TheAgitator.com
Fall of The Wall
Monday, November 9th, 2009
Today, Berlin celebrates the 20th anniversary of the fall of The Wall. Sadly, much of Europe is already beginning to forget the atrocities wrought by communism. We libertarians regularly make the point that while Nazism is still regularly and justifiably vilified, communism periodically enjoys rebirths of chic. The point can’t be made enough. Not to diminish the horrors of Nazism, but to confront the cultural whitewashing of the horrors of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Il, and the others.
This weekend at the Students for Liberty conference I was privileged to hear the great historian Alan Charles Kors give a rousing and inspiring speech demanding an accounting for the horrors of communism. I don’t think the speech is available online, but here’s an essay Kors wrote for Reason several years ago that touches on the same themes. The concluding graph is stirring.
No cause in the history of mankind has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than communism. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. No one honors those dead. No one does penance for them. No one pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them. It is exactly what Solzhenitsyn foresaw in The Gulag: “No, no one would have to answer.” Communism was not a “god that failed.” Rather, it was an intellectually organized slaughter and slavery that succeeded, but that could not sustain itself against the productivity and resistance of free men and women.
Even the people of Poland seem to forget communist horrors. Of course, most of those that would have remembered are dead: Katyn Forest Massacre.
A few weeks ago on CNN’s morning news show, they had a story by Carol Costello of a candidate who was running for office and doing exceedingly well against his major party competition. At the end, she made a rather enthusiastic comment about how America might be ready for a third party, as if there is finally a group capable of fulfilling that role. The guy she was reporting on was proudly communist.
When you say chic, you hit the nail on the head. Communism has always been trendy. Fashionable. It sounds like “the people” rising up against greedy capitalism (ie: Walmart, “big oil”, and Citibank). But, there is nothing else that recommends communism as a strategy for generating a comfortable productive society.
No other social, economic, or political system has so thoroughly proven itself to be so destructive, ineffective, and completely incompatible with human nature as communism. To openly support it is the same as openly proclaiming you have no understanding of humanity. It’s like bragging about not being able to read or not knowing what the two houses of Congress are called.
The whole idea of a wall to keep “your people” in is scary. This article says that America now has done the equivelant of a virtual Berlin Wall:
http://www.escapeartist.com/Expat_Taxes/Trapped_In_America/
I was attending a wedding in Panama City Beach FL and was watching this on the TV in my room and was stunned. I figured then and there that Communism was on its’ way out, and the next year proved it. But I also asked the question in my mind: what will happen to the dyed-in-the-wool Commie butchers, the KGB and GRU and all the other ‘organs’ as Solzhenitsyn called them?
We have the answer: same thing that happens here to political criminals. Nothing. Nothing at all. Murderers walk the streets free and nothing happens to them. While the survivors of their predations are ignored.
When times get tight and people get desperate, they invariably start to give credence to historically proven ‘bad ideas’ like Communism, usually out of a sense that ‘maybe this time’ the pig will fly, the horse will sing…and the rattlesnake not bite. And I expect to hear that craziness any day now…
“No cause in the history of mankind has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than communism”
An estimated 30+ million africans died in the Atlantic slave trade, a purely capitalist enterprise. Pot, meet kettle.
To be fair, I think most of the horrors of Communism in Europe would’ve happened regardless of the political model of a Communist society. Had Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, and Lil’ Kim (Kim Jung Il) come to power under any other means of force (i.e. through a coup), they would’ve been just as horrible. Had they been called Kings, Czars, or any other name you can think of, the deaths and devastation brought by them would’ve been just as horrible.
There are bad people in history. There are people who performed horrible and unspeakable acts before Communism was even devised. These people just happened to do it under the guise of Communism rather than under the guise of being a Caesar, King, Emperor, or Deity.
Now, I’m not defending Communism, I’m merely saying that these bad people would’ve been just as bad had Communism never been thought of in the first place. I think that to blame Communism is to take away “credit”, if you will, from how horrible these men were.
I was completely hammered in a bar a couple of years ago talking to a Russian guy roughly my age. He was 12 or so when the wall fell and the Russia collapse not long after. Through his slurred speach that made his acsent even more difficult to understand, he told me that his Grandmother was convinced that Revelations was happening as described in the Bible. Stalin was the antichrist, she lived throught the famines that he caused, people lived in poverty and fear, and worst yet, athiest controlled the country. This just made her even more religious and she lived over half of her life convinced that the end of the world was coming.
