The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
November 7 as Victims of Communism Day - 2021
While I have long advocated using May 1 for this purpose, November 7 is a worthy alternative candidate, which I am happy to adopt if it can attract a broad consensus.

NOTE: The following post is largely adapted from last year's November 7 post on the same subject.
Since 2007, I have advocated designating May 1 as an international Victims of Communism Day. The May 1 date was not my original idea, but I have probably devoted more time and effort to it than any other commentator. In my view, May 1 is the best possible date for this purpose because it is the day that communists themselves used to celebrate their ideology, and because it is associated with communism as a global phenomenon, not with any particular communist regime, such as that of the USSR. However, I have also long recognized that it might make sense to adapt another date for Victims of Communism Day, if it turns out that some other date can attract a broader consensus behind it. The best should not be the enemy of the good.
As detailed in my May 1 post from 2019, November 7 is probably the best such alternative, and in recent years it has begun to attract considerable support. Unlike May 1, this choice is unlikely to be contested by trade unionists and other devotees of the pre-Communist May 1 holiday. While I remain unpersuaded by their objections on substantive grounds, pragmatic considerations suggest that an alternative date is worth considering, if it can sidestep objections and thereby attract broader support.
For that reason, I am - for the third year in a row - doing a Victims of Communism Day post on November 7, in addition to the one I do on May 1. If November 7 continues to attract more support, I may eventually switch to that date exclusively. But, for the time being, I reserve the options of returning to an exclusive focus on May 1, doing annual posts on both days, or switching to some third possibility should there be another date that attracts a broader consensus than either May 1 or November 7.
In addition to its growing popularity, November 7 is a worthy alternative because it is the anniversary of the day that the very first communist regime was established in Russia. All subsequent communist regimes were at least in large part inspired by it, and based many of their institutions and policies on the Soviet model.
The Soviet Union did not have the highest death toll of any communist regime. That dubious distinction belongs to the People's Republic of China. North Korea has probably surpassed the USSR in the sheer extent of totalitarian control over everyday life. Pol Pot's Cambodia may have surpassed it in terms of the degree of sadistic cruelty and torture practiced by the regime, though this is admittedly very difficult to measure. But all of these tyrannies - and more - were at least to a large extent variations on the Soviet original.
Having explained why November 7 is worthy of consideration as an alternative date, it only remains to remind readers of the more general case for having a Victims of Communism Day. The following is adopted from this year's May 1 Victims of Communism Day post, and some of its predecessors:
The Black Book of Communism estimates the total number of victims of communist regimes at 80 to 100 million dead, greater than that caused by all other twentieth century tyrannies combined. We appropriately have a Holocaust Memorial Day. It is equally appropriate to commemorate the victims of the twentieth century's other great totalitarian tyranny.
Our comparative neglect of communist crimes has serious costs. Victims of Communism Day can serve the dual purpose of appropriately commemorating the millions of victims, and diminishing the likelihood that such atrocities will recur. Just as Holocaust Memorial Day and other similar events promote awareness of the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, and radical nationalism, so Victims of Communism Day can increase awareness of the dangers of left-wing forms of totalitarianism, and government domination of the economy and civil society.
While communism is most closely associated with Russia, where the first communist regime was established, it had equally horrendous effects in other nations around the world. The highest death toll for a communist regime was not in Russia, but in China. Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward was likely the biggest episode of mass murder in the entire history of the world.
November 7, 2017 was the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, which led to the establishment of the first-ever communist regime. On that day, I put up a post outlining some of the lessons to be learned from a century of experience with communism. The post explains why most of the horrors perpetrated by communist regimes were intrinsic elements of the system. For the most part, they cannot be ascribed to circumstantial factors, such as flawed individual leaders, peculiarities of Russian and Chinese culture, or the absence of democracy. The latter probably did make the situation worse than it might have been otherwise. But, for reasons I explained in the same post, some form of dictatorship or oligarchy is probably inevitable in a socialist economic system in which the government controls all or nearly all of the economy.
While the influence of communist ideology has declined greatly since its mid-twentieth century peak, it is far from dead. Largely unreformed communist regimes remain in power in Cuba and North Korea. In Venezuela, the Marxist government's socialist policies have resulted in political repression, the starvation of children, and a massive refugee crisis—the biggest in the history of the Western hemisphere.
