it unfair to judge communism based on the “current batch of communists”? The performance in practice has been pretty consistent, both across samples and in comparison with what one would expect. The Inquisition, on the other hand, is not our only example of Christianity.
To really sum up Communism as Marx envisioned it, the individual has no ownership over anything, including him/herself. Marx believed that the right of property, even self ownership lead people to view others as limits to their own freedom and therefore was counter productive. He called for the “the complete return of man to himself as a social being.” Meaning the individual belongs to society not himself.
For those of you who think that communism be bad is just a matter of opinion I invite you to live in a country where you do not own yourself, and free will, what Marx called a bourgeois freedom, is denied by the state. You are a slave to society in communism and with that all the evils that go with the lack of respect for humanity.
You can kind of see Karl’s point. After all, people are one of the most renewable resources around.
Good point, Bernard. That’s why Mao called nuclear bombs “paper tigers”. Yes, they could kill 10 or 20 million Chinese, but he figured that they could make that up pretty quickly. He’d killed as many himself, and it didn’t hold back their population growth for long.
I support what was said above about the fundamental incompatibility of Marxism/Communism with human nature. In addition, I would note that Communism has another fatal flaw: the inability to allocate resources effectively (no realistic measure of relative scarcity, ie., prices). As such, any communist regime is doomed to fail (if forced to rely on its own output) when confronted with an efficient (market-based) regime
Have They No Shame?
You’d think that with the communist body count vastly outnumbering the Nazi body count, it would be regarded in as bad taste to wear a hammer-and-sickle as it is to wear a swastika. Not so. Nostalgia still exists for the paradise lost. Radley Balko…
because, and i say ugh, when i admit this, i know where you are coming from and to some extent agree with you.
Posted by: michael on August 30, 2004 11:54 PM
Michael -
Ooof. That musta been hard.
And no, I’m not really surprised. It’s a big hole in the old “two men dealing voluntarily” argument for free markets. Voluntary dealings between A and B ALWAYS have ramifications on C - and C wasn’t invited to the table at all. How does one protect C without the “coercion” of A and B to play by some set of rules? If any coercion at all is “evil” than it’s tough tiddly-winks for C - even though C’s liberty (either economic or political) may be harmed or denied by the voluntary agreement between A and B. If you allow for “some” coercion to protect C against fraud and theft, the argument that coercion is detrimental to liberty falls apart - since it’s the coercion (all by itself) that protects the liberty of those that may be affected by theft and fraud.
It’s the elephant in the room nobody likes talking about - we can disagree (like you and I do) on the “level” or “nature” of coercion, but to argue that all coercion is evil means that one buys into a “moral capitalism” theory of free-markets that simply does not exist.
i agree that there is coercion. there will always be some sort of coercion, whether it’s in the form of a choice or in the form of no choice whatsoever. coercion in some form or another can never be completely removed.
free markets, however, have shown to be the most effective way of dealing with and limiting coercion. communism, on the other nasty little hand, has certainly proven to be an extremely effective way of encouraging coercion.
Most miniarchist libertarians believe the state’s role should only be revenge coercion, meaning only when one is coerced by a perpetrator does the state have the authority to coerce the perp, to the extent of repayment to the victim (not society).
Most anarchist libertarians, or market anarchists, etc., believe the same to be true but believe it can be achieved through the market, and without a central authority, or a final say.
I’d love to believe the latter, but I have a hard time working out the minutiae.
Lib, but that isn’t necessarily singular to libertarianism. Revenge coercion assumes a set of guidelines in the first place. In that respect two societies could be the same despite varying wildly on the rules which are enforce. Libertarianism is set out by its definition of the rights of the individual over those of society.
The anarchist positions are all silly, my opinion, because they construct rules while explicitly providing no teeth to enforce them.
Well, I believe for a state to mandate revenge coercion on the behalf of a person, instead of the state or society (or the crown), would imply a state seeing that (or feigning) the individual’s welfare should be held above society’s.
On the anarchist positions having no teeth, I always found that their allowance for market based justice, meaning private police forces or the like, would allow for unfortunately too many teeth, or no checks on power.
The market for justice always seems to institute a state. I don’t know if we can ever break that cycle. I continue to search for what would best replace it. Anarchsim maybe better, hell if I know.
Libertas, private police forces would enforce, as far as they had the power, those rules laid down by the person/people paying for them. Anarchism is unstable for precisely this reason. You can’t enforce a vacuum of enforcement. If you break up the state, then you have no authority to prevent other people from creating their own (with their own sets of rules). When those private arrangements became expansive enough, we’d be back to having a state.
Yes, I know.
Like I said, the market for justice always seems to institute a state.
I think most libertarians just grasp the need to limit the power of the state. Anarchists believe this can be achieved by scrapping the state entirely and having the market provide for justice somehow.
Miniarchists believe a small, extremely restricted, state power (one that stays that way apparently) is possible.