He went on to tell me that growing up with communism is child abuse, and that every russian is a survivor of child abuse that never got their counseling. Which explains why everyone there is completely fucking nuts.
Of course this is one drunkard russian’s opinion, but it really hit home for me what a shitty place the USSR must have been.
I don’t disagree with your comment, but I think there is a distinction in that the tyrants on Radley’s list are notable for having brought misery and destruction to their own people.
In any case, I see communism as an economic and political system that, even under the most well-intentioned governments, would still lead to disaster. However, tyrants are a product of totalitarianism. Communism (as its usually practiced) is not the only ideology that leads to the endowment of a single governing entity with complete power, but it certainly has managed to carve out a reputation for itself in the last hundred years or so.
“Which explains why everyone there is completely fucking nuts.”
+1 to Mattocracy
Russia! Oofda (hand slap to forehead).
“An estimated 30+ million africans died in the Atlantic slave trade, a purely capitalist enterprise. Pot, meet kettle.”
Because this is an estimate, I’m interested in the source and method used to generate the number. A quick round of Googling found numbers that varied wildly, up 150 million. Since this issue is very emotionally and politically charged, I wonder if the estimator’s bias might have a substantial impact on the estimate.
There’s nothing “capitalist” about slavery.
Capitalism revolves around private property. And private property begins with the notion that you own your own body, and the fruits of your own labor. Slavery has existed in every form of government and economy over most of human history. In fact, you could make a good argument that the industrial revolution *ended* slavery.
Stealing another man’s body and the fruits of his labor is not capitalist, in any sense of the word.And of course under communism, everyone was a slave.
You must be a slavery denier. I mean, since questioning the numbers of those killed in the holocaust can get you branded as a holocaust denier, it only stands to reason that the same would apply to the slave trade.
On the other hand, I was very careful not to call the thirty million number into question. From past experience, I think someone would have said, “So, Krueger, what if it were only twenty million or even a measly ten million. Does that make it ok? Hmmm?” Given my spineless nature, I simply avoided the question.
I would put the catholic church on a par with communism for harm done, with the understanding that it often does not have armies at its disposal to enforce its dictates. Given that it principally has to rely on people’s fear of the afterlife, it has done a good job spreading death and hatred throughout the ages of its existence. Latest installment: The pope lying to his adherents around the world about the effectiveness of condoms to stop aids.
Theoretically, communism is a great concept….except for the fact that it requires the involvement of people. Our individual self interest will sabotage any effort to live as equals every time. Marx’s vision of a classless society will never be successfully implemented.
But, weren’t slaves considered property? And were they not bought and sold on a free market?
I can see how the concept of owning other human beings was challenged by the principles of liberty that were being adopted at the time, but I don’t think capitalism can take credit for ending the slave trade.
“… these bad people would’ve been just as bad had Communism never been thought of in the first place. I think that to blame Communism is to take away “credit”, if you will, from how horrible these men were.”
^^^^this.
Communism in theory doesn’t lead inexorably to mass murder. But in practice, it sure does seem to have greased the wheels for mass murderers.
[...] via http://www.theagitator.com/2009/11/09/fall-of-the-wall/. [...]
Just because it’s bought and sold doesn’t mean it’s part and parcel of capitalism.
Murder for hire is a service bought and sold. But if it were made legal, it’s not something capitalism should be blamed for.
Communism believes you are the property of the state — therefore you’re expendable if the state determines it no longer needs you. It’s a form of government that cheapens life, making mass murder and starvation just another government policy. Mass death is inextricably linked to communism.
There’s substantial evidence that slavery’s end was the result of capitalism’s pursuit of profits and not some kind of global enlightened morality. Slavery became unprofitable. Lincoln’s motives were to preserve the union…regardless of what that meant to slavery. The fact that slavery persisted in the USA was, in large part, the result of good ol’ politics pandering to the whims of voters.
Hard to fully make the argument in a post, but anyone blaming capitalism for slavery wouldn’t be pursuaded any way.
@ Jeff
Just read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (I’m very late). Have to say, Christians sure are right up there with commie dictators. They have the company of many, many religious “leaders”.