In Russia, the authoritarian regime of former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin has embarked on a wholesale whitewashing of communism's historical record. In China, the Communist Party remains in power (albeit after having abandoned many of its previous socialist economic policies), and has become less tolerant of criticism of the mass murders of the Mao era (part of a more general turn towards greater repression).
Here in the West, some socialists and others have attempted to whitewash the history of communism, and a few even attribute major accomplishments to the Soviet regime. Cathy Young has an excellent critique of such Soviet "nostalgia" in a recent Reason article.
In sum, we need Victims of Communism Day because we have never given sufficient recognition to the victims of the modern world's most murderous ideology or come close to fully appreciating the lessons of this awful era in world history. In addition, that ideology, and variants thereof, still have a substantial number of adherents in many parts of the world, and still retains considerable intellectual respectability even among many who do not actually endorse it. Just as Holocaust Memorial Day serves as a bulwark against the reemergence of fascism, so this day of observance can help guard against the return to favor of the only ideology with an even greater number of victims.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, that wasn't true communism. True communism hasn't been tried yet. [/sarc]
Now do capitalism
Capitalism works. It has lifted billions out of the historic $1 per day poverty endemic to mankind.
England would call themselves capitalist under this definition as well. I'd agree with them. Many here would call them socialist, though.
I understand your point, but England is way capitalist. As is Scandinavia. High taxes large safety net with the approval of the citizens isn’t commie. Although the right uses it as their version of racist/fascist/nazi.
Cool - you and I are on the same page.
Even the communists are capitalists, they've just got state, rather than private, capitalism. Capitalism is one of those social advances, like writing, or agriculture, that are so superior that they're never abandoned.
Under that definition, we had capitalism the moment we had barter.
Capitalism is not an all-or-nothing thing. Hence why the UK is most properly called a mixed economy.
They're socialist to the degree to which the state exerts control over the economy. (The US is hardly pure capitalism either).
It should be no surprise that the more private a part of an economy is, the better it functions. (Goods get cheaper and improve in quality over time when the state is not involved. Goods quality stagnates and prices increase the more the state is involved. Compare the quality and price of TVs or cellphones over the last 30 years to the quality and price of healthcare).
Marx was right, Communism is the endpoint of Socialism - (near) full state control of the economy. That doesn't make all Socialism = communism.
Unfortunately, the idea that government shouldn't dictate individuals' private economic decisions is a radical one - governments have always sought control.
It should be no surprise that the more private a part of an economy is, the better it functions.
This very much depends on what your goals are. Efficiency is not everything, and growth for growth's sake is the philosophy of a cancer cell.
Markets rock, but like everything in life, they are not always the answer.
The idea that government shouldn't dictate individuals' private economic decisions is a radical one - governments have always sought control.
This mixes up imaginary freedoms most people will never be able to exercise with the actual space of choices someone can and will be able to choose within.
The real history of communism should be taught in schools instead of the social justice crap now being taught
It would seem that they (people who teach history in schools) have no use for anything not related to North-American slavery or Jim Crow.
It's not going to happen as long as right-wingers yell "communism" at perfectly reasonable social programs. It will just be seen as more of the culture war.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called Democrats communists this week. In response, I will encourage Democrats to join Prof. Somin -- and his White, male, right-wing playmates -- in screaming about communism as soon as the clingers line up in alphabetical order and kiss our asses.
I unmuted you to see what you had replied to me. My god Kirkland you've become a parody of yourself.
I can't recall a comment from you that merited a substantive response. Perhaps I just had a good tune in mind at the moment.
So many people have muted him that he's in effect "shouting" in a futile effort to be heard.
Does it trigger clingers when I mention that they are bigoted birthers, Mr. Bellmore?
Left-wingers insist that public schools and roads are socialism, so I don't know where you draw the line for "perfectly reasonable social programs" that only the right gives a bad name.
(not a left-winger)
I don't know if I'd call them "socialism," but I do think that education is not an essential government function (and therefore, arguably, not a proper one).
His point was it wasn't just 'the right' who calls these things socialism. Socialists on the left call them socialism too.
the new green deal has many similarities to the great leap forward/backward
No, it doesn't. Empty redbaiting is super lame these days.