I don’t know what is possible, and am beginning to believe the natural state of man’s society is to be continually doomed.
I do believe that is what truly sets libertarians apart from the masses.
Regarding coercion, geez, haven’t any of you people read David Friedman’s _Machinery of Freedom_? Chapter 41, “Problems”, begins, “Many libertarians appear to believe that libertarianism can be stated as a simple and convincing principle from which everything else follows. Popular candidates are ‘It is always wrong to initiate coercion’ and ….” He then proceeds to show how and why such exercises are both futile and dangerous. If you want formulaic soundbite politics, I suggest tuning in to the convention this week (war against terror and outspending the lib-rals), the media coverage of it (swift boats and lies), or Air America (I quote, and you can look it up: “FLIPPITY-FLOOPITY-FLOP, FLOP FLOP FLOP FLOP”). But soundbitism and nuanced libertarianism are mutually exclusive.
While I agree you should have said something, I’m not sure that in public was the best place. Being attacked in front of other people is likely to make the kid defensive, and keep him from really listening to you. Even if he reacts by temporarily hiding the shirt, he will wear it extra-proudly around campus.
If you brought up the issue with him in a personal conversation, I think he’d be much more willing to listen to your reasons and perhaps change his mind.
At least, that’s been my experience.
It’s a free country… anybody can wear what they want. You are all absolute morons for attacking one kid you don’t even know simply because you heard he was wearing some shirt.
Wait a minute…
You’re all bashing a kid because of communism’s past. Let’s go to the time machine and look at capitalism’s past, which you guys are making out to be so great.
About the time of the civil war… westward expansion and “manifest destiny”… The horrific things done to the natives of the U.S. all for the sake of capitalistic expansion… Try reading “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” by Dee Brown.
Hmmm… let’s see… the late 1800’s… the upper class completely dominating the lower class… wage-slavery… so many poor people dying or living lives without hope, having to turn to prostitution or crime to get ahead. Ever read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair? I didn’t think so…
Well, I don’t really need to keep going to show how bad capitalism can be, too.
You shouldn’t attack an idea without looking at your own ideas first. Plus, it’s only a shirt… he’s not necessarily endorsing communism.
Ummm, …
“You’re all bashing a kid because of communism’s past.”
Yep. I hope people would do the same if he were wearing a swastika.
“About the time of the civil war…”
You mean the war between the industrial capitalists and the agrarian slaveholders?
“The horrific things done to the natives of the U.S. all for the sake of capitalistic expansion”
Were those blue-shirted thugs “capitalists”? NO?!? Put down that pamphlet and step away from the Marxist theories of imperialism.
“Hmmm… let’s see… the late 1800’s… the upper class completely dominating the lower class…”
What does this mean? If you mean, “made more money and enjoyed more material comforts,” then that was true both before and after the late 1800s. You need to look at the condition of “the lower class” in absolute terms, not relative terms. Working in a factory 10 hours a day for 6 days for a fixed paycheck was generally a lot better than working 12 hours a day 7 days a week only to see the crops destroyed. Look at the flow of immigration - in or out? Were the conditions of the lives of their children better or worse than their own? _The Jungle_ was a work of fiction written by someone with an agenda (of which one facet was to sell periodicals), not history.
“wage-slavery…”
My favorite. When you get a chance to talk to a *real* slave some time, I dare you to compare his/her experience with someone working at a steel mill. I would stand at least arm’s length away and be prepared to run.
“so many poor people dying or living lives without hope, having to turn to prostitution or crime to get ahead. Ever read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair? I didn’t think so…”
Try reading a *real* history book or something they didn’t assign in the 8th grade. In order to be sucked in by Sinclair, you have to believe that most if not all working class people were extraordinarily stupid and unlucky, and that they were surrounded by extraordinarily dishonest and crafty people - which is why _The Jungle_ works so well with adolescents and why adults get bored rather quickly with it. Start with anything by TS Ashton.
“Well, I don’t really need to keep going to show how bad capitalism can be, too.”
You haven’t started, so yes, there is no need to keep going.
“You shouldn’t attack an idea without looking at your own ideas first.”
Many libertarians are well aware of the legitmate problems with capitalism - none of which you listed in any meaningful way.
“Plus, it’s only a shirt… he’s not necessarily endorsing communism.”
But he might be, and he should be made to be clear on the issue. As several commenters pointed out with counterexamples, it could have meant ironically. Apparently it was not. All you need do is watch an ANSWER protest to see that there are still hundreds if not thousands of idiots who still believe that communism should be given another chance. Maybe this time they’ll succeed in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. >shudder
Thanks, Eric H, for responding to that post. Someone needed to, and you did it well.
Now I understand why Radley is thinking of limiting or eliminating comments - a few nasty, vague, off-subject attacks can really spoil the discussion.
I happen to think the hammer and sickle is just a cool logo. Same goes with the swastika.