^^ Thumbs up to Dave as always, just especially today at #14.
Communist fascism is one of the most terrible evils that has been inflicted “on purpose” in history, but I have to agree to the basic sentiment of bobz post that it’s a bit belittling to the other terribles of yesteryear to suggest that communism is the sole source of those ills. People do horrible things and people in power do exponentially more horrible things. I signed up to fight the fascism part of communism…the commune part of communism is a hippie’s wet dream and it’s not the dream that’s bad, it’s the police state that arises when someone realizes they can manipulate the system.
I know, I know, I’m “comparing apples to oranges”, but I’ve toted my rifle through the blasted countries and every day I shake my head and say people don’t realize how close we are to it in America. Fascist capitalism ain’t any better than fascist communism, it’s just that America hasn’t devolved to the point that either one can destroy us…yet.
Plantations were kind of like corporations, minus the legal jargon. In order to gain an edge in the market place, they used the government to institute regulations (slavery) that benefited the plantations and hurt smaller farmsteds that didn’t use the same labor techniques. Slavery was the petroleum of the time. It powered everything in the south.
oh, and I know we’re debating higher end ideals here, but do please keep in mind that capitalism, like most “-ism”s, doesn’t really define good or evil, it’s just a way of divvying up resources (kinda like I blame Stalin, not socialism). Buying and selling people for profit where a demand exists *IS* capitalism…enslaving them for “the good of the people” is communism. Evil does what the hell it wants and laughs as it spins the titles…please try to be careful not to defend it because it hid behind our ideals. (yeah, I’m a capitalist…but I don’t think a damned big dose of socialism is all that bad to temper it…not that you all haven’t heard it from me before, just trying to keep it front and center).
Sam,
Any anarchist worth his salt is smiling at this thread knowing the common element is the state. All examples are just different points on the same line.
hm, talking too much today but what the hey.
Communism doesn’t officially cheapen life. In practice? Sure…but so does our system (do we all know what a death is worth to insurance?). Officially communism says that every single individual is equal and therefore you couldn’t enslave any segment of your population to better another. Of course the koran says you’re supposed to be peaceful and nice too..and the new testament teaches that you don’t fight even to defend yourself. Capitalism officially gives you the freedom to rise above the masses, but it also gives those risen above the right to do what they please to the masses to prevent them from rising above.
I stand by my “the -ism isn’t the problem” statement. Not that communism = bad isn’t a sacred cow, but I’m def saying that the bad comes from the place, the people, and the times…not the title you give the government.
Thanks Boyd :)
Blaming the horrors on authoritarian/oppressive dictatorships on Communism is a bit too simplistic. Why don’t we go ahead and blame slavery, apartheid, slave labor (which was a crutch of the touted ‘Industrial Revolution’), the Iraq war, and the economic meltdowns that have accompanied the numerous booms and busts of the past few decades (causing “socialist” bailouts, unemployment benefits, people to be poor, etc).
There is a published “Black book of Capitalism” too, ya know…..
There’s nothing “capitalist” about slavery.
“Capitalism revolves around private property. And private property begins with the notion that you own your own body, and the fruits of your own labor. Slavery has existed in every form of government and economy over most of human history. In fact, you could make a good argument that the industrial revolution *ended* slavery.
Stealing another man’s body and the fruits of his labor is not capitalist, in any sense of the word.And of course under communism, everyone was a slave.”
A profound mis-understanding of the institution of slavery is revealed. Quite simply the slaves were not considered anything other than property by their owners. They were considered sub-human, (look up the word “chattel”) so slavery was in no way stealing.
Even so, if you are going to quibble that slavery was not true capitalism and therefore capitalism is not to blame, then there is a much stronger argument that Stalin and the other tyrants were not true communists and therefore communism isn’t to blame. Typical of radley – lump ideologies with which you disagree into one big pile of associations, while split hairs about things you do agree with to escape their faults.
“There’s substantial evidence that slavery’s end was the result of capitalism’s pursuit of profits and not some kind of global enlightened morality. Slavery became unprofitable.”