Joe_dallas
November.7.2021 at 11:50 am
Flag Comment Mute User
the new green deal has many similarities to the great leap forward/backward
Sarcastr0
November.7.2021 at 2:09 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
No, it doesn't. Empty redbaiting is super lame these days.
Then you simply dont understand the ramifications of the new green deal
Paranoia is not proof.
Sarcastr0
November.8.2021 at 8:22 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Paranoia is not proof.
Its reality -
This is your third ipse dixit. You clearly don't care to engage, just reply.
Which says a lot about how shallowly you're willing to splash about in your ideology.
Maybe we can all incorporate previous comments on this topic by reference.
How about a day for indigenous Americans (North and South) murdered with weapons, disease and other onslaughts from the West?
The vast majority of that was disease. However, for the most part, you can't really fault the Europeans for the disease epidemics that wiped out much of the Native American population. It's true they brought it over, but it wasn't intentional. In a situation where the Native Americans sailed to Europe first, then sailed home, a similar epidemic would've occurred.
(And yes, there were isolated incidents with "smallpox blankets" and whatnot. But the vast majority of the disease epidemics occurred prior to this)
You seem to focus exclusively on part of his point, and merely part of that part.
I ascribe this to your obsolete bigotry and right-wing ugliness.
Are you just eliding the entire first century of US military action against the natives as 'mostly disease?' Because I think you're wrong there.
This country is built on a mound of the bones of the innocent. That's fine; most every nation is. But we shouldn't create fiction to hide it.
I've heard widely varying assessments of the impact of disease from people who didn't have an axe to grind. It's pretty hard to know for sure, because the epidemics generally ran ahead of colonial knowledge of the interior (from memory, don't claim any great expertise).
But by the time of the Indian Wars on the Great Plains, those were pretty much classic wars of conquest and displacement. They had the land, we wanted it, and we took it. We shouldn't deny or minimize that (or slavery) any more then the Germans or Japanese should minimize their nation's behavior in WWII.
Yeah, that makes sense. But that is miles away from Armchair Lawyer's narrative/thesis.
The British colonists found a depopulated North America. Disease had wiped out the natives long before the US was a country.
Any guesses why the 'French and Indian War' where George Washington started his military career was called that?
I admire your optimism, but attempting to reason with clingers is generally pointless, particularly with respect to science or history.
Depopulate doesn't mean 100% gone.
Sigh...
You're either ignorant, or gaslighting again.
Most conventional estimates put the effect of the various epidemics (including but not limited to smallpox) at decimating more than 90% of the Native population.
Wait - are you taking disease as an independent cause from all the conquest?
Because if so, I have bad news for you.
Sigh...
How many times are you going to say you have "bad news" and be wrong. You never post a link, never back up your statements, then run when proven wrong. Or divert to something different. Which you will again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/16/mexico-500-years-later-scientists-discover-what-killed-the-aztecs
We're not talking about the Aztecs, though, are we?
Sigh...
Yes, we are talking about the Aztecs and other Native Americans.... As per the original post
"How about a day for indigenous Americans (North and South) murdered with weapons, disease and other onslaughts from the West?"
Another pointless, dishonest diversion from Sarcastro.
Sarcastro, yes, disease is an independent cause apart from conquest; Once Europeans visited North America, it didn't matter if they were going to liberate people from the Aztec, (As the Spanish did, not that they were enormously better in the end.) play goody goody, or go all manifest destiny, because the disease was going to spread anyway once introduced.
That's what makes it an independent cause apart from conquest.
No, actually it turns out war makes disease worse, Brett. Don't be dumb.
7/8s of all of the deaths in the new world were caused by diseases passed on incidentally by just simple contact with the first explorers/trappers/settlers. So the pre-Columbus societies were doomed from the git-go.
Add in the fact that they were stone age cultures matched up against steel, and the conquest of the Americas was a forgone conclusion. It wouldn't have mattered if it was 1542 or 1592 or 1642 as opposed to 1492, they were bound to lose to whoever showed up first.
The history of mankind is conquest. Complaining about that fact is futile. Choosing one point in history and labeling it as being extra special bad is asinine.
" The history of mankind is conquest. Complaining about that fact is futile. "
Futile, yet the Conspirators and their right-wing fans spend most of their time whining about the progress that is the result of the American culture war . . .