It is idiotic to get upset about a kid wearing a t-shirt.
I think that the Nike symbol stands for the atrocities in the shoe factories. Did you know that small children get pinholes all over their little hands working in those sweatshops?
Why get mad about a symbol… next you’ll be banning the rainbow like Rick Santorum is trying to do here in PA.
Doug
Nike:
Phil Knight: Hey kid - wanna job? We’ll pay you. You might get some pinholes all over your little hands [?].
Kid: Sure - it beats working myself silly in a rice field for subsistence while worrying about the holes left by 2-step snakes.
Commie:
Feliks Dzerzhinksy: Hey kid - wanna hole in your neck?
Kid: [silence]
/SARCASM
Yeah, that seems about equal.
/sarcasm
—-
So far, detractors have now equated communism to buggery, and statist bans on symbols of homosexuality to social pressure to not wear “cool” symbols of mass murder because you think the mass murderers might get it right if given another chance. Again, judging by the kid’s reaction, he wasn’t wearing it because he thought it was cool or ironic. Keep on trying - you’ll eventually get the race card in here somewhere.
Yo Eric-
You have too much free time on your hands if you can spend so much time arguing over a kid’s shirt. Get some sun.
And while you’re at it, get a life.
And the same to you, Ann. Maybe you and Eric should get together.
I HEART COMMIES
LENIN IS MY HERO
As long as we’re taking a short intermission from the discussion proper, I figure I might as well put in my two cents.
First of all, everyone is getting way too worked up about a t-shirt that some skinny kid was wearing. Secondly, the argument is not so much being won and lost (by “won” I refer to having more powerful and more persuasive points than the side that is “losing”) as it is being squashed. Any comment made in support of the soviet t-shirt kid is immediately destroyed by the majority.
“Thanks, Eric H, for responding to that post. Someone needed to, and you did it well.
Now I understand why Radley is thinking of limiting or eliminating comments - a few nasty, vague, off-subject attacks can really spoil the discussion.”
Posted by: Ann on September 1, 2004 08:42 AM
No offense, Ann, but spoil what? (Anonymous) was stating their opinion, just like you, Eric, or anybody else. What differs in this case is that their argument went squarely against yours and Eric’s. On the other hand, no, the few people who are in support of this communist-endorsing kid are also to blame for stirring up more debate than the issue really calls for. There are a few simple truths that anyone who has read this page to its entirety should be able to understand.
1. The skinny kid should be allowed to wear whatever he wants without being pointed out and/or insulted because of it.
2. Common decency should make the problem moot because the skinny kid should consider whether someone may be offended by his choice of clothing.
3. The same rules would apply to wearing a swastika shirt or any other article of clothing that may or may not provoke those that observe it.
All in all, everyone has their own point of view and is entitled to it. I’ve just stated mine.
~Ryan
Bravo! A few weeks ago I encountered a young man wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt… I was also wearing a Che T-shirt as well, but one with Mickey Mouse ears on him to mock him http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006596.html .
I asked the chap if they also sold Himmler or Pol Pot T-shirts where he bought that one and he seemed astonished, saying he did not know and asking if I would actually were such a thing. I told him I would not but as I was an entrepreneur who always looked out for opportunities, I was curious to see what they sold, as if they offered T-shirts displaying at least one collectivist mass murderer, there might be a market for a selection of different mass murderers. He looked most uncomfortable.
Heh, this is pretty freakin funny, i know this kid, great kid, very intelligent, and knows just about everything there is to know about politics and history. Yeah is a lefty, and a right wing nut job, but it doesnt really matter, i respect him, i dont respect his views, but i respect the guy himself. I mean come on, give him kudos for being willing to wear that thing in public. I mean come on, i get to wear my “imagine no liberals” with a smiley face on it, let hi wear his thing in peace, mutter all you want. Thought i’d say
Stormin M.
(oh just so you know this has become a great joke in our town)
I think all of you are missing the point of this. Whether he was for communism or not, whether he knew what he was saying or not … it doesn’t matter.
Communism is an ideal form of government. Yes, it has had a lot of problems especially in Russia and China but in its ideal form, it does have something to be admired. It wants to share everything and that idealsim shouldn’t be toren apart because someone thinks something bad about the government that used it.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for being critical of something that you obviously have no knowledge of. If you did, then you know that although communism doesn’t work, it is the ideal that people admire and wish to be like. Most people who do wear those shirts admit that communism doesn’t work on a national scale, only on the small communal scale.
It’s sad to see that this is what the youth of America has to look forward to … People who don’t even try to understand or tolerant those whose opinions differ with theirs.
hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. SMART Yellow Pages, About DIRare, Search in Business Category. From online directory .
This web-site is the coolest! Now I dont have to feel so intimated by science! Youre a genius! I think Ill visit this site often.
http://xanax15.pisem.net/
Cool design, great info!