Simply wrong- what happened was capitalism based around new technology made slavery unprofitable. Prior to (and in the absence of ) that new technology slavery was highly profitable. Slavery was a profitable capitalist system in north america for 400 years prior to the industrial revolution. Slavery’s rise in the new world was the result of the same capitalist forces that were responsible for its end. Capitalism gave rise to slavery, nurtured it and only let it go when new technology replaced it.
Oh yea, let’s not forget the wealth gap that capitalism has created:
The top 1% currently own 38% of the wealth in this country while the bottom 40% own less than 1%. Yep, nothing wrong with our system at all! I could only imagine if this country was 100% pure capitalism with no bits of “Socialist” redistribution of wealth (welfare, unemployment, tax breaks, food stamps, etc) for the poor that we have today. The gap would be even wider. And what happens when the nation’s two richest people, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates call for more ‘fair’ capitalism? Libertarians cry foul. LOL.
I agree to that. Declaring people to be property requires the support of the sate. But, those western countries that traded in slaves were capitalist just as China, the USSR, Cambodia, and North Korea are/were communist.
Capitalism does not dictate that people can be bought and sold as property, but neither does communism doesn’t mandate genocide or purges. I will say that the starvation and death resulting from communism’s lack of productivity can certainly be laid at the feet of the ideology itself.
I don’t know this is really worth arguing. I don’t think anyone is claiming that communism is a good way to go. I’m just disputing that the all of misery was caused by the ideology rather than the ego and corrupt nature of the particular dictators.
I agree to that. Declaring people to be property requires the support of the sate. But, those western countries that traded in slaves were capitalist just as China, the USSR, Cambodia, and North Korea are/were communist.
If a basketball game is rigged so that one team gets unlimited fouls, you blame the crooked ref and whoever paid him; you don’t conclude basketball is a bad sport in general. Historically capitalism has been rigged to favor the dominant groups, which is wrong, but is not a fault of capitalism as such.
And by that analogy, you should not blame communism for atrocities that are committed by a particular head of a communist state that are not a part of the communist ideology.
bobzbob:A profound mis-understanding of the institution of slavery is revealed. Quite simply the slaves were not considered anything other than property by their owners. They were considered sub-human, (look up the word “chattel”) so slavery was in no way stealing.
So in your view, the belief that slaves were sub-human meant they actually were sub-human? If I say, “Bob is sub-human, therefore I am going to take his car,” you are ok with me taking your car?
Even so, if you are going to quibble that slavery was not true capitalism and therefore capitalism is not to blame, then there is a much stronger argument that Stalin and the other tyrants were not true communists and therefore communism isn’t to blame.
I don’t think that is a very strong argument at all. Even at the theoretical level, it is easy to see communism requires a central planner with absolute power.
In support of the argument that slavery was not encouraged by capitalism, I will say that the slave trade developed under mercantilism and I’m pretty certain Adam Smith was opposed to it (as were some of the Founders) on purely economic grounds.
And by that analogy, you should not blame communism for atrocities that are committed by a particular head of a communist state that are not a part of the communist ideology.
False, the communist “game” is a bad one, even in theory. Communist atrocities are the necessary consequence of stopping people from playing a better game.
When you get right down to it, I don’t know that there’s ever been a communist state that actually adheres to the communist ideology anymore than there is a capitalist state that adheres to the capitalist ideology.
@cleavingSpace,
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to change the rules so that no one else can ever become as rich as them and they are the only two left with the money. I have no problem with people owning disproportionate amount of wealth so long as they earn it through their own merit. Your two example stole information to build a microsoft empire and used the estate tax as a means to buy businesses for fraction of their true value.
@ bobzbob,
I think Radley explained it pretty well that treating everyone like property of the state makes everyone a slave and enables the state to treat people poorly for the greater good. It’s little bit harder to do that when you can be impeached or voted out office for destroying a part of the populace. I don’t think any hairs were split. But in typical fashion, I guess you just ignore those facts. Whatever.
Why is it so unpopular to even question capitalism? Or even any aspect of capitalism? I don’t want for food, shelter, clothing etc. like the majority of American’s so yes, in that sense capitalism is an improvement over previous “ism’s”. But the numbers don’t lie. The deck is stacked against those not in that upper 1% bracket as the gap continues widening. If we are so damn perfect in our capitalist ways, explain why Americans are going absolutely batty at the cost of health care. If we are so damned rich why would we even be talking about it? I think Michael Moore didn’t get it right but he is at least raising the issue with respect to capitalism. I think we should realize though, that we don’t live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporate-capitalist society. We need to have a real discussion in this country about regulation and enforcement because continuing on the path we are on now is definitely not working. See Detroit as evidence.