Smallpox is a 30% disease. Considering where the tribes are now, it's pretty hard to argue that was all disease.
It's also dumb. Imperialism suck; all us white countries did it for a while. We try not to do it as much anymore, despite our hegemon. This is not something that is a big deal.
Communism also sucks, not every white country did it, and I'm not as worried we'll slip back in to that as I am worried about us starting our next expensive and deadly statebuilding adventure.
"all us white countries did it for a while"
Not really a white monopoly - Mongols, Zulus, Aztecs, Incas, Persia, the various African empires, ...
For that matter, I quibble with 'for a while' as well - Romans, Macedonians, pretty much everyone back to hunter-gatherer days.
"I'm not as worried we'll slip back in to that as I am worried about us starting our next expensive and deadly statebuilding adventure"
Yup. When the Good Idea Fairy whispers 'nation building' in your ear it's time for a cold shower or something. You can arguably restore countries, e.g. the Marshall Plan, but you can't build them where they don't currently exist, e.g. Afghanistan. India might be a counterexample, but the Brits spent a couple hundred years doing that.
We forget that, say, France didn't just become a nation one day ... it gradually condensed into one over hundreds of years. It;s hard to do that in a few years (maybe Germany is the exception?).
Yeah, that's fair. I was limiting my thinking - thanks for the correction.
I think we agree on this basically entierly!
Entierly?
First tier, second tier, third tier, and fourth tier?
Smallpox in the Americas averaged a CFR close to 90%. It was most certainly not a "30% disease".
IIRC, that figure is for all of disease, and during wartime.
Once again, you're just wrong Sarcastro. You continue to make up your own "facts" without support, without any research, and just on your own biases.
Here's the truth with another illustrative example, from the the Great Plains Epidemic of 1837. A short outtake...
"Shortly after three Arikara women joined the ship on their trip back to the Mandan community. Although the women showed signs the infection, they were allowed to return to their village which they then spread to their community.[12] The disease spread to the Mandan people, and was of the most virulent, malignant hemorrhagic form.[3] In July 1837, the Mandan numbered about 2,000; by October that number had dwindled to 23 or 27 survivors by some accounts, 138 by another account, reflecting at least a 93 percent mortality rate.[13] "
"Smallpox is a 30% disease."
You're judging smallpox in a continent that had been coping with it for centuries, and evolved resistance, to smallpox in a continent where it was new, and swept through the population like a fire through dry tinder. Europeans had evolved to be resistant to it.
Same thing with native Americans and alcohol: It wasn't just culture, where alcohol had been common for centuries, the people who were especially vulnerable had died out. Evolution.
" In China, the Communist Party remains in power (albeit after having abandoned many of its previous socialist economic policies),..."
Watch the next 10 years. They are regressing.
C'mon, communists are JEWS. Why not treat reality with truth. No jews, no communism. Jews slaughtered the Romanov Family not communists. Don't like what the jews do, farmers lose their crops, villages starve ... jewish delight. Don't want the jewish jab? Lose your job ... jewish delight. Don't buy the jewish vaxx junk science, be censored!
Remembering the Holohoax? C'mon, 6million in less than six years, like how is that done? 3,000 a day, but not even a pile of ashes. Amazing. How do zyklon pellets flow through shower heads exactly?
Just more jewish word salad.
Some leftists minimize (tend to ignore) Communist atrocities because:
1. Unlike with countries on "our side", such as Chile and Somoza-era Nicaragua, these atrocities were not done with our tax dollars.
2. In most cases Communist regimes had overthrown U.S.-supported governments that were also unpleasant. In fact one reason Communism took root in so many places is because we kept pushing popular independence movements into their arms. Vietnam and Cuba are two examples.
3. You can't deny Stalin's success in transforming Russia from a backward country into one of the world's two superpowers with a military machine and nuclear arsenal that had American conservatives constantly warned us about. Whether horrors like collectivization were necessary to achieve that result is a matter for debate, but the fact is, he did achieve it.
Well, arguably 'we' pushed Germany toward the Nazis with the Treaty of Versailles, but that isn't a good reason to minimize Nazi atrocities. There just isn't a good reason to minimize atrocities.
Some of your other facts are a bit off as well, e.g. Ho Chi Minh joined the Communist Party in 1920 (in fact he was a founding member of the French Communist Party). We could have handled post WWII Indochina better, but we didn't drive them to become communist.