Excluding genocide and imprisonment, communism, as DK said, is against human nature. Yes, there are some people who want to share their property and work on behalf of others, but generally speaking humans are competitive and selfish (selfish in the sense that they want to keep what they’ve earned).
Communism relies on every single person to “buy into” the system. Everyone has to be on board and working toward the common welfare. If you have dissention, the system can’t work. The black market, for example, was a huge money-maker in the Soviet Union. Do you think those black marketeers were paying their taxes and generally abiding by the laws of the system under which they lived? I would hazard a guess that they were not. Therefore, the system was broken. From day 1.
Also, Guido, you are right in the sense that we are not living in a capitalist society. I would say that there never has been a truly capitalist society, so who’s to say whether it works or not? There have been aspects of our economy that have been planned and controlled by government from the founding of this country. So how can we say it is capitalist? It would be nice to try it sometime to see if it works.
Also, capitalism counts on consumers to be educated and mistrustful (generally speaking) of corporations. I don’t know about you, but I consider myself a capitalist, and I trust corporations just as much as I trust the government (which is to say, not at all).
“Why is it so unpopular to even question capitalism?”
Uhm…it is VERY popular to question capitalism. Just make sure you are questioning capitalism when you question capitalism.
For example, I HATE dogs. They are ugly, have 8 legs, squirt ink, have suction cups, and change color while swimming at the bottom of the ocean. Yup, dogs are horrible. I’m Michael Moore and I approve this message.
I’d love to live in a communist society. As long as my commune resided in a capitalist, libertarian state. Want no part of a communist state. All for pulling together and tye-dying everything.
The citation for the paper that formed the basis of Kors’s talk is:
Alan Charles Kors, “Can There Be An ‘After Socialism’?”, Social Philosophy & Policy (2003), 20:1, 1-17.
You probably need to be university-based to access it.
@Mattocracy:
“Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to change the rules so that no one else can ever become as rich as them and they are the only two left with the money. I have no problem with people owning disproportionate amount of wealth so long as they earn it through their own merit.”
What on earth are you talking about? Warren Buffet has called for higher taxes on the rich, and lower taxes for the poor and middle classes to decrease the pathetic wealth gap that we have in this country. Bill Gates has called for ‘fair’ capitalism and direct government intervention in the economy. He said what most logical people already know — pure capitalism doesn’t work.
@Guido:
“We need to have a real discussion in this country about regulation and enforcement because continuing on the path we are on now is definitely not working”
And true capitalism calls for no regulation.
@ dave #35
Exactly. Every example that I have seen of Communism seems to be a dictatorship wearing a communism T-shirt.
I don’t think that Communism is a tenable idea, but I just like to be accurate about what is being said.
I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this multiple times but moral equivalency arguments just piss me off. If radley had mentioned “Nazism and Capitalism” in this quote:
would that have been good enough for you guys to at least agree that communism has a pretty horrific track record? Do we have to mention the 1929 stock market crash every time someone brings up Pol Pot killed a quarter of his nations population in 4 years? Do we need to toss in Bill Gates is a rich bastard every time we want to remind people that Stalin managed to kill 20 million of his own populace? How about N. Korea, every time I mention almost 3 million died of starvation in a 3 year time period do I have to preface it with something regarding the horrors of slavery? Does any of this make any sense at all?
You don’t have to be a fan of capitalism to be able to see wtf 40 years of spreading communism managed to accomplish.
@cleavingSpace,
Exactly, if you’re the richest man on Earth, then raising taxes for your tax bracket (the top 1%) still leaves you the richest man on Earth. He’s willing to sacrfice most of his wealth just so no one else can have as much as he has left over. It also leaves him with the most money to contribute to politicians at the end of the day. Which he does in huge amounts.
And just because Bill Gates says intervention is a good idea doesn’t make it true. He isn’t the secular pope of economics. He’s a liar who wants to use direct government involvement to protect his corporate interests from competitors in the free market. I don’t understand how these two spin doctors have fooled everyone into thinking that they are so benevolent when all you have to do is dig a little deeper to see the angle they are playing. You’ve bought into their “we’re the good rich guys” lie so willingly, and yet you think we’re the naive ones.