"Whether horrors like collectivization were necessary to achieve that result is a matter for debate"
Yikes.
We did Ho Chi Minh wrong six ways to Sunday. He could have been co-opted — he wanted to be co-opted — and we stupidly didn’t do it. To the end he had the overwhelming support of the Vietnamese, South as well as North.
He wanted aid from us. We gave it to him when he was fighting the Japanese. He wanted our help in throwing out the French, and we not only didn't aid him, but aided the French against him.
But 'wanted to be co-opted'? This doesn't sound like someone who was a secret capitalist at heart.
He chafed under Chinese (Communist) domination. We could have bought him off. If both sides were smart they could have cooperated and created probably a socialist democracy with the Viet Cong being a legal political party. It would hardly have required less aid from us than the $$$$ we poured into the South Vietnamese regime and into that war.
"He chafed under Chinese (Communist) domination."
For one thing, he started his revolution when the French held Indochina, making it hard for the Chinese Communists to dominate anything then. Also, the Chinese Communists didn't win the civil war in China until 1949, and so weren't dominating anyone external to China prior to that.
Moreover, China was providing aid to the NVA:
"By 1950, the Vietminh were able to mount their own offensives using heavy weapons supplied by China, attacking in the Red River Delta and northeastern Tonkin, as well as French fortified areas near the border with China."
Or remember the artillery the NVA carried through the jungle to defeat the French at Dien Bien Phu? Much of that was captured by the Chinese in the Korean War and given to NVN.
They had a falling out, and indeed fought a war in 1979, but they were allies when the Vietnam War was percolating.
I don't like 3. You do not, in fact, gotta hand it to them. Same with Hitler and German industrialism. Same with ISIS and how effective they are.
Partially because means matter, partially because we'll never know that counterfactual.
I didn't say we "have to hand it to them". I merely pointed out that he succeeded. Even Molotov, who said collectivization was necessary, admitted that a lot of people were killed that shouldn't have been. There just wasn't time to do things any other way. If you remember that the capitalist world tried to strangle the Soviet State in its crib, and still did everything it could to make them fail, you can appreciate the paranoia. (Which wasn't really paranoia -- paranoia is a fear that's irrational.)
Lots of good results can be obtained through horrible means. If we exterminated every obese person in the United States, we would have a well-conditioned population. If we exterminated everyone with an IQ under 130, we could call ourselves a nation of geniuses.
compare:
I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” ... The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. (Ayn Rand)
What sort of progressive are you?!
Sorry, Captain, but (1) and (3) are not even remotely self-consistent or sincerely believed. They're created specifically and applied selectively to rationalize ignoring communist atrocities.
(1) and (3) could describe equally well the 1930's governments of Japan and Germany, but we all recognize it would be morally defective to apply them to those cases. And you don't hear leftists trotting out "no US tax dollars", much less successful "military machine", as positives....except to defend Stalin et al.
As for (2), let's stipulate that communist atrocities were the consequence of US support for authoritarian regimes. Since leftists oppose such support, shouldn't they be highlighting those consequences, rather than minimizing them?
No, none of your three reasons are believable, even as misguided motivations. The simple fact is that mainstream leftists believe what happened in Russia and China was bad (of course) but mitigated because they very much agree with the end purpose. And they are hesitant to criticize the means, because such criticism might aid those opposed to their ends. That's really all there is to it.
When confronted with the horrific death-toll of communism in the 20th century, leftists respond in one of three ways:
1. That's a lie. Your numbers are exaggerated. The Soviet Union was a happy place of equality and fairness.
2. All the deaths were unfortunate, but the people who caused them weren't implementing communism correctly. If properly implemented, communism is beautiful.
3. All the deaths were worth it.
Professor Somin...I would vote to do both days: May 1st, November 7th.
I disagree. It should be May 1st to serve as a vocal counter to May Day, instead of marking the day the Communists established their first government in Russia.
Planning ahead a few years . . . which date would be most appropriate for the American mainstream to establish as Victims Of Bigoted Right-Wing Clingers Day?
Dec. 25 is already a day off for many Americans, so . . .
(some holiday spirit concerning progress)
The reason I say both days.
Communism destroys body and spirit. We should commemorate both.
You do know May Day is about a lot more than the founding of the USSR, right?