The “Wealth Gap” exists because there is a gap between human ability. It isn’t pathetic that people who bust their asses get more and people who don’t receive less. It’s pathetic that you really think that you have this grade school mentality that there should be no winners or losers in real life like in t-ball.
Tokin,
I don’t think Radley would do that. The implication in all most of these anti-Communist diatribes (meaning here and elsewhere) seems to be that capitalism is so much better. Capitalism would never (and could never) produce such horrors is the self-congratulatory undertone. He quotes “No cause in the history of mankind has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than communism.” and then goes on to pull some “no true scotsman” nonsense on the slavery argument.
I will be the first to admit that dictatorships which have come out of Marxist-Leninist thought were horrific, but perhaps Radley should ask the victims of Augusto Pinochet’s regime what Chicago School economics did for them before he starts getting self-righteous.
cleavingSpace
“And true capitalism calls for no regulation.”
“True” capitalism is a pipe dream. Just like “true” communism. That’s why I think it is counterproductive to defend it to the death.
To clarify, remember it’s an income tax, not a wealth tax. They’ve already made their billions. If the income tax were made 100% tomorrow, so much the better for them.
The estate tax is primarily a tool for the IRS to crush small businesses. I have to believe the genuinely rich can mostly dodge it. If Gates or Buffet were really going to see almost half of their net worth disappear to the estate tax as it’s written, it would be profitable for either of them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on bribes to buy enough legislature to get a few loopholes written in, or on some scheme to shelter the assets in a foreign country.
Mattocracy, I think you’re doing it wrong. You’re implying that Buffet is greedy and Gates is a liar? Someone that’s pro-capitalist is taking shots at the two richest people in the country. How ironic.
Communism has produced bodies and abuse everywhere it’s been tried. I give you Stalin, Mao, Il, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Castro, and about a dozen others, and you come back with one solitary example of a man who imposed free market reforms *after* taking over a country by force, and *after* attempting socialist policies that failed.
The “Chicago School” had nothing to do with Pinochet’s atrocities. Free market economics did not motivate Pinochet. A few Chicago School economists advised him on how to turn his country around well after he had already taken it over. Just as, if they asked, I’m sure plenty of economists would give advice to other unsavory regimes on how to make their people better off. Chile is the economic jewel of Latin America because of those policies. Millions of Chileans were bettered by them. But they had nothing to do with while Pinochet took power.
“Exactly. Every example that I have seen of Communism seems to be a dictatorship wearing a communism T-shirt.”
I suspect it might be more accurate to say that is what they all quickly became. I bet at least one of the communist founders really believed his own rhetoric and were all gunh ho for a utopian communist society. It’s just communism at a state level doesn’t work and quickly devolves into that dictatorship. I’m sure Lenin at al decided pretty quickly that they would never get the total buy in needed to sustain a communist economy and decided to exert dictorial powers.
and just as a reminder, the people who had to live behind that wall – i.e., the ones who actually knew how things were – **overwhelmingly** give credit to two people when asked “who was most responsible for the wall coming down?”
they give some credit to the pope: JP2.
they give MUCH MORE credit to the US president who *didn’t* cave to the communists, or reach out to them to create dialogue, or stand there with his thumb up his ass sputtering “but…but…” like kennedy did when they built it under his nose: they say almost all the credit goes to ronald reagan.
fortunately, we here in the west see through their simplistic childlike rose-tinted worldview, and refuse to print or speak of this mistake on their part. as the profs in college continually reminded us, *gorbachev* was the real hero of freedom that year.
Radley, tell me how “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ” translates to gulags, propaganda, lies, the KGB, and starving your own people?
#54:
Unless you can get everyone to go along willingly with the whole “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ” part then what other ending, other than a violent one, is there? It’s more like, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…or else! ”
” Even at the theoretical level, it is easy to see communism requires a central planner with absolute power.”
actually no, that’s socialism. Theoretically a communist state has no central planner, the state “withers away” to quote marx. Read him sometime, you might learn a thing or two.