It also involves dancing around a giant pole.
https://boxerlist.com/boxer/stanley-poreda/10151/
No, not that kind of giant Pole, I mean this kind...
https://blipfuzz.com/stripper-pole-dancing/
Oh, never mind, you know what I mean.
Yes, ironically enough, May Day grew out of the movement in the United States to get the 8-hour day established. (A general strike in support of the 8-hour day was called for May 1, 1886, and a demonstration in favor of the cause was held at Haymarket Square, Chicago, on May 4, leading to the Haymarket Riot, one of the key events in U.S. labor history.)
I don't think democratic leftists would have much to worry about if there was a Victims of Communism Day. It would be used in the media and the schools to show the kind of evil people who take over when peaceful left-wing movements are suppressed or evil capitalists allow bad social conditions to fester.
Also, they'll blow the dust off some of the old left-wing anticommunists like Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, maybe even Sidney Hook, and of course George Orwell. Just so we know who were the *real* anticommunists.
And JFK of course.
Harry Truman!
George C. Marshall!
Americans for Democratic Action!
The right-wing anticommunists, in contrast, were either insincere or apologists for reaction.
But on net, maybe a Victims of Communism Day will move the Overton Window and oblige the American left to rediscover their inner anticommunist. And those embarrassing leftists who were taken in by communism can be ignored, described as marginal figures, or if all else fails, honored as misguided idealsts.
You are using "left-wing" to mean Democrat, I think. I personally wouldn't classify Humphrey, Jackson, or Kennedy as consistently left-wing. The left-wingers of the time certainly didn't.
Seriously, I'm trying to help you out.
Check the cover of Eric Alterman's *Why We're Liberals.* The picture gallery of great liberals includes JFK and Walter Reuther (anticommunist labor leader).
Alterman's schtick was being an authentic liberal, distinguishing himself from the fake ones. If he can't spot a liberal, who can?
And, yes, he believes liberals are on the left.
Also, I didn't say *consistently* left-wing, I was describing those who were left-wing enough for the purposes of a left-wing attempt to honor the victims of communism and celebrate (or rediscover) their inner anti-communist.
Alterman may claim JFK for liberalism, but JFK (unlike Walter Reuther) wasn't perceived as particularly liberal during his life. You could ask Eleanor Roosevelt what she thought of his liberal bona fides, and she'd have laughed in your face. (Earlier in his political career, he even contributed to Richard Nixon's Senate campaign and quietly supported Joe McCarthy.)
If the left wants to give up on JFK, fine, just so long as the conservatives don't have to take him.
[…] This article was originally published on Reason.com. Read the full article. […]
If you wanted proof that the Left hates America just ask yourself why do we have some random day recognized as a federal holiday in June that was nothing more than an obscure celebration before 2020, but have nothing to commemorate the fact that we defeated communism in all of its evils? Yeah I think you know the answer....
Sigh, nt, it's because they're worried "the right would exploit it," but above I suggested some ways for left-wing opinion-shapers to take some of the sting out of communism and even to take a bow, on behalf of the left, for opposing it.
They just need to show a bit of creativity and rediscover their old talking points from Cold War days.
Extra suggestion: Call it Victims of Totalitarianism Day. Without abolishing Holocaust Memorial Day, of course (Lord forbid!).
Do I have to write *all* their talking points for them?
"Victims of Totalitarianism Day"
That's a great idea.
Bear in mind that I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I'm seriously suggesting that creative leftists don't have to be all defensive at a denunciation of communism.
[…] Somin, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, advocates that we make November 7 (today) the Victims of Communism Day. I […]
[…] Somin, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, advocates that we make November 7 (today) the Victims of Communism Day. I […]
Great post. Grab Black Friday Sale offers on Antivirus
[…] Ilya Somin proposes that November 7th be “Victims of Communism Day.” […]
November 7th might be too close the Struggle for Freedom and Democracy Day in the Czech and Slovak Republics on November 17th
[…] classes to teach at least 45 minutes every Nov. 7 on “Victims of Communism Day.” The day, proposed by libertarian law professor Ilya Somin, is also the subject of model legislation proposed by […]
[…] switch to November 7, even though May 1 would be still more appropriate. For that reason, I have adopted the practice of also commemorating the victims of communism on November […]