“Communism has produced bodies and abuse everywhere it’s been tried. I give you Stalin, Mao, Il, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Castro, and about a dozen others, and you come back with one solitary example of a man who imposed free market reforms *after* taking over a country by force, and *after* attempting socialist policies that failed.
The “Chicago School” had nothing to do with Pinochet’s atrocities. Free market economics did not motivate Pinochet. A few Chicago School economists advised him on how to turn his country around well after he had already taken it over. Just as, if they asked, I’m sure plenty of economists would give advice to other unsavory regimes on how to make their people better off. Chile is the economic jewel of Latin America because of those policies. Millions of Chileans were bettered by them. But they had nothing to do with while Pinochet took power.”
Radley, drop the straw man. I’m not attempting to defend Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, or any other communist dictator. They were monsters, and they did terrible things. Glad that’s out of the way.
And yes, I provided a single example because I was making a short comment, not writing an essay. I could provide other examples of capitalism creating bodies if you like. The Argentine dictatorship of the 70s also pursued free-market capitalist economics while torturing and slaughtering supposed dissidents. Or perhaps we could talk about the violence committed by the Contras in Nicaragua, many of which were motivated by strong right-wing politics.
The real question is, why do you think you can divorce Pinochet’s authoritarianism and his capitalism, while you cannot divorce Stalin’s authoritarianism and his communism? Pinochet didn’t just happen onto free market capitalism, the ideology of the Argentine coup was explicitly anti-Communism, thus the near-immediate banning of all leftist parties after its victory. The same was true in Chile, where the violence carried out during the late Peron years (which carried over into the Videla dictatorship) was by a death squad called the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance.
It’s clear that there were a number of butchers and rapists in the camps supposedly fighting communism as well. When will you remember their victims?
It’s interesting that almost every example someone gives about how capitalism has failed is due to a departure from capitalism instead. 1929 stock market crash wasn’t because of free markets, it was because of the Federal Reserve meddling with markets. Housing bubble, same thing.
Giant corporations, insurance companies, you name it. They aren’t screwing people over because of capitalism. They are screwing people over because they’ve been able to use GOVERNMENT to force their competitors out of business and prevent new ones from entering the market. This has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets whatsoever.
As for the slavery argument, please prove to me that slavery did not exist before capitalism, then I’ll give you that one. Since you can’t, slavery is not a product of capitalism. It IS pretty interesting that after THOUSANDS of years of slavery under every other form of economy, it only lasted about a hundred years in a capitalist society.
FDM, not everyone who fights communism (or is “right-wing”, whatever that means) wishes to promote capitalism. There’s this thing called fascism too, decidedly both anti-capitalist and anti-communist.
Robert
“Giant corporations, insurance companies, you name it. They aren’t screwing people over because of capitalism. They are screwing people over because they’ve been able to use GOVERNMENT to force their competitors out of business and prevent new ones from entering the market. This has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets whatsoever.”
Yet we continue to hear RAH RAH RAH American capitalism when it in fact doesn’t exist.
Lukas,
I would say that fascism is a type of government, not an economic system (which is what capitalism and communism are). That definitional point aside, I made explicit reference to the very capitalist economic policies of both the Argentine and Chilean dictators. Pinochet’s economists were trained by Milton Friedman himself, so don’t try to say that they weren’t capitalist.
What Tokin said
FDM, Fascists would disagree. Mussolini in his dottrina laid out the economic and political system of fascism… and just as in communism, there is no way to separate the two.
Chile is an interesting (in the “may you live in interesting times” sense) special case. This is what Friedman said about it.
actually no, that’s socialism. Theoretically a communist state has no central planner, the state “withers away” to quote marx. Read him sometime, you might learn a thing or two.
But the idea of the state “whithering away” is a fanciful notion to anyone who understands economics, much less political history. If private parties are not allowed to control resources, they must be distributed by a central planner. I grant you, it may be said in theory the state will whither away, in the same way that you can fly by flapping your arms in theory. What I am saying is that I don’t have to agree with the theory, and one can predict the theory will lead to tyranny even before it is put into practice.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=511787
No cause in the history of mankind has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than communism
Ummmmmmmmmmm….how about religion?
I’m no fan of religion, either. But the total body count isn’t even close.
[...] Ritter: Unsung Hero of the Cold War As the world celebrates the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of Communism, it’s only fair that we should honor those who played a part in its [